Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2017 7:33 PM
336 online now:
jar, Percy (Admin), Tangle, xongsmith (4 members, 332 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,165 Year: 28,771/21,208 Month: 837/1,847 Week: 212/475 Day: 59/46 Hour: 5/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
berberry 
Suspended Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 1853
From: vicksburg, mississippi
Joined: 11-29-2003


Message 76 of 128 (101062)
04-19-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Brad McFall
04-19-2004 7:32 PM


As an off-topic aside...
Just a quick note to Brad that there's a bit of news today about Einstein's theory. Seems NASA is set to run some tests on the theory from a satelite that was to have been launched today but has been delayed. You'll find details here. Sounds very interesting to me, but I never really understood that theory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2004 7:32 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2004 11:20 PM berberry has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19301
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 77 of 128 (101067)
04-19-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by berberry
04-19-2004 11:04 PM


Re: As an off-topic aside... new topic?
gravity as a distortion of space rather than a force per se

this could be a new topic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by berberry, posted 04-19-2004 11:04 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by berberry, posted 04-19-2004 11:29 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Brad McFall, posted 04-20-2004 4:04 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
berberry 
Suspended Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 1853
From: vicksburg, mississippi
Joined: 11-29-2003


Message 78 of 128 (101069)
04-19-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
04-19-2004 11:20 PM


Re: As an off-topic aside... new topic?
It'd suit me. I wouldn't be able to contribute much, but I'd certainly enjoy following the discussion. Might learn something, too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2004 11:20 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2004 4:17 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 79 of 128 (101266)
04-20-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
04-19-2004 11:20 PM


Re: As an off-topic aside... new topic?
It need not necessarily be new but think that Biophysicist will find my Papers'' to be as inscruitable as any difference between me and ICR VS AIG for any CRS where I open a short clause on the possiblity being literal as well as formal so let me not "go there" yet yet there is some reason and need to commuincate the formal possibility of using Quarternions IFINCORRELATION with roations (no matter the Earth's revolution or solar system"" systematic consitution phenomenology)so as to be able to put SHAPE on an equal evolutionary and creationism basis. If palentotologist have the data to refute that I would be glad to see it ALSO refute my speculation (the formal relations ARE NOT speculative!!!) on the literal realations to gravity whether "bent" or simply a deep tensor idea but I have logical designs on this 4 real number parts well beyond OUR local evc discussion should they continue to be real and not just a place holder for a more refined historical analysis of the Galvani-Volta dispute in terms of TIME the thermophene (a historical contribution in genetics my Grandfather knew of) give to the NON-ecological side of any neophenogensis no matter the issue of religion in sociobiology and before...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2004 11:20 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 80 of 128 (101891)
04-22-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by berberry
04-19-2004 11:29 PM


Re: As an off-topic aside... new topic?
If I find an error in Gladyshev's signature use of statics thermally on contact with FARADAY's experimental refutation of Volta there would also likely be an error there with respect to space "bending" as implied in the macroscopic consequences biologically. I dont yet know but perhaps this will prime you for that discussion.

quote:
Individual macromolecules and superstructures reduplicate in consequences of possible matrix mechanisms. The first to be selected are nucleic acid whose composition and structure (because of the thermodynamic factors) slowly adapt to the nature of the surrounings, including the nature of proteins, which, in turn, is determined by the DNA (RNA) itself. This explains the feedback in the reading off of information between protein structure and DNA. Under our model, this feedback has a thermodynamic nature. Let me note that in my view, there is thermodynamic feedback among all hierarchical levels: ecosystems populations organisms cells supramolecular structures proteins and some other macromolecules DNA.

In the final analysis, the DNA structure determines the structure of a population. At the same time, the existence of feedback makes it possible to “transcribe”, for instance, the newly emergent behavioural reactions of a population (ones that are shaped in consequence of environmental changes) as new nucleotide sequences in DNA and RNA molecules. This should not be surprising if one bears in mind the existence of the law of temporal hierarchies and examines the processes of transcription of “thermodynamic information” (transmitted from one hierarchical level to another) on the given time scales. The principle of the stability of substance of all hierarchies (in particular, the principle of stability of chemical substances) [4,9] makes it possible to explain the reasons of the practically illimitable evolution of the biological world in terms of general laws of nature.

We see that the processes of direct reading off of information from DNA and its transmission to the level of population, on the one hand, and the reverse processes of adaptation of lower-lever structures to the nature of the structures located at a higher hierarchical level (i.e., the nature of the environment) have different development rates. These processes occur against the background of fluctuation of thermostatic parameters (natural environment), which, along with other factors, ensures the maintenance of life. Thermodynamic factors promote stabilization of all complex biological structures, causing the emergence of higher social, ecological, and other hierarchies of the biological world.


<http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ttbea/>

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-22-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by berberry, posted 04-19-2004 11:29 PM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Brad McFall, posted 07-09-2005 2:07 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 81 of 128 (101952)
04-22-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
04-12-2004 3:21 PM


????????
try???
<http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/denbig2/>
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 04-12-2004 3:21 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 128 (101965)
04-22-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by DNAunion
04-12-2004 3:34 PM


time to vainly worry
---another e-mail from Russia---
Dear Brad,

Thank you very much.

My approach for understanding of thermodynamics of biological evolution and
aging is new! That is why I use many new terms and notions. It is impossible
to understand the problem without these terms and notion. Some new notions
have been introduced at my site - http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/evol.htm
:

(From the Book: "Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings"

ž Foreword & Epigraph

ž Afteword

ž Differential equations of macrothermodynamics. The systems and the
processes

ž Some Notions and Terms Used in the Theory

ž What Do Thermodynamics and Dynamics Study? ).

