The Equation of Evolution is the Definition of Life

[Schneibster]

Was reading a Wired article and came across this equation:



It applies to raw chemicals, and shows how they can evolve under the right conditions. And the "right conditions" are ubiquitous; in these terms, given enough energy to cause random reactions among the available chemicals, and given enough time, something will evolve. Whether it will be "life" or not depends upon how you define "life" and on the amount of energy flow available, and on how long you're willing to wait. No more.

Now we represent evolution with an equation, one that discusses the essence of evolvability. And we can see that that which we call "life" is that which enhances its own evolvability. This is a two-fer: a really good mathematical definition of the ability to evolve, and a definition of life comes out of it for free. When you start getting stuff like that for free, it's called "consilience" and it's a sign you're on the right track.

Deny that, motherfuckers.

[Audley Strange]

Do I have to deny it whilst fucking a mother?

[hackenslash]

Source, please. I'd like to peruse the paper, and I have some friends of ours who can almost certainly acquire it, one way or the other.

[GenesForLife]

Source, please. I'd like to peruse the paper, and I have some friends of ours who can almost certainly acquire it, one way or the other.

I can easily sort you a copy, if I can find it, institutional access does have its perks

[Schneibster]

Here is the page I got it from, and here is the whole article. It's the seventh frame.

The equation was originally proposed by Harvard's Martin Nowak, a mathematical biologist. That should get you where you're going.

[Schneibster]

Source, please. I'd like to peruse the paper, and I have some friends of ours who can almost certainly acquire it, one way or the other.

I can easily sort you a copy, if I can find it, institutional access does have its perks

[hackenslash]

I can find a lot of work by him, including a book which looks quite interesting, namely Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life, but I can't actually find a source for the equation.

[Exi5tentialist]

What's x?

[Schneibster]

There isn't any x.

There's the first derivative of xi with respect to time.

[JimC]

Do I have to deny it whilst fucking a mother?

3 times, before the cock crows...

[GenesForLife]

If you can find out which of these papers is the correct one I can retrieve a copy.

http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/publications/

[Schneibster]

I suspect it is a paper that has been submitted but not published.

You guys will probably want to look this over: http://www.math.harvard.edu/theses/seni ... harris.pdf

Starting on page 16, the author discusses first a version of the equation that leaves out the last term; on page 19 the full form of the equation appears. I suspect the derivation is there, but haven't looked closely enough to say. I'm still searching. More soon.

ETA: OK, it looks like reference 28 in the above linked paper is this: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/ ... 5.abstract

The equation appears on the first page and I'm reading the paper now.

Since it's in the PNAS, it's free access. Enjoy.

[Schneibster]

"Life is that which replicates and evolves." That's his definition.

[Azathoth]

I suspect rectal number extraction with this one but that is what the peer review process is for.

[Tero]

These math papers always bore me. I can do reaction kinetics, at least some molecules are involved. Here is a paper on amino acids:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.0402.pdf