Secondly, you've not dealt with the problems that your original claims vis-a-vis QM entropy are still wrong, and the new article you does not support your contention that higher complexity = farther form thermodynamic equilibrium.
Finally, you've completely mis-represented (i.e. lied) about what Prigoginean thermodynamics says about biological systems. It says nothing relating to complexity. What it actually says is the further something is from thermodynamic equilibrium the more pressure there *should* be to return to equilibrium. Since this doesn't happen with life, you need to invoke processes such dissipative structures to explain the apparent stability off of thermodynamic equilibrium. These are what allow you to maintain a state of non-equilibrium (i.e. life), through dissipating entropy to the external environment.
As I said I am not forgetting this arguement at all and I want to come back to it. I totally disagree with everything you have written but it can wait for now I need to fill in some detail. It is you who is now being argumentative I have said on at least 3 occasions lets sort the science and come back to this.
And that is where I just start rolling my eyes and realise how little you know of QM.
If you're rolling your eyes, than your grasp of QM is poorer than mine. QM processes such as superposition, entaglment, quntatization, etc, are not observed in macromolicules; indeed, atoms quite often don't exhibit these behaviours. How to explain the loss of quantum coherence in larger structures, and how group behaviours lead to decoherance, has been for over 50 years the single greatest unanswered question in QM.
Sorry you make me laugh with that statement ... who told you all that rubbish.
Lets deal with the statements one by one because it is important
QM processes such as superposition, entaglment, quntatization, etc, are not observed in macromolicules; indeed, atoms quite often don't exhibit these behaviours.
Perhaps start with the grand daddy of this area Anton Zeilinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger
In 1999, Zeilinger abandoned atom optics for experiments with very complex and massive macro-molecules - fullerenes. The successful demonstration of quantum interference for and molecules (fullerenes) in 1999 opened up a very active field of research. Key results include the most precise quantitative study to date of decoherence by thermal radiation and by atomic collisions and the first quantum interference of complex biological macro-molecules. This work is continued by Markus Arndt.
You may care to read Markus Arndt's discussion paper.http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/double-slit-C60.pdf
There work has continued and there last paper in 2012 was published in Naturehttp://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v7/n5/full/nnano.2012.34.html
The original work was extended into normal objects in 2010 in a blaze of glory they entangled the first macro objecthttp://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/mar/18/quantum-effect-spotted-in-a-visible-object
In 2011 it was etended into an aluminum structurehttp://www.nist.gov/pml/div686/drum-070611.cfm
And in december 2011 we saw two diamonds put into entanglementhttp://www.nature.com/news/entangled-diamonds-vibrate-together-1.9532
In all of the above the systems were entangled but as you pointed out that is only one sort of quantum feature so the others were put to the test to see if we have Quantum correlations without entanglement and that works too.http://phys.org/news/2011-08-quantum-entanglement.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/quantum-technologies-soon-quantum.html
This year the first quantum refrigerator was produced by getting a large platten area to behave in a quantum manner.http://phys.org/news/2013-03-quantum-refrigerator-extreme-cooling-convenience.html
The bottom line here is all molecules, atoms and objects have intrinsic QM properties all of those discoveries come about because of QM information theory and proof of one of it's tennants being Quantum Discord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_discord
In other words every atom, every molecule in the universe is locked in some sort of quantum mixed-state it is simply our ability to see it as an observer that is lacking.
So now lets deal with the last part of your statement
How to explain the loss of quantum coherence in larger structures, and how group behaviours lead to decoherance, has been for over 50 years the single greatest unanswered question in QM.
So what your think is a 50 year old question has been answered in the last 10 it doesn't totally decohere it moves it a state of quantum discord between the normal macro world and the quantum world.
And in wikipedia under quantum decoherence since you are as you say very scientific you will find it explained thus
Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observance of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".
The important answering your question is this
=> A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue.
Got it the global coherence NEVER DIES OR STOPS that we know it is sort of like the cosmic background radiation in laymans terms and your 50 year old mystery is solved for you.So everything in that statement is factually wrong under modern QM we know what decoherence is and does which has been proven by countless testing and why I am certain that life should be able to be completely described in QM terms.
Do you want to argue further on the above issue or do you accept I do know a little about modern QM and what I am telling you is correct and proven versus your circa 1970 version of QM?
And, I'd point out, that showing one biological structure that has evolved to pass on electron excitation energy is a far cry from demonstrating that QM processes involved in QM models of entropy - coherence, entanglement, etc - have measurable impacts on biological polymers.
Again I will point out QM is doing nothing it is a description of the universe and that description as far as we know holds for anything in the universe. Whatever the system QM is describing is some underlying theory and it is that which controls the rules of the universe and I am sorry all chemistry must obey those rules a fact readily accepted by most chemists.
What you are arguing is that biological polymers are now exempt from rules that as far as we know every other thing in the universe plays by based on what?
I would never separate macro from micro - they are simply different quantities of the same thing. All evolutionary biologists will tell you that abiogenesis is a separate science, driven by different processes, than evolution. Confounding the two is a common creationist tactic. I'd direct you to the above two books for an explanation of the issue.
Thats fine we are in agreement on that fact because at a QM level I can expalin to you why there ultimately must break down to a subset that involves only one driving factor, we call it emergent behaviour.
I should refine my answer by saying "potentially driven by other energetics". Replication is a pre-requisite for evolution, as by definition, evolution is 'descent with modification'. If you cannot replicate - and replicate imperfectly, you cannot evolve. As for elaboration, it is simple.
<... snip ....>
Again in QM we also deal with emergent behaviour and two energetics and drivers both stable and the second able to piggy back off the first well lets just say it's problematic and you might as well invoke GOD at that point.
It is why we don't think about gravity for example as first being something other than what we see now that was created by some initial event and then suddenly some other effect piggy backing off the back of it to become what it is now. Good luck holding the universe together thru that change.
So I would say your refined answer is the better one and why I said to ask your physicists. So I would be in agreement with your refined answer. In QM speak things tend to explosively change between meta-stable mixed-states on large QM systems, you would literally get an explosion of life
See some answers require actually no knowledge of biology itself something that may perhaps surprise you.
Topically Ethan Siegel did an article on the journey of one atom (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/06/an-atom-in-the-universe/
) and I would argue we can track that entire journey and all the interactions along the way using QM to describe it
If you are happy with all that we may be ready to discuss simple versus complex life energetics.