|
Author
|
Topic: Is 2nd Law a special case of 4th Law?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. September 2006 06:24
Chris
The diagram you present is not from my Manifesto.
As for the causes of extinction, we still do not know. I think many species became extinct because they were preprogrammed to become extinct. Since everything else was "prescribed," why not extinction as well? Without extinction there could never have been evolution. As Raup has claimed, we still do not know the causes of the many extinctions that have taken place. I doubt very much if they were the result of catastrophic events. They may not even have been due to the accumulation of defective genes.
Once again Leo Berg comes up with a very reasonable exlanation -
"The extinction of organisms is due to inner (autonomic) and external (choronomic) causes."
Nomogenesis, page 407
I am inclined to the view that the entire scenario was planned from beginning to end and I still see no role for chance in any aspect of either ontogeny or phylogeny. I do not expect others to agree with me but I challenge them to show that I am wrong. I regard that as quite impossible or I wouldn't be issuing the challenge. None of my other several challenges have ever been met either. Darwinians continue, as they always have, to pretend that they never had any critics. It is a scandal if you ask me so don't ask.
The present extinction, the one Leakey calls the sixth extinction, is very definitely the result of our willful, mindless destruction of our environment.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 30. September 2006 10:45
John,
My apologies - the diagram strictly speaking is not from your manifesto. However it is a joining together of information in Figures 6 and 7 (p39 and p40). Also I did put in the K-T boundary myself and perhaps I should not have done this. The extinction may well have been some time before this.
I also stand corrected on another score - on re-reading your manifesto I cannot find any place where you draw attention to the fact that this cycle of growth - statis - distortion -extinction is similar to that of a living organism. This was something that I must have noted and then attributed falsely to you. Hope you will forgive me. What you say is interesting - quoting: quote:
Another, apparently universal feature of orthogenesis is that new life forms typically appear as small organisms which subsequently become larger and more specialized. This tendency is obvious in dinosaurs, titanotheres (Figure 5) and ammonites (Figure 6) and has been discussed at length by Shindewolf. He identified three phases in the evolutionary process which he regarded as having been episodic and cyclic in nature. The first phase which involves the rapid establishment of new forms he termed typogenesis. The slower second phase of elaboration and diversification he called typostasis. The third phase, typolysis, is characterized by gigantism and overspecialisation often coupled with bizarre morphological developments (Figure 7). This phase ends with extinction. The reality of these phases is well documented but the causes remain obscure.
That "the causes remain" obscure is interesting. I guess the issue is whether or not the cause is due to the degradation of the species (genera's - order's?) genome? -Chris
[ 01. October 2006, 03:41: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. September 2006 11:26
Chris
I no longer regard the causes as obscure. I now regard extinction as a part of an entirely preprogrammed and planned sequence. The extinction of the species is the phylogenetic counterpart to the death of the individual organism. The dinosaurs would have died even if there had been no catastrophic cause for their demise. The giant amphibians that preceeded them died for the same reasons as did the giant Titanothore mammals that followed them.
I am now convinced that it was neither bad genes nor bad luck that were the necessary causes of extinction. Extinction was just one more feature of a prescribed evolution.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 30. September 2006 11:53
Regarding quantum mechanics and their role in phylogeny and ontogeny and really all of design:
Quantum theory guarantees that evolution will eventually cease if it has not already. von Neuman showed that the 2nd law can be derived from Quantum theory. It that light, it is really the ultimate role of Quantum Mechanics in ontogeny and phylogeny that it prescribes the end of all things. It prescribes their erosion and extinction. Quantum Mechanics does not prescribe the original design, it does however prescribe the extinction (through things like the 2nd and 4th law).
Quantum mechanics permits presribed systems to evolve, but it does not create them.
Prescribed laws are cybernetic laws and not physical laws. Actually physical laws are somewhat somewhat in opposition to a cybernetic law.
For example, the computer is prescribed to function a certain way, the way it should function is the cybernetic law which is designed adheres to. When something is broken it broken with respect to the cybernetic which precribes it's purpose...
Physical laws like thermodynamics and quantum uncertainty tend work against the desired functioning of the computer, against the cybernetic law. Engineers have to design the system to resist the disordering effects of physical law (like quantum noise and entropy). Even with that, the computer can't last forever....