I am sending you the article about entropy (there is the same information at
the article I recommended before). However, I know that my English is not so
good. Excuse me, please.
Sincerely,

Georgi
-----------
You guys should really get on board with this stuff because I have no reason to doubt that this is not the "real" thing. It is not easy playing both sides of the fence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by DNAunion, posted 04-12-2004 3:34 PM DNAunion has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 83 of 128 (101972)
04-22-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JonF
04-12-2004 4:44 PM


this is just the begining
quote:

TERMODYNAMICS OF LIVING SYSTEM EVOLUTION,
ENTROPY AND GIBBS’ FREE ENERGY
G. P. Gladyshev

N.N.Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics
Russian Academy of Sciences
4, Kosygin st., Moscow, 117977, Russia
http://www.endeav.org/evolut
E-mail: academy@endeav.org

Abstract: There are many types of entropy reported in the scientific literature. The great diversity in the definitions and concepts may cause tremendous problems. The difference between the various types of entropy is discussed, which are usually applied in the sciences dedicated to life. It is noted that by investigations of the systems far from the state of equilibrium the concept of entropy is used which is a kinetic parameter. The well-known Prigogine theory on entropy production in the general case does not meet the second law of thermodynamics as it was formulated by classics of science.
The law of the temporal hierarchies of the bioworld allows selecting the thermodynamic and kinetic quasi-closed systems within a specific hierarchy in the biomass. The second law of thermodynamics in its classic formulation may be applied to the living systems. If to use the principles of the hierarchical thermodynamics it becomes possible to calculate the changes in the Gibbs free energy.
To make the understanding of the problem of thermodynamics of biological evolution more accessible for the young generation of scientists it is necessary to clarify and well define its main concepts.

Keywords: Biological evolution, Aging, Second law, Law of temporal hierarchies, Supramolecular thermodynamics, Entropy, Gibbs free energy

"One of the principal objects of theoretical research in any department of knowledge is to find the point of view from which the subject appears in its greatest simplicity."
J. Willard Gibbs

“Yet science seems to have driven us to accept that we all merely small parts of a world governed in full details (even if perhaps ultimately just probabilistically) by very precise mathematical laws.”
Roger Penrose

The occasion for the writing the present paper was the unceasing flow of publications in the region of thermodynamics of biological evolution. Some of these publications expressed many opinions that were in contradiction to the classic science and, in particular, to the general laws of nature. This flow really overcrowds the science and provokes on my opinion the essential damage to education.
One of the fashionable tendencies in the scientific activity of some naturalists and philosophers is the development of the unproved conceptions of entropy, of its production, orderliness and complexity. Many outstanding scientists, including the Members of the Royal Society, members of some academies of scientific organizations are opposed to this negative tendency. The works by K.Denbigh and his colleagues [1-3] should be noted especially .
During last years I try also, at least to a small degree, to correct the situation which has been formed and connected with misunderstanding as for the notion of entropy, complexity, orderliness etc [4 ].
The main part of authors of new concepts in this field seem do not understand seriously the works of classics - Clausius, Gibbs, Plank and many other [ 1-5 ]. Some of them probably neglect the encyclopedic reviews and the text books of high quality. I should like to note that I will not deliberately to mention the author’s names of the uncorrected works as I have no right to judge them negatively - their theoretical and experimental works in some other branches of science sometimes are worthy. Moreover, I believe that many of them are under delusion very sincerely because of the complexity of the interdisciplinary branch of knowledge.
Having no possibility to discuss in a short communication even small part of misunderstandings I should like to point only some tendencies that bring about many of evidently erroneous and deadlock, or, in the better case, of non-effective. Some of these theories [13] are related to the wrong ideas on the entropy production and about the connection between entropy and such the notions as ‘organization’, ‘complexity’ and ‘orderliness’. [ 1, 14 ].
For the beginning it seems reasonable to remind the readers that there exist many types of entropy. It is evident that the using of the general semantic terms does not imply that in each specific case one deals with the one and the same notion.
It is well known that the classic entropy according to Clausius and Gibbs, which is used in the phenomenological thermodynamics,



This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 04-12-2004 4:44 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 128 (102187)
04-23-2004 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by wj
04-14-2004 8:39 PM


My assertions have been on the level of the cell and it will be some time before I can extend the same to any supramolecular assemblege.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by wj, posted 04-14-2004 8:39 PM wj has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 85 of 128 (105282)
05-04-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
04-13-2004 9:42 PM


Re: Let fission Reign in the interested
Gladyshev thought this might clear up some of the differences.

RMODYNAMICS OF LIVING SYSTEM EVOLUTION,
ENTROPY AND GIBBS’ FREE ENERGY
G. P. Gladyshev

N.N.Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics
Russian Academy of Sciences
4, Kosygin st., Moscow, 117977, Russia
http://www.endeav.org/evolut
E-mail: academy@endeav.org

Abstract: There are many types of entropy reported in the scientific literature. The great diversity in the definitions and concepts may cause tremendous problems. The difference between the various types of entropy is discussed, which are usually applied in the sciences dedicated to life. It is noted that by investigations of the systems far from the state of equilibrium the concept of entropy is used which is a kinetic parameter. The well-known Prigogine theory on entropy production in the general case does not meet the second law of thermodynamics as it was formulated by classics of science.
The law of the temporal hierarchies of the bioworld allows selecting the thermodynamic and kinetic quasi-closed systems within a specific hierarchy in the biomass. The second law of thermodynamics in its classic formulation may be applied to the living systems. If to use the principles of the hierarchical thermodynamics it becomes possible to calculate the changes in the Gibbs free energy.
To make the understanding of the problem of thermodynamics of biological evolution more accessible for the young generation of scientists it is necessary to clarify and well define its main concepts.

Keywords: Biological evolution, Aging, Second law, Law of temporal hierarchies, Supramolecular thermodynamics, Entropy, Gibbs free energy

"One of the principal objects of theoretical research in any department of knowledge is to find the point of view from which the subject appears in its greatest simplicity."
J. Willard Gibbs

“Yet science seems to have driven us to accept that we all merely small parts of a world governed in full details (even if perhaps ultimately just probabilistically) by very precise mathematical laws.”
Roger Penrose

The occasion for the writing the present paper was the unceasing flow of publications in the region of thermodynamics of biological evolution. Some of these publications expressed many opinions that were in contradiction to the classic science and, in particular, to the general laws of nature. This flow really overcrowds the science and provokes on my opinion the essential damage to education.
One of the fashionable tendencies in the scientific activity of some naturalists and philosophers is the development of the unproved conceptions of entropy, of its production, orderliness and complexity. Many outstanding scientists, including the Members of the Royal Society, members of some academies of scientific organizations are opposed to this negative tendency. The works by K.Denbigh and his colleagues [1-3] should be noted especially .
During last years I try also, at least to a small degree, to correct the situation which has been formed and connected with misunderstanding as for the notion of entropy, complexity, orderliness etc [4 ].

