Are ID/YECs right about anything?

https://as.cornell.edu/news/natures-missing-evolutionary-law-identified

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.”

Interesting. I think it works well for examples like stellar nucleosynthesis and mineral evolution. Less so for biological evolution and not at all for the origin of life (for which a natural origin is assumed but yet to be empirically demonstrated). Similarly, this "law" assumes that "natural selection" is the key to everything, when the role in biological evolution is still a matter of dispute (whether it more typically has a positive role in directional selection or more typically functions in 'purifying selection.).

See for example https://phys.org/news/2023-10-darwin-kimura-natural-pure-chance.amp

See also https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929541/

"When we ask how novel species arise from human intervention, it is significant that there are no cases where selection has led to species formation. Selection only modifies existing characteristics by reducing or amplifying them. Artificial species arise through hybridization, as in the case of the wheat-rye hybrid Triticale [125,126], and involve genome mergers and whole genome duplication (WGD) events [127,128]. A similar “cataclysmic evolution” process involving hybridization of wild grasses was at the origin of flour wheat (Triticum) several thousand years ago and can be reproduced in real time [129,130]. Ongoing abrupt hybrid speciation has been observed to occur in wild sunflowers [131]. A recent paper reports laboratory formation of a novel tobacco species with a double genome by fusion of tissue culture cells from two different natural Nicotiana species"

@B-pawn

What this proposed law does is address the “irreducible complexity” argument, which is currently in vogue with Evolution Deniers.

This law states the complexity is the inevitable, eventual outcome of natural systems. Biological or not.

No, it certainly does not attempt to address the question of Abiogenesis. Except for maybe explaining where some of the building blocks came from.

Evolution is an incomplete theory, it has no starting place, it doesn't explain the informational properties involved in life, and arguably several so-called pieces of evidence that are used to support it could also be used to talk about a common design.

Which is why I posted what I did above. If this proposed law holds up, it will do a LOT to explain the informational properties of life.

And, will also put to question the Irreducible Complexity argument as well.

So saying something is inevitable means it could do no other, and when there are lots of other options or ways things could have gone destroys that doesn't it? That is saying things happen the way they were supposed to, only because they were supposed to, no other reason required.

I'm not seeing it. The non-physical, abstract nature of information itself (and particularly semiotics: signs & codes) I would say, if anything, argues for recognition of this non-physical aspect of life as fundamental to the reality of the universe as we know it (i.e., the universe cannot be reduced to the physical, material). The new proposed 'law' doesn't address the non-physical abstract nature of (biological) information itself. See for example...

By the way how are you @varelse1?

Am doing great. How about yourself?

Same o same o lol

The thing about ID it highlights how inadequate natural selection would be if it played out through time, as the theory goes to build new features and forms. Minor changes of existing forms, yes, maybe even the elimination of some, yes, because losing is easier than building something new without destroying what is there already from scratch.

In theory, tiny mutations added to an existing genetic code, performing specific work required to keep the lifeform alive and reproducing, occur before natural sections' ability to choose what to keep or get rid of; therefore, it all moves forward in time in that life. The accumulation would have kept all of the additions and losses, with no way of determining what alteration would be beneficial or detrimental.

This sounds good, in theory, saying natural selection only keeps the good ones to get better, like AI programming. We write AI programming, set up all of the algorithms, and put in place the rules in the code, giving priorities and weight to some things and not to others, that is something mindlessness can not do, and without forethought, there would be no reason for somethings to be there and function the way they do.

In life, there is information processing going on, and decisions are made, like blood clotting, where, when, and for how long should it occur. Mechanisms that do specialize in doing that type show foresight, so encoded into life are plans for future events. That type of work would never get off the ground with hit and miss process, the only way to do it is through design.

If evolution is supposed to show mindlessness through chaos and chance can do the job, it falls short. Without planning, what stops all of the mutations going forward in sufficient numbers to affect an entire population of some life form? Sorting out good from bad is a judgment call, if that process only has a filter killing some and not others doing that type of work, nothing about it all can create something new, only kill something bad.

There is information processing that we do see going on in life, we see life repairing itself, how and why are not explainable if we only look at this through a purely materialistic worldview, what is going on in life is too advanced, we don't understand it, and the more we know the more complicated it gets, our solving this isn't getting closer it moving away from us as the complexity becomes more understood. Without designed mechanisms in place to allow changes to take effect or not, so that life and death are the only filters, life would be quickly destroyed.

YEC, is a different topic, though related.

For something present in the code to leave there must be a reason, and a system that at random adds and takes away, the mechanism that occurs would be quite unaware of what does and does not add to the viability of the lifeform. Nothing in a random sequence ever looks at and does comparisons to see which are favorable or not, and since random mutations come randomly there is also nothing that says where and when they occur. That is how random works by definition, building a complex lifeform where a change in a vital area is life-ending not affirming.

I read, it basically I believe my response still stands without alterations. Perhaps showing me how I am wrong would help.

Anything to say about the topic?

Could you point out to me your "quite a lot" from the post I just responded to? Your 139 I believe.

Stating your belief is accurate by restating it is not an argument for it, it is quite circular nothing more. Telling me genetic mutation "probability would add up" is not a defined mechanism that promotes anything it is again restating your beliefs, a dogmatic position thinks "your truth" is beyond question.

As someone who codes, I can tell you that errors in code unless there is someone or thing that fixes them will remain and the more you get the more errors will be there in your code causing it to not do what it is supposed to do or crash, and in the case of life, deformity and death. From this faulty position, you are attempting to make a case for something untrue.

Information drives the processes in life, that information looks for errors and repairs or deletes them, processes within life have monitoring systems that check status and react to various inputs causing things to happen and end. If that were not true, if there were no informational processing done in life, there would be no life, and blood clotting would never happen as it is supposed to, clotting where needed, for as long as it was needed, and ending and nowhere else at any time.

I simply pick and choose my topics, don't you? I do like coding, I spent years in R&D for a semiconductor company working on the back end where we tested the new products before they could be sold. We validated and qualified the next-generation CPU. So truth tables, facts, and validation were my life for nearly 20 years. When I realized I could code in Korn and Perl in the UNIX environment I discovered I could string together my commands, take the outputs of the test, and start the next test with what I needed I became more efficient, turning some jobs that used to take hours touching several testers one at a time for each test, to loading up the nights works once and once done it would write my passdown.

We know with a high degree of confidence now that many hundreds of millions of years had to pass before the very elements essential to life were brought into existence in exploding stars.

When rudimentary life first appeared on Earth it took another 2000,000,000 years before it progressed beyond the single-cell stage.

Any non-natural explanation for life needs to address these facts!

You believe that to be true, that is different than knowing with any degree of confidence, I don't find that troubling at all, it may be correct or not. I can and will grant to you any amount of time you think you need or want you do not have to justify any number to me. Time is not an issue for me, processes are.

There comes a point in the understanding of how natural processes work (/have worked throughout time), when it's fair to say that no reasonable doubt is left and we can say that we know something to be the case. It's an acceptable shorthand.

Do we 'know' that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around ...... yet?

And I'm not the one for whom the enormous spans of time required for multicellular life to arise are a problem: It's those proposing a non-natural explanation who need to make their model fit.