this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
62 points (93.1% liked)

News

23267 readers
3216 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
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
62
Scientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution (www.reuters.com)
submitted 1 year ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] machinin@lemmy.world 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?

[–] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 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.

[–] lorez@lemm.ee 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.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 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.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 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?

[–] skeletorfw@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] NotSoCoolWhip@lemmy.world 7 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.

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 10 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.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 2 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.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 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.

[–] Cicraft@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Damn you Boltzmann

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

its all fractals, isnt it

[–] geogle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Only when it's not not fractals

[–] BitingChaos@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Wake up, babe. Evolution 2.0 just dropped.

[–] ZpAz@lemm.ee 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.

[–] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER

[–] fuzzybee@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Republicans are anti-science anyway.

[–] Frog-Brawler@kbin.social 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.