The main part of authors of new concepts in this field seem do not understand seriously the works of classics - Clausius, Gibbs, Plank and many other [ 1-5 ]. Some of them probably neglect the encyclopedic reviews and the text books of high quality. I should like to note that I will not deliberately to mention the author’s names of the uncorrected works as I have no right to judge them negatively - their theoretical and experimental works in some other branches of science sometimes are worthy. Moreover, I believe that many of them are under delusion very sincerely because of the complexity of the interdisciplinary branch of knowledge.
Having no possibility to discuss in a short communication even small part of misunderstandings I should like to point only some tendencies that bring about many of evidently erroneous and deadlock, or, in the better case, of non-effective. Some of these theories [13] are related to the wrong ideas on the entropy production and about the connection between entropy and such the notions as ‘organization’, ‘complexity’ and ‘orderliness’. [ 1, 14 ].
For the beginning it seems reasonable to remind the readers that there exist many types of entropy. It is evident that the using of the general semantic terms does not imply that in each specific case one deals with the one and the same notion.

It is well known that the classic entropy according to Clausius and Gibbs, which is used in the phenomenological thermodynamics, differs from the statistic entropy by Gibbs and from the statistic entropy according to Boltzmann and Plank [ 1-3 ]. These well-known distinctions do not distort the ‘physical structure’ of the classic thermodynamics and its conclusions. All these types of entropy, being well-founded, are denoted by one symbol S.
It is also well known the notion of the information entropy or Shannon entropy, H, which has its own independent meaning and from the physical point of view has nothing common with Clausius-Gibbs entropy, statistical entropy by Gibbs and statistical entropy by Boltzmann-Plank [ 1 ].

Further, the entropy by Prigogine is known, which, as distinct from the classic thermodynamics in the general case has no full differential and because of it can not be considered as the function of the state (for convenience we shall denote this entropy as S’). This entropy is a kinetic function. It’s possible to discuss some other concepts about entropy, which have no direct relation to the classic definition of thermodynamic entropy. To know more about various types of entropy used in exact science I refer to the mentioned above Denbigh works [[1,3] and to the comprehensive paper by Zubarev and Morozov [15] where the extensive literature references may be found.

The existence of the principal distinctions between classical and information entropy is accepted by the most part of professional mathematicians, physicists, chemists and other. Modern encyclopaedias and textbooks as a rule do not content any mishmash on this subject [1]. However many authors up to now do not distinguish information entropy H and classical entropy S. Many investigators, as the reader knows for sure, also identify the classical Clausius-Gibbs entropy and Prigogine entropy S‘ despite the latter has no relation to the second law of thermodynamics. [1,4,16]. From the said above follows that this kinetic function, strictly speaking, can not serve as parameter whose change, from the thermodynamic point of view, reveals the trend and estimates the degree of the completeness of spontaneous processes occurring even in the simple isolated real systems.
Considering the open biological systems I.Prigogine and colleagues discuss the question about the entropy production inside the system itself and entropy supply from the surroundings. The growth of entropy of the total system is discussed, this system being consisted of the system itself and surroundings. For the simple system [14] close to the equilibrium state such a position seems to be rightful, but needs the averaging entropy changes on micro- and macro levels what is difficult to prove. The supply of the “negative entropy” into the living systems (which is not simple) is connected with the heat exchange between the system and surrounding. From this follows that the system becomes thermodynamically and kinetically quasi-closed [ 4 ] only at small times when the substance exchange between the whole system (thermostat plus the system itself ) and surrounding may be neglected. Such a system is an analogue of the equilibrium (quasi-equilibrium) chromatograph column where the substance flow of the constant composition enters to. The direction of spontaneous processes in such a system is determined not by the change of its entropy but by the change of the Gibbs function, G or Helmholtz function, F (Gibbs or Helmholtz free energies). Really, it is evident! Besides, the second law in its classical form states the increase in entropy S may be observed only in nonequilibrium isolated system where only the work of expansion proceeds or no work at all. This important circumstance needs some additional substantiation of the “thermodynamic” model in relation to the entropy production. Thus the Prigogine concept due to many unproved and experimentally non-corroborated postulates is not in conformity with the second law of thermodynamics.

