Ok Ben,
It is time for me to make up my mind on this book!
It has been a while since I have tried this one. Gould seems to feel vindicated in his last tome with the claims of this one.
I suspect but I will check through your on-line link that Stephen must have assumed time as a continuum such that heterochrony can operate at gradually changing rates.
If that is indeed SJ's basis of historical time (ontogeny ratcheting any or all phylogeny) it seems that the truth of Gladyshev's law implies that time is basically discontinuous biologically.
In the early 90s I had reasearched what time meant in biology and I could not find *any* defintions except those that a process depenedent so it would not suprise me if one takes in considering rates of changes as time to be but time arrow etc.
What I have not thought through and I would like to see if this book assists me in doing is, if more than one monohierarichy thermostatically exists (processes changing a given hierarchy obeying Gladyshev's law) this either results in changing Gould's "stair step" into an inclined plane lest it further butress Gould's notion of puncutated equilibrium. I highly doubt the latter.
quote:
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS
Georgi P. Gladyshev*
International Academy of Creative Endeavors
San Diego, USA — Moscow, Russia
N. N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences
ABSTRACT
The classical formulations of the second law of thermodynamics are presented. Some mistakes in the understanding the physical meaning of this general law of nature are noted.
The above formulations of the second law of thermodynamics are, in a sense, somewhat outside the realm of the chemistry of molecular and supramolecular systems. These formulations may seem to be even farther from biology, sociology, and other sciences that are mainly based on chemistry (both molecular chemistry per se and the chemistry of supramolecular structures), which we perceive as "chemistry around us." Therefore, it is not unexpected that a purely physical (rather than physicochemical) approach to the origin of life, biological evolution, and aging of living organisms has lead to numerous misunderstandingsone might say, even to tragic errorsin life science
I can not decide as of yet.
see also
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-08-2005 09:27 AM