Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code

quote:

---

WS-JW claimed that the ideas learned in quantum theory disproved one of the patterns that evolution exhibits (gradualism). So i responded with a pair of counter examples

---

Well isn't *this* a can of worms??If neo-Darwinism does not admit that there can be continuous motion in a discontinuous space or if the physical basis of quantum theory has not been detailed to molecular evolution then "anagensis" may be extripated but this does not mean process has been fully patterned out.The seemingly unusual aspects of QM when related to evolution or post-NeoDarwinism depend on if it is obvious or not if geographic range is a property of the species or the individual, or if one is hyper reductionist, only on the information content of the code expanded.I think there is some room for equivocation among the postingings and Freudian slips in postings in this thread.Part of my own position can be gleaned from some recent correspondence with Dr. Gladyshev

quote:

---

>From: "Gladyshev Georgi"
>To: "Brad McFall"
>Subject: Thermodynamics of Evolution 2007
>Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:35:55 +0400
>
>Dear Brad,
>Have a look, please, at:
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Georgi Gladyshev
>Georgi Pavlovich Gladyshev - Wikipedia

​

Dear Georgi;

​

Thank you very much for the links.

​

It seems to me that the harderst part to getting other people to look further into your ideas is due to either a reductionist view, that somehow prevents the investigator from getting beyond the "analogy" to chromatographic columns or it is due to a latent regard for synergism (at the issue of being far from equilibrium).

​

In your own words the difficulty is getting readers to follow you completely between these two paragraphs

​

"Especial interest is the application of hierarchical thermodynamics to living systems which, as before believed, could not be investigated by Gibbsian methods. The reason of this was the statement that natural biological systems are open and that these systems are, allegedly, far from an equilibrium state.

​

However, recently, the law of temporal hierarchies was formulated. This law substantiates the possibility of identifying, or discerning, quasi-closed monohierarchical systems or subsystems within open polyhierarchical biological systems. "

​

I have gone through three stages of reading your works.

​

1) I was not sure it was theoretically true except in an isolated instance that would require a particular reading of Maxwell's physics.

​

2)I suspected it was true in the sense of 1) but it seemed regardless, certainly needed to resolve some issues in theoretical biology

​

3) Now, I am fairly confident that the structure should exist. Getting to this third stage required me to think harder about your comments on differentiation. After reviewing the existence of a differential equation that specifies the dynamics of the "powerball"

​

http://www.powerballs.com

​

(dyna-bee)

​

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1464611

​

I have come to a thought about using phenomenological linear thermodynamics in a monohierarchy of guanosine metabolism in conjunction with EITHER the centriole or a cellulose cell wall construction as being within Gulick and O’Reilly’s differential equation but a part of yours. The trick is/would be that the apparent 3-D is reduced to Euler angles. The notion of the centriole being like a gyroscope has been dismissed but if one adds a thought about aggregations obeying your law, it seems possible to resurrect the older idea. O’Reilly studied at Cornell when I was there.

​

I do not have the ability to decide if this differential equation is a subset of yours or not. If that could be proved there would be no doubt in my mind that the world needs to wake up to your notion. Often it is hard to decide whether or not to call attention to EvCers ever again to your work because many people there are either not that interested or else do not actually have a better/larger scientific background than me. I understand that you have made your work accessible to the average student of physical chemistry with biological interests but “synergism” and the probabilistic basis to the evolutionary synthesis(sic!) seems to be blocking those who would otherwise be sympathetic to your position.

---

And the results that as soon as someone posted a link
https://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/...eography/2007-06/msg00003.html
to my website
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
over 60 people world wide have looked into the pages overnight.Of course looks can be deceiving but there is just too much going on in this thread on EVC and related issues for me to think that there is nothing here. There is a concept of "temporal paraology" in panbiogeography where one may indeed think that calibrating cladistic branchings with phylogenetic inference is mistaken as this is a property of the node not the branch. Gould's insistence that species selection is like branching for demes but budding instead only confuses the four seasons of thought of the expansion of older "evolution" with any newer thought about the function of evolutionary theory.

