• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A new theory of evolution proposed that actually makes sense

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
11,252
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12

A smart physist has (maybe) figured out the mathematical formula that underlies evolution and explains how life will inevitably get started if the environment is suitable.

The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”
 
Interesting, but it should be called 'a new theory of abiogenesis that actually makes sense.'
 
So....NOT a theory of evolution.

Abiogenesis.

Close enough for government work. The big questions of biology have always been, how?, and why here? If someone ever demonstrates 'how?', the 'why here?' could be just a matter of good fortune, or random chance.
 
Actually, it's a theory explaining why justifying abiogenesis isn't a sensible question. The claim is that the defining feature of life actually exists as a continuum of energy dissipation phenomena.
 
Actually, it's a theory explaining why justifying abiogenesis isn't a sensible question. The claim is that the defining feature of life actually exists as a continuum of energy dissipation phenomena.

Can you translate this to english please?
 
Actually, it's a theory explaining why justifying abiogenesis isn't a sensible question. The claim is that the defining feature of life actually exists as a continuum of energy dissipation phenomena.

Can you translate this to english please?

Did you read the article?

“This means clumps of atoms surrounded by a bath at some temperature, like the atmosphere or the ocean, should tend over time to arrange themselves to resonate better and better with the sources of mechanical, electromagnetic or chemical work in their environments,” England explained.

Self-replication (or reproduction, in biological terms), the process that drives the evolution of life on Earth, is one such mechanism by which a system might dissipate an increasing amount of energy over time.

As England put it, “A great way of dissipating more is to make more copies of yourself.”

...

The chemistry of the primordial soup, random mutations, geography, catastrophic events and countless other factors have contributed to the fine details of Earth’s diverse flora and fauna. But according to England’s theory, the underlying principle driving the whole process is dissipation-driven adaptation of matter.

This principle would apply to inanimate matter as well. “It is very tempting to speculate about what phenomena in nature we can now fit under this big tent of dissipation-driven adaptive organization,” England said. “Many examples could just be right under our nose, but because we haven’t been looking for them we haven’t noticed them.”

...

Besides self-replication, greater structural organization is another means by which strongly driven systems ramp up their ability to dissipate energy. A plant, for example, is much better at capturing and routing solar energy through itself than an unstructured heap of carbon atoms. Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize. This tendency could account for the internal order of living things and of many inanimate structures as well. “Snowflakes, sand dunes and turbulent vortices all have in common that they are strikingly patterned structures that emerge in many-particle systems driven by some dissipative process,” he said. Condensation, wind and viscous drag are the relevant processes in these particular cases.

“He is making me think that the distinction between living and nonliving matter is not sharp,” said Carl Franck, a biological physicist at Cornell University, in an email. “I’m particularly impressed by this notion when one considers systems as small as chemical circuits involving a few biomolecules.”
 
Actually, it's a theory explaining why justifying abiogenesis isn't a sensible question. The claim is that the defining feature of life actually exists as a continuum of energy dissipation phenomena.

Wouldn't existence of a continuum of energy dissipation phenomena imply existence of a continuum of energy retention phenomena and wouldn't existence of the two imply existence of other energy phenomena continuum?

I'm wondering what energy continuum would atomic complexity phenomena imply and would such be dependent on nuclear energy continuum phenomena and wouldn't such dependent on bang continuum phenomena ... etc?
 
Can you translate this to english please?

Did you read the article?

“This means clumps of atoms surrounded by a bath at some temperature, like the atmosphere or the ocean, should tend over time to arrange themselves to resonate better and better with the sources of mechanical, electromagnetic or chemical work in their environments,” England explained.

Self-replication (or reproduction, in biological terms), the process that drives the evolution of life on Earth, is one such mechanism by which a system might dissipate an increasing amount of energy over time.

As England put it, “A great way of dissipating more is to make more copies of yourself.”

...

The chemistry of the primordial soup, random mutations, geography, catastrophic events and countless other factors have contributed to the fine details of Earth’s diverse flora and fauna. But according to England’s theory, the underlying principle driving the whole process is dissipation-driven adaptation of matter.

This principle would apply to inanimate matter as well. “It is very tempting to speculate about what phenomena in nature we can now fit under this big tent of dissipation-driven adaptive organization,” England said. “Many examples could just be right under our nose, but because we haven’t been looking for them we haven’t noticed them.”

...

Besides self-replication, greater structural organization is another means by which strongly driven systems ramp up their ability to dissipate energy. A plant, for example, is much better at capturing and routing solar energy through itself than an unstructured heap of carbon atoms. Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize. This tendency could account for the internal order of living things and of many inanimate structures as well. “Snowflakes, sand dunes and turbulent vortices all have in common that they are strikingly patterned structures that emerge in many-particle systems driven by some dissipative process,” he said. Condensation, wind and viscous drag are the relevant processes in these particular cases.

“He is making me think that the distinction between living and nonliving matter is not sharp,” said Carl Franck, a biological physicist at Cornell University, in an email. “I’m particularly impressed by this notion when one considers systems as small as chemical circuits involving a few biomolecules.”

This does not make your post clearer.
 
Should it not be called 'a new hypothesis of abiogenesis that might make sense?'
Isn't a scientific theory just an hypothesis that has not been falsified? So both 'hypothesis' and 'theory' would be correct.

And I guess the hypothesis does or doesn't make sense. 'Might' is not right.
EB
 
Yes, this is not new at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine#Dissipative_structures_theory
And I did not know that Theory of Evolution was not making sense.

What Jeremy England has contributed is a new (and better) equation. The earlier one's were more complicated. The history of this work can be found in the article. But it is correct that the theory is not new.
I'm not sure how to make sense of the term "dissipate" in this context. Maybe it's a generalisation of the original notion?

Originally, the idea of dissipation was that it would come with an increase in entropy, like in a radiator, i.e. some of the energy in higher energy states would spread around to lower energy states bringing all energy states closer to the average with a reduction in the number of possible energy states. I thought life didn't work like that. Instead, some of the energy would be stored in certain complex structures (proteins etc.). Overall, entropy is still going up but at the same time there's crucially a local decrease in some subset of the system, whereby energy is stored, with higher energy states than before, allowing life's characteristic patterns to occur based on this energy store. So the characteristic of life wouldn't be dissipation of energy (since this occurs anyway) but the concurrent increase of entropy overall with a limited and local decrease. This is the local decrease which seems crucial here. So, how does that figure in this "new" theory? How is that dissipation?
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom