The Man Who May One-Up Darwin

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.

http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-provocateurs/the-man-who-may-one-up-darwin/39217?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=OZYpost&utm_campaign=SA_PIP

In the most basic terms, Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment. England doesn’t dispute this reasoning, but he argues that it’s too vague. For instance, he says, blue whales and phytoplankton thrive in the same environmental conditions — the ocean — but they do so by vastly different means. That’s because that while they’re both made of the same basic building blocks, strings of DNA are arranged differently in each organism.

Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges_it_self_over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism?

What do you think of England's theory? Plausible or bogus?

I'm not scientifically educated enough to challenge the theory, but I would say that even if glass were "alive" there are still enough differences between it and a human, an earthworm, or an amoeba to categorize it as a different form of life, an inorganic lifeform.

Evolution isn't even real lol.

Yeah, there are likely plenty among us with enough understanding of evolution to grasp his idea. But posing a question on its validity is premature. The article(s) themselves say that the idea is in its infancy, will receive scrutiny in coming years, and that England will be conducting further tests to flesh out the theory. It's an interesting angle to approach it from, so you've piqued my interest. But we shouldn't really be endorsing it or critiquing it without a lot deeper understanding, which none but a few experts in the field likely have at this point.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not scientifically educated enough to challenge the theory, but I would say that even if glass were "alive" there are still enough differences between it and a human, an earthworm, or an amoeba to categorize it as a different form of life, an inorganic lifeform.

Indeed. One of the requirements for life is the ability to reproduce and glass obviously does not do that. Heck, even viruses aren't considered to be "alive" because they don't technically reproduce.

Don't get caught up on terms like "alive" though. I'm pretty sure the research is just looking into the fundamental physical forces that drive evolution, which may apply to various kinds of matter.

Because frankly, that sounds like the kind of false equivalency that a clickbait news article would use. "Scientist proves glass is ALIVE!" all while the scientist himself shakes his head at the wrongheaded usage and tries to promote a less confused understanding of the central idea.

Originally posted by ares834
Indeed. One of the requirements for life is the ability to reproduce and glass obviously does not do that. Heck, even viruses aren't considered to be "alive" because they don't technically reproduce.

Originally posted by Mindset
Evolution isn't even real lol.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Viruses reproduce, and fulfill basically every requirement for life but they don't have cells.

Viruses aren't considered cells because they can not reproduce on their own or with others of their "species". Instead, they need a host to "hijack" into building other viruses. From what I recall, this isn't considered reproduction, at least not in the biological/cellular sense.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not scientifically educated enough to challenge the theory, but I would say that even if glass were "alive" there are still enough differences between it and a human, an earthworm, or an amoeba to categorize it as a different form of life, an inorganic lifeform.

For sure. I think comparing glass with an ameoba is a terrible analogy. Analogies notwithstanding he might have something if he can fill in the grey between.

In other news: rocks are alive, and they are more territorial than anyone ever suspected (which is why they don't move). Even if you place one in a stream, over time watch its molecular structure change as it adapts to the force of the water pushing on it. It will grow smoother and more streamlined so the water can no longer shove it around from spot to spot.

Basically he's saying that the origins of Doomsday in Superman apply to matter. The more it's exposed to a certain set of environmental conditions the more it gets used to, adapts to and then utilises those conditions. You would have to think the conditions would have to be extremely stable over a long period for it to generate life from non-life though. Not something you can really say about early earth.

Originally posted by Lestov16
England?