Engineers like me have to figure ways to make our prescribed goals overcome the tendencies of physical law to impede the goal of our design. We have to use physical laws to implement our cybernetic laws, but physical laws, like entropy also tend to eventually erode the ideal of our cybernetic law. We see this in biology with the case of death and extinction.
[ 30. September 2006, 12:29: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 30. September 2006 11:55
Richard Oldani,
Welcome to our discussion. I very much welcome your expertise into our musings here.
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. September 2006 15:34
Salvador
Well I am greatly relieved to know that thermodynamics allowed evolution to take place!
I am still unable to see how it can be applied to further our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny. I guess it is just too esoteric for my taste. I am just a poor bench physiologist.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 30. September 2006 18:32
In order to perhaps clarify the relevance of these theoretical discussion toward your work, the issues of the 4th law give us some idea of the degree of information storage an organism must have in order to evolve.
For example, information contained in the ancestral lineages from the first created creatures derepreses into the descendant forms. The 4th law affirms this hypothesis, and affirms it is unlikely that environmental factors had much to do with the appearance of complexity in the descendant life forms. Some how it was stored in the ancestors and then de-repressed later (the term in the parlance of information science is "decompress" versus "de-repress").
Specified complexity allows for error-correction, thus keeping the effects entropy in check to a small degree. Entropy described by the 4th and 2nd law cannot be a creative force, only a destructive force.
Thus you are right, entropy from quantum noise has little to do with driving phylogeny or ontogeny. Still, since information is processed at the quantum level in biology, quantum theory is relevant in terms of understanding the underlying mechanics of how information is stored and process. Much like information is stored in your computer's memory, there is a quest to discover how it may have been stored and de-repressed from ancestral organisms.
These discussions lead to the exploration of the necessary minutia at the molecular and quantum level where that information may have resided.
My hope is that some of the artifacts of the ancestral form are still lying around in the descendants. Perhaps we can one day simulate the de-repression. That would vindicate your theory. I have proposed this for the marsupial and placental convergence.
In any case, that is something of the relevance of the discussion. I apologize for it's esoteric nature, but that is where my delight is. There are seemingly endless formalities and minutia, but that is the nature of rigorous mathematical trivialities so typical of the disciplines which explore these ideas.
regards,
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. October 2006 03:29
Salvador
I think it is the other way around. It has already been established that gene families thought to be of recent origin are present in very primitive organisms like the planula larva of the coral that I mentioned in my 2005 Rivista paper. That is what leads me to consider evolution as a progressive loss of information, a narrowing of potentialites. This can explain why no contemporary organisms can evolve any more. All they can do is become extinct.
I also predict that embryonic or larval forms will be found to be genetically more complex than the adult forms into which they transform. It is transformations in the embryo that were important in creating new species. Any genetic change that affects only the adult, like eye color, has no evolutionary significance. The only problem is that there is no evidence that evolution is any longer possible, something the Darwinians completely ignore.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 01. October 2006 14:01
Salvador,
I am directing this to you because you seem to have a better grasp of thermodynamics and quantum theory (and because you answered my post). I see the present discussion as totally missing the point as to what thermodynamics has to say about life. Before anything else we have to reconsider the fundamentals.
First, increasing entropy is a particle concept. We have no way of measuring the disorder of molecular structure even though molecules can store energy and conduct energy flow. In conventional thermodynamics the energy conducted by molecular bonds is ignorable because the kinetic energy of gas molecules far outweighs contributions due to bonds. However, the more complex a molecule is the more energy in can retain and the less quickly it can move translationally. Therefore the second law as written does not apply. We must describe increases of energy not in terms of particle motions but in terms of internal bonds. Using this new concept of energy let's take a look at the other thermodynamic laws. The first law (from Wikipedia) states:
The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.
In the case of molecular bonds no work is done on the surroundings by an increase of energy. Therefore this law also does not apply. Finally consider the third law:
As a system approaches absolute zero all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value.
This law does not consider the internal energy of molecular bonds either. As an example consider the freezing of sperm or the possibility of suspended animation by cryogenics. These bonds still exist and retain energy even though translational motion has ceased. Thermodynamics was not designed with living organisms in mind so it should not be a surprise that they cannot be accomodated by it.