In editorial paper published in a very authoritative journal “Entropy “ the editor-in-chief Dr. Shu-Kun Lin has written [16]:
"…it is not surprise that an honest chemist (among any other educated chemists, biologist, etc.) will tell you that he has never found an application of this entropy theory in chemistry (or in biology, physics, engineering…)". Author bears in mind "the Prigogin’s dissipative structure theory". Dr. Shu-Kun Lin concludes: "I have a clear opinion regarding this entropy theory. Its main problem is that it does not conform with the Second law of thermodynamics". I personally fully agree with this point of view.
The apologists of the theory of the entropy production and of dissipative structures (which really exist in the system far from the equilibrium state) discuss sometimes the question about the production and accumulation of some “low-entropy product “ in the evolutionizing biological systems. Some authors believe that the principle of the minimum entropy production (S’) at some circumstances may be equivalent to the principle of maximum production of this “low-entropy product”. However, if to speak about the classical entropy ( S ) all above mentioned arguments must be rejected as deprived of the physical sense.
The change in entropy of the living system itself ( S ), even if it is observed, does not speak anything about the trend to the state prescribed by the second law of thermodynamics. I have already noted that in the given case one may speak, probably, about the minimization of the Gibbs (or Helmholtz) function together with some other functions. The entropy (classical, S) by evolution of a living system may either diminish or increase.
The creators of the new theories, using the entropy production concept, write sometimes not only about the accumulation of the “low entropy products” in the evolutionizing systems but about the increasing the complexity or the orderliness of these systems. Such a supposition, as I understand, is reasonable if there is the definite connection between the entropy and the complexity. Meanwhile it is well known that entropy is not obligatory connected to orderliness, complexity or organization. These questions have been thoroughly discussed in the classical monographs and reviews of one of the creator of the non-equilibrium thermodynamics, kinetics of open systems and modern science on the phase equilibrium, K.Denbigh, as well in works of other classics of the modern thermodynamics and chemical kinetics [ 1- 4 ]
It should be especially noted that the notion of the “orderliness” itself has no strict definition from the mathematics point of view and because of it can not serve as any quantitative characteristics of the degree of completeness of any processes.
To avoid the vain discussion with the colleagues, who do not know the subject of consideration in more detail, I should like to present only one example well known to any physicists and chemists.
Discussing the formation of the supramolecular structures in the living nature some authors often speak about increasing the orderliness of the system by evolution in the living nature due to the accumulation (production) of the “low-entropy product”. Meanwhile it was established long ago that many aggregation processes (self-assembly or thermodynamic self-organization of macromolecules and cells) are entropy-controlled, i.e. are accompanied by the entropy growth [17]. Thus the entropy of the system increases as well. The latter fact testifies to the increasing amount of the “high-entropy product ” but in no way of the “low-entropy product”. It may seem that by proceeding of the processes mentioned the entropy should be diminished because of the growth of the orderliness in the system, which is observed visually. However, on many reasons, it is not true! Other examples the reader may have found in the works [1-4, 18-20] and in Internet.
In such a way, if to have forgiven the author of this remarks the lack of some important and additional digressions and more precise definitions, the following conclusion can be drawn. The notion about the entropy production in the living systems and about the increasing in the course of evolution of their “orderliness” or “complexity” (being mathematically not well defined) disagree with well known general laws of the nature. If to account for both the lack of the conventional terminology and for extraordinary importance of the problem, one may assert the following: these incorrect concepts bring about unbelievable mishmash into the science. It’s a great pity that some new and probably correct and inspiring ideas in the field of the mechanisms of the biological evolution and the life origin can not get the proper development due to the presence of the annoying and crude errors. Such the errors of some naturalists are circulated and distributed by the poor-educated philosophers. As a result many colleguaes do no desire to study the subject itself which makes the situation worse and do harm to the education.
I believe that during last years it becomes possible to develop non-contradictory and non-conflicting thermodynamic theories of the biological evolution, the life origin and the aging of living beings. These theories are based on the fundamental principles of the classical thermodynamics [ 4, 21-27 ].
The theory intends to use the concept of the classical entropy, S and other functions of state, G, F (Gibbs and Helmholtz functions whose differentials are full). It is evident this theory gives no information about the molecular and similar “dynamic” mechanisms of the evolution processes. Besides, this theory uses some postulates and in such a way has approximate character. In spite of this, its conclusions meet very well the experimental data and, generally, the whole experience of science.
The substantiation of the thermodynamic model of the biological evolution (phylogenesis) and aging (ontogenesis) becomes possible due to the discovering the law of the temporary hierarchies and due to the development of basic ideas of the hierarchic thermodynamics. The selection of the quasi-closed thermodynamic and kinetic systems in the living world [ 4 ] allows to study the biological evolution ( on all the hierarchic levels ) and the organism aging with the account for the principle of the minimization of the specific value of Gibbs ( Helmholtz) function.
The selection of the “principle of the substance stability “gives the possibility to explain (unfortunately up to now only on a qualitative level) the reasons for the existence of the reverse thermodynamic connections between various hierarchies of the living matter. The possibility of the practically infinite development of the bioworld (on the time scale comparable with the time - the duration of biological evolution) may be also explained.
As I understand, in the framework of the modern conception, it may be taken for granted that from the point of view of the energy source , the Sun is the driving force of the evolution of living (and dead) matter, of the origin and of the supporting life on the Planet. Of course, there are other energy sources feeding the circulation (cycle) of matter. From the point of view of “dark” spontaneous processes of the arising and evolution of living beings, the driving force is so called “thermodynamic force” [ 4 ]. As some scientists claim the new results are in concordance with ideology (Weltanschauung) of Galileo, Maxwell, Gibbs, Darwin, Penrose and the author of this paper as for the general, total nature laws. The theory allows the predictions to be made even on the sociological level and considers the history as the process, which is rather predictable (on a definite scale of time), whose direction is predetermined by the second law in its classical (classical and hierarchical thermodynamics) formulation. This theory is valid for all levels of biomatter organization. The thermodynamic theory of the biological evolution facilitates the choice between the ideas of creationism and science of favor of the latter. If to connect creationism only with the problem of the origin and development of life (but, does not connect with the origin of universe mater and energy before the probable Big Bang), then, as I believe, such a choice seems to be grounded.
It should be noted that some particulate problems of the thermodynamics of the biological evolution have been solved only qualitatively. The detail investigations in many branches of this interdisciplinary science are only at their start. However, there are the reasons to believe that an essential progress in the development of the corresponding apparatus may be achieved very soon and then the quantitative treatment becomes possible.
It becomes also evident that the new “science building” about the arrangement of the bioworld, based on classical science, is rather strong. This science building, I am sure, will resist any winds arising under the influence of some fashionable one-day models of various dreamers which try to create, as the say, “post-non-classical science” and neglect the knowledge of the many centuries history.
I understand that various points of view have their right for existence. However brainless eclectic mixing up of even well established scientific concepts (presented on the mathematical language) hardly may be approved. As for the mentioned mixing of various concepts, neglecting general laws of the nature, it can not be excused as enhances the destruction of the intellectual potential of a new generation of researches. The main part of works dedicated to the development of some eclectic concepts contain mainly the quotations from some other works where contradictory positions are presented. Authors of such paper are not capable to formulate sharply their own positions. It is clear that any works and even textbooks may contain discussion statements. However, the first duty of the authors, as I am sure, should be not to give any disinformation to the readers. At least, authors should make a reservation, if their statements do not correspond to the general nature laws or are not proved. The neglecting these criteria by writing scientific work often determines that the interesting in principle investigations, containing the important scientific information, are accompanied by the erroneous interpretation and may happen to be rejected at all. It is clear that the researcher, who for the first time begins to study any discipline, cannot distinguish the serious statements from mishmash and, sometimes, mockery in relation to classics. Before to risk and propose something fresh (novel) in science, it is reasonable, as I understand, to study carefully the stabile textbooks (which, usually, have been writing for some tens of years and improving for centuries). It is worthy to follow the well-established scientific schools having their origin in ancient days. Proposing new concepts and theory it is also clever, as I believe, to use the whole experience of the world science.
The author is very grateful to Academician Professor Yuri S. Lipatov for useful discussion and for translation this article from Russian into English.

