Thermodynamics

The fantasy of newton's body which einstein divided into a rod and a clock technically depended in the first Kantian category of science on the operation of stop and letting light pass. Einstein continued this LOGIC by making photons in the body but out of the Maxwell-Faraday evolution of physics. Until there are statistical mechanics of the materiality expressed in terms of heritibility it will not be possible to relate gravity to life sensu stricto but this does not prevent one from isolating an organism in Darwin's descent with modification HOWEVER if the entropy increases are more with electrons than photons I would doubt the negative aspects so far contributed in this thread. You need only ponder Kev
Long urlran, a Frechman, who thought by growing lobsters and and baking bread and looking at human body salt content on the Sahara, that the weak force was operative as well. There is not any way to discount evolutionary theory for man-made systems on my view but that may not be the creationist standard.
The dermal cell boundary can easily be thought of as a natural system that lets light pass and stops it depending on skin color.
So with the skin as the system there might not be a "violation" but only an ability to turn reflection into refraction. This is part of the determintive not the reflective judgement however. Physicsts might make that mistake.
another cite
colored bibliography
same as above but in Italian
Feynman for instance seemed a bit TOO enamoured with the techincal advancements in biotechnology that he might have misposke about the form of his drum motion and that still being but oil, not the whole tissie OR organ he meant to speak of biologically. edited by AdminJar to shorten url. Brad, use the peek function to see how I did it for future reference pleaseThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-13-2005 10:44 AMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-13-2005 12:39 AM

so it seems to me THEN, that Gladyshev would still be not incorrect to assert we dont have a clear relation of order and complexity and in that end I ONLY find macrothermodyanmics to discount the creationist position IF it were posible to get MORE than the bound even in the open system.Is the archemidian axiom implicit in the measure?

I do not want to start a drag down and take out dispute with you Sylas, but there is no problem differentiating growth and development across clades.A snake for instance, has a different relation of growth and development than an insectivore, as a snake will continue to grow throughout its life despite it individual development being over (you dont need to trust me but you might) while a naked mole rat can develop (mentally) beyond that; where it's epigentics stoped and thus does not grow anymore-in::the sense, that, a "law" of growth might be different than naturalselection&caused&modification&sums.IT IS POSSIBLE THAT morphospace is populated by different laws of growth that are clade dependent but dependent on mathematical constraints of the material being subsumed by the lineage. Even within squmates I can imagine it multivertex for characters as different as distance between eyes and banding patterns. Raup's shells are the classic case of that. So on your view it would not be possible to make sense of Mendel's assertion that the statistics of his ratio (in terms of # of alleomorphs AND changes in gene frequiencies) are ACTUAL NUMBERS and not mere empirical approximations as Naglei insisted and thus inhibited from the rest of the scientific world. Mendel could only try to get approval in a more limited way than we can today. Who knows if the new poster is not the next student of Kant's grass. We can be sure there will never be a Newton of this but there can be another Darwin. Telematics does not subscript all telenomics. Of course I dont think this way but it is possible.I understand that a physicist can "get by" with a view of the world that need not TAKE this account of numerology as would be historically related to the debate between Mendelians and Biometricians and thus is not at issue in this thread, but you would seriously be misinforming some new person to suggest that recent changes in evolutionary theory as presented by Hewitt,

quote:

---

"While paleontologists were properly careful about the timing of seperation of two lineages, when producint an organismal phylogeny they often saw the cladogenesis producint two new species as a simple fork. Those concerned with the process of speciation and its experimental investigation saw the fork rather differently, particularly botanists aware of divergence and hybridzation over time (Grant 1963). This often extended and complex process was also evident to those working on hybrid zones, where it was apparent that genomes had developed different degrees of divergence and reproductive isolation (Hewitt 1989). Once again the advent of DNA techniques meant that an organism's phylogeny could be based on sequence geneologies, as was recognized by a number of people(e.g. Barton 1988; Pamilo & Nei 1988; Avise 1989; Hey 1994). The simple phlogenetic fork comprises the seperation over time of complexly entwined lineages of one population into two seperate bundles, rather like plaiting one clump of honeysuckle up both sides of a window. Whilst this realization embraces the disparate concepts of systematic phylogeny and population genetics, it is taking some time for entrained thought patterns to be overgrown." (Molecular Ecology (2001) TEN,537-549 "Speciation, hybrid zones and phylogeography - or seeing genes in space and time"

---

,can simply be subscribed as you did in a few sentences.You said, Have you at least tried to read any of Georgi Gladyshev's work I have posted here at EvC? If "the material" is clade specific in the sense I indicated above IT IS possible to think of biological change in the sense of a "" close copy diTTo. Not only is that not a new thought I bet there are many here who can go into some detail on the
the difference of Wright vs Kimura METRICS compared with Fisher/Haldane geometry. If not I could. the dipute is really only over how many prongs are on the fork and that is why Mark was correct to identify a vector of BOTH entropy and complexity IN THE DEBATE.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-13-2005 19:35 AM

ok

The difficulty in moving from 2LOT to a lot of 1LOT seems to arrive from determing if "the creature" below(bold added) is a living thing, a no longer living thing, or just a sack of chemicals in: http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/review.htmlI can not decide if the following

quote:

---

However, recently, the law of temporal hierarchies was formulated. This law substantiates the possibility of identifying (discerning) quasi-closed monohierarchical systems (subsystems) within open polyhierarchical biological systems. It was also established that, as a rule, the processes of evolution in living natural systems are quasi-equilibrium processes. It was shown that models of living systems are analogues of models of equilibrium (quasi-equilibrium) chromatographic columns.

​

These facts allowed creation of the quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics of near to equilibrium quasi-closed systems. This thermodynamics is based on the statement that the functions of state (with a good approximation) at any moment of time in quasi-closed monohierarchical systems have a real physical meaning (sense).
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/evol.htm

---

transparency remands Fisher's analogy of his fundamental genetic theorem to some LOT or not.Western University | 404 Error - file not foundProfessor Eddington has recently remarked that "The law that entropy always increases - the second law of thermodynamics - holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature". It is not a little instructive that so similar a law should hold the supreme position among the biological sciences. (Fisher 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection).
.But as Dr. Gladyshev has recently remarked in Norway it all depends on *knowledge* of the thermal process(es) constiuitive, my intial reaction to his correspondence
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?
was confused precisely because I failed to appreciate how important thermoSTATICS were for hierarchical thermodynamics of his wording(s) and I did not see that my notion at a use of Faraday's "thermal current" (temperature difference induced electricity)was in no way indicative of a different idea. If flesh in any way can be shown to adapt to changes in thermal currents it seems time to consider the differential equations
{relevant equations}
underlying macrothermodyanmics and attempt to derive evolutionary theory from a configuration of 1LOT which might find say molecular free path lengths, fitness, entropy increases to be aspects of the same statistical physics. That is my guess on how the lots park the vehicle but if it is a bike instead all bets are off.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-09-2005 09:54 AM