To begin with, I think it’s important to once again point out that equilibrium is defined as the state of energy or matter which, once achieved, results in no further action or change taking place. Usually we can say that some energy unit or compound of energy will achieve equilibrium in one of two ways, depending on the situation. The first case would be where the energy compound in question would seek to achieve equilibrium with another energy compound of somewhat similar size. This is the main area of interest addressed by quantum and Newtonian mechanics. Namely the give and take, so to speak, of energy or work back and forth between the two sub-systems until not only does each energy compound achieve its own state of equilibrium, but in doing so an overall systemic equilibrium is reached as well.

The other most prevalent situation would be where an energy compound comes into contact with a much larger body, such as would be the case when a molecule, say, is in contact with the earth. In other words, where a smaller object is in contact with its much larger environment. In the case of the molecule and the earth, then, because it’s the molecule which will undergo the greatest change before system equilibrium is reached, we tend to think of the earth, or environment, as already being in equilibrium, such that the molecule, to achieve its own equilibrium, must either import or export energy and work to or from the environment until it reaches the same state of equilibrium as the environment.

However, when we start talking about what all the inanimate atoms and molecules which first existed on the earth’s surface faced about a billion years ago as they first began to form the first living cells, well, it’s sort of a good news, bad news situation. As far as the good news is concerned, there were of course astronomical quantities of different kinds of atoms and simpler molecules available at the beginning of this process. And the surface of the earth, at least near the equator, was held within a range of temperature and intensity of solar radiation which was conducive to the existence of living organisms. Also, there was a lot of surface water near the equator, which living organisms need, and within which the atoms and molecules could easily move around. Plus the water was salty from all the salts washed into it from the rivers and so forth which helped the atoms and molecules combine electromagnetically since salt water is a good electrical conductor. And, finally, because of the presence of our moon, twice-daily tidal surges must have turned the off-shore surfaces of the earth’s oceans into something like a giant blender, greatly increasing the chances for atoms and molecules to combine into different, and more complex, molecules.

Now for the bad news. As I just stated, in this particular instance the atoms and molecules, as they began to combine with each other would normally be inclined to seek equilibrium with respect to each other as well as with respect to their much larger environment. But there’s a problem here. The earth’s surface, because of the daily variations in temperature and intensity of solar radiation, plus the constant tidal surges, which, while they increased the chances for combinant activity, also served to destabilize the off-shore waters, presented an environment that was itself far from equilibrium. Certainly far enough from equilibrium that, after uncounted trillions of combining, falling apart and then recombining again into often slightly different combinations of molecules, certain colonies or cells of molecules would eventually form with the capability of achieving their own separate most stable state of equilibrium at some distance, equilibrium-wise, from their environment. A state which, while not itself a very stable state at all compared to those achieved by rocks and so forth, was still more stable then the degree of equilibrium experienced by the surrounding environment.

To maintain this state, though, these cells had to develop the capability of constantly, but sometimes at varying rates when necessary, take on energy from their environment to maintain their separation, equilibrium-wise, from the environment. Are you with me so far?”

“Where does the ability to reproduce come into this?”

“I’m not sure, but it probably had something to do with the cell’s constant need to take on energy to stay isolated from the environment. Maybe these colonies, by learning to reproduce themselves, not only were able to use reproduction as a means of achieving generational equilibrium, but also required them to constantly take on large quantities of energy, effectively separating them, equilibrium-wise, from their environment. Or maybe the reverse happened. Maybe they first learned, through natural selection, to constantly take on large quantities of energy to separate themselves, equilibrium-wise, from their constantly changing environment, and reproducing was just a handy way of using up this excess energy. Like I said, it gets real complicated here real quick, so I’m perfectly happy to leave the particulars here to the microbiologists.

However it happened, by natural selection--but remember, natural selection of most stable states of equilibrium--these cells learned to work from a core set of molecules, which we call DNA, and just keep reproducing themselves over and over. This would allow for small structural changes to take place in some of the cells, thereby providing a way for the species to once again naturally select new cell structures that maintained just the right distance, equilibrium-wise, from the environment.

