Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

The key in that work vis-a-vis life is simple - the state in disequilibrium is *stable* so long as it maintains an open thermodynamic environment. The degree of complexity does not determine the stability (aka, your claim), but rather, the ability to exchange energy & matter with the surrounding environment is what determines the stability. Ergo, more complex organisms are not more unstable simply due to their complexity; rather, their stability is determined by other factors.

For Bill and Rede I am arguing this because I like many scientists don't accept it. I am sorry that you find that wrong or that there is something going on with me but I am not here to be popular. Bill I take things often back into QM terms because that is where I am most comfortable nothing more nothing less.

Here is the background to the argument for your reference

You will note as discussed in the article Biological thermodynamics is in direct contrast between Ilya Prigogine dissipative systems and Hans Krebs and Alfred Lotka open thermodynamics and later picked up by Albert Lehninger

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

In 1982, American biochemist Albert Lehninger argued that the "order" produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the "disorder" they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. "Living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."

If you look that is exactly the open thermodynamics view that ImagingGeek is pushing.

So there is a deep divide in the science here and I find it alarming that as I roll the open entropy discussion back into the QM domain I can falsify it. Entropy for QM has no limits or boundaries it even bought some of the greats like Einstein and Hawkings undone.

Johannes Koelman has done what I consider a very good article on Entropy from a layman perspective in his article

I noticed someone has dealt with the obvious issue that if you can not cross the hurdle of entropy the idea is dead in the water a claim I stand by.

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

In a study titled "Natural selection for least action" published in the Proceedings of The Royal Society A., Ville Kaila and Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki describe how the second law of thermodynamics can be written as an equation of motion to describe evolution, showing how natural selection and the principle of least action can be connected by expressing natural selection in terms of chemical thermodynamics. In this view, evolution explores possible paths to level differences in energy densities and so increase entropy most rapidly. Thus, an organism serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow successive organisms to transfer more energy within their enviroment.

Physics.Org carries a layman reduction of the paper

Give me a chance to read the paper and I will see if I am willing to give open thermodynamics a chance. The comic on Johannes Koelman's article says it all your theory run up against the information entropy law then your theory is most certainly wrong.

Can I ask if your theory is compatable with John Avery Scales version Evolution and QM Information it will make terms alot easier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scales_Avery)

The apparent paradox between the second law of thermodynamics and the high degree of order and complexity produced by living systems, according to Avery, has its resolution "in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources"

To the rest of you please note:

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

Entropy and the origin of life

The second law of thermodynamics applied on the origin of life is a far more complicated issue than the further development of life, since there is no "standard model" of how the first biological lifeforms emerged; only a number of competing hypotheses. The problem is discussed within the area of abiogenesis, implying gradual pre-Darwinian chemical evolution. In 1924, Alexander Oparin suggested that sufficient energy was provided in a primordial soup. The Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine was awarded with a Nobel prize for an analysis in this area. A related topic is the probability that life would emerge, which has been discussed in several studies, for example by Russell Doolittle.[12]

A reasonable discussion on


Curiously, to note, in laying out this argument they choose to utilize Helmholtz free energy (constant volume processes) rather than Gibbs free energy (constant pressure processes), which can explain the formation of biological structures. It is likely that Prigogine chooses his presentation in this manner so as to not effect a weakening in his later arguments; in the sense that he wants to discredit any detail not in alignment with his view that nonequilibrium thermodynamics is the key to explain biological evolution.

So even in 1972 there was two directly competing theories.

You may also like to read
http://www.eoht.info/page/Human+thermodynamics take note of the modern perspectives section.

So I fail to see how I can be called argumentative just because I don't accept ImagingGeeks very singular view. I am condescending of him because he thinks Entropy is something that doesn't matter. QM bought greats like Hawking (Black hole information paradox) and Einstein (Einstein model of a solid) theories down with it do you think we are going to let biology get a freee ride.

What I finding interesting is the certainty ImagingGeek portraits in his theory and you all go along for the ride. I don't even claim that with the Big Bang, Universe expansion or even the discovery of the Higgs. Normal sane scientists discuss openly the possibilities of conflicting theories but apparently the thermodynamics of evolution of life only has one theory according to all you people and the science is settled so perhaps you can show me the proof laugh

For a comparisson here was the latest from Jester
(http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/when-shall-we-call-it-higgs.html). You will note the H-Word is still banned at CERN probably because they are hard scientists and actually care that they get the truth.

Last edited by Orac; 03/04/13 07:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.