Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
by PhysoOrg
Thanks to SPS for the link.
http://www.physorg.com/news137679868.html
Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
By viewing evolution as the motion of energy flows toward a stationary state (entropy), evolution can be explained by the second law of thermodynamics, a law which conventionally describes physical systems. In this view, a cheetah serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow the animal to transfer more energy within its environment, helping even out the energy. Image credit: Rob Qld.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Often, physics and biology appear as different worlds, from a scientist's point of view. Each discipline has its own language and concepts, and physicists and biologists tend to look at the world in different ways — not least being from inanimate and animate perspectives.
But at the core of these two sciences is the concept of motion. As a biological ecosystem evolves by the process of natural selection, it disperses energy, increases entropy, and moves toward a stationary state with respect to its surroundings. Similarly, as energy flows in various physical phenomena, they too cause biological systems to move toward stationary states with respect to their surroundings, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Whether an object is animate or inanimate, science does not seem to make a distinction. In both cases, energy flows toward a stationary state, or a state of equilibrium, in the absence of a high-energy external source.
In this way, explain Ville Kaila and Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki, the second law of thermodynamics can be written as an equation of motion to describe evolution, and, in doing so, connect biology with physics. Their study, "Natural selection for least action," is published in the Proceedings of The Royal Society A.
The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the energy of a system tends to even itself out with its surroundings ("a system's entropy always increases"), can be expressed in many different forms. Kaila and Annila focus on two of these forms. When written as a differential equation of motion, the second law can describe evolution as an energy transfer process: natural selection tends to favor the random mutations that lead to faster entropy increases in an ecosystem. When written in integral form, the second law describes the principle of least action: motion, in general, takes the path of least energy.
Then, the scientists showed how natural selection and the principle of least action can be connected by expressing natural selection in terms of chemical thermodynamics. As the scientists explain, nature explores many possible paths to level differences in energy densities, with one kind of energy transfer mechanism being different species within the larger system of the Earth.
Mechanisms of energy transduction, especially biological species, can be intricate and complex. By randomly mutating individuals of a species, various paths are explored in the quest of increasing entropy most rapidly. These mutations sooner or later naturally converge on the most probable path. Although the energy landscape keeps changing, the most probable path is always that which is the shortest and follows the steepest energy descents. It leads toward a stationary state, such as an ecosystem evolving toward a state that will have just the right amount of plants, plant eaters, and other energy transfer mechanisms (both living and non-living) to maintain the highest rate of energy dispersal.
"In a biological context, when two rather similar species (i.e. energy transduction mechanisms) compete for the same source of energy (e.g. food), the one with even slightly more effective mechanisms (e.g. claws, teeth, feet, etc.) captures more than the other," Annila explained to PhysOrg.com. "Gradually, the population of the more effective species will increase at the expense of the other. The overall process is pictured as flows of energy that gradually and naturally select the more effective, steeper paths. In biology, this physical consequence, which can be deduced from Lyapunov stability criterion, is known as the competitive exclusion principle.
"Let us assume that a mutation happens to improve the speed of a cheetah," he added as an example. "Consequently, this cheetah will catch more food, i.e. more energy will channel through this individual — the path has become steeper. Likewise, a deleterious mutation will reduce the flow via the particular path that has turned less steep. In this case, the non-mutated paths are the healthy rivalries, and will enjoy correspondingly larger flows due to the diminished competition."
The researchers note that this abstract description provides a holistic view of evolving nature, not a detailed explanation for how individual species emerge from the process. For example, plant-eating species distribute the solar energy acquired by photosynthesis, and the cheetah, as a carnivore, disperses energy further down along the gradients of the food chain, which eventually terminates into cold space. And since these energy flows themselves yield and affect energy transfer mechanisms that, in turn, alter the flows, it's virtually impossible to predict evolution's next move.