REFERENCES

1. Denbigh, K.G. Note on Entropy, Disorder and Disorganization. Brit. J. Phyl. Sci. 1989, 40, 323 -332.
2. Denbigh, K.G. The Many Faces of Irreversibility. Brit. J. Phil Sci. 1989,40, 501 -518.
3. Denbigh, K.G.; Denbigh, J.S. Entropy in Relation to Incomplete Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, 1985.
4. Gladyshev, G.P. Supramolecular thermodynamics is a key to understanding phenomenon of life. What is Life from a Physical Chemist’s Viewpoint; Second Ed.: In “Regular and Chaotic Dynamics”; Moscow-Izhevsk, 2003; 144 p.
5. Gibbs, J.W. The Collected Works of J. Willard Gibbs. Thermodynamics; Longmans, Green and Co.: New York, 1928; Vol. 1, p. 55-349.
6. Alberty, R.A. Physical Chemistry; 7th Ed.; Wiley: New York. Etc., 1987; 934 p.
7. Gerasimov, Ya., Ed.; Physical Chemistry; Mir Publ.: M., 1974; Vol. 1,2, 1230 p.
8. Bazarov, I.P. Thermodynamics; High School: M., 1983, 344p.
9. Denbigh, K.G. The Principle of Chemical Equilibrium; 3ed Ed.; Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971, 491p.
10. Kubo, R. Thermodynamics. North-Holland Publ. Co.: Amsterdam, 1968.
11. Sychev, V.V. 1986. Thermodynamics of Complex Systems; Energoatomizdat: Moscow, 1986, 208p.
12. Sedov, L.I. New theories, model and reality. Nature ( Russ. ). 1984, 11, 3-10.
13. Penrose, Roger. The Emperor’s New Mind. Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics; Oxford University Press, 1999, 450p. (Russian Translation. 2003. URSS, Moscow. 381p.).
14. Prigogine, I. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity and the Physical Sciences; W.H.Freeman & Co.: San Francisco, 1980.
15. Zubarev, D.N.; Morozov, V.G. Entropy. In Physical Encyclopaedia; Moscow,1998, Vol. 5, p. 616.
16. Shu-Kun Lin. Diversity and Entropy. Entropy. 1999, 1, 1-3. www.mdpi.org/entropy
17. Lauffar, M.A. Entropy-driven processes in biology; B.: New York, 1975, 261p.
18. Cantor, Ch. R.; Schimmel, P. R. Biophysical Chemistry: The Conformation of Biological Macromolecules; W.H. Freeman & Co.: San Francisco, 1997.
19. Cantor, Ch. R.; Schimmel, P. R. Biophysical Chemistry; Mir: Moscow, 1984-1985, Vol. 1-3.
20. Tanford, Ch. The Hydrophobic Effect and the Organization of Living Matter.
Science. 1978, 200, 1012-1018. In Origin of Life. The Central Concepts; Deamer, D.W.; Fleischaker, G.R., Ed.; Jones and Bartlett Publishers Inc.: Boston-London, 1994; pp. 233-239.
21. Gladyshev, G.P.. A Motive Force of Biological Evolution. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1994, Vol. 64, N 2, 118-124.
22. Gladyshev, G.P. On the Thermodynamics, Entropy and Evolution of Biological Systems: What is Life from a Physical Chemist's Viewpoint. Entropy. 1999, 2, 9-20. www.mdpi.org/entropy.
23. Gladyshev, G.P. Thermodynamic Theory of Biological Evolution and Aging. Experimental Confirmations of Theory. Entropy. 1999, 4, 55-68. www.mdpi.org/entropy .
24. Gladyshev, G.P. The Equilibrium Thermodynamics of Quasi-closed Systems. Cell Differentiation and the Development of Organisms. Adv. Gerontology (In Russian). 2003, Vol. 11, 23-33.
25 Gladyshev, G.P. The Hierarchical Equilibrium Thermodynamics of Living Systems in Action. SEED Journal. 2002, 3, 42-59. (Toborsky E., co-editor SEED. Editorial, ¹ 3, 1-2). http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/pages .
26. Gladyshev, G.P. Thermodynamics of biological evolution and aging. Electron. J. Math. Phys. Sci. (USA). 2002, Sem. 2, 1-15. www.ejmaps.org .
27. Gladyshev, G.P. Thermodynamic self-organization as a mechanism of hierarchical structures formation of biological matter. Progress in Reaction Kinetics and Mechanism (An International Review Journal. UK, USA). 2003, 28, 157-188.

Additional information can be found on the Internet: http://www.endeav.org/evolut


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 04-13-2004 9:42 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
berberry 
Suspended Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 1853
From: vicksburg, mississippi
Joined: 11-29-2003


Message 86 of 128 (105298)
05-04-2004 5:27 PM


What I think Brad is saying...
I took a look at the site Brad linked in his post 82 above. It is one of Professor Gladyshev's pages and on it I found what I think sums up at least part of what Brad has been trying to tell us. The following quote is from that linked page:

During the last decades, an opinion has widely spread that there is the apparent contradiction between biological order and laws of physics - particularly the second law of thermodynamics. Besides, it is claimed that this contradiction cannot be removed as long as one tries to understand living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics. The author of the present work states: if living systems are described in the framework of hierarchic equilibrium thermodynamics, this contradiction does not exist.

