Research Tying evolution more closely to physics: Two "poorly argued" papers making the case?

[C C]

The press releases of these papers will be posted later in this thread.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Can selection tie evolution more closely to physics?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/10/...o-physics/

EXCEPTS: Usually, when someone starts talking about the interface between evolution and physics, it's a prelude to a terrible argument that attempts to claim that evolution can't possibly happen. So, biologists tend to be slightly leery of even serious attempts at theorizing about bringing the two fields closer.

Yet this October has seen two papers that claim to describe how a key component of evolutionary theory—selection—fits in with other areas of physics. Both papers are published in prestigious journals (Nature and PNAS), so they can't be summarily dismissed. But they're both pretty limited in ways that probably are the product of the interests and biases of their authors. And one of them may be the worst written paper I've ever seen in a major journal.

So buckle up, and let's dive into the world of theoretical biology.

We can start with the terribly written paper. It introduces Assembly Theory, which is a potentially useful way of thinking about natural conditions that can enable combinatorial chemistry, generating a complicated mix of elaborate molecules. But that's not at all the way the authors, several of whom are chemists, introduce the idea.

The very first sentence of that paper sets up evolution as being difficult to make consistent with physics: "Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics." That's... not true. Evolution is perfectly compatible with physics, and we've known that for quite some time. It's so impressively untrue that the paper they cite in support of it only mentions physics once, and only to say that people have some misconceptions about it.

It doesn't get better from there... ("Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution")

[...] The second paper is written by a team that includes a bunch of astronomers, and it shows. Its focus is on finding parallels between selection in evolution and other processes that build complexity. The examples it uses are things like the building of ever-more complex mixtures of elements in stars and the growing complexity of minerals formed in planets—things that are of great interest to astronomers and planetary scientists.

Part of the paper involves identifying the parallels among these systems. "Evolving systems appear to be conceptually equivalent in that they display three notable attributes: 1) They form from numerous components that have the potential to adopt combinatorially vast numbers of different configurations; 2) processes exist that generate numerous different configurations; and 3) configurations are preferentially selected based on function," the authors write. In general, the evolution of all of these systems is also driven by the dissipation of energy.

The details may differ, but the authors argue that the parallels suggest that a natural law is appropriate to describe the behavior. The law they come up with is:

"Systems of many interacting agents display an increase in diversity, distribution, and/or patterned behavior when numerous configurations of the system are subject to selective pressure."

But, of course, there are lots of things that aren't parallel... ("On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems")

[...] None of this is to say that Assembly Theory is wrong, just that the challenge of obtaining the information needed to put it to use may range from impractical to impossible for many important questions. Figuring out how to use it effectively for situations beyond chemistry will be a real challenge. Unfortunately, the people who are proposing it are claiming it handles problems that don't exist and aren't addressed by it, so I expect that the challenge will be much harder than it needs to be... (MORE - missing details)

RELATED (scivillage): 'The "law of increasing functional information"

[C C]

The press releases of those two papers addressed above.
- - - - - - - - - - -

New 'assembly theory' unifies physics and biology to explain evolution, complexity
https://news.asu.edu/20231005-new-assemb...complexity

PRESS RELEASE: An international team of researchers has developed a new theoretical framework that bridges physics and biology to provide a unified approach for understanding how complexity and evolution emerge in nature. This new work on "assembly theory," published in Nature, represents a major advance in our fundamental comprehension of biological evolution and how it is governed by the physical laws of the universe.

This research builds on the team's previous work developing assembly theory as an empirically validated approach to life detection, with implications for the search for alien life and efforts to evolve new life forms in the laboratory. In prior work, the team assigned a complexity score to molecules called the molecular assembly index, based on the minimal number of bond-forming steps required to build a molecule.

They showed how this index is experimentally measurable and how high values correlate with life-derived molecules. An illustration of the complexity of a single cell. Assembly theory bridges the gap between physics and biology in explaining how complex objects are identifiable as products of evolution and how reusability of parts allows novelty and identical intricate items to be constructed by selection in nature. Illustration by Anna Tanczos/Sci-Comm Studios

The new study introduces mathematical formalism around a physical quantity called "assembly" that captures how much selection is required to produce a given set of complex objects, based on their abundance and assembly indices.

"Assembly theory provides a completely new lens for looking at physics, chemistry and biology as different perspectives of the same underlying reality," explained lead author Sara Walker, a theoretical physicist, origin of life researcher and professor with appointments in Arizona State University's School of Earth and Space Exploration, Biosocial Complexity Initiative, Center for Social Dynamics and Complexity (CSDC), Biodesign Center for Mechanisms of Evolution and the Beyond Center.

"With this theory, we can start to close the gap between reductionist physics and Darwinian evolution; it's a major step toward a fundamental theory unifying inert and living matter."

The researchers demonstrated how assembly theory can be applied to quantify selection and evolution in systems ranging from simple molecules to complex polymers and cellular structures. It explains both the discovery of new objects and the selection of existing ones, allowing open-ended increases in complexity characteristic of life and technology.