"A system evolves to reach a stationary state with respect to its surroundings," Annila explained. "That is to say, when the surrounding environment is high in energy, then the system will evolve to a high-energy stationary state. Matter on Earth has evolved over eons in increasing its energy content to match that of the solar radiation density. During this process, mechanisms of energy transduction have improved, but presumably there are still ways to catch more of the sunlight to power activities that are presently fueled by non-renewables."
The idea of using the second law of thermodynamics to describe evolution is not new. As far back as 1899, physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, a great admirer of Darwin, was contemplating about connection. Also, Alfred J. Lotka, in his main work published in 1925, expressed full confidence that biotic systems follow the same universal imperative. Many scientists today have recognized the principle of increasing entropy as a way to understand life. The connection between increasing entropy and decreasing free energy, provided by Kaila and Annila via the principle of least action, has further strengthened the unified description of natural motions.
More information: Kaila, Ville R. I. and Annila, Arto. "Natural selection for least action." Proceedings of The Royal Society A. doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178.
http://www.physorg.com/news137679868.html
Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
By viewing evolution as the motion of energy flows toward a stationary state (entropy), evolution can be explained by the second law of thermodynamics, a law which conventionally describes physical systems. In this view, a cheetah serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow the animal to transfer more energy within its environment, helping even out the energy. Image credit: Rob Qld.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Often, physics and biology appear as different worlds, from a scientist's point of view. Each discipline has its own language and concepts, and physicists and biologists tend to look at the world in different ways — not least being from inanimate and animate perspectives.
But at the core of these two sciences is the concept of motion. As a biological ecosystem evolves by the process of natural selection, it disperses energy, increases entropy, and moves toward a stationary state with respect to its surroundings. Similarly, as energy flows in various physical phenomena, they too cause biological systems to move toward stationary states with respect to their surroundings, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Whether an object is animate or inanimate, science does not seem to make a distinction. In both cases, energy flows toward a stationary state, or a state of equilibrium, in the absence of a high-energy external source.
In this way, explain Ville Kaila and Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki, the second law of thermodynamics can be written as an equation of motion to describe evolution, and, in doing so, connect biology with physics. Their study, "Natural selection for least action," is published in the Proceedings of The Royal Society A.
The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the energy of a system tends to even itself out with its surroundings ("a system's entropy always increases"), can be expressed in many different forms. Kaila and Annila focus on two of these forms. When written as a differential equation of motion, the second law can describe evolution as an energy transfer process: natural selection tends to favor the random mutations that lead to faster entropy increases in an ecosystem. When written in integral form, the second law describes the principle of least action: motion, in general, takes the path of least energy.
Then, the scientists showed how natural selection and the principle of least action can be connected by expressing natural selection in terms of chemical thermodynamics. As the scientists explain, nature explores many possible paths to level differences in energy densities, with one kind of energy transfer mechanism being different species within the larger system of the Earth.
Mechanisms of energy transduction, especially biological species, can be intricate and complex. By randomly mutating individuals of a species, various paths are explored in the quest of increasing entropy most rapidly. These mutations sooner or later naturally converge on the most probable path. Although the energy landscape keeps changing, the most probable path is always that which is the shortest and follows the steepest energy descents. It leads toward a stationary state, such as an ecosystem evolving toward a state that will have just the right amount of plants, plant eaters, and other energy transfer mechanisms (both living and non-living) to maintain the highest rate of energy dispersal.
"In a biological context, when two rather similar species (i.e. energy transduction mechanisms) compete for the same source of energy (e.g. food), the one with even slightly more effective mechanisms (e.g. claws, teeth, feet, etc.) captures more than the other," Annila explained to PhysOrg.com. "Gradually, the population of the more effective species will increase at the expense of the other. The overall process is pictured as flows of energy that gradually and naturally select the more effective, steeper paths. In biology, this physical consequence, which can be deduced from Lyapunov stability criterion, is known as the competitive exclusion principle.
"Let us assume that a mutation happens to improve the speed of a cheetah," he added as an example. "Consequently, this cheetah will catch more food, i.e. more energy will channel through this individual — the path has become steeper. Likewise, a deleterious mutation will reduce the flow via the particular path that has turned less steep. In this case, the non-mutated paths are the healthy rivalries, and will enjoy correspondingly larger flows due to the diminished competition."
