There is much confusion over this paradox, and many evolutionists claim that it too is solved, although most people confuse thermodynamic direction with the Second Law, but these are not the same. Instead, this paradox concerns that any equation is a closed system of information, so it can run in either direction in time. When physical systems run in either direction, we call them reversible. When systems involve conversion of energy, rules stipulate one direction, towards increasing disorder, which is irreversible. Life combines reversible (the gene) and irreversible (the cell) processes. Incredibly, though, when the gene and cell combine, the irreversible part flips direction 180O, and moves towards an increase in order, against the usual thermodynamic direction.
To be careful, the 180O change of thermodynamic direction does not violate other laws, just that rules forbid us from adding the reversible and irreversible parts of an equation to prove a result. This problem, (I think), was the paradox correctly identified by Schrodinger. Notice, however, rules forbid us from combing the reversible and irreversible parts of an equation, but in a standard frequency, it is also forbidden to combine two pathways of selection. The new model can solve how to combine the two pathways, so if this is the same problem, this approach should be able to solve the Schrodinger Paradox as well.
In a two-pathway model, the cellular pathway is irreversible, and the molecular pathway is reversible, but both pathways are emulated as a frequency, which is reversible. Now, any frequency is directionless, but in Fig 0.2, there is a 'direction', in how the 90O 'angle', between the xi and Xi axes, is faced. This could be either +90O, or –90O, and there is no rule. In a transition, however, the molecular pathway has to cross the 100% barrier first, in which case the molecular path, Xi, 'leads' (like aiming a gun) the cellular path, xi. By convention, 'lead' is a positive, +90O. This is how Fig 0.2 is drawn, but I suggest that the +90O angle is the 'positive' thermodynamic direction to evolution, which is towards increasing order. Let me give two examples of how it works.
Take the case of modern life.
If Xi 'leads' xi, it roughly means that there will be more genes as a molecular frequency, distributed across life, than the same genes will be found in just one cellular population. It seems obvious, but if you test it, this is only true if life evolves in a 'positive' direction. For instance, if a gene exists in one cellular population, and it exists in other populations, this is only possible if the other populations evolved in the past, which is only possible if life evolves in a positive direction. On the other hand, if a gene existed in just one population, the +90O means that the gene might still spread into other populations in the "future", but this too is only possible if life evolves in a positive direction.
Next, consider an example from ancient life.
Critics can object that my example of modern life is unfair, because we know the answer after the fact. Yet take an example billions of years ago, no one could know about. In a pre-biotic soup, suppose that early selection was refining self-replicating molecules and empty proto-cells. The question then arises if there must be more or less self-replicating molecules than proto-cells, for life to evolve, or if both must be of equal number. No one could know, yet if the reversible process must 'lead' the irreversible one, then there must be more self-replicating molecules than empty proto-cells, in a pre-biotic soup, to cross the first transition into life. I hope that there is a way to test this, but I make a prediction, based on the rule that a +90O angle between the xi and Xi axis, is the 'positive' direction in which life evolves.
