Step aside Darwinism, say hello to "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization"

Right, let m break it down for you as simply as i possibly can.


This hypothesis essentially posits that the complexity of both animate (living) and inanimate (non-living) forms in the known universe is driven by the second law of thermodynamics (dissipation). This means complexity emerges and continually evolves over time to become and more efficient at the spreading out of heat / source energy.

This includes DNA, and complexity at every imaginable and even unimaginable scale... from the beginning of the universe until now and in the future.

So that's why i am saying, this if proven will re-write the entire foundation of evolutionary theory, and "natural selection" will be given a rewrite too in all likelihood because it doesn't include the second law of thermodynamics, which is wrong according to the Dissipation-Driven Adaptive Organization hypothesis that says the second law of thermodynamics is fundamental at all levels of Adaptation in the universe.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Entropy discribes this process. I cant see a huge discovery here. Were basicly applying large scale physics (which is common knowledge ) to biological evolution , this seems reasonable. We know that all matter,even you and i are just recycled matter thats always existed in this universe , and will always exist.

a reply to: TechniXcality

go back 100 years ... "change describes complexity" that was "evolution"... a revolutionary idea at the time.

Today;
Entropy explains AND describes that evolutionary process in probably some imaginable and unimaginable ways. Think Micro & Macro



lol I just noticed this was my post No. 777

Get lucky

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Groundbreaking ideas of life's origin's.

They might find, for example, that “the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,” Louis said.

That just expands the scale of "fitness" to physical phenomenon instead of a more descriptive biological one.

Big bang, nebula formation, galaxy formation, solar system formation all the way down to formation of life are all very deterministic physical phenomenon.

Thinking of it this way makes one really in awe of the complexity of the physical processes that result in the now.

... this isn't just a theory concerned with the origins of life, its a theory concerned with the continuum of all phenomena including life, not just its origins...

I think the point you raised above regarding the need for a theory which describes the full continuum of all phenomena, a theory that would simply catch life in its dragnet, is precisely what scientists should be attempting to participate in. The competition, the factions, the vested interests, the argumentalism - and of course the suppression of developments that could harm 'national security' (etc) - all of this is what will keep scientists locked in their evermore specialised boxes, instead of any chance that we will collectively raise our game and seek out the next phase of the enlightenment.

I find the rough draft of this theory resonates very well with the general development of the trend towards a new paradigm. The physics of information, holographic ideas, fields and the primordial matrix of the Tao. I'm just fascinated by various developments in recent years, and I applaud any initiative that seeks to take people away from partisanship in the search for Truth.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Right, let m break it down for you as simply as i possibly can.


This hypothesis essentially posits that the complexity of both animate (living) and inanimate (non-living) forms in the known universe is driven by the second law of thermodynamics (dissipation). This means complexity emerges and continually evolves over time to become and more efficient at the spreading out of heat / source energy.

This includes DNA, and complexity at every imaginable and even unimaginable scale... from the beginning of the universe until now and in the future.

So that's why i am saying, this if proven will re-write the entire foundation of evolutionary theory, and "natural selection" will be given a rewrite too in all likelihood because it doesn't include the second law of thermodynamics, which is wrong according to the Dissipation-Driven Adaptive Organization hypothesis that says the second law of thermodynamics is fundamental at all levels of Adaptation in the universe.

I appreciate the explanation. Thanks.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution, though. It applies only to things in a CLOSED system and evolution is limited to earth as far as we know. The earth is an open system. We don't know if the universe is open or closed. Evolution will NOT need to be re written because even though things MIGHT become more complex over time in the universe, genetic mutations still happen and the fittest still survive.

If you want to suggest that it is responsible for some of the mutations you may be correct, but it will not remove or replace natural selection. Unless you'd care to explain how? I know you said this hypothesis has evidence but so does abiogenesis. I'm not buying this one. Who knows, though, it may be right some day, I just very highly doubt it and it wouldn't rewrite evolution, it would explain some of its lesser known mechanisms.

I also have to ask. Is there any physical evidence for this or is it purely a mathematical theory?

a reply to: Barcs

Earth can both be discribed as a closed or open system, depending on the context. regardless entropy applys in all parts of the universe because the universe is a closed system. Though i see nothing groundbreaking with the application to biology.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Barcs

Earth can both be discribed as a closed or open system, depending on the context. regardless entropy applys in all parts of the universe because the universe is a closed system. Though i see nothing groundbreaking with the application to biology.

The earth receives energy from the sun, therefor it is an open system. I'm not sure what other context there could be. As far as the universe goes, it depends on what you mean by universe. If you mean everything in existence including anything we haven't discovered, then, yeah, it would be closed since it includes everything to ever exist regardless of dimensions. But that doesn't mean it affects everything at every level in the same way. Even if the universe is closed system, it contains numerous open systems where entropy would not apply as it does elsewhere.

