63
Scientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
63 points (93.2% liked)
News
23275 readers
1340 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
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?
I feel like that is basic evolutionary theory. Maybe I should actually RTFA..
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.
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.
Hear, hear, the latest news.
In an unexpected twist chemical mutations are not exclusive to the cells of living creatures.
Is it accounting for how life itself would have developed in the first place from non-biological systems, a sort of counter to Creationism?
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.
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.
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.