Evolution applied to everything:

Originally posted by joe shmo
The "rock", for it to become a "rock", is an organized structure; distinct from other organizational structures. It had to be programatically selected to be that structure (based on the laws of physics as they pertain to the specific system in which it was initially organized). The question is: Does the "rock" want to programatically retain its "rock" stru ...[text shortened]... n by the laws of physics) would enable the "rock" to remain a "rock" for longer periods of time.

I find what you say a bit odd.

It had to be programatically selected to be that structure (based on the laws of physics as they pertain to the specific system in which it was initially organized).

In what sense "programatically selected"? Say the rock formed from cooling lava from a volcano; where or what is the 'program' ( analogy of ) and in what sense was it 'selected' to be that structure by that 'program?

At least most laws of physics cannot be described as a 'program' because a 'program' generally implies it is or states a potential predetermined series of different specific actions in temporal order i.e. one occurring after another.

The word 'selected' implies something more than merely physically 'done' (such as lava solidifying and cooling into rock ) ; the word 'selected' implies one thing was acted on rather than some other thing being acted on when that other thing not being acted on may have been acted on if circumstances where hypothetically different. So I don't see how the word 'selected' is appropriate here unless you can elaborate on in what sense one thing was acted on here rather than some other thing being acted on when that other thing not being acted on may have been acted on if circumstances where hypothetically different?

The question is: Does the "rock" want to programatically retain its "rock" structure when it is introduced to another system (like a river).

I take it you mean "tend to" ( ...in some sense ) , not literally "want to".

If it does, then rounding, or smoothing of the rocks surface would ...

Isn't "rounding, or smoothing of the rocks surface" changing "its "rock" structure"?
It is not clear to me how you define "its "rock" structure" in this context.

would be an advantageous selection response to being introduced to the changed physical system. Thus, changing its structure to a more hydrodynamic shape (again by the laws of physics) would enable the "rock" to remain a "rock" for longer periods of time.

What aspect of its "rock structure" would remain a "rock" for longer periods of time?
I would guess that in everyday English that most people would say rounding and smoothing is part of erosion and erosion destroys the 'rock structure'.
If the erosion in the form or rounding and smoothing keeps going for long enough, the whole rock could be all turned into silt and clay; wouldn't that destroy its 'structure'?
And, with all else equal, the faster that rounding and smoothing process happens, the sooner the rock can be eroded to nothing but silt and clay i.e. the sooner it can be destroyed.

Originally posted by humy
I find what you say a bit odd.

It had to be [b]programatically selected to be that structure (based on the laws of physics as they pertain to the specific system in which it was initially organized).

In what sense "programatically selected"? Say the rock formed from cooling lava from a volcano; where or what is the 'program' ( analo ...[text shortened]... sooner the rock can be eroded to nothing but silt and clay i.e. the sooner it can be destroyed.[/b]

"In what sense "programatically selected"? Say the rock formed from cooling lava from a volcano; where or what is the 'program' ( analogy of ) and in what sense was it 'selected' to be that structure by that 'program?"

Its microstucture was programatically determined from the laws of physics as they apply to the system of interactions ( i.e. temperature. pressure, rates of cooling, moisture, constituent elements...etc). That is to say... it is more likely obsidian than it is sandstone,...than a car, or a duck, etc...) So that is the sense in which I meant it was "selected" maybe its poor usage, maybe not, the idea is what I was trying to convey, not the exact terminology.

"I take it you mean "tend to" ( ...in some sense ) , not literally "want to".

If it does, then rounding, or smoothing of the rocks surface would ...

Isn't "rounding, or smoothing of the rocks surface" changing "its "rock" structure"?
It is not clear to me how you define "its "rock" structure" in this context."

Sure, "tends to" would be a good description. I would define "structure" as its grouping, the property(s) which gives it identity as something distinguishable from other things. The universe is full of this structure (give by the laws of physics), when "homogeneity" is an option, structure is then a "choice".