I believe it was Damouse that used the possible word "contradictory".I only said that QM has not been properly worked into theoretical biology.If you can show me that I am wrong on this then I can show you that the notion of the adaptive landscape makes sense for both gene frequencies IN a population and for gene combinations within individual organisms.It seems to me that lack of application is PRECISELY because, whether gradual or puctuated, the probabalistic syntax, prevents QM meaning to be dissected for gene DNA in an individual and a species AT THE SAME TIME (hence we can get QM at the notion of the molecular bonds but not at supramolecular temporality). This division becomes confused with space itself and will do so as long as logic is not better applied.If one thinks that the only way humans can get information to change this state of research is by atoms then genes get short shrift but one only assumes genes then individuals get the same but in a bad way.QM, if it implies some idea of empirical geometry that Reimannian math *may not*(if) may not support, may not necessarily support a different graudal approach to the space-time continuum, but yes I would not draw people in this direction as of yet. There are more fruitful ones based on simple linear extrapolations, no matter the philosophy. Besides, the number of visitors at my site is almost double what it was this morning now that my work was properly looked into."Contradiction" is one of logic. One would need to know more specifically what the "energy levels" being referred to are rather than what they may be.I see no a priori reason why biology may not "contradict" QM if the data says so. Those who disagre prima facie are a kind of reductionist that I think would not even survive the gene as made of atoms actually counted/aggregated. I do not think that QM necessarily implicates puctuated/saltus biology but if properly continuous in a discontinuous space of genes it may implicate a different kind of plenum than that which went by anagenesis. I rather think that the continuity is such that anagenesis will trump any divisivity that QM can contribute, but my point was only we do not have this "science" as of yet.Again, I did not say

quote:

---

contradictory to RM & NS either gradualistic or punctuationary

---

. I said the problem depends on if "range" is meant for individuals or species. This is not solved by simple use of the term "evolutionary individual" but DOES go back to origins. Thermodynamics of life's origin and the diversification of life need not be kept seperate necessarily.This is why I have decomposed panbiogeography into "recapitulatory" and non recapitulatory parts (see my website's home page
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
). More than one origin of life may impute a different figure for the recapitualtory dissection irregardless of that which has no bearing on recapitulation either way, but there can still be 'recapitulation' (depending on information in the meaning of the code expansion(genetically)) even if life on earth all goes back to a single start. That would be hard to say without directly addressing the topic here as to if there really is the kind of meaning of life given by the codon relations or if there is some other kind of genetics extractable from future molecular biology research.

Come on Percy, Mark asked the correct follow-up.When did sports become biology. I suppose holding the cricket bat to protect one's face is biology and not physics then?As for your sillyness. When I grew up, I wanted First of ALL to be a football player. I never could. I did not grow big. I did play in Pop Warner. I played both sides of the field, right pulling guard (a useful position for the right end run, leading the offensive surg) and right middle linebacker, penetrating the center to get to the ball(player). As little players it was against the rules to *cause* fumbles but having seen that happen I TV, I just went against the rules. Once the ball got aggregated by players I would just enter the scurm and with no one on the outside being able to look in, I would knock the ball the to the ground. If I can come up with the ball I would have a penality but if someone else did, well that was on them.Look, playing both offense and defense, I was on the field almost all the time, (only special team situations and ones when I was too tired to play did i not participate), and playing on the right side of the field all the time. I ran in a constant circle. The game however goes up and back in a line. This does not appear to be a circle because the ball spins and other players do not have the same routing. Your homology fails.You seemed to have confused the gap in the line with the field itself,which ironically IS the problem for biology if the "gap" was not between the players but within the soma. For football it is not. It was in the laces spinning, the symmetrical shape of the Cuban cigar instead.

Dear Mark,It has been a while since our mutually assurred collisioning on EvC had been averted. I will answer your question about QM and theoretical biology directly but first just tell me if you have any desire to see ANY kind of hierarchical expansion to evolutionary theory become reality in taught evolutionary thought?Range changes are issues because they actually refer to space, this is not biological in se but refers to space. One in then left with how one relates space and time to form. I will explain, but first, if you can save me digging through your posts, are you fully for reductionism or not? I know you can listen, and write on clade logic, so I may just start from there, but I would prefer to initiate my response from a deeper physical (level of organization) layer, one where it would be more obvious that QM is applicable(Gould thought species selection real but not clade selection for instance).If you think that chemistry is good enough for whatever this place is, then that is fine. I understand. The issue then is that the effect of atomic repulsions does not have a large enough share of molecular biology. Chemistry study goes to0 slow with regard to studying attractions (bonding) let alone the dynamic forms of repulsions within systems of attractions. Part of the reason is chemistry's fault. As far as I looked into that, the reason for those kinds of delays are that really only in all gas states are the physics (virials) seemingly workable.Edited by Brad McFall, : youEdited by Brad McFall, : I hope this helpsEdited by Brad McFall, : study too

Here is "why" in Dr. Gladyshev's words he included in a post script today via EMAIL to me. There has to be one biological continuum (garnered by the nature of the diff. equations that does not use non-equilibria/synergism) no matter what the seperations/processes are unless there are more than one origins of life and then it is even more complicated (how then "range" is important). OK?I am not sure your characterization of Meiosis allows any relation of the Gladyshev's thermostat to interact at different times of development.