(edited to remove extraneous formatting)

Portions of Gladyshev's book Themodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Things are available for online viewing at the site.

The book is published by Nova Science Publications of New York. I don't know anything about that publishing house.

The book goes WAY over my head, as do Brad's posts about Gladyshev. Gladyshev's work sounds interesting to me, but I only understand the laws of thermodynamics at a very basic level. I have no idea whether the Professor's work is useful.

Can anyone with a higher-than-average knowledge of physics answer a couple questions:

1. Is there any serious charge of a conflict between evolution and the 2LT coming from scientific quarters? If not, I should think that the paragraph I quoted above must be referring to creationism.

2. Is Gladyshev's theory established among scientists studying evolution? Is his work considered important?

3. What is Gladyshev's theory (expressed in the simplest possible language)? Does it alter or simply build on ToE? Is it more concerned with abiogenesis?

4. Is Gladyshev trying to accommodate creationism or refute it?


Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Brad McFall, posted 05-04-2004 7:42 PM berberry has not yet responded
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2006 7:47 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 87 of 128 (105352)
05-04-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by berberry
05-04-2004 5:27 PM


Re: What I think Brad is saying...
Dear berberry,
I had said in response (">") to GPG
>Dear Brad,
>
>The classical (equilibrium) thermodynamics has the same sense (as a rule) as
>the phenomenological thermodynamics. Thus, the classical (equilibrium)
>thermodynamics = the phenomenological thermodynamics.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Georgi
>
>PS Correct my English, please.
>
I guess I was I having some trouble trying to figure out if the allele frequency distribution of Wright was not being BUILT from your own classical thermodynamics=the phenomenological thermodynamics (which is the more reductionistic view and the one I wrote up) or rather on thinking it over, over night, that instead it would be more proper to find that the SHIFTING part of Wright's shifting balance theory is not instead located WITHIN the case when certain parts of the heirarchy in your law drop out. If this latter this would mean that Wright's ideas about effective population number would be within your law and not some other "independent" variable as it appears in the scholarship of William Provine who compared Dobshanksy and Wright. The problem seems to be aka evolutionary theory and the RULE of classical thermodynamcis (with many speculations aside) if the "population structure" in any panmictic sense is not splittable or not. If one takes BOTH the reductionistic position AND this one then there is a certain disagreeable ambiguity in the theoretical sense and I am unsure how EXACTLY this is to be resolved. One can find much discussion of attractions in science but little on repulsions. That however merely covers up my own ignorance. Of course there are valid applications by any rule or your priniciple of macrothermo independent of my attempts to try to figure out how it relates to biological change itself. But as you said the applications of classical thermo has not produced a very large number of results because of the simplifications necessary to get it to work. It would be great to try to find some of these possible in biology but the complexity of biology makes such a goal difficult to achieve. There seems to be some possiblility when it comes to magentisim in biology and I have not had a chance to read what you have written on this topic. My first paid research at Cornell was to try to figure out if rather than magnetic sense, if frogs were able to sense polarized light like bees. The results were inconclusive. I hope this helps. Sincerely, Brad. PS I am fairly confident this morning that Wright's views on Mendelism are a subset of yours not the other way around as I had it when I was trying to see how Collet's ideas on entropy might (or might not) apply. I will be plenty happy if I can get some good results without having to try to introduce Cantor's "point sets" into the issue.

AND HE REJOINED WITH

quote:

I consider it will be very useful if you recommend to anybody, who would
like to have a part in our discussion, to have a look at any good textbook
of physical chemistry.

In this case, there would not be any mistakes and misunderstanding. We will
understand each other very well! For example, there is the excellent
textbook in the USA: Alberty R.A. Physical Chemistry; 7th Ed.; Wiley: New
York, etc, 1987. 934 p. May be there is the next edition?

There are many terms in this book, which we use in chemistry, biochemistry,
biophysical chemistry, and physics, and so on. Some new terms one can find
in my website: http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/sntut/sntut.htm (in:
http://www.endeav.org/evolut )



Today I SEE TOE INSIDE Gladyshev's LAW but OUTSIDE GPG's specific microprinciple. When I wrote my review and question I was of the opnion it was "outside" in the sense that the MarsSpaceCraft are "outside" Kant's systematic constitution while but in the same orbitS. The principle which works for physical chemisty need not speak to all higher levels (in my BSM opnion but I have not done a literature search of G's stuff in biology I assume the literature is still in its 80s state the latest out of Cornell yesterday was about something I thought up in Providence RI in the early 90s) IF behvior substitutes IN THE SHIFT where Wright saw ecological extensions necessarily. That is possible but Gould has a different view and it would take some real philosophy to show the relation of Gould's notin of time and Gladyshev's. The point is to THINK in terms of equilibria. Wright did. Gould's use of spandrels, exaptations and assorted neologisms tends to NOT think this way but that does not mean that any concept either way be precluded. Provine for instance insisted on the notion of "phase transition" in evolutionary change and Gladyshev has perfected this analogy as far as Newton as I understand it. But are the atoms in the void equivalent of Newton in biology the way to discuss the most theoretical concepts? The problem seems to me to be if the panmictic population in a Gladyshev LAW by any prinicple is RULED statstically by seperations of what Provine insisted COULD NOT IN ANY WAY BE DIVIDED. I had started to wonder if the analytical continuity in Rene Thom's catastrophe theory could be be assimilated to Wright's gene frequency distribution curve BOUND BY EXTERNAL Georgi principled data but today I came to think this must be "inverted" to the effect that it is G's LAW that shifts in the series where some levels by particular taxogeny or form/kind making are NOT in the series sequentially. If this second is true than Wright's 1980 reference to Kimura could be some how accomadated by some truth in macrothermodynamics itself no matter the disposition of my ideas on the behavior whether caused by correlation with magnetism, polarlized light, etc etc with any prelimiary statsitical update of Wright out this drawing board. It may have been that any seperation of panmicitic populations I had thought was merely a data division similar to phenotype and genotype or else it could be constructed directly from a Gladyshev principle on the supramoleuclar level on up. I dont know. It is clear that evolutionary theory does not embrace this reading of a possible harmony in equilibria invovled and the reason for this lack is more for focus on nonequilibria than on any attempt to argue against creationism. The best creationist criticism is that the "mechanism" is not blue printed and this much my own versino BEING my own identifies. But that known, one can wonder why evos dont embrace Gladyshev's work and show indeed that there is NO contradiction as you quoted (I hold that as real possiblity) but probably becuase of Weiner's cybernetic anti-creationist veiw pervents the polity of science from making this step which in the Book I cited to you could be controversial NOT from creationism but 'science' from quantum mechanics and time irreversibility. Thinking in nonlinear terms is MUCH harder and I think this has been the symptom of much c/e confusion and useless popular discussion but I am not a social authority nor do I want to be/become one. Gladyshev's reasoning is fully physcio-chemical and if it IS that Anglo-American biologists out of fear of the creationist word "kind" have refused to THINK equilbria wise then I think it is this and not any notion of "bean bag" genetics that has been the stumbling block so far. Regardless I know can think of the quantum entanglement and Einstein's clock in a box in the same breath but I can not yet inuit any different phenomenology between Einstein and Gladyshev which likely exists should one/I internalize Boltzman early trips to Southerna Calif for instance.