"If the erosion in the form or rounding and smoothing keeps going for long enough, the whole rock could be all turned into silt and clay; wouldn't that destroy its 'structure'?"

yes its structure would be destroyed and it would ( at least temporarily return to a homogeneous state (the initial state of the universe), or lose its identity as a "rock" )

If looked at in this way the rounding and smoothing is a rate minimization of state change from structure to homogenization. A "rock" that smooths it geometry should remain a "rock" longer than one that does not, all other things being equal. This minimization of state change is the process that occurs in nature. in the case of the river-rock system it clearly is the chosen response over isomorphic scaling, which does not change the hydrodynamic river-rock interaction and would result in a elevated rate of structural degradation when compared with the first option.

Originally posted by joe shmo
"In what sense "programatically selected"? Say the rock formed from cooling lava from a volcano; where or what is the 'program' ( analogy of ) and in what sense was it 'selected' to be that structure by that 'program?"

Its microstucture was programatically determined from the laws of physics as they apply to the system of interactions ( i.e. temperature. ...[text shortened]... d would result in a elevated rate of structural degradation when compared with the first option.

Its microstucture was programatically determined from the laws of physics as they apply to the system of interactions ( i.e. temperature. pressure, rates of cooling, moisture, constituent elements...etc). That is to say... it is more likely obsidian than it is sandstone,...than a car, or a duck, etc...)

this would be an inappropriate use of the word 'programmatically' (spelling corrected ) in this context because I presume you are trying to analogize with evolution in living things.
One reason why it is inappropriate is because, in the evolution of living things, the 'program' is the coding of the DNA (or RNA in the special case of RNA viruses ) , or, to be more precise, the genome, and an essential precondition for biological evolution to work would be for that genome to occasionally mutate (or do the equivalent by gene recombination via sexual reproduction ) . In comparison, the laws of physics are NOT like that program since they do NOT mutate. They never change at all as far as we know. The laws of physics don't 'evolve' like a biological genome in a cell so there really cannot be a reasonable analogy here with rocks 'evolving' via the laws of physics; 'Changing', via the laws of physics, yes, but that isn't saying much!

So that is the sense in which I meant it was "selected" maybe its poor usage, maybe not, the idea is what I was trying to convey, not the exact terminology.

"I take it you mean "tend to" ( ...in some sense ) , not literally "want to".

meaning "tend to" by "selected" would be worse than mere "poor usage" of the word; it would simply be incorrect.

I see no reasonable analogy here between rock formation/erosion and biological evolution.

Originally posted by humy

Its microstucture was [b]programatically determined from the laws of physics as they apply to the system of interactions ( i.e. temperature. pressure, rates of cooling, moisture, constituent elements...etc). That is to say... it is more likely obsidian than it is sandstone,...than a car, or a duck, etc...)

this would be an inapprop ...[text shortened]... ct.

I see no reasonable analogy here between rock formation/erosion and biological evolution.[/b]

The DNA coding, mutation is nothing more than a response to a physical stimulus between to organizational structures via. the laws of physics. Biological laws are not independent of the laws of physics. A physical evolutionary law would be supreme. Biological evolution would just be a subset of a general evolutionary law on how structures form and change. Unless you believe you are somehow fundamentally different than the star dust you are made of?

Originally posted by joe shmo
The DNA coding, mutation is nothing more than a response to a physical stimulus between to organizational structures via. the laws of physics. Biological laws are not independent of the laws of physics. A physical evolutionary law would be supreme. Biological evolution would just be a subset of a general evolutionary law on how structures form and change ...[text shortened]... Unless you believe you are somehow fundamentally different than the star dust you are made of?

