Evolution

Thank you for the holiday greetings, and the same to you and your Family.A side benefit from a debate is sharing in a learning experience. A debate in philosophy is a function of one's skill in a dialectic, as for science, a debate is over some issue within the scientific community. The issue being, as Bejan stated, “Life and evolution is the most researched and least agreed upon topic in science today” (http://www.tandfonline.com...). In science we can't overlook the human factor in the chemistry between scholarly elites and the conservative inertia imbedded in established knowledge. It took Einstein nearly forty years to get the scientific community to evolve from classical Newtonian. It's not that Newtonian was wrong, Einstein just added an evolutionary step in the fidelity of understanding. Adding an evolutionary step to the laws of thermodynamics is a monumental step. Since thermodynamics is a “first principle” law, means, it applies to everything in nature. Again, we are a product of the physical laws of nature. A law of physics is a concise statement that summarizes a phenomenon that occurs in nature. A phenomenon is a fact, circumstance or experience that is apparent to the human senses and can be described. The phenomenon throughout evolutionary organization facilitates access for everything that flows, evolves, spreads and is collected: river basins, atmospheric, ocean currents, animal life, the migration of technology, which includes the evolution of man and machine, wealth, economics and culture, etc. As Adrian Bejan stated in his book “Design in Nature” (https://www.amazon.com...): “Good ideas travel and persist. They keep on traveling. This is why culture is a constructal design [the constructal law]—a tapestry of morphing linkages in our minds and on the globe—all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain). As such, culture is the same kind of design as the tapestry of vascular architectures, animate and inanimate, all superimposed on the Earth's surface.”Take for example, throughout the ages the flow of information seeking the path of least resistance, morphing into configuration resulting in a vascularized network known as the internet. And here we are on debate.org. What would our cave dwelling ancestors think about such evolution? Relative to information flow a new field is on the horizon known as Constructal Infonomics. http://constructalinfonomics.org...Perhaps, future generations of scholars in the political and social sciences may apply the constructal law in the evolution of governance, helping to make this world a better place to live, moving further from the Dark Ages summarized in the following article: http://www.westernfreepress.com... Take for example Leonard E. Read's 1958 essay in the following short YouTube presentation about a pencil's genealogy (note, 1958 is well before constructal law's discovery). The essay covers the “spontaneous order” (Friedrich Hayek) found in free market systems. Read's reference to Adam Smith's celebrated phrase of an “invisible hand” at the end, is the physical constructal law in action no longer a philosophy in economics but part of the laws of nature. Notice the treelike and vascularized patterns are also the footprint of the physical constructal law, while this law unequivocally anchors economics to the physical laws of nature; unbeknownst to many economist today. https://www.youtube.com...I could go on with examples, but I'll stop here. I understand Pro is on a learning curve and I do appreciate his claim, “not well-versed enough in the topic.” But Pro cannot deny the activity in the scientific community over this relative new discovery of a fundamental law, an outgrowth of the laws of thermodynamics, describing a unified principle for all evolution. Pro continues to claim such a principle, “isn't necessarily as important as it's hyped up to be.” One would think one would be extremely excited about such a discovery that unifies evolution on a debate titled: “Evolution.” As Pro claimed, “Evolution - the process through which organisms change over time.” In this debate, those “organisms change over time” includes the morphing linkages within the mind of Pro and perhaps, within the minds of those who critique this debate, forming new vascularize linkages of neurons in their brain in the evolution of understanding evolution. Understanding becomes the freedom from the resistance in the struggle to understand.I realize this profound relationship is a hard pill to swallow, over a simple concept of flow seeking the path of least resistance morphed the universe into configuration from pure energy flow at the beginning of time.