The researchers note that this abstract description provides a holistic view of evolving nature, not a detailed explanation for how individual species emerge from the process. For example, plant-eating species distribute the solar energy acquired by photosynthesis, and the cheetah, as a carnivore, disperses energy further down along the gradients of the food chain, which eventually terminates into cold space. And since these energy flows themselves yield and affect energy transfer mechanisms that, in turn, alter the flows, it's virtually impossible to predict evolution's next move.
"A system evolves to reach a stationary state with respect to its surroundings," Annila explained. "That is to say, when the surrounding environment is high in energy, then the system will evolve to a high-energy stationary state. Matter on Earth has evolved over eons in increasing its energy content to match that of the solar radiation density. During this process, mechanisms of energy transduction have improved, but presumably there are still ways to catch more of the sunlight to power activities that are presently fueled by non-renewables."
The idea of using the second law of thermodynamics to describe evolution is not new. As far back as 1899, physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, a great admirer of Darwin, was contemplating about connection. Also, Alfred J. Lotka, in his main work published in 1925, expressed full confidence that biotic systems follow the same universal imperative. Many scientists today have recognized the principle of increasing entropy as a way to understand life. The connection between increasing entropy and decreasing free energy, provided by Kaila and Annila via the principle of least action, has further strengthened the unified description of natural motions.
More information: Kaila, Ville R. I. and Annila, Arto. "Natural selection for least action." Proceedings of The Royal Society A. doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178.
Comments 1 - 50 of 50 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #228754 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Comment #228752 by SimonwIf you want to prove evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics one can show order created by the energy of the sun by looking at any plant growing. It is a lot easier than reading this article, and a lot more "obvious".
I think this is saying a bit more than just "evolution doesn't violate the second law", but that given the laws of thermodynamics, combined with a supply of order (such the directional energy of the sun), then evolution of life is inevitable.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
3. Comment #228767 by the great teapot on August 12, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Evolution can be explained by the second law of thermodynamics.Thank god for that, where would the theory of evolution be without the second law of thermodynamics, screw the fossil records here is the second law of thermodynamics coming to our rescue.
Anyway, I ve read the title, now for the rest of the article.
Other Comments by the great teapot
4. Comment #228779 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Comment #228772 by BrunoDid anybody else understand it that way?
Not me. I read that evolution operates because of thermodynamics. It isn't just similar, it is a consequence. This is clear from the following sentence:
Then, the scientists showed how natural selection and the principle of least action can be connected by expressing natural selection in terms of chemical thermodynamics.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
5. Comment #228781 by TuftedPuffin on August 12, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I'm going to coin a term here...this is an example of "greedy holism". Instead of reducing something to its components, these people seem to be saying that a large, complex system obeys a general rule, without bothering to show how this relates to the behavior of its parts.Evolution operates like...evolution. Evolution is what happens when a bunch of genes compete. Attaching some grand "evening out energy" purpose to it seems vacuous at best and misleading at worst. Maybe I simply don't get the central point of this, but it doesn't look like anything real is being said here.
Other Comments by TuftedPuffin
6. Comment #228794 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Comment #228781 by TuftedPuffinAttaching some grand "evening out energy" purpose to it seems vacuous at best and misleading at worst.
It isn't any kind of purpose. It is basic thermodynamics. Life can arise and maintain its structure and complexity because it "feeds off" order provided primarily by the sun.
To put things simply, the Sun provides a source of order because it is highly directed energy within relatively narrow wavelengths. Life can use that order to keep itself going because it increases overall entropy by radiating off energy in a far less ordered state (this is the energy transference that is mentioned).
I think this is a very useful way of looking at things. I think it is a misunderstanding to consider this superfluous to fossil studies etc. Fossils show what happens when evolution is driven by thermodynamics, at least in a sense.