There is a fundamental difference: living things reproduce, rocks don't. Living things tend toward higher states of organization (until they die, of course), rocks don't. Living things which are better-adapted to their environments tend to reproduce more than other living things which are less well-adapted to their environments--reproduction being the criterion of being well- or poorly-adapted to a given environment. Accumulation of successful adaptations leads to more reproduction, whereas dysfunctional adaptations and mutations become extinct. That's evolution. Rocks don't become better adapted to their environments (e.g., riverbeds) by become rounded, nor do they make more rocks because they are more rounded. Nor do rocks become extinct because they don't fit.

Originally posted by joe shmo
[b]The DNA coding, mutation is nothing more than a response to a physical stimulus between to organizational structures via. the laws of physics. Biological laws are not independent of the laws of physics. .../b]

Right, but the reverse is the opposite, i.e. laws of physics ARE independent of biological laws including evolution of living things.
But that is irrelevant anyway because, irrespective of physical laws causing DNA to mutate, evolution of living things requires DNA to mutate while rocks erosion/formation doesn't require DNA to mutate nor requires the laws to mutate like DNA nor requires anything to mutate in a noteworthy way that I can think of; I really don't see a reasonable analogy between the two.

Respiration in animal life is also not independent of the laws of physics therefore some kind of 'animal respiration' occurs with the erosion/formation of rocks?

Originally posted by moonbus
There is a fundamental difference: living things reproduce, rocks don't. Living things tend toward higher states of organization (until they die, of course), rocks don't. Living things which are better-adapted to their environments tend to reproduce more than other living things which are less well-adapted to their environments--reproduction be ...[text shortened]... rocks because they are more rounded. Nor do rocks become extinct because they don't fit.

There is no "fundamental" difference between a rock and yourself. Its just seems that way because biological "life" has a vastly more complex organizational structure which by virtue of its complexity gives it the ability to mate, reproduce, breath,eat, walk, defend against structural change, rebuild structure etc...

A good example could be to assign a functional relationship to the description of a rocks ability to mutate as the following:

let a the structural characteristics and complexity of a rock be represented by and its ability to mutate be represented by the function S. Let S have one structural variable; namely "x". Let a mutation of the parameter "x" be represented by a extremely small change in x be represented as δx. For my arguments sake something as simple as a rocks structure may be represented as the function x.

Such that:

S = x

Then its ability to evolve of change its structure may be represented as:

δS = δx ==> which means that its new structure could at most be represented as by:

S' = S+δS = x+δx

If δx is as very small change, on the scope of evolutionary scale change. The rock is pretty much stuck a rock. If some larger mutation could occur do to the "right" convolution of physical stimulus the structure of the rock could change and we could be on our way to primordial life.

Now let assume a biological (human structure) This time we represent S by a function almost incomprehensibly more complex than our rock. Let S be represented by:

S(a,b,c,d,...) = a*^2*(y-3)^(2/3)* log( N*(N-1)*(N-2)!+x^2 + a+ b*c*d(e^(f*g)L)d^2/dx^2... etc...

or S might better be comprised as:

S = | f(x), g(x), e(x)................|
......| g(y,x), z(a,b,c,d),d(r).....|
......| : _____:________:____|


Where the functions internal to the matrix are less complex, I think you get the point.

Now go ahead and propagate that same small change in x,y,a,b... through the human structural function. I think you'll find evolution at the end. Say what you will about this as a theory, but at some point primordial biological life evolved from dirt and physical stimulus. The entire spectrum of biological life has the common ancestor of space dirt.

Originally posted by joe shmo
There is no "fundamental" difference between a rock and yourself. Its just seems that way because biological "life" has a vastly more complex organizational structure which by virtue of its complexity gives it the ability to mate, reproduce, breath,eat, walk, defend against structural change, rebuild structure etc...

A good example could be to assign a ...[text shortened]... hysical stimulus. The entire spectrum of biological life has the common ancestor of space dirt.

