Well, Virus and Bacteria have short life-spans so that they can change faster than just about any other genome. While the Flu virus for instance changes during its lifetime within the body, Significant changes to the population in general happen much slower, and one of the reasons that we get new flu virus varieties every year, is that they survive between flu seasons in other animals that are not treated for every sniff and sneeze, and can trade genetic code so that if a particular gene is better for survival it will be inherited by a lot of animals and will therefore become a new viral strain. Aids on the other hand mutates every time it reproduces, and it is literally possible to have hundreds of strains in a single subject.

In multicellular animals much of this instability is damped out, and so the generations tend to be more consistent, with each other and often major new genetic markers depend on population dynamics and factors like inbreeding, or isolation of one gene pool from another, and are only noticed when a crisis results in competing genetic populations dying off, leaving one slightly more robust one as the base population on which other gene pools must be formed.

The origins of life including some genetic DNA/RNA:

http://users.erols.com/richdoran/life

It touches on viruses and cell structure.

This has all been checked and reviewed by Genetic PhD's and is good information.

I have attempted to keep it basic and easy to read. Please feel free to post comments and opinions.

Rich, I am shocked, Shocked I tell you what PHD are up to these days!

Alpha Century is a PLANET? I am agast! By the way are you wriing science or science fiction, its hard to tell, and only a master story teller like Isaac Asimov managed to properly mix the two so he could slyly slip in science when you thought he was setting the stage for the next scene in his fiction.

Um, also I think you have missed mentioning the origin of RNA which may predate DNA, since it has enzyme like properties and can (One hesitates to say survive) within a sugar and protein coating. (Think RNA Virus).

The premise is good, but you need to rub a few rough edges off. the Royal Astronomy Society luckily doesn't know I exist but if they did, and they heard me repeat what you said about alpha century being a planet, they would cut me off at the knees, and rightfully so.

To Graeme Smith. Can you say something appropriate to the theme? And if you have any ideas

can you express them clearly and laconically.

Dear Kees. As to your phylosophical speculation about "evolution" of knowlege and wellknown theories of "evolution" of Universe I have no objections. I just try to concentrate the discussion about an initial theme and don't litter it by non-appropriate speculations. In other way any discussion is worthless. And it isn't detemined by a number of participants.

The Question is about of speed of Evolution - Evolution of live matter. Only this matter have the feature for selfreproduction and death as a means of renovation. This Question is key in biology and phylosophy. I tried to make some opinion from point of view of a physisist. Math, in spite of its limitation, is the only language of a physisist.

Graeme, you are correct, I was in error, Alpha Centauri is a double star system and I was referring to the planets that orbit in the star system. I can take constructive criticism and in fact, requested it. You could have contacted me in private. Thank you for your comment Mark. Back to the subject.

No, I do not have a PhD, I said “It was reviewed by Genetic PhD’s,” that I was working with and they reviewed the genetic part of this. I studied the subject when I was working with some pharmaceutical companies. I have done design and checking of the mechanical components for both bacteria and Vaccines. I have worked with breeding, harvesting, storage, testing and freeze-drying.

Dear Kees,

I try to analyse your comment.

1. You states that Richard Dowkins statements about evolution is not complete.

I don't object it.

2. You refers that such fenomena as altruism don't contradict the evolution.

I don't object it.

3. You states that you and a lot of people has a representation about math.

I don't object it.

4. Your statement that "every production system that builds on previous knowledge always runs a risk of running astray if there is no external correction"

I consider this statement as essential and it has direct relation to the theme. This is a gist of evolutionary process. As had remarked Hegel "practice is a criterion of truth". This is your "external correction". Integrated experience of mankind is formed from experimental choice of sets of target functionals, which reduced to a few ones, which are gist of theoretical knowlege.

As to your references to another books. I'm too old to read all of them. Most of them rewrite texts from the others. If you have a fresh idea, express it by your words. If I something won't understand I'll find the sources or ask you.

Ok, sorry about the "Over the top" reaction to the alpha century comment on the website, somehow I was trying to do a casablanca imitation that fell flat... can't say I was exactly rational at the time, I have been fighting a fever for about 4 or 5 days, it snuck up on me, so I may have posted one or two inappropriate things without meaning too, again my appologies. Sorry about the inappropriate public feedback, Rich, I think I had a judgement crisis there, my appologies

Thanks for the support Kees, yes we have brushed shoulders trying to winkle out the relationship between complexity and evolution-like effects at the energy/entropy barrier.

The so called "Edge of Chaos". But I felt earlier that it might confuse the discussion.

It's the parallel between a production system, and evolution that Kees made that sticks in my mind. I think he is describing something more basic than a production system, more a positive feedback loop, is what I see in my mind when I look at any system that grows incrementally.

the difference is more than semantics one "Production System" is a systems theory approach, the other "positive feedback loop" is a cybernetics and engineering approach, In fact cybernetics was invented precisely to deal with positive feedback in automated control of mechanical systems, and involved the use of a "Governor". but I digress.

Classically it is stated, all positive feedback loops result in spiralling out of control.

So what does this have to do with the speed of evolution?

Death, is the ultimate governor on reproductive excess.

But, unlike some, I don't think evolutions control over the positive feedback of multicellular systems stops with death, I mean, quite often death comes long after other factors have made mating impossible for some. think of all the live people out there with weak sperm, illness of the genital tract, or Menapause, people like George Burns that can actually talk about a sex life at 90, although his comments can be considered somewhat acidic, suggest that the process is still possible but much less fulfilling than younger sex. So perhaps factors such as age, do affect mating before death, and in other animals the schedule of estrous tends to reduce the chance of unseasonal pregnancy. If you aren't even sexually attracted to each other, you aren't going to have sex, and most animals have a much more discriminating sense of smell, and possibly sensitivity to Pheremones, than humans seem to have so that the male and the female synchronize to some extent their estrous, and ignore sex the rest of the year. This has got to have a stabilizing effect on Evolutionary speed for those animals that have the controls.

So, we have a subject for discussion. First of all a difference between positive feedback and evolution. The condition of stationary generation is when the amplification is equal to losses. It is valid to all generators: a radiotransmitter, a laser, a nuclear reactor. Amplification is exceed

the losses only in the transition time. The systems mainly don't change their parameters in a working process. Only inclination is in parametric including of negative feedbacks for stabilization.

In evolution case one has a different situation. Main difference that in this case we have not optimization but adaptation the system, which include smooth reconstruction of a model - changing of a target functional. In technics now we have only weak tries to apply the adaptive processes. It can be mentioned telescops with adaptive mirrors. AI it is one of these tries.

Well I think adaptation is frowned on currently, isn't the current term exaptation? meaning that evolution doesn't adapt the current generation, so much as varigate it and then challenge it with the negative feedback to deterimine which of the next generation will prosper?

In this system the negative feedback doesn't only stabilize however, it also steers the new growth, by always limiting one portion of the population. The so called ratchet, or semiconductor effect you have discussed earlier. The net effect is that the population always is driven ahead of the challenge.