Evolution or Devolution?

Well, yes. But.........You need to be very careful to define all the terms.In this case, "order" is defined as "a system under constant pressure with a small number of accessible microstates". "Disorder" is defined as "a system under constant pressure with a large number of accessible microstates". A "microstate" is defined as "a particular set of values for velocity and position of the atoms or molecules that make up the system". A cold solid crystal has many fewer accessible microstate than the same matter heated to a gas. In particular, a microstate is not a particular arrrangement of macroscopic objects. See Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense!.

In referring to there being any genetic links between some of us (Europeans) and them it may not be conclusive in the sense that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but that is what the evidence suggests so far. As noted in other posts, even if there was some interbreeding after they made contact other evidence is against your devolution theory.However, the lack of any connection at all in the mtDNA tends to destroy you devolution idea. You have misread what the study is looking for.From your reference's abstract:

quote:

---

In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution.

---

A "smaller contribution" is not what your speculation would predict.In addition, the separate evolution has already been pointed out in other posts.

I am of course aware that this paper does cite evidence in favour of the proposition that neanderthal mitochondrial DNA did not contribute to early modern humans. However the crucial point is made that this contribution cannot be ruled out with such a small sample: There are other problems with drawing such definite conclusions about the neanderthal contribution to the human genome. First, the results pertain only to mitochondrial DNA which is only passed from mother to child. So, if there were some interbreeding and it were generally the case that the husband moved to join the race of his wife there would be no trace of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in the modern human genome. If Neanderthal nuclear DNA were studied then the results would be more accurate as nuclear DNA is passed on by both parents. However, as yet no examples of Neanderthal nuclear DNA have been successfully extracted so there is no conclusive evidence that Neanderthal nuclear genes have not been passed on to the human gene pool. It is also possible that modern man has, in his gene pool, contributions from lines of Neanderthal man that predate those Neanderthal fossils from whom the samples were taken. Some time in the past, selection for a favourable mitochondrial genotype may have caused that genotype to spread across the globe eliminating much of the earlier mtDNA diversity. If that were the case then Mt DNA sequences from Neanderthal remains predating that change would differ from ours, even if Neanderthals were among our ancestors.

Since the paper does not rebut any of the points I made it is reasonable to assume that you intended it as a response to my request for evidence FOR Kerner's claims.If the best you can manage is a statement that the data is not adequate to prove Kerner wrong on one minor point then I really have to ask what possible reason do you have for beleiving Kerner's claims ?

Alll of this discussion is trying to suggest there might have been some interbreeding. However, you are trying to support a direct descent from the Neanderthals. The difficulty of finding any connection suggests this is nonsense. The other evidence of separate locations for ancestry more or less nails that speculations coffin lid shut.One more time, since you seem to have missed it, we are NOT discussing whether there was any interbreeding or not.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-28-2005 13:26 AM

quote:

---

There are other problems with drawing such definite conclusions about the neanderthal contribution to the human genome. First, the results pertain only to mitochondrial DNA which is only passed from mother to child. So, if there were some interbreeding and it were generally the case that the husband moved to join the race of his wife there would be no trace of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in the modern human genome. If Neanderthal nuclear DNA were studied then the results would be more accurate as nuclear DNA is passed on by both parents. However, as yet no examples of Neanderthal nuclear DNA have been successfully extracted so there is no conclusive evidence that Neanderthal nuclear genes have not been passed on to the human gene pool.

---

It is true that only mitochondrial Neandertal DNA has been studied. There have been numerous studies of X, Y and autosomal genetic diversity in modern humans, however, and they all paint a consistent picture, one in which modern humans evolved in Africa and subsequently spread elsewhere, with little or no genetic input from non-African archaic humans. It is not impossible that there are bits of such archaic DNA here and there in modern genomes, but the overall demographic picture means that they would be regional variants, present in some geographic areas and not in others; there simply has not been enough gene flow back into Africa for them to have become fixed in the entire population. So whatever genes Neandertals might have contributed to modern humans, they weren't many and they won't be present in much of the modern population. Anything genetic that characterizes our species as a whole did not come from Neandertals.