All you have done is describe changes each consisting of a series of smaller changes, NOT specifically Darwinian evolution; Big difference!
(and "complexity" has actually very little directly to do with it; don't know where you got that from )
Darwinian evolution isn't defined as merely "changes each consisting of a series of smaller changes"; it is more complex than that. There has to be natural selection favoring some inheritable traits over others so there is a tendency for inheritable adaptation via a buildup of those favored inheritable traits over many generations because natural selection favors the reproduction (not necessarily the survival ) of those individuals with those traits. Thus over many generations eventually many new individuals came to have a combination of many such inheritable favored traits for further reproduction when earlier no individual had that combination of many such inheritable favored traits.
Darwinian evolution isn't just a 'filter' but rather tends to eventually give individuals combinations of inheritable favored traits for reproduction that they wouldn't have had if it was not for Darwinian evolution. This requires, amongst other things, reproduction.

Rocks don't reproduce to produce offspring with inheritable traits with some traits favoring further reproduction which are thus favored by natural selection that then selectively breeds the rocks to keep reproducing and be ever better adapted for reproduction.
In short, rocks don't evolve via Darwinian evolution, they merely can "undergo some changes over time" which doesn't tell any of us anything we didn't already know and has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution!

Originally posted by joe shmo
There is no "fundamental" difference between a rock and yourself. Its just seems that way because biological "life" has a vastly more complex organizational structure which by virtue of its complexity gives it the ability to mate, reproduce, breath,eat, walk, defend against structural change, rebuild structure etc...

A good example could be to assign a ...[text shortened]... hysical stimulus. The entire spectrum of biological life has the common ancestor of space dirt.

but at some point primordial biological life evolved from dirt and physical stimulus.

No, as far as we know, life didn't "evolve" from non-living material via some kind of Darwinian evolution (although I happen to know of one scientific theory that it did, we still don't know that it did )
Evolution is not a theory of how the first life evolved but is a theory of how life acquires inheritable adaptations for greater reproduction (and also how this can lead to the formation of new species from older species ).

Incidentally, and this seems to be a big common misunderstanding, evolution doesn't necessarily imply that life evolves greater 'complexity' (even though it generally does as a result of evolution ) and the essence of evolution is not to do with the development of greater 'complexity'.
An example of something evolving to have and inheritable trait with less 'complexity' would be how snakes evolved from lizards by evolving to, amongst other things of course, loose their legs; surely, with all else equal, you would say having no legs is less 'complex' than having legs, thus proving evolution isn't simply about increasing 'complexity'.

Originally posted by joe shmo
There is no "fundamental" difference between a rock and yourself. Its just seems that way because biological "life" has a vastly more complex organizational structure which by virtue of its complexity gives it the ability to mate, reproduce, breath,eat, walk, defend against structural change, rebuild structure etc...

A good example could be to assign a ...[text shortened]... hysical stimulus. The entire spectrum of biological life has the common ancestor of space dirt.

You are missing, or ignoring, fundamental differences between a structure and an organism.

1. A structure, such as a rock, does not maintain a constant internal environment against external changes, whereas an organism does; the technical term is: homeostasis. An example of this is the maintenance of an internal temperature which remains within narrow limits independent of external temperature. Mammals exhibit this property, whereas structures such as rocks do not. Cold-blooded animals exhibit homeostasis in other respects.

2. A structure cannot change its own inner state, an organism can. For example: a tree can bend in a certain direction and/or send out roots in a certain direction to compensate for a constant off-shore wind; a rock cannot. A muscle gets stronger if it is used more; a basketball does not get bouncier if you bounce it more. An animal develops antibodies against bacteria and other harmful agents; a rock does not. These are examples of an organism changing its inner state in response to external stimuli; rocks and basketballs and space dust don't do that.

3. If neither 1. nor 2. suffices to ensure survival in a given environment, for example because the ambient temperature rises or falls beyond what the homeostatic responses are capable of compensating for, then an animal has a third option: move/migrate to a more favorable environment (get out of the desert) or change the environment (build some shade, dig a well and irrigate an oasis). Rocks don't migrate or build oases. Neither does space dust.

