Entropy and the immutable law of death

What I got from reading about his work was the existence of life possessing a "grand asymmetry". Dead things do not have this. Future 1/2 eternity survival is part of it. Darwin's "F" line survivability is asymmetric with respect to the perimeter light cone display in my potential quaternionic re-representation. Is chirality one to one and onto the rotation and revolution places of Earth?I suggested that this is content of the some actual relation between Gladyshevian phenomenological thermodynamics and panbiogeographic track graphs(see claim).I will address the topic directly shortly. About decade ago I cognized that "forms of death" could be related to Fisher's ideas of 'rates of death' and I attempted to get Will Provine interested in the idea. He was not. Edited by Brad McFall, : past tense.

quote:

---

it is impossible to analyze the process from a thermodynamic perspective. It is a waste of time to even talk about entropy is a discussion about evolution.

---

Then I have wasted ALL my time.That is not the case see .
I have been able to sustain some level of readership above the zero baseline (only me) since the site went up and was properly advertised. You might suggest this is only entropy setting in but I cannot as I have not made any really significant changes since and even so, it is certainly not as much entropy as associated with your typo of "is" for "in". I trust that typo was not your point.I am working upto demoting the replicator asto a simple relation to metabolism and the "interactor" into something other than that used against gene selectionism. The weakest part of my argument is not the link to Darwin’s work itself.The wasted time was in talking too much about selection and not enough about organization (historically in biology). This was a result of failing to consider homogenal systems (particular when asking if viruses in rabbits released in Australia being demes were structured or not).What makes it so difficult is that one must start from the small and work to a large (size) whereas human intuition (especially in evolutionary theory so far) tends to favor the organism level itself.So if I had said that motion is independent of the frame for Newton rather than that rest might be thought chemically I would have been better understood (in another thread on EvC) but keeping the order of thought intact is, as much the problem as the solution, when it comes to a right understanding of the application of thermo into living reality of taught evolutionary thought, no matter the road less traveled.

If you find me hard to follow perhaps you can try to readICR speakers, and it is in their books as well, consistantly call on evolutionists to supply an "energy converter mechanism" that is concurrent with any form changes during (time).With a discrete QM mentality and a certain geneic reductionism one can think that evolution should be thought about without having to address this complaint of creationists but for me I have both no interest in that particular biological thought process and I HAVE been interested to figure out how to extract energy from biological form that despite time still sustains.Gladyshev's formalism provides the only means to this goal that I am aware of. Dr. Gladyshev thinks that the decision in favor of science over creationism is clear (against the latter) EXCEPT insofar as his own idea might be able to express the creation itself accurately. I do not see how the creationist call for an "energy converter mechanism" is out of line with the application of Gibbs phenomenological thermo to biology. All is not said and done so however....Edited by Brad McFall, : serious logical typo

Just for the record Crash (and really this is probably for lurkers other than you posters etc...)The question I always pose is, "Can evolution work?", can it be made to DO work. If we showed how to use evolution theory to reduce human labor, directly via the supposed process of evoution itself, and it works (then) THEN all the silly arguing over creation and evolution would be over, for me, it seems to me.