Biggerstaff thinks that there is an orderable nexus between universal entropy and biological order or at least supports Kerner as to c/e but I dont think this synthesizes the hierarchy properly.The kind of order that results from that view is more like what a JAVA programmer experiences than what I think the science remands. Namely that there is restrictive access across levels of organization much like if not ideally in the case where one can have a class be subclass of another OR is a has a relationship. I dont think that that is what the relation of entropy devolves to however even though this is not incompatible with an understanding based on PARTICULATION reasoned from quantum states rather than a diffennt assignment of weightable values. It is just that physicists not aliens have reasoned thoughts in their human possession without attempting to incorporate genetical continutity. Delbruk , Elssaser, Crick among the notables did not exist when transformational grammars might be applied to their own data sets.The current field of biological sequence analysis is set up to use stochastic regular grammars to sort differences of paralogous and orthologous sequence duplications. The divergence thus found by any grey might be associated physically by the existence of a transformational grammer TO whatever the non-biological equivlanet of the homology bound by evolutionary theory here on earth but this would have to be subject to arguments about Gibbs paradox which seem to resolve otherwise when it comes to the non off by a factor equality of the SYMMETRIC relation in the hierarchy, some such wich would be necessary if our brains were to have had this knowledge not of us.The problem arose for physicists who thought they too much about the classical conditions and thus in the case that the paralogous and othrologous sequence comparative programs did have the same asymptotic density it was inconsequential that a partition existed no matter what the relation of the biochemistry IS to the origin of genetic information. Specifically there was no weight to the physicists argument that S= S +S in this case where a homologous Gibbs compatible lawabiding reality bound the separation between the hierarchy. It was not that quantum mechanics permitted one to understand how S infinty as T 0 where all the 1st law thermo remained valid but that the living thermostat was not dependent on a solution that divided by N!. All this stuff about aliens confused here the relation of >> and ++ 1-D symmetries IN VIEW OF JAVA TYPE understanding.The expression for S(nklnV+2/3lnT+ 3/2ln(2piemk/ho^2) +3/2) DID NOT yield simple additivity because it constructs the homologous sequence under Georgi Gladyshevs law thus no matter what the Grey is made of , whatever its genetic equivalent is the interchange of molecular position does matter unlike in physics such that a separate creation occurs when speciation happens without any change in the thermostat. Humans today think a transformational grammer is sufficient to decode this relationship but it isonly that entropy is not properly reasoned where these grammars dont work as drift as understood in this context of a stochastic grammer DOES depend differently for each locomotion PER migratons which did not exist for Fishers environment that saw fitness like entropy increase but entropy does not either stochastically affect it for it is the thermostat capacity dependent on >> where ++ symmetry matters relative to the biochem no matter the biophysics of Sexpressed above but specifically NOT by the current use of N! subtractions.Adsorbabilty and chromatography are twodiffernt things. Gladyshevs law addresses when the the molecules per life are COMPLETELY INDISINGUISHABLE.Quotes
Kestin, Joseph, 1966. A COURSE IN THERMODYNAMICS Blaisdell Publishing Company:Waltham Massachusetts page 578

quote:

---

The mixing terms (13.28) obviously do not exist if the components are identical, for then no diffusive process sets in when the partition is removed. On the other hand, the full amount of entropy is produced even if the gases are made to approach each other continuously, the same amount of entropy is produced at each stage, provided the composition is the same, except in the limit, when it suddenly vanishes. This conclusion is certainly unexpected. It is known under the name of {Gibbs paradox after J.W. Gibbs who was the first to notice it. As pointed out by A. SommerfledThermodyanmics and Stastistical Mechanics, translated by J Kestin(Academic, 1956), p.80), in view of the atomistic nature of substances, including gases, the difference between their properties can never be made vanishingly small, and the mental process of continuously changing their properties to a common limit has no counterpart in nature. As long as the gases are..completely indistinguishable.