And that’s probably where sex came into reproduction. To be able to mix and match DNA from other sources would increase the range of reproductive natural selection. Again, I’ll leave this to the microbiologists. The point I want to make, though, is that natural selection in living organisms takes place for the same reason it does in inanimate forms of energy. To constantly seek out ever more stable states of equilibrium. Does that make sense to you?”

“I think so. You’re saying living cells exist in a state of equilibrium the stability of which is somewhere between that more stable equilibrium experienced by the individual molecules on the one hand and the more unstable equilibrium of the environment on the other. Right?”

“That’s about it.”

“Well, if that’s true, why didn’t they just stay in the more stable state where they were before they combined?”

“For an answer to that one, let’s go back to the very beginning of the universe. Right after the original particles of matter formed. Now if you’ll remember, these individual particles have a surface charge, the magnitude of which represents the distance, again equilibrium-wise, from the far more stable state of equilibrium enjoyed by traveling E waves. Or at least that’s what I’m proposing. And, again as we talked about, some of these particles, the luckier ones you might say, were able to quickly recombine with particles of equal mass but opposite charge so that, by canceling out completely their surface charges, they both could fall back into the more stable state of a traveling wave and continue on their way at the speed of light toward pure E wave equilibrium.

As for the other particles, they have, from that very first moment of their existence, had no recourse but to seek to return to equilibrium by whatever way they could. Thus, conditions permitting, many of them were able to first combine imperfectly with other particles of opposite charges but different masses to form atoms, with the atoms then proceeding, again where conditions permit, to combine into molecules. Now if you think about it, as each one of these combinatory steps takes place, the overall surface charge of the structure decreases. In other words, whereas some electrons were able to combine with positrons to immediately rid themselves of all their surface charge, all the others have, for 13 billion years now, give or take, been constantly in search of whatever other means were available to try and reduce that surface charge to zero so they could get back to being traveling waves. Getting back to your question, remember that all the molecules on earth, and especially those in the ocean waters just off-shore at the earth’s equator, still have some molecular surface charge such that whenever the opportunity arises, they will combine with whatever atoms and molecules are available if the new molecular combination results in a smaller surface charge.

Before we go any farther, though, I don’t mean to say that the magnitude of the surface charge can be the only criterion determining whether atoms or molecules combine. There are other internal reasons as well. But I think you can see what I mean here. There were all these molecules in the oceans constantly bumping into each other. Whenever this contact resulted in a decrease in the overall surface charge, or for whatever other reason, the new more complex molecular structure would remain until it got colder at night, or the tide went out, or whatever, at which time the new structure might break up, or not.

The overall point here, though, is that eventually, through what you might call weighted or directed trial and error, or natural selection if you will, some of these molecular structures were able remain together by finding a state of equilibrium separate from their environment. Does that answer your question?”

“I think so. And there’s something else that’s just occurred to me. Physicists and microbiologists are always talking about how the complexity of matter is always increasing, and how this might be one of the driving forces causing evolution. You’re basically taking complexity off the table by saying it’s not a cause, but, as you say, another consequence.”

“Not only that, but increasing organization as well. Plus, this use of equilibrium considerations finally explains why, as Prigogine proved mathematically, the entropy in a living cell decreases. Almost anywhere else in the universe, the atoms and molecules, which originally existed individually, would never have combined into living cells, because living cells exist in states of less stable equilibrium than the states of equilibrium their original individual constituent molecules were in. But, because of the very unique environment existing here on earth, the individual molecules were constantly mixed and matched until, finally, colonies or cells of these molecules formed which could maintain their structure, and their unstable state of equilibrium, in spite of their unstable environment. Thus life in the form of single celled organisms first came to exist here on earth.”

“Very interesting. I assume, then, we go from single celled to multi-celled organisms using the same argument?”

“Basically, yes. As Darwin realized, natural selection does indeed result in those organisms which are best adapted to their environment. But, while chance certainly plays some part in genetic mutation, and while evolution does indeed result in environmental adaptation, and all those other Darwinian considerations, not to mention increasing complexity and organization as well, none of these are fundamental causes of the evolution of living organisms. Life evolved here on earth--and is still evolving, by the way--for no other purpose than to achieve, and perhaps sometimes to maintain, ever more stable states of equilibrium.”