This helps to show that natural selection is a more fundamental part of nature than many might have thought.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
7. Comment #228807 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm
An article on this idea (evolution driven by thermodynamics) many years ago in the New Scientist gave the contracted hand waving explanation that systems always sought the most effective (speedy) path for increasing entropy. As a general rule more complex arrangements can make for more effective heat transfer than simple arrangements. Hence, systems would become more complex, speeding heat transfer until some limit or other made any further increase in complexity counter-productive.To illustrate this point it was imagined that a pan of water would be heated uniformly from underneath. The water convection would migrate from some simple initial pattern to a more complex one of multiple hexagonal cells that maximised the rate of flow of water and hence of heat. (The minimum/optimum cell size, is in fact limited by the water depth. Optimal circulation happens with uniform circulation velocities and hence circular paths. Cell size, therefore, approximates water depth.)
Other Comments by phil rimmer
8. Comment #228811 by agn on August 12, 2008 at 2:58 pm
The crucial point here is the connection with the principle of least action.This is just about the most overarching principle of systemo-dynamic thinking in all of physics (not at all constrained merely to thermodynamics), and I am thrilled that the principle of evolution may be our old friend, the least action principle, in yet another disguise.
Other Comments by agn
9. Comment #228814 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I am thrilled that the principle of evolution may be our old friend, the least action principle, in yet another disguise.
Absolutely. It means that evolution isn't really that special, and it isn't improbable. It is likely to be a fundamental part of nature.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
10. Comment #228816 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:06 pm
. Comment #228815 by Brian English His husband mistakenly sprayed him with fertilizer and the foliage took over.
Other Comments by decius
11. Comment #228820 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Brian-
Are you suggesting that the plants are growing out of his shirt and obscuring his visage?
Or he stood there too long and the plants grew through his head.
And on that cheery note, I'm off to bed.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
12. Comment #228821 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Comment #228818 by Brian EnglishPrecisely.
Other Comments by decius
13. Comment #228825 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Comment #228816 by deciusthe foliage took over.
His face got more complex to help dissipate all those unwanted calories.
*coat*
Other Comments by phil rimmer
14. Comment #228829 by Angels On a Pin Head on August 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The author of this article, Lisa Zyga, also wrote the article that appeared a while back on the perpetual motion machine.Judging by that, I wouldn't trust her on the subject of thermodynamics. Not to say that she must be wrong here, but I'd reserve judgement until you read the paper yourself or until a more reliable source reports on it.
Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head
15. Comment #228830 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Comment #228825 by phil rimmerHe now is a sort of Marvel superhero.
the Ivy Man
Other Comments by decius
16. Comment #228831 by the great teapot on August 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm
AgnI do not understand your reply.I do not want your pity nor your sarcasm,an explanation would be more helpfull. If you have one.
Other Comments by the great teapot
17. Comment #228832 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 3:22 pm
DeciusI'm on the phone to Stan Lee right now. I think you're on to something.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
18. Comment #228836 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Comment #228833 by Brian EnglishOK, the universe is increasing in entropy. One of the processes by which entropy is increased is life. If it weren't for the sun, we'd be up to our eyeballs in entropy.
The interesting point to the New Scientist illustration I quoted is that there is an upper (optimum) limit on complexity in any given circumstance.
So, are we optimally complex now?
Other Comments by phil rimmer
19. Comment #228843 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Comment #228819 by the great teapotphysics has no detailed explanation for the specifics of evolution. Any credit here is surely unwarranted.
This isn't about specifics. It is about driving forces. Much of nature is chaotic, but we still look for general explanations even though we can't predict the behaviour of every particle.
I think you are missing the point. This isn't saying that thermodynamics explains everything about evolution, but that evolution seems to be a natural consequence of thermodynamics.
It is a bit like, for example, the formation of our solar system. It was chaotic, and you could not have started out with a gas cloud and predicted the formation of the Earth, but you can understand that gravity was a driving force.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
20. Comment #228844 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 3:38 pm
BrianSee! I've outsmarted thermodynamics....
Clever. No, cool!