---

Jammer, Max, 1966The CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT of QUANTUM MECHANICS McGraw-Hill Book Company:New York

quote:

---

This raises the question: Was it possible that other problems at issue at the time, if worked out consistently , could have brought about the same conceptual reorientations as did the problem of black-body radiation? And perhaps in a logically less complicated way? Consider, for example, the well known irreconcilability with classical physics of the specific heat of solids at low temperatures, a problem whose solution was obtained de facto in terms of concepts formed in solving the black-body problem. One may conjecture how an independent and consistent solution of this problem on specific heat would have influenced the progress of theoretical physics. It seems highly probable that in this hypothetical case energy quantization of material systems(atoms or molecules) would have preceded that of waves and the approach to quantum theory would have been conceptually less difficult.
It may even be argued that the energy quantization of atoms, at least so far as their ground state is concerned, could have been inferred without great difficulties from the empirical foundations of the classical kinetic theory . Did not the fundamental observation that the specific heat per mole of monatomic gas at constant temperature 3/2R clearly indicate, if explained as it was in terms of average kinetic energy 3/2kT, that any energy supplied to the gas can increase only the kinetic energy of the atoms and not the energy of the internal motions of their constituent parts, whatever they were thought to be? Was it not common knowledge that in the process of atomic or molecular collisions the kinetic energy of particles, (Today this fact is explained by saying that the kinetic energy of particles, which at room temperatures of the order o 1/40eV, is much too small to excite the atom, its excitation energy being of the order of a few electron volts.) In retrospect it seems quite possible that a profound critical study of these and similar facts could have led to anticipating the idea of energy quantizations of atoms many decades before Bohr and thus to a more convient approach to quantum-theoretic conceptions. For, as it has once been said, research is to see what everybody has seen and to think what nobody has thought. But post iacturam quis non sapit?.

---

The mental process of continually changing properties to a (common limit) does exist in the subjectivity of the baraminologist when not the systematic taxonomist ..when it vanishes(Kestin) this is either the result of gene duplication or species duplication in the baramin and is only unexpected if one insists on genic selection is or only a higher level selectionism mutally exclusively .But it is obvisouly not only entropy that reordered the Question Jamer rasises with the answer to post iacturam quis non sapit non?This IS a commoner knowledge that mutations might add a process of atomic and molecular collisions where at internal motions in the thought of a monotamoic specific heat 3/2R are possibly increased either in kinetic energy itself of internally bound energy.You can search the web and find what everybody thought that nobody researches. This the defacto state of physics does not need to prehistoricize Bohr it bears only on the labyrinth of nongrounded state atomic data fields kept separate by baraminologists but allowed to fuse by evolutionist. You cannot pas the buck to biology as Dennet said of Chomskisms in Darwins Dangerous Idea but biochemistry is a long way from language about origin of genetic information and entropy while workable biologically need not be the future of the psychology involved.Thus while Sommerfeld reasoned in view of this atomistic nature o substances that the property differences can never be vanishingly small the evolutionary adaptibilty of fitness dependent on every such vanishing differences can produce molecular biologies where the convergence exceeds teat created from nonevolving processed systems.Thus while it is strictly true that the mental pictureKThe higher level processes in evolutionary biology (under current investigations)do enable this mental thought process to be modified by biochemical reality even while say mass is not infinitesimally divisible within the nucleus.This is why it is that a homologic ensemble that links statistical relations of speciated duplication lexos and gene duplication lexos and why Goulds pronouncements on genic selectionisms (as mere accounting) are true. So while we have somewhat the ability to address the lower bound at this time the upper is in some dispute until a deductive biogeography can be constructed. This however can never change the account in the genic selectionst favor. It can only show the biological SUBTRACTION more closely resembles the quantum mechanical solution@(N!).Rather than applying quantum mechanics and dividing out N! form results pertaining to Gibbs paradox we find evolutionarily that in any statistical mechanics used to bind othrologic and paralogic bifurcation and contemplated by wolfram and transform grammarians we had a homologic ensemble instead which is adapted thus (such that) no prior programming can determine what the course as in nature.Instead gladyshevslaw gives the biological correction. This is also lakes predictive consequences for attempts to abiotically fashion life if more than one ensemble exists as occurs every time man attempts to make this life.Thus while a given lineage has its oen monphyletic division less than N! The reduction to N! at the origin of life is not commutative even in the ideality that is not. This requires actual of use the classical partition function to relate order and complexity and entropy. I have not done it but I WOULD use this particular integration if I could. No alien can take that away from a human.If you think the post is premature and too messy, just ignore it I as going to work on my math first but if it helps in anyway then it might have served for being timely as well. For the rewrite will involve the use of an alternative to QM in DIVIDING what was classically a problem with flame spectra data rather than any idea of nonearthlife statistics in the same circuit of interactive electrons (electron orbit shape vs noncurrentatomelectron orbits). If you are more concerned with the genetical implications I am drawing you can take them up elsewhere but the physics I am just starting to figure out.