The equations you cite are irrelevant. It's not about complexity. It's about emergent properties. Emergent properties exhibit characteristics not exhausted by the underlying material (chemistry or physics). Melody, for example, is an emergent property. Physically, it's just a bunch of frequencies. But you miss the melody if you take an oscilloscope to a concert hall and measure the frequencies emanating from musical instruments.

Life is an emergent property. It is under-determined by its material constituents.

Originally posted by moonbus
You are missing, or ignoring, fundamental differences between a structure and an organism.

1. A structure, such as a rock, does not maintain a constant internal environment against external changes, whereas an organism does; the technical term is: homeostasis. An example of this is the maintenance of an internal temperature which remains within narrow li ...[text shortened]... struments.

Life is an emergent property. It is under-determined by its material constituents.

I don't know why the argument against the "theory" I posed keeps going to "it doesn't fit with Darwinian Evolution". I don't care about Darwinian Evolution in this context and I didn't mention it. It would be a small part of the much bigger picture of physical evolution.

"These are examples of an organism changing its inner state in response to external stimuli; rocks and basketballs and space dust don't do that."

That organism is fundamentally just space dust that is highly organized. If you don't believe that your delusional. All the instances where you state an organisms life movements, adaptions, and directly follow with statements like 'space dust doesn't do that.'(paraphrasing) is obviously a huge blind spot in your mind, as all those things: mammals, reptiles, birds, humans...etc are JUST SPACE DUST...Organized space dust...that's it. You are over complicating this and missing the blatantly obvious and unavoidable truth! The only thing that separates us from the "lifeless clumps of matter"...i.e. space dust. Is the complexity by which that matter is organized...its structure. Something that is given to the matter by the organizational principles of physics...that's it. the "appearance" of "life" is an emergent property of matter and its structure.

Originally posted by joe shmo
I don't know why the argument against the "theory" I posed keeps going to "it doesn't fit with Darwinian Evolution". I don't care about Darwinian Evolution in this context and I didn't mention it. It would be a small part of the much bigger picture of physical evolution.

"These are examples of an organism changing its inner state in response to externa ...[text shortened]... cs...that's it. the "appearance" of "life" is an emergent property of matter and its structure.

No, moonbus' argument is correct. The key thing about life is that it is able to pump entropy out of itself so as to maintain its inner organisation. A rock cannot do this.

However, I don't think this undermines the evolution argument particularly. At some point in the history of the world non-living matter became living matter as an evolutionary change. This means evolutionary arguments must apply to some bits of non-living matter, the candidate substances being auto-catalysts.

There's a problem with the word evolution, the point is that a non-living system might evolve in the sense that it changes over time, but this isn't what is meant by evolution in the biological sense. The researcher mentioned in the OP is talking about evolution in the physical sense, evolution in the biological sense involves a hereditary principle and the complaints of the other posters here seem to me to be connected with Bejan's, or at least the article writer's, equivocation on that point.

Originally posted by joe shmo
I don't know why the argument against the "theory" I posed keeps going to "it doesn't fit with Darwinian Evolution". I don't care about Darwinian Evolution in this context and I didn't mention it. It would be a small part of the much bigger picture of physical evolution.
...

So you agree biological evolution i.e. Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with mere physical processes that merely result in physical change such as the erosion of rocks?

But then all that you previously said is irrelevant because you agree what the OP link clearly implied was false -these two things aren't the same (nor be sensibly grouped as being part of the same scientific theory ) and one has very little if anything at all to do with the other.

So what on earth was the point of you explaining that none living things also undergo changes over time?
I mean, DIRR, yes, none living things also undergo changes over time; the problem with that is that we obviously already know that! The fact that things, whether living or not, undergo changes, certainly doesn't deserve to be even called a 'scientific theory' because you don't need to know the first thing about science to notice and thus know that things undergo changes!
And it tells us nothing of any relevance for biological evolution happens for very different reasons for what you for some reason call "physical evolution" as if it has something to do with "Darwinian evolution" despite what you mean by "physical evolution" appears to be nothing more than "physical change" which begs the question why do you call it "evolution" rather than "change" if you agree that has nothing to do with biological evolution?

