4 ms·
How do you differentiate an event that is very improbable and so takes a billion years from an event that is inevitable, but requires many prerequisites, and so
by joe_the_user 6y ago
How do you differentiate an event that is very improbable and so takes a billion years from an event that is inevitable, but requires many prerequisites, and so takes a billion years?
I suspect that' gnawing for any research like this. But I could suggest that if we can show that a lot of fundamental changes have come from external shock rather than internal processes, then we might be closer. Further, if the theory of "puncture equilibrium" is true[1], that this would tend to be the case. If we can show that many evolutionary steps involved such external shocks, then we might be closer to this also.
The question would be whether external shocks inevitably produce advances or whether such advances are indeed lucky.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
- AgentME 6y agoPunctuated equilibrium doesn't really change the calculations involved in the article. Either mutations happen randomly on their own, or random events cause bursts of mutations to happen. The burstiness doesn't matter much when you zoom out enough.
- joe_the_user 6y agoPunctured equilibrium can matter if fundamentally new adaptation happen only or primarily with external disruptions. Mammals replaced reptiles after a mass extinction event cause by a meteor - another world might not regular meteors or might have too many. The question is how non-earth world might fail, right.
- AgentME 6y agoIt doesn't matter to the equations whether you're modeling the chance that a mutation