How about an answer to Message 54?

This is the "blueprint" behind all my overzealous words. Figuring out the physical implications is not easy. As that happens I deflate any Dawkins' pheneocopy (first seen in flies I think) that a meme might have wrongly coopted at the point of arguments about the large numbers to abiogenesis generally. Interestingly as I started to comprehend the physics it turns out the biology DECREASES the number of permutations in calculation. I still cant do the integration so the blueprint is "off color" as long as that doesnt occurr but there is no reason to agree with extrasolarsystem life in my sense so far.The qualification in the diagram I entered after situating the difference of two physical quantifications was,"This is a(this letter was not included by me wrongly-ed. note) potential relation between levels and precludes genic selectionism for an aposteriori population strucuture constructed from molecular proportions."I found it quite interesting to notice how Jammer describes some thought of Bohr after I constructed this diagram after reading biggerstaff's post.
Max Jammer "the conceptual development of quantum mechanics" page116-7

quote:

---

"The earliest allusion to such a conception may perhaps be found as early as 1921 in a paper119 in which Bohr breifly discussed the function of teh principle. In his statement that the principle originated "in an effort to attain a simple asymptotic agreement between the spectrum and the notion of an atomic system in the limiting region where the stationary states differ relatively only a little from each other,"¹²⁰ he apparently tried to describe the principle without reference to conceptions extraneous to quantum theory. In accordance with his insistance on the irreconcilability of quantum theory with classical mechanics and electrodynamics, he regarded the correspondence principle as merely affirming a formal analogy of heuristic value. Although his numerous and often somewhat conflicting statments, made from 1920 to 1961, on the essence of the correspondence principle¹²¹ it seems that at the time under discussion, that is, in the early twenties, he did not view the principle as implying the inclusion of classical physics within quantum theory. Not only would such a conception have contradicted, of course, his fundamental dialectics of the irreconcilability just mentioned, but it would also have implied that a quantum-theoretic theorem makes an assertion on classical physics. Bohr's attitude, at least at that time, was well described by Kramers¹²³ when he wrote in 1923: "Bohr expressed himself in his talks somewhat as follows: classical as well as quantum theory are each as a description of nature merely a caricature; it allows, so to speak, in two extreme regions of phenomena an asymptotic presentation of physical reality."¹²⁴

---

I have attempted not only to describe an effort to attain asymptotic agreement (not in terms of light but interms of comptuer logical locations of sequence data) but I related *that* thought which contained TWO DIFFERENTLY APPROACHABLE quantizations(quantity meausres of data) (two regions if you will (gene,species)) but found where the experimental philosophy DIFFERS from a purely quantum mechanical perspective if that perspective rejected (as say per Jammer on Bohr) classical physics (as if contradictory in principle). My own failure to complete the integration may be no fault of my own but instead a reflection of already exising culutrally retained physical reality I am just uneducated on. I dont know. There is no contradiction in the biological data if all this works and if this is indeed the univocal same as Gladyshev's assertion of "no contra" that berberry noticed then there is some significant progress being made c/e wise.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-01-2005 16:29 AM

Heck, I'm still waiting for a response to Message #10.