Other Comments by phil rimmer
21. Comment #228846 by the great teapot on August 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Are we optimally complex now?Wtf are you stupid phil did you not read what the
mathematical&theoretical unification had to say about that. fool.
Other Comments by the great teapot
22. Comment #228849 by the great teapot on August 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm
steve.As ever ,many thanks for your patience in trying to explain. to an idiot.
Brian,
Iam not looking for the answer to life, the universe and everything, (well I am) but religion has taught me to be wary of anything that makes claims beyond it's capabilities. I do not exclude anything from this constraint.
Other Comments by the great teapot
23. Comment #228850 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Comment #228846 by the great teapot:are you stupid phil
Guess I must be, hence, I am insufficiently complex, hence, I am not pulling my "entropic weight".
My act of folly has deferred the heat death of the universe. (You may thank me later.)
Other Comments by phil rimmer
24. Comment #228855 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Comment #228853 by Brian English:Phil, give me that heat! Don't you know it's winter here?
Sorry, can't help you, mate. It appears to be winter here too. Torrential rain, overcast, typical British summer, in fact.
EDIT curses, lots of posts have gone invisible again....
Other Comments by phil rimmer
25. Comment #228860 by fizhburn on August 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm
curses, lots of posts have gone invisible again....The site is disintegrating as entropy increases, run!
Other Comments by fizhburn
26. Comment #228861 by 35bluejacket on August 12, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Well….there it is; the answer to the religious question of"What is the purpose of life or creation?" It is: To come to a balance or stability. How elegant.Other Comments by 35bluejacket
27. Comment #228863 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Fizh!The site is disintegrating as entropy increases, run!
Whilst we're running, I've just realized you've nicked my shades.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
28. Comment #228864 by agn on August 12, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Nope, bluejacket:We're just perturbations. I liked perturbation theory very much
Other Comments by agn
29. Comment #228868 by fizhburn on August 12, 2008 at 4:28 pm
*cheeses it with style, amazon.com box*Edit: I'm with Steve Zara, this result tying energy dissipation gradients to structural complexity in biology is extra cool. (Said fizhburn, having forgot everything he ever learnt about system dynamics.)
Edit edit: original article here.
Edit edit edit: Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Other Comments by fizhburn
30. Comment #228869 by tuskensp on August 12, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The fact there is calculus involved in the aforementioned article will automatically make it incomprehensible to the large majority of creationists. I know it has been debated as to whether IQ or education affects a person's religiosity, but to me there is no doubt.Other Comments by tuskensp
31. Comment #228873 by agn on August 12, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Hmm..religiosity definitely dumbs a person down, but I don't think being dumb makes you attracted to religiosity as suchOther Comments by agn
32. Comment #228874 by Szymanowski on August 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm
to describe evolution, and, in doing so, connect biology with physicsEh? Biology was unconnected with physics before this paper?
/pedant
Other Comments by Szymanowski
33. Comment #228882 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Remember this is not just about optimized biological complexity, it is about all complexity as part of the original paper's conclusion makes clear (thanks fizhburn)-Particularly, intriguing phenomena may emerge when a high-energy source, such as the Sun, is powering a large energy transduction network, such as that on Earth. When a steady stream of external energy is falling on an open system, there is a driving force to assemble mechanisms from the available ingredients and to improve on them in order to acquire more energy in the quest for a stationary state. The driving force makes no difference between abiotic and biotic mechanisms of energy transduction but favours all those that are dispersing energy more and more effectively. Therefore, the large global system is, in the language of thermodynamics, an energy manifold in myriad motional modes, most of which are referred to as life. For the large global system that apparently has a suitable mixture of ingredients to couple to the high-energy influx, it has taken aeons to evolve in energy transduction. Although the abstract description of evolution provided by the statistical physics results in a holistic view of nature, it is unarmed to say specifically how energy transduction mechanisms, i.e. species, have emerged. These questions can be addressed by appropriate models. The present formalism emphasizes the imperatives in evolution.