Yes, it is thermodynamics . .

quote:

---

Thermodynamic Self-Organization as a Mechanism of Hierarchical Structure Formation of Biological Matter in Progress in reaction Kietics and Mechanism Vol. 28 2003 pages 157-188

---

But what seemed to be lacking, in our EVC discussion prior (on information vs “Gladyshev” entropy was) this;

quote:

---

Macrothermodynamics of Biological Evolution Aging of Living Beings in Internation Journal of Modern Physics B Vol 18. 2004 1-25

---

.Dr.Gladshev had said,

quote:

---

op. cit. 180

---

.
Taken at face value this paragraph may inhibit someone from getting out of the habit of using “information” entropy when writing Macrothermodynamics but when read in conjunction with(Georgis’ marginalization’s are in pen, mine in pencil)

quote:

---

other op. cit. 21

---

quote:

---

other op. cit. 23

---

I am of the opinion that where Gould relates this figure

quote:

---

Structure of Evolutionary Theory page 872

---

, Gladyshev’s differential equations would permit a complete circuit (from A to B,to C,.. to a choice . ) I digrammed below(of course transmission of the information in thelines is being erased somewhat ( I can redraw them if you cant follow the gaps).

Click for full size imageQM directions would come into play, in the series, where the paths cross back to the begining. I can describe this in a little more detail if necessary. This may narratively put phenomenological thermodynamics in the place of De Vries' "rare mutable periods"

quote:

---

Structure of Evolutionary Theory page 435

---

and seems to respond to De Vries' use of Galton’s polyhedron depending on whether it is via the blue, red, or green arrow that after the choice-QM-wise one returns, in-cirucit shockingly over time.

quote:

---

Structure of Evolutionary Theory page 435

---

Part of the reason for not noticing this seems to be the failure to develop hierarchical homology.See PDF upload on my website(hierarchicalhomologyPDF)
http://axiompanbiog.com/comparisons.aspxThe double slit phenomenon would arise in terms of the relation of the width of the colored lines to the choice going around, this involves the place of biogeography, hence SOME space. It is my opinion that the hierarchical data expression of both biology and physics can only be worked out along the diagram such as this- which utlizes Shipley's ideas on importing econometrics into path analysis.I am working slowy on this circle turning via programming objects, see;
http://www.powerballs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2607

I think it means that QM matrix algebra separations may indeed be related to the meaning of the code. If you press me for some details on what it means for the genotype I will have to do/write quite a bit but in out-line it means:The variability in the environment (fractal structure of its description, including temperature changes) can produce large apparent changes (disjunctions/new topologies) in the phenotype (morphology); these surviving living things in a later environment that has gradual trends (no matter the prior variability (different physical parameters of the Gladyshev thermostat I propose) create a smooth bifurcation in the relation of genotype to phenotype such that RM&NS change the form-making and translation in space either in the extremes of in the centre of the “fan of diversity” (see http://www.axiompanbiog.com for my quoting of Gould on Darwin on this aspect of diversity).Whether it is the edge or the central portion depends on complicated aspects of the relation of hierarchies to the motion around so I may to try to describe this further.Depending on precisely how the deviation from the circle form occurs, I doubt, no matter what the genetics involved, that this scenario can be accomplished in the thousands of years. It probably requires millions at least. In order to accomplish this explanation I had to recognize that the term “environment” is over-valued. I know this is not how Gould uses the word, but I disagree with him on many points. He has tried to use the words “reptile design” in the same thought that uses “anatomical design”. I find this is confusing the relation of creation and evolution precisely in the time it may take to show that herps may have gone in this path overtime even if I end up creating a place for design”” at the outer time limits of my accomplishment. Gould made it clear he was not trying to speak of “new genetics” and thus I see no reason for not using his notions when trying to show the meaning of the code.Of course it could be that I have made it more complicated than it is. We do not have really a clear(fully reductionistic) understanding of how to “read” gene sequence data (even though Watson thinks we have the method for research "to say" we do do), I only suspect that this lack (or disagreement about future of molecular biology) is reflected on larger taxonomic levels. Panbiogeographers find that higher taxa groupings have meaning (findable by looking at common distributions among many taxa) where people like Gould have stuck to a more linear discussion of history from Linneaus down *past* the Genus to the deme for any dissaggreation of via sexuality between generations. I dont really find as much controversy here as can be gleaned from reading the literature in all.I don’t know if this post is any clearer. Let me know. Thanks, Brad.Also, Dr. Gladyshev has written briefly on QM ("superposition") and includes reference to materials studied by QMers (polymer structure) so it would be possible for me to make some rather direct predictions but this would take me time than I probably have at the moment to repose.