this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
63 points (93.2% liked)

News

23387 readers
2266 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
63
Scientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution (www.reuters.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Titled the "law of increasing functional information," it holds that evolving systems, biological and non-biological, always form from numerous interacting building blocks like atoms or cells, and that processes exist - such as cellular mutation - that generate many different configurations. Evolution occurs, it holds, when these various configurations are subject to selection for useful functions.

It seems difficult to believe that this is as revolutionary as the theory of evolution. Does anyone know if there is any more "meat" to this theory?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like that is basic evolutionary theory. Maybe I should actually RTFA..

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Oh, I see. They're just saying that non biological systems are also subject to evolutionary forces, which feels pretty junk science-y to me. Maybe it's just that humans could only evolve in a system that allowed it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Well if you subject anything to selective pressures there will be always something that resists and the rest will be annihilated. Or it will be all destroyed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Hear, hear, the latest news.

In an unexpected twist chemical mutations are not exclusive to the cells of living creatures.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Is it accounting for how life itself would have developed in the first place from non-biological systems, a sort of counter to Creationism?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even when reading the paper there was very very little meat. It's conjecture built upon conjecture but very little of it seems to stand on its own for me. It's another theoretical framework that is nice to write about but doesn't actually even try to explain much.

Their argument seems to be that there is selection working on everything to increase complexity. Even cursorily there seems to be major problems with such a conjecture. They feel to me like they confuse persistence with drive.

A thing that lasts longer is more likely to be observed by someone born at a random point in time. This is persistence. This doesn't mean that things try to get to a state where they last longer, particularly not chemical structures!

This reminds me a lot of that assembly theory paper that came out a week or so ago and was (in my opinion deservedly) battered by most reputable evolutionary biologists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I thought they defined persistence as literally the length of time an entity exists. There are many ways to persis under their model.

For non biological systems, it's about being in a energetically favorable state for the environment. For example, while many chemicals will form and break down quickly as their environment changes, with form more stable structures that persist through the shifting environments. These structures are selected for as the basis of potentially new reactions and chemicals.

I haven't given chemistry much thought, but the idea holds pretty well for biological systems.

Ultimately, you're right this is totally a thought piece. However, it's great discussion material.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Look at a close up of moss. It looks like a forest.

Further,

Look at cells, just groups of proteins. Look at organs, just groups of cells. Look at organisms. Just groups of organs. Look at societies, just groups of organisms. Each step is constituted of building blocks of another. The universe is a self organizing system of complexity. I've bored my friends with this theory under the influence of THC but I finally feel vindicated.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When folks conflate a scientific law with a scientific theory. Theories are scientific explanations about why things happen. Laws are descriptions, that don't provide explanation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's not a distinction generally used by scientists.

Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of special relativity are both sets of equations that describe motion, but they do not explain why gravity obeys an inverse square law, why c is invariant, etc.

In contrast, Gause's law of competitive exclusion and Darwin's theory of natural selection both explain population distributions in nature.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Evo biologist here. These ideas are not really new to the field of evolution, but they are well laid out (if a little dense) & somewhat codified here.

The paper is an interesting read. Dunno if i agree with all of it yet, but it's good to see the case made for thinking about evolution as a process that spans systems come up again.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You see, there are these jars. Inside these jars are these brains. And the jars are floating in space.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Damn you Boltzmann

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

its all fractals, isnt it

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it just:

  • A species with certain traits is more likely to persist in a their environment.

  • Some elements / forces with certain traits are more likely to persist in their environment. (Eg more stable atom configurations etc)

I thought everyone was already on board with that.

The most stable configuration would be the heat death of the universe, which will then be around the longest eventually.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Wake up, babe. Evolution 2.0 just dropped.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It will never make it out of the House of Representatives.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Republicans are anti-science anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I bet this has something to do with what they recently found out regarding evolution within the lake malawi fish. I heard about that about 2 weeks ago, this lines up too well.