In my previous post, I described how energy increase is to be handled as a field/bond effect within quantum mechanics just because thermodynamics is totally inadequate to deal with them. If you will look at it again you will see that thermodynamics is added in afterwards not as usual in terms of the energy due to particle motions but in terms of particle motions caused by energy flow.
Richard
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 01. October 2006 22:34
Hi Mel,
quote:
If pi is [m] k-complex [having no valid informational context], then how do the folks in Andromeda recognize it? We choose the truncated string to represent the ratio [circumference / diameter] for a circle.
I think that the infinite pi string converges exponentially to [m]k-complexity not that the Pi ratio itself is devoid of form or devoid a valid informational context. You seem to have grasped this in your following post (with which I think I agree almost completely). Pi is a single amplitude that diverges positively from 0 to 3.14... The Pi amplitude has a single threshhold. IE. "3.14.... ..587.." is at the threshold whereas "...588.." at this same point in the string, is beyond Pi's threshold. The complexity of the Pi string makes is appear that the Pi ratio is very complex and extremely information rich (CSI ?). I am questioning whether the Pi string really contains this density of information given the meaning of it in our math-language. The Pi string, as I see it, is not devoid of "a valid informational context" but it is not information rich (CSI) either. The complexity of the Pi string makes it appear that the Pi amplitude itself is complex or has a complex threshold. I am pointing to what I see as a display problem--({m}k-complexity wrt. the threshhold). As I see it, there is but a single (simple) Pi amplitude and a single threshold that only appears complex when "decimated."
[ 01. October 2006, 22:35: Message edited by: William Brookfield ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 01. October 2006 23:48
Richard
You may want to consider the vibrational energy in molecules as that becomes significant with the issues you are raising.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. October 2006 09:39
I have no idea what you folks are talking about so I will now take my leave.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 02. October 2006 11:11
Hi Richard, Like Sal I would also like to give you a warm welcome - your contributions in QM will be of immense help. Sadly I did not understand all of your 1st post. Some concepts are unfamiliar to me. Please help me to change this by providing the reference to your publication and by answering some questions from time to time. quote:
We have no way of measuring the disorder of molecular structure even though molecules can store energy and conduct energy flow.
This I find difficult. Surely at temperature T the electronic, but mainly lower energy rotational and vibrational energy states of the molecule each have a certain probability of being excited? If so the molecule does have Shannon entropy = log2(W) proportional to thermodynamic entropy =k.ln(W) - W being the number of complexions possible at temperature T for the molecule. Is this not correct?
-Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. October 2006 12:59
Richard
Welcome and I appreciate your thoughtful input. Please excuse my delay in responding. I don’t work with thermodynamic equations everyday so I have to read more and think more before I respond. I admit a lack of understanding as to how the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to living systems. Did it not come about after a long process to understand chemical reactions? Is not a living system considered by science to be nothing more than an amalgamation of chemical reactions?
In the search for the affinity which causes chemical reactions have we not all come to agree that the natural catalyst is the decrease of “free energy?” Is it not true that in general, the more dramatic the decrease the more likely the reaction? It might appear to the objective observer that the universe can’t wait to die. After all, it seems as though all of its systems are rushing toward the place where they can’t do anything, all except the living systems. They seem bent on survival. It seems to me that survival is the most unnatural of enterprises. It is certainly unnecessary and extremely unlikely. I am simply saying that these observations point to design. What say you with respect to design?
William
It seems that the consensus here is that pi is not “information rich.” Since I can’t think of an argument against, I will acquiesce.
Chris
Thanks for the Sanford reference, it sounds interesting.
John
Sorry to see you leave the discussion, your perspective is eye opening and I love your quotes:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. October 2006 15:38
I may kibitz but thermogodammics, as a friend once described it, is not my forte. I am just a poor retired bench scientist who was dumb enough, twenty-two years ago, to tackle the biggest mystery in all of biological science - organic evolution.
Most of my quotes are from my sources, some of the finest minds of two centuries. The signature below is mine and will never be reconciled with the Darwinian fairy tale.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