If you are really interested in this I will point to a few places in GPG's work that may help. Stick to the physical chem at first and perhaps try to understand that I have found OUT that the elite were NOT understanding what the "ING" part of the "shifting balance" is all about. I KNOW THAT EVEN RICHARD LEWONTIN DID NOT HAVE THIS CORRECT even though he thought deeply about the organism constucting the environment else he would not have had me think of a fish when I was saying snake to him. I dont think GPG is trying to refute creationism but taking lead of other Collegues who are likely "blaming" creationism for their own failure to own up to the GPG law relating clades and grades. Croizat panbiogeography would be a proper biological remedy but this would mean an even larger change in the current biological scholarship heirarchry and the straw"" men is as aneasier man in creatioism to wail against as it is GOD not humanity there any way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by berberry, posted 05-04-2004 5:27 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 88 of 128 (222838)
07-09-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Brad McFall
04-22-2004 4:17 PM


Re: As an off-topic aside... new topic?
There is no "error" only typos exist here.

quote:

We note that in the thermostats of living systems, these parameters, although they vary in adaptive zones, retain more or less constant values for comparatively long periods of time. This is a consequence of the general law of Nature – the law of temporal hierarchies in the biological world. Let’s also direct the attention of the reader to the fact that with respect to chromatographic separation of substances, even chemical laboratory conditions can support the values of temperature, pressure and other parameters relating to the environment surrounding the column with limited precision. It is understood that this precision corresponds in part to the lesser variations with respect to different parameters of the thermostat than is the case with many real biological systems, which exist for any length of time. All the same, in all such cases, we are dealing with one or another open system model - models that are studied using the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics.
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/canada2001/index.htm

In fact, this thermostat is the environment that surrounds this very system.


quote:

The thermostat parameters are temperature (T): pressure (p); chemical composition ; tension of electric, magnetic fields, etc.). Of course, these parameters often fluctuate noticeably in the space of minutes, hours, 24-hour periods, and years, and organisms, as a rule, have to adapt to such fluctuations.
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ttbe/ttbe.htm

Faraday wrote (1802 Jan.1840) Thus the views of contact vary, and it may be said that they pass gradually from one to another, even to the extent of including chemical action: but the two extremes appear to me irreconcilable in principle under any shape; they are as follows. The contact theory assumes that when two different bodies being conductors of electricity are in contact, there is a force at the point of contact by which one of the bodies gives a part of its natural portion of electricity to another body, which the latter takes in addition to its own natural portion; that, though the touching points have respectively given and taken electricity, they cannot retain the charge which the their contact has caused but discharge their electricities to the masses respectively behind them (2067): that the force which at the point of contact, induces the particles to assume a new state, cannot enable them to keep that state (2069): that all this happens without any permanent alteration of the parts that are in contact, and has no reference to their chemical forces (2065).

quote:
Sixteenth Series 24 On the Source of Power in the Voltaic Pile I Exciting Electrolytes, &c., Being Conductors of Thermo and Feeble Currents ii.Inactive Conducting Circles Containing a Fluid or Electrolyte iiiActive Circles Exicited by Solution of Supheret of Potassium, &c. read before the Royal Society Feb, 6, 1840.

If thermal (electric) currents are objects of Fisher’s fundamental theorem then fitness can adapt the thermostat to this portion of electricity likely heritable through gene expressions of a series encoding sets of approaches to equilibria. There is no need to think like Schrodinger that life is or is like an aperiodic crystal but instead that flesh can be alternatively a conductor and an insulator as Farady suggested when discussing the electric capabilities of fish. The state that Faraday denied to Volta is retained genetically and it is only a form of the application of thermodynamics to a particularized HW equilibria. It may be the heritability suggested remands ONLY the shifting balance theory as it is possible that Fisher suffered an adaptive oversight with regard to the variations in temperatures that life on Earth has been subject to.

It is suggestive that protein encodings (sets of threes) might sink DNA differences (sets of twos) as sources where the body retains this state. It would be of interest to see if photon interactions can govern this organization of matter. It is unclear if this is an aspect of phenotypic congruent shaping or niche construction as long as the physical evaluation of the thermostat is not more detailed. Also the imaginary symbols of the electrotonic state historically predate any such analysis based on more modern physics. If the thermostat is never an aspect of the phenotype (form traditionally the last but not least occupation of the biogeographer) the inertial characteristics of electrotonics as a fluid flow would “trump” any differential collection that conditions the topology of the relation among levels of organization thermokinematically. The project would remain more one of biophysics than biochemistry but if the shape of an organism is part and parcel of the thermostat it not unlikely that D’Archy Thompson’s coordinate transforms will remain uneffective in the structure of evolutionary theory.

