“Why do you say that?”

Life has to be built from the ground up. Associations of molecules are ultimately directed by electrostatic forces, but those forces have to be associated with underlying quantum effects and causes. The type of bonding that takes place within and between proteins would, in my view, depend largely on quantum effects. When you build a protein, you’re building a quantum mechanical unit. Change an amino acid here or there, and the effects can be quite significant. Now in changing an amino acid, the quantum behavior of the protein in, and around, the changed amino acid is changed. So, for example, sickle-cell anemia stems from a single a.a. change in the hemoglobin, and it results in a completely different shape of the blood cell, all due, to quantum effects.

From the time I took college chemistry, I was always fascinated by the quantum dimensions of chemistry. Whenever I asked a probing question in “qualitative chemistry”, the prof would invariably end up saying: “Well that has to do with quantum mechanics.” So, considering that the cell is a biochemical factory, one would think that the primary forces at play are quantum mechanical.

But let’s keep in mind that what I just wrote falls into the category of “brainstorming”.

excellent, look forward to more!

Correct. Although LS-DYNA is so sophisticated that it can model explosives (this was its original design purpose, to produce more sophisticated, smaller, and more powerful nuclear weapons). It now includes FSI (fluid structure interaction) through ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) modeling.

In answer to bornagain77′s question: In my opinion, computer simulations have decisively demonstrated the vacuity of Darwinian suppositions. Meaningful results are only obtained through the introduction of intelligence and information into the algorithm and the design of the computer code. In addition, in bio-evo simulations, the search space is always cleverly reduced to the point where the program can reach a pre-specified goal with the available computational resources. Almost every aspect of the design of bio-evo computer simulations represents the antithesis of Darwinism.

So, as a bottom line: Attempts to demonstrate the validity of Darwinian mechanisms through the use of computer simulations have demonstrated the exact opposite. Design, information, and goals are the essential ingredients for success.

It would be better just to see FEA as a metaphor for Avida and ev. The similarities are well founded and described, but like all good metaphors it has to break down at some point.

The point here would be the fact that FEA has very little relation to the generation Specified Complexity and Avida and ev is all about generating Specified Complexity.

Hope this help.

“quantum systems are where most of the magic of biology likely resides”

Why do you say that?

More seriously, when you say physical laws, and then give the example of a car crash, do you mean the simulation involves mostly mechanical equations coming from classical mechanics (non- quantum mechanics) and hence excluding electrical/chemical interactions?

IOW, it might be great for solid bodies but not very applicable to quantum systems—which is where most of the magic of biology likely resides.