Note the agnosticism of the process towards abiotic and biotic. I wonder how far you can push this? Do major life extinction events always correspond to increased processes of abiotic transduction? Isn't this just a fancy term for a cataclysm?
Other Comments by phil rimmer
34. Comment #228886 by Bonzai on August 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I agree with steve, this is a very cool idea.The great teapot
physics has no detailed explanation for the specifics of evolution. Any credit here is surely unwarranted.
On the contrary, physics seeks underlying, structural laws, there is a sense of logical necessity to laws of physics which is not apparent in biology. It would be nice if evolution can be shown to have a deep, physical explanation instead of viewing organisms as only "historical accidents" resulting from the haphazard working of natural selection.
Other Comments by Bonzai
35. Comment #228897 by Styrer- on August 12, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Whether an object is animate or inanimate, science does not seem to make a distinction. In both cases, energy flows toward a stationary state, or a state of equilibrium, in the absence of a high-energy external source.
Ignorant as I am, I wonder if this idea, which evidently has at least some pedigree, could possibly throw some light on abiogenesis? If the above quote is true, then could 'energy transduction mechanisms' include non-biological entities?
Should I get me coat?
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
36. Comment #228916 by prettygoodformonkeys on August 12, 2008 at 8:05 pm
josh:.commentText -->
WTF?
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
37. Comment #228924 by spiderdancer on August 12, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Hmmm. I'm a bit sceptical that this is saying anything more than "evolution is consistent with the 2nd law".We already knew this but maybe it's adding a bit more meat to the bones of that argument. I don't think it allows us to predict anything, for instance it is silent on the question of all organisms evolved from a common ancestor.
Other Comments by spiderdancer
38. Comment #228995 by GBile on August 13, 2008 at 1:56 am
I am also experiencing an acute outbreak of the feared'.commentText -->' disease.
The 'Other comments by ...' seems to be the culprit.
Can this be cured ?
Other Comments by GBile
39. Comment #228996 by atp on August 13, 2008 at 2:02 am
Wow! The whole article reads just like it was some fancy new age stuff that wanted to look like science.But it makes enough sense to me to look like a viable way of looking at evolution in the context of energy.
I am not a physics expert, and have always had a problem with one aspect of entropy. It is said that in a _closed_ (was missing in the article) system entropy tends to increase continuously. So that there is no problem with subsystems where entropy decreases, i.e. self organization in an open subsystem does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
But what I've never really grasped is how energy input into (or flow through) an open system, when that results in locally decreased entropy, is causing overall increased entropy?
Anyway, an interesting article I will be sure to reread a couple of time.
Other Comments by atp
40. Comment #228999 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:10 am
Styrer-Ignorant as I am, I wonder if this idea, which evidently has at least some pedigree, could possibly throw some light on abiogenesis? If the above quote is true, then could 'energy transduction mechanisms' include non-biological entities?
I hope it starts to blur the boundaries between evolution and abiogenesis. We will see a continuum between complex chemistry and physics and replicators containing information-encoding molecules (such as RNA and DNA). There may even be some kind of principle that information-encoding structures inevitably arise because they lead to such efficient transduction of energy.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
41. Comment #229003 by atp on August 13, 2008 at 2:29 am
PZ Myers reckons that saying evolution is separate from abiogenesis is a cop out. He argued (too lazy to link) that the formation of life is part of the same process that includes evolution.....
I will say it's the same principal mechanism at work. Whether we want to call everything following that principle evolution is a matter of definition. It makes sense to have different words for different kinds of evolution, even though they probably follow the same general mechanism.
And it also matters that, AFAIK, there is no real evidence that abiogenesis actually was an evolutionary process. Although I find it highly probable, we still need to establish more concrete theories and find evidence for them.
Other Comments by atp
42. Comment #229070 by Jamie V on August 13, 2008 at 4:26 am
It means that evolution isn't really that special, and it isn't improbable. It is likely to be a fundamental part of nature.
I think that's beautiful.
Ha - I find it really hard to post any comment without my last words being "Why are creationists such willingly blind idiots?". If everyone can take that as read, then I'll be happy to mnove on...