In any event it should be clear that thinking about translation in space and form-making is less a matter of thinking about Biology and Language but more is one of the relation of an “orbit” and a “trajectory” no matter how clades are connected in an end or conclusion. Bertand Russel did manage to somewhere with the difference of perception and physics but he did not go far enough to take into account the designable affect that accompanies decision on the analogy of the differential to form-making independent of translation in space. It may be that macrothermodyanmics aids the taxonomist ( and thus the biogeographer) in providing a modelable program to view older looking forms in newer matter.

This possibility seems to account for the disconnect

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,839406,00.html

quote:
Thom's contributions to other fields did not always sit comfortably with colleagues. In his book What Mad Pursuit, Francis Crick, the Nobel prizewinner who was a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, recounted a meeting with him where scientists were discussing progress in cracking the genetic code. Thom suggested that some of Crick's recent research might be wrong because, though supported experimentally, it did not comport with mathematical theory. Crick opined that Thom did not understand how science worked: "what he did understand he didn't like, and referred to it disparagingly as 'Anglo-Saxon'."


between Crick and Thom and shows that linguistic heirarhcies are not going to assist in evolutionary change theorizing unless built from bottom up. A probabilistic starting point is helpless where some non-linearity IS but a concealed linearity that could divided by the difference of real and reale numbers per contingency. I don’t really know what history is to make of this however.

quote:
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/canada2001/index.htm

This thermostat is characterized by constancy (invariability) in all thermodynamic parameters. These parameters are temperature, pressure, intensity of physical fields, concentration of chemical substances, etc.


quote:

http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ttbe/ttbe.htm
Moreover, each species (like each organism) has its own thermostat (habitat), whose parameters undergo fluctuations in time-scales shorter than the life of this species. The same is true of other biostructures, for instance, cells functioning in biological tissues: their own thermostats of macromolecules are contained in the relevant physiological fluids, etc.

quote:

The principle of the substance stability–feedback–has been formulated. It is applicable to any biological systems (belonging to different hierarchies). For instance, this principle explains the accumulation of a substance with a chemically high energy capacity by biological systems in the course of evolution and aging of living beings. This substance forces water out of these systems.

http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/evol.htm


This result of thermostatic math might indicate just what the D’Arcy Transforms shewed.

I had supposed that the body of macrothermodynamcs remanded an exchange of electrons on a Le Chantlier –Braun balance of photon transits but it is possible that Remianian math could torque the conditioning that relates the thermostat to life even if the Galvani-Volta reference is but an anachronistic but temporally precursory paradigm of the same ordination. It is hopeful that Catastrophe Theory can be synthesized biologically to the thermostat parameter invariants but this might only be retained theoretically if the biochemical instruction superseeds the biophysical instantiation. Matrix transforms still need an applied math plying of this understanding (my BSMs) of the contribution of Gladyshev via Gibbs to the classics of science. I remain in ambiguity as to the relation of this structure to Newton’s “electric and elastic spirit”. I guess the relation of QED to my suggestion on photon exchanges needs to be considered before one attempts to understand if anti-matter had any biological function. It is even possible that Galton’s polygon finds a manifestation in the late 20th century development regardless of how Woodger’s Bauplane is figured. Evolutionist preoccupation with the number of digits in a fish limb might be found to be a throwback to older concerns of creationists if regeneration of soma and that found macrothermodynamically are univocal else a modern revival of taxanomic practice CAN extripate the older Ptolemaic biogeography that caused no full abbreviation of Croizat’s method to be published to date. The origin of the laws of thermodynamcs replaces the materialistic concern for what elements first configured the failure to move from this equilibrium and resulted from an illegality TO DEBATE the difference lest indeed we have a science not only beyond Einstein but beyond Newton with some attention to conspiring motions that Frege deined to Cantor and Russel could not psychologize. It may be that no grand unification of forces is receivable but it would also be concurrent that computationally equivalent sophistication is not capable of decomposing the continuum infinitely composite nonetheless. It may be that inaccessible cardinals are involved.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-09-2005 02:24 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2004 4:17 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2647 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 89 of 128 (369086)
12-11-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DNAunion
04-13-2004 12:27 AM


substance stability and origins science
I am not quite ready to say something real about the origin of life but I recently got some new links from Dr. Georgi Gladyshev that may proove useful to readers doing homework etc.

The notion of substance stability in the last link may sugest insights.

quote:
Dear Brad,

Have a look at sites of Human Thermodynamics Institute (Chicago), please!

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/index.html

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/HT-history.html and my articles:

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/JHT/Second-Law-Systems-Evolution.html

http://www.mdpi.org/ijms/list06.htm

Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

Georgi


I am suspecting that where you are interested in a "decrease" this may be the result of external forces *or* a decrease and I am not ready just yet to balance this with Gould's prescription for evo-devo applied to the DIFFERENCE of bricks vs collumns for anthropods opposite to vertebrates(Gould's view) (as to information changes over time (duplication hox quantity genetically)). If there is "an outside" to Gould's "internal channel of positive constraint" then there might not need to be a decrease as you suspected, in my opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DNAunion, posted 04-13-2004 12:27 AM DNAunion has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19301
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 90 of 128 (369142)
12-11-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by berberry
05-04-2004 5:27 PM


Re: What I think Brad is saying...
The author of the present work states: if living systems are described in the framework of hierarchic equilibrium thermodynamics, this contradiction does not exist.

1. Is there any serious charge of a conflict between evolution and the 2LT coming from scientific quarters? If not, I should think that the paragraph I quoted above must be referring to creationism.

The difference is between a closed system and an open system, not necessarily between living systems and physics.

You can consider each element as a closed system by including (black-box) all energy inputs and exports so that you can then measure the overall change with time of the energy levels -- if you do this then the "contradiction does not exist" -- you have built a hierarchy of (arbitrary) isolation boundaries across which you measure the flux of energy.

The problem is in being able to isolate the systems sufficiently and to measure the energy balance across the (arbitrary) boundary of isolation with sufficient accuracy.

4. Is Gladyshev trying to accommodate creationism or refute it?

No clue from this.

That's my take.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by berberry, posted 05-04-2004 5:27 PM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Brad McFall, posted 12-11-2006 8:45 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 95 by traste, posted 04-22-2009 12:09 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017