My problems are so deep and fundemental I have stopped even bothering to try and argue my argument ImagingGeek. What I am trying to do is to fill in the chasms of science between us.

I am ignoring my argument not because I think it's wrong but because there are some basics here that are so flawed it is like arguing with a creationist or Paul. Until you understand the science flaws and problems and we address them arguing the actual description is pointless.

Now you may argue I have similar flaws on biology and my biology is limited so there is indeed some confusion between us but I think much of it is the chasm of science betweeen us.

I am not backing away from any of my statements and we will hopefully get back to each and every one if you hang in.

My problems from your above post and I will deal with them in order of science concern for me


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

But for 2 major issue:
1) as far as we can tell, you've not accurately described what QM says about thermodynamics - indeed, what you've claimed runs contrary to Gibbs, Ilya, etc.

Hmmm where to even start with this mess and lets see if I can do it at a layman level.

Note I am not even going to bother with my argument at the moment I literally want to fill in some of the gaps

Please read carefully the article(

There are two sorts of entropy systems discussed being Helmholtz free energy and Gibbs free energy. Ilya Prigogine chose Helmholtz free energy.

Now if you read the link (
The key point is "The Helmholtz free energy is commonly used in experiments such as in explosives research (where explosive reactions by their nature induce pressure changes)."

So what Ilya is doing is literally equating life as an explosion. So if we take that out the more complex an organism the further from equilibrium it is and the more pressure it took to get it there.

That is about as layman as I can write it and we can expand it from there and discuss implications as we need.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

2) you (and AFAIK, all physicists) have yet to demonstrate that QM processes operate at any measurable level at the macromolecular level of biology.

And that is where I just start rolling my eyes and realise how little you know of QM.

The atoms in your biology is based on QM, the reactions and there rate are controlled by QM and as far as we know all energy in every system ever studied from black holes and suns to galaxies and the universe can be defined by it's equations.

Every process in your biology could be described by QM it's just a little more complex for the actually biologists to learn. Some of your people like John Scales Avery are trying perhaps I could recommend you try reading his book "Information Theory and Evolution".

I would also point out that when you biologists actually bother to start looking for QM effects funny how you find them

The initial discovery of QM in photosynthesis

The follow up checking

That I believe falsifies your statement from above at even the most crass level.

At a more advanced level in your layman terms QM is acting like a catalyst and that should at least get you questioning what else it may be involved in. If it pricked your interest nature did a good article and note the first sentence(

At the most advanced level layman often confuse QM not realising it is simply a description of the universe as we know it. QM itself is responsible for no effect and can not be the cause of anything, you need a theory of everything for that. The fact we could describe life under QM theory would simply imply it is like everything else in the universe and that alone may upset some creationists. So QM is not responsible for evolution but it may provide a useful tool to look at the effect a thought that might interest you. It is true I see QM everywhere as Bill claimed but that is simply because I haven't found anything not in the universe yet.

If you have any questions please ask but basically any sane hard scientist is not expecting life to be some how magically exempt from the description and laws of QM.

2.)Drivers of evolution

It appears you are still claiming there is only one theory for the driver of evolution can I please get a link or description to that so I can read and study it.

3.)Types of evolution

From the above you seem to be seperating out different types of evolution micro,macro etc and in your final added comment you are now even seperating creation of life (Abiogenesis).

I find the last seperation interesting in that by your own discussion you can't have evolution until things can replicate and you even claim they are driven by different energetics.

Could you elaborate on your theory of how this all works?

I read the section on wikipedia on ( and I myself would favour John Desmond Bernal views.

Note this is my personal view and I am not claiming it is right but I can think of a very compelling argument which when I get you across the entropy landmine we can discuss.

Originally Posted By: John Desmond Bernal

Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell

Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between Stage 1 and 2

BTW if your two physicists you say work with you are worth a crumpet ask them why I may take such a view.

Anyhow clearly I am wrong according to you so lets first deal with the great biology view of it all.

Last edited by Orac; 03/05/13 04:36 AM.

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