I got down this far and suddenly I seem to see a major problem with what you are talking about.
And here again you are now putting the density matrix on a different criteria the organisms above are treading water and recycling under my density matrix and there is a test for that but they are no longer evolving under the definition of evolution that we set the density matrix up under.
And you and possibly the sources your are talking about seem to be changing the definition of evolution.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
This is the definition that I am using. If you want to go on about something that isn't under this definition then you can do so, but don't talk about biological evolution when you are doing it.
So my answer to you is you may be correct from your point of view but it has nothing to do with my argument because I was after the change in genes thru time and your organism is no longer changing genes it is rehashing old sequences so it's not evolving to me the universe needs no change in energetics to accomodate it. To you it may be evolving and thats fine you just defined evolution different.
There you are wrong again. The genes ARE changing. That is the only way that the organism can change. It is just like installing a new program on your computer. It uses the same basic instructions, but does something different. In an organism the program (DNA) is constantly changing (mutating) for various reasons. Sometimes the changes are bad and the system crashes, sometimes they don't do anything, and sometimes they are a help. That is evolution in action.
Bill Gill