In short, can you tell us something about what you call "physical evolution", which as far as I can tell means nothing more than "physical changes", that either we didn't already obviously know or give us some kind of enlightening new perspective of what we did already know?

Originally posted by humy
So you agree biological evolution i.e. Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with mere physical processes that merely result in physical change such as the erosion of rocks?

But then all that you previously said is irrelevant because you agree what the OP link clearly implied was false -these two things aren't the same (nor be sensibly grouped as being part ...[text shortened]... obviously know or give us some kind of enlightening new perspective of what we did already know?

I've been trying to, but I must be terrible at it! My premise is that Darwinian Evolution is incomplete as life is not able to evolve from non-life in the theory, and yet at some point it obviously did. As a result it must be a "sub-theory" or specialization of an all encompassing "Physical Evolutionary" theory.

That is my theory (if it hasn't been thought of before) is basically the following:

1) Physical evolution (by the laws of physics) acts to provide primary organization to ALL matter living/non-living without exception.

2) "Life" is an emergent property of the structural function "S" of said matter.

........a) The "Function of Life - L" would be would have parameters of matter "M" and Structure "S"

........b) As such, from the perspective of "Physical Evolution" and the application of its laws; you and I are no more alive than a rock or the matter we are ........comprised of.

3) Thus, the emergence of the "Life Function" is driven by the complexity and order of the Structural Function "S(a,b,c...)".

4) "Biological Evolution" must by virtue be driven by the underlying principles of "Physical Evolution"

Is that any clearer of an statement?

I admittedly didn't event read the OP, just read through the comments and thought to myself how it might be the case that "rocks" evolve an developed this "theory". I suppose I incorrectly assumed the OP was arguing from a similar position.

Originally posted by joe shmo
I've been trying to, but I must be terrible at it! My premise is that Darwinian Evolution is incomplete as life is not able to evolve from non-life in the theory, and yet at some point it obviously did. As a result it must be a "sub-theory" or specialization of an all encompassing "Physical Evolutionary" theory.

That is my theory (if it hasn't been thou ...[text shortened]... oped this "theory". I suppose I incorrectly assumed the OP was arguing from a similar position.

My premise is that Darwinian Evolution is incomplete as life is not able to evolve from non-life in the theory,

No, and No! Wrong on both accounts!

1, Darwinian evolution is a theory of how some of one species changes into another species (although, to be more accurate, it really is more about adaptation via repeated mutation and natural selection along many generations which doesn't necessarily lead to species change even though it often has done in the past ) thus Darwinian evolution is not a theory of how the first life came into existence thus it isn't 'incomplete' because it doesn't explain how the first life came into existence just like the theory that planets orbit in ellipses is not 'incomplete' because it doesn't explain how those planets initially came to exist billions of years ago.

2, there currently is no good scientific reason to presume the first life to come to exist probably developed from non-life through a physical process similar to that of Darwinian evolution. For all we know, the first life may have formed via a physical or chemical process completely unlike Darwinian evolution in every way; although there is an unproven speculative theory that says it did via RNA-like molecules evolving like viruses in a primeval 'soop' and then they become encapsulated into micropheres to form the first protocells (and then only later did DNA evolve from RNA and after the first protocells. Actually, that is probability true even if that 'evolving RNA-like molecules theory' is wrong ).

"Biological Evolution" must by virtue be driven by the underlying principles of "Physical Evolution"

What distinction, if any, do you make between the meaning of "Physical Evolution" and "Physical changes"? If no distinction, you obviously aren't saying anything all of us didn't obviously already know because all you appear to be saying is that biological evolution requires physical changes, which is just too obvious!
That wouldn't even deserve to be called a 'theory'.