Other Comments by Jamie V
43. Comment #229199 by squinky on August 13, 2008 at 8:11 am
I'm with ATP and others. This article is new age sounding junk. Of course evolution violates no laws of thermodynamics because constant energy is supplied to the system (radioactive decay and the sun). The cheetah analysis makes me groan. While a faster cheetah may be a better hunter and gatherer of energy (let's reduce the whole thing to ATP energy), there's nothing to say that a change in niche won't kill this trait off, e.g. 10 years of cooler than average weather that selects for less 'high-metabolism' individuals and for better energy conservation.
I still don't like physicists doing biology. Evolution as energy flow, brains as quantum computers, etc just glosses over the entire field of evolutionary biology, genetics, and molecular biology with some simple equations that represent very little or nothing.
Other Comments by squinky
44. Comment #229219 by mdhutton1949 on August 13, 2008 at 8:32 am
What's going on? The body and trailer for many posts are missing, and yet several of them have replies. It's the same when using either Opera 9 or IE 6.'twould be nice to read the *entire* comment section.
Other Comments by mdhutton1949
45. Comment #229973 by Telic on August 14, 2008 at 5:51 am
I'm with atp, in that I understood evolution did not violate the second law of thermodynamics simply because the earth is an open system.
And I'm also not convinced by this attempt to turn the argument on its head, and invoke the second law in favour of evolution instead.
Let's hope that there isn't some inevitable driving force towards thermonuclear war and an attempt to increase entropy in one glorious big bang ;)
Other Comments by Telic
46. Comment #230787 by j.mills on August 15, 2008 at 6:17 am
Steve said:This isn't saying that thermodynamics explains everything about evolution, but that evolution seems to be a natural consequence of thermodynamics.
This is my problem with this article: what in physics 'prefers' a faster rate of energy dissipation? Of course entropy will increase, but why should a system 'seek' the FASTEST way to increase it? Phil Rimmer above quotes the paper:
...in the quest for a stationary state. The driving force makes no difference between abiotic and biotic mechanisms of energy transduction but favours all those that are dispersing energy more and more effectively.
My emphasis: whence cometh that 'favours'? What is this 'quest' whereof they speak?
And whilst a cheetah may get through lots of energy, a bush-baby sleeps 19 hours a day - it's not obvious we should regard that as 'maximally entropic'.
(Btw, like mdhutton1949, I'm seeing some posts with only a header. What gives?)
Other Comments by j.mills
47. Comment #231038 by Sage on August 15, 2008 at 3:13 pm
This was quite insightfulOther Comments by Sage
48. Comment #231041 by J Mac on August 15, 2008 at 3:23 pm
For a change I completely agree with Squinky, well said. Other Comments by J Mac
49. Comment #231834 by physicist on August 17, 2008 at 7:11 am
Looks like an eye-catcher and nothing more to me, at first sight, though I 'd rather look at the article itself. A couple of things:1. The ecosystem is not a closed physical system thus the 2nd law does not apply to it.
2. Consequently, we are talking here non-equlibrium thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, for which there is no minimum principle, just Liouville's equation (classically).
3. The principle of least action is mentioned in an utterly misleading way. It holds for classical systems evolving under the influence of deterministic forces but not in quantum mechanics. In all phenomena of life, quantum mechanics is present in all molecular processes in a very relevant way.
My impression is that this is part of some fashionable pseudo-scientific approach to "complexity" with lots of eye-catching phrases. And the idea that this work connects for the first time physics and biology is laughable -- just take a look at the large number of phycisists doing bio-stuff or look up the Biophysical Journal.
Other Comments by physicist
50. Comment #352371 by WereGryphon on March 15, 2009 at 10:48 am
What an honour to be Finn at this moment! Two Finnish scientists have actually permanently destroyed one of the favourite arguments of creationists now!I mean, this is almost too good to be true.
Other Comments by WereGryphon
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #228738 by astroprof on August 12, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Other Comments by astroprof