https://www.quantamagazine.org/2014 0122-a-new-physics-theor

let me pose with some garbage math on my blackboard xD

>>8231062
Every sects theory has aspects of the truth.
It may not be completely true, but it may have parts of it which are.
More like reform.

>>8231062

>“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

God damn I hate the lay press.

>>8231065
lelele math is so mysterious xDDDD *smug face*

>>8231067
Add to this, would we not consider humanity much more "divine" 5,000 years into the future?
Ancient civilizations would look at an airplane as divine if they were to see it thousands of years ago.
We can't define everything by cutting pieces here and there.
Our future counterparts may be capable of very advanced miraculous ability gained through technology and science.

>>8231069
I read that and then promptly felt like wanted to do

>it really makes you think

>Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed” system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low — that is, divide energy unevenly among its atoms — by greatly increasing the entropy of its surroundings. In his influential 1944 monograph “What Is Life?” the eminent quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger argued that this is what living things must do. A plant, for example, absorbs extremely energetic sunlight, uses it to build sugars, and ejects infrared light, a much less concentrated form of energy. The overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates, even as the plant prevents itself from decaying by maintaining an orderly internal structure.

Does this mean that the Big Bang = God?

>>8231078
You must have some way to make sure no external factors (ie life forms) are allowed to interact with your system and let it run for millions of year though.

>England, who is trained in both biochemistry and physics, started his own lab at MIT two years ago and decided to apply the new knowledge of statistical physics to biology.

How BTFO are biologists? A physicists had to come around and solve it

>>8231062

I know the work Jeremy does and the field very well and I don't entirely get why he does all of this popsci pontificating about non-equilibrium stat much. I know it's for popularizing his work and his career and such but I don't really think he has any solid grounds to stand on when he's more trying to develop non-equilibrum Markov State Models using particle simulation (something other people do as well of course.)

>>8231081
Everyone knows God created the Big Bang :^)

>>8231089

>solve it

Yeah small toy particle simulations solved evolution. You got it, retard.

>Using Jarzynski and Crooks’ formulation, he derived a generalization of the second law of thermodynamics that holds for systems of particles with certain characteristics: The systems are strongly driven by an external energy source such as an electromagnetic wave, and they can dump heat into a surrounding bath. This class of systems includes all living things. England then determined how such systems tend to evolve over time as they increase their irreversibility. “We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there,” he said. The finding makes intuitive sense: Particles tend to dissipate more energy when they resonate with a driving force, or move in the direction it is pushing them, and they are more likely to move in that direction than any other at any given moment.

You know realize that the physical justification for the human existence is increasing disorder in the universe

>>8231062

>HIS theory

Fuck you

>>8231092
>I don't really think he has any solid grounds to stand on
Can you elaborate?

>>8231102

For this popsci self-promoting garbage.

>>8231102
He's a biologist. Jeremy a psychosist. Who do you trust more?

>>8231102
>>8231103

I like his reasearch (like the research he has published) a lot but all the self-promotion he does is really obnoxious. It's like he's taking personal credit for all of non-equilibrium stat mech.

>the underlying principle driving the whole process is dissipation-driven adaptation of matter

It's so damn dull that's probably true

The theory for the origin and evolution of life as presented above and accredited to Jeremy England is not new. It was published by myself in 2009, K. Michaelian, arXiv:0907.0042 [physics.gen-ph]
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0042
and again in 2011, K. Michaelian Earth Syst. Dynam., 2, 37-51, 2011
www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/37/2011/doi:10.5194/esd-2-37-2011
The observation that under a generalized chemical potential material self-organizes into systems which augment the dissipation of that potential should be accredited to Ilya Prigogine, “Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes”, John Wiley Sons Inc., 1968. I have written a number of other papers on the thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life, including an explanation of homochirality. These papers are freely available by searching for my name “Karo Michaelian” on ResearchGate. I welcome Jeremy’s contribution to the effort to understand life from a thermodynamic perspective.

>>8231086

It's still a colossally retarded example, though, given that plants contain both mitochondria and chloroplasts, both of which were previously free-living microbes. Therefore plants are very unique and it would not be unsurprising if you replicated them in a lab.

>>8231062
Creationism has been buried in the dump fot decades now

>>8231095
Everyone knows the Big Bang created God :^)

>>8231062
Reminder that "creationism" doesn't strictly refer to the literal interpretations of Judeo-Christian texts.

As long as there's no conclusive method to test for a creator's existence, science will always remain agnostic, not atheistic.

>>8231306
you can never test for a creator's existence
believing the bible is retarded, stating god does not exist is also stupid. agnostic is the only "scientific" way to go.

>>8231116
You just reminded me why I hate academic politics.