|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total) |
| |
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,358 Year: 1,004/14,102 Month: 407/597 Week: 17/168 Day: 17/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If any one has been following anthing that I have said, and indeed I guess perhaps no one has (the opposite of this opninion could be Wolfram for an instance if one insisted on comparison) I have pointed to Faraday "thermal contact" on various occassions. If I start from Wolfram's ideas then one gets abiogensis more from yours than Percy point of view (if i read any difference correctly) but I am and will continue to be headed in showing that should one grant assumed abiogenesis THEN there likely ARE specific thermo consequence associated with life. Right now I am working on the math as I have indicated prior Berry so though can speculate on the chemisty a bit as I did with Loudmouth yesterday it be best to hold that off too for now.
I will say and I want to should there be secifically NEW (aka chemistry and physics) information for thermodynaics it will be on this first formulation by means of unifiying the Baldwin effect in which a phenotypic property BECOMES genetcially transmissiable via the geography of Stablizing selection from some entropic center to perferiy and the other way around in fidelity to genetic assimilation on which flies 14 generations later had cross veinlessness due to heat shock in the thermal contact environment. The dificulty is getting the physical environement of the chemistry correct for any apriori. MY first circumscription involves usingFaraday's notion of electricty seeking the outside conductor but the actual biology may deviate from the diretives the calculations might restrain on the description. Equal energy would be available at this point in the work. The importance of right angles to thermodynamics would be renewed. I do not yet have any feeling if this only speaks of ecological density (AKA red in tooth and claw) or can speak directly of behvaior soley(AKA female salamander that uses energy to put an egg UP under a rock or FIRST climbs on the rock energetically and then Drops the EGG down to the stony texture.).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
No, it's just me. I have had a sustained thought working how one might be able to extract energy from what remains CONSTANT under biological change since the late 70s. I think Percy might have been correct that there was no "new" info about thermodynacis comeing out of abiogeneic studies. I have thought that e=mc^2 might not be immune to any anthing new in this regard. But that is "sanctified" speuclation only on my part while it can be more easily documented that since physicists do not do work from statistical physics say equally mentally on the 1st law thermo and the 2nd there can be little (short of Wolfram's most recent assertions notwithstanding(and I think they need even little more standing biologically but that is just me again))reason to think biologists of any kind have done any better. I know of none but I have not looked in the literature lately. Gould's last big book gave me no reason to look again. I do think however that historically the demise of Volta brought on by Faraday in part in end WHICH USED THE DEVICE OF THERMAL CONTACT might even be an early indication of the exitence of DNA chemically historically. I am in no position to write the history of biochemistry etc however. It was only a guess when considering VOTLA's response to Galvani's electrobiological ideas. Even if thermal currents WERE NOT indicative of transformed bacteria they could still be relevant to the issue of time in directive artifical selections and genetic engineering but sorting out the history of all this has to come once I have successive communicated my whole idea to some person or people. Alas that has not occurred. Dont give up the gun, I have yet to have this much fun in real"" life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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: <http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ttbea/> [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-22-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
---another e-mail from Russia---
Dear Brad, Thank you very much. My approach for understanding of thermodynamics of biological evolution and (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 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 Georgi
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Gladyshev thought this might clear up some of the differences.
RMODYNAMICS OF LIVING SYSTEM EVOLUTION, N.N.Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics 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. 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." “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.” 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. 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. 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. 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. In editorial paper published in a very authoritative journal “Entropy “ the editor-in-chief Dr. Shu-Kun Lin has written [16]: REFERENCES 1. Denbigh, K.G. Note on Entropy, Disorder and Disorganization. Brit. J. Phyl. Sci. 1989, 40, 323 -332. Additional information can be found on the Internet: http://www.endeav.org/evolut
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
There is no "error" only typos exist here.
quote: quote: 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: 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: 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: quote: quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 3818 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yeah that seems close enough to me, my own.
I think I understand and stood Georgi to indicate true, that he is not either accomodating "or" refuting creationism but dismissing it when it does not use thermodynamics in all its post Gibbsian glory and accepting it if it implies only change within his own "law". The difficulty is in first imagining the added issues that the difference of artifical and natural selection plys for said "isolationism". Unfortunately Gould sought to differentiate his view of ontogeny FROM Mayr's (1963 dismissal of deep homology) thus making a clear opening for Dawkins' writing style rather than recognizing that there IS a strand of thought available to the student that need not admit a common view of just what phylogeny "clumps" morphogenetically (Gould brought this so far as to use the word "thoracic" for both snakes and beetles) rather than showing that his reversal from his mentor's adaptation need NOT be aptive"" for a later generation of students of the synthesis. I know these sentences do not make things much better yet. (PS- Great to hear about you and Bates. I liked his other book "The Nature of Natural History", Gould surely was familiar with that!!) To me Dakwins misjudged the dovetailpenpoint of Gould but making macrothermodynamics Darwinian seems imperative. I have not worked out the exact quotes necessary to cut this difference between Gould and Dawkins. I am fairly certain such lingo exists however (I do not know if notions of "perfection" need be brought up or if Gould simply misread THE CARTESIAN(mathmatical) slide of D'Arcy Thompson ACROSS phylogeny(difference of mathematical philosophy and philosophical mathematics (this depends on how the general population of biologists accepts Gould's contribution, a stat I am not familiar with)(Gould *used* the relation of geometric and information duplication to wend a way between the conceptual differences of convergence and parallelism but I think algebraic rings can gainsay where Dawkins doubted the existence of Gould's use of hold and blueprint of the "design")). Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021