What you're trying to do is fit a pet theory into the nooks and crannies of current knowledge. Hypotheses with genuine possibilities have positive supporting evidence, but you're promoting the hypothesis of human descent from Neandertals hypothesis by seeking ways in which it isn't contradicted by known evidence. While you can claim your idea hasn't yet been falsified, until you have positive supporting evidence it's really only an idea.But let's not lose track of the original point, which is that humans devolved from predecessors. The evidence cited for this hypothesis so far is a misunderstanding of 2LOT, an as yet unsupportable claim of Neandertal descent, a claim that only 10% of our brain is actually used, and a claim that future evolution is anticipated in existing genomes.The 2LOT argument, the 10% argument and the future evolution argument are all wrong and nothing can change that, but it is relevant to ask the question of how well Neandertal descent, if found to be true, would support your hypothesis of devolution. Standing in isolation from any other supporting evidence, and given the mountains of evidence for evolution both in genetics and in the fossil record, the hypothesis of devolution can't even be cast as an interesting proposal, let alone a working hypothesis. You need much more supporting evidence, especially of the genetic variety.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 03-01-2005 09:22 AM

This reply is to all who are waiting for replies from me.I started this discussion because I was so impressed with the comprehensive nature of Nigel Kerner's book and the answers he gives to the existential questions that he poses. This is essentially a holistic book approaching many other important issues, not only the evolution/creationist debate. Looking at the points that have emerged through this debate on EvC forum it is apparent to me that it is very difficult to isolate this one debate from all the others in the book and view it out of context. There is an overall context of the theses contained within this book. That context is based upon an understanding of what might lie before the big bang - before the limits of a physical universe of separated parts. A 'universe of the whole' that is infinite in scope and therefore without limit - this is the logical derivation if events are traced back to the singularity point of the big bang from which the momentum of separation happened. It seems that there are two others who have entered this debate Dr.Silverman and Dr.Biggerstaff who are scientists that have read this book and can perhaps take the discussion further. I myself am not a scientist, and I do not have at my fingertips all the research papers and evidence required to take this further. I also feel that the book itself - 'The Song of the Greys' has to be read to understand any of the theses presented within it. It has prompted great interest both from scientists and 'lesser mortals' like myself and is well worth a read for anyone with the intelligence to understand it especially if they have a deep and abiding interest in answering key existential questions.I apologise to those waiting for replies from me. My commitments to work and family preclude me spending hours and hours on the internet. I am amazed that so many people have so much time to devote to these forums.

I don't think that many of the points raised here require much knowledge to answer if Kerner genuinely did present a strong case. The answers should be in the book. That no strong case has been presented for any of them (and some in the opening post have been quitely dropped) speaks volumes for the thoroughness of Kerner's work.We already know that some of the points raised are wrong or speculate against the evidence. We don't know that ANY of them are true. NONE of them have been adequately supported.

It is very doubtful that they are scientists. Scientists, just from sheer habit alone if nothing else, would be looking for support from the scientific literature and not from a book written for the lay public and whose theories based upon aliens and sheer speculation put it well into the realm of science fiction. Though Silverman and Biggerstaff posted from different places, one in the states and one in Europe (based upon their IPs), given the similarity of viewpoint and writing style they were likely written by the same person. It is rare that two people promote the same unusual viewpoint here, and three is unheard of. Much more common is multiple registrations to give the appearance of greater numbers. Not very likely.--Percy

I have been very willing throughout to justify my claims by reference to the scientific literature (Boltzmann, Prof Sir Hermann Bondi and Schrodinger to name but a few) and if you ever read Kerner's work I am sure you will find that he does too.
I frankly find your patronising didactic stance rather amusing.In particular the implication that my definitions (of 2LOT) may not be accepted even if they are axiomatically consistent with accepted laws of physics and are logically self consistent unless I recant on Kerner's alleged heresy seems very bizarre.
As for the accusation of multiple registrations all I can say is you seem to have a very active imagination. I have only registered once.