Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life's unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it?
So can Pross apply Darwinian theory to inanimate systems? Can he save the life sciences from its physics envy? There’s only one problem: He’s about three centuries too late.
Laplace, Buffon, Kant, Leibniz, Burnett and scores of others Enlightened thinkers were applying Darwinian theory to the inanimate world long before Pross and, for that matter, long before Darwin.
But Pross has a new approach: dynamic kinetic stability. Can it save evolutionary thought from its sheer inanity? Pross thinks it reduces life’s complexity to a simple principle. After all, haven’t complexity studies already demonstrated such a move?
Life is complex—that is undeniable. But that does not necessarily mean that the life principle is complex. In fact we would argue that the life principle is in some sense relatively simple! Indeed, simple rules can lead to complex patterns, as studies in complexity have amply demonstrated. So we would suggest that life, from its simple beginnings as some minimal replicating system, and following a simple rule—the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability within replicator space—is yet another example of that fundamental idea.
The drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability within replicator space, that’s the new idea. Just don’t look behind the curtain.
Laplace, Buffon, Kant, Leibniz, Burnett and scores of others Enlightened thinkers were applying Darwinian theory to the inanimate world long before Pross and, for that matter, long before Darwin.
ReplyDeleteClairvoyant were they? Educate us. Support your claim with evidence. Show how each of those eminences applied the principles of descent with modification and selection by the environment to the inanimate world. Demonstrate the sheer inanity of their evolutionary thoughts.
Actually, the EAC wants to take over the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd then the galaxy.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said that.
What's that black helicopter doing on my roof?
CH: Laplace, Buffon, Kant, Leibniz, Burnett and scores of others Enlightened thinkers were applying Darwinian theory to the inanimate world long before Pross and, for that matter, long before Darwin.
ReplyDelete"Laplace, Buffon, Kant, Leibniz, Burnett and scores of others" were applying conjecture and refutation?
Why don't you enlighten us with examples of such application?
quoting the author "And given our broad understanding of the Darwinian phase, that understanding could be immediately applied to the poorly understood earlier chemical phase. But are there reasonable grounds for such a sweeping proposal? We believe recent developments in systems chemistry. Recent work on molecular replicating systems has revealed that several phenomena associated with the answer to be yes, and base this view on replicating chemical systems are also manifest in biological systems".
ReplyDeleteHe believes that Darwinian selection can be applied to the primordial soup? Who are the referres of this paper?
Well, molecules which were not apt, died and only the molecules with the correct qualities grew!!
The chemical world is governed by thermodynamics: enthalpy and entropy, and both point to the same direction: carbon to CO2 and hydrogen to H2O.
Also, the results with replicating systems (mainly Rebek) do not give hope for replication in large scale and low concentrations. The replicator had a large amount of information and were chemically activated, conditions not reliable to water systems, which react with chemically activated species and prevent aggregation by hydrogen bonding.
This paper is not a good ground for further theoretical or practical developments.