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
™ Version 4.0 Beta