"Assembly theory provides an entirely new way to look at the matter that makes up our world, as defined not just by immutable particles but by the memory needed to build objects through selection over time," said Professor Lee Cronin, a chemist from the University of Glasgow and co-lead author. "With further work, this approach has the potential to transform fields from cosmology to computer science. It represents a new frontier at the intersection of physics, chemistry, biology and information theory."

The researchers aim to further refine assembly theory and explore its applications for characterizing known and unknown life, and testing hypotheses about how life emerges from nonliving matter.

“A key feature of the theory is that it is experimentally testable,” said Cronin. “This opens up the exciting possibility of using assembly theory to design new experiments that could solve the origin of life by creating living systems from scratch in the laboratory.”

The theory opens up many new questions and research directions at the boundary of the physical and life sciences. Overall, assembly theory promises to provide profound new insights into the physics underlying biological complexity and evolutionary innovation.

---

Nature’s missing evolutionary law identified
https://as.cornell.edu/news/natures-miss...identified

PRESS RELEASE: Darwin applied the theory of evolution to life on earth, but not to other massively complex systems like planets, stars, atoms and minerals. Now, an interdisciplinary group of researchers has identified a missing aspect of that theory that applies to essentially everything.

Their paper, “On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems,” published Oct. 16 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, describes “a missing law of nature” that recognizes for the first time an important norm within the natural world’s workings. The new law states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity and complexity.

“This was a true collaboration between scientists and philosophers to address one of the most profound mysteries of the cosmos: why do complex systems, including life, evolve toward greater functional information over time?" said co-author Jonathan Lunine, the David C. Duncan Professor in the Physical Sciences and chair of astronomy in the College of Arts and Sciences.

The multi-disciplinary team included three philosophers of science, two astrobiologists, a data scientist, a mineralogist and a theoretical physicist, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, the California Institute of Technology and the University of Colorado, as well as Cornell. Carnegie scientist Michael L. Wong is first author; an astrobiologist, he and Lunine are working on a forthcoming second edition of Lunine’s textbook “Astrobiology: A Multidisciplinary Approach.”

The new work presents a modern addition to “macroscopic” laws of nature, which describe and explain phenomena experienced daily in the natural world. It postulates a “Law of Increasing Functional Information,” which states that a system will evolve “if many different configurations of the system undergo selection for one or more functions.”

This new law applies to systems that are formed from many different components, such as atoms, molecules or cells, that can be arranged and rearranged repeatedly, and are subject to natural processes that cause countless different arrangements to be formed -- but in which only a small fraction of these configurations survive in a process called “selection for function.”

Regardless of whether the system is living or nonliving, when a novel configuration works well and function improves, evolution occurs, say the researchers.

In the case of biology, Darwin equated function primarily with survival — the ability to live long enough to produce fertile offspring. The new study expands that perspective, noting that at least three kinds of function occur in nature.

The most basic function is stability – stable arrangements of atoms or molecules are selected to continue. Also chosen to persist are dynamic systems with ongoing supplies of energy.

The third and most interesting function according to the researchers is “novelty” — the tendency of evolving systems to explore new configurations that sometimes lead to startling new behaviors or characteristics, like photosynthesis.

The same sort of evolution happens in the mineral kingdom. The earliest minerals represent particularly stable arrangements of atoms. Those primordial minerals provided foundations for the next generations of minerals, which participated in life’s origins. The evolution of life and minerals are intertwined, as life uses minerals for shells, teeth, and bones.

In the case of stars, the paper notes that just two major elements – hydrogen and helium – formed the first stars shortly after the big bang. Those earliest stars used hydrogen and helium to make about 20 heavier chemical elements. And the next generation of stars built on that diversity to produce almost 100 more elements.

The research has implications for the search for life in the cosmos, said Lunine, a member of the Carl Sagan Institute. “If increasing functionality of evolving physical and chemical systems is driven by a natural law, we might expect life to be a common outcome of planetary evolution.”

The research was funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Lunine was supported as the inaugural McDonald Agape Visiting Scholar at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. during the preparation of the paper.

[Magical Realist]

"The third and most interesting function according to the researchers is “novelty” — the tendency of evolving systems to explore new configurations that sometimes lead to startling new behaviors or characteristics, like photosynthesis."

The increasing complexity and "heirarchizing" of a system or structure naturally leads to more possibilities of functioning and new ways of persisting as a phenomenon of the universe. Alfred North Whitehead posited novelty as an ultimate metaphysical principle in the process-based evolution of matter and consciousness:

"Whitehead essentially presents a philosophy of creativity or process philosophy, one that emphasises becoming and changing over static being. The “creative advance into novelty” is “the ultimate metaphysical ground”, says Whitehead; it is the fundamental nature of reality. As the philosopher of mind Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes states in his book Noumenautics: “For Whitehead, the universe is constantly creating novelty rather than running a determined path. The universe creates a path in its stead; it does not drive along an already created track. It is in this sense more plane than train, more thrust than rail.” Under Whiteheadian metaphysics, “the universe is potentially infinite in its creative capacity,” writes Sjöstedt-Hughes. "---
https://www.samwoolfe.com/2022/02/will-t...ysics.html

"Order is not sufficient. What is required, is something much more complex. It is order entering upon novelty; so that the massiveness of order does not degenerate into mere repetition; and so that the novelty is always reflected upon a background of system."---ANW