If you're strictly referring to our known universe, we have no idea whether it's open or closed, because we don't know what, if anything is beyond that border. You can't apply the the law of thermodynamics to an open system like the earth. Entropy doesn't apply when a system is constantly gaining new energy. Entropy is about the slow loss of energy over time, leading to less organization. This may apply overall, but it doesn't affect evolution, because it is dependent on the fact that the earth is open. The only way entropy directly affects earth and the life on it, is in the fact that the sun will eventually run out of energy.

a reply to: Barcs

The only context that earth is a open system is through energy from the sun. The earth is generally regarded as a closed system. The universe is a closed system, as matter can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed. Entropy describes the state of low entropy/order to high entropy state ultimately reaching equilibrium. Surely entropy effects biology in turn evolution. Entropy describes a state of matter. Entropy has new applications, rather than the classic thermodynamics, it also is applied to statistical mechanics.

Thats false.

Is a rock NATURALLY SELECTED to fall to ground by the earth gravitational pull? Is a helium balloon NATURALLY SELECTED to float into the sky?

NO

No?

Why not?

The selective forces are environmental: gravity and relative density.

I really don't see what the problem is.

a reply to: TechniXcality

The earth is in no way as closed system. Nearly all of our energy comes from the sun. It's an open system.

a reply to: flyingfish

My references are impeccable - the first two from the US National PubMed Health Database (undeniable credentials); the third is from the Journal of Physiology (a respected professional publication) and the fourth is from the Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology - another respected professional publication.

.....I am less concerned about your outright lies than I am with the ignorant naivety of those who actually starred your totally false and completely unfounded allegations.





lol. Welcome to the new ATS I suppose.

a reply to: Barcs

Is there any physical evidence for this or is it purely a mathematical theory?

Oh yeah. Lots of evidence, expanding daily. It's the 'new' science of epigenetics - meaning 'above genetics,' and referring to mechanisms that determine -and override- gene expression. Simply put, our genes (DNA) are the hardware and epigenetics is software. England's work is important in that he's looking behind epigenetic mechanisms to determine how and why this software gets written.


ETA to add links:

WHAT IS EPIGENETICS?

Epigenetics are temporary biochemical changes in the genome caused by environmental influences. The researchers behind the new study explain that if genes are the "hardware" of cells, then epigenetics are their "software."

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Just to be clear - this idea was first put forward by two researchers from the University of Finland. Yes, it's controversial but also, clearly has enough merit to be appropriated by an MIT physicist. Methinks it's one of those ideas that needs to be out there and credit be dammed.

....cells are complex dissipative systems (CDS) in that they consume energy and thus operate according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it applies to open systems.

a reply to: Barcs

Simply put natural selection is too simple.

a reply to: soficrow

My references are impeccable - the first two from the US National PubMed Health Database (undeniable credentials);

This is a book, Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An introduction to the new evolutionary paradigm, linked to Journal of Theoretical Biology, written by Mae-Wan Ho.
Ho and her colleagues have come up with some interesting ideas that may expand our approach for studying the processes in evolution but in many places have set up straw man arguments in their criticism of natural selection.
Because of her criticism of so called "neo-Darwinism", Ho is usually quote mined by creationists, not unlike what we see in your posts.
Link

the third is from the Journal of Physiology (a respected professional publication)

Read your own links!
If you scroll down the page it reads:

This article has been written for a physiological readership that may not be very familiar with the current debates in evolutionary and genetic theory. If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based.

Denis Noble is not anti-evolution, he is only "debating" the mechanisms of evolution.
Noble has been quote mined by intelligent design proponents, but Noble soundly rejects intelligent design. Despite his criticism of so called "neo-Darwinism", Noble is still a Darwinist as he accepts natural selection.
Link

and the fourth is from the Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology - another respected professional publication.

Read your links!!
Still originated from OMICS publishing group, and as you know has made the List of Predatory Publishers.
Try again!

a reply to: flyingfish
Yawn... Very boring.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Barcs

The only context that earth is a open system is through energy from the sun. The earth is generally regarded as a closed system. The universe is a closed system, as matter can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed. Entropy describes the state of low entropy/order to high entropy state ultimately reaching equilibrium. Surely entropy effects biology in turn evolution. Entropy describes a state of matter. Entropy has new applications, rather than the classic thermodynamics, it also is applied to statistical mechanics.

The earth getting energy from the sun is kind of a big one, and is precisely what fuels life on earth and evolution. Since we're talking about origin of life hypotheses and evolution, it's the only context to look at it with. Without the sun's energy the earth would indeed be nothing more than a frozen rocky wasteland, forever unchanged until something collides with it. It's open because with no sun, there is no life, no liquid water, no seasons, no wind, basically nothing. Entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics are the huge creationist arguments these days, which is why I think this hypothesis is bunk. I guess we'll see.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs

Simply put natural selection is too simple.

let us know when you win a nobel for proving that.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs

Simply put natural selection is too simple.

How? I've been asking for details on how it replaces natural selection since page 1 and you've been dancing around the question. Genetic mutations are real. Increased survival chances for better adapted organisms is real. Am I wrong in assuming that you are familiar with this hypothesis and you aren't just another creationist parroting an idea that supposedly conflicts with evolution? Why, precisely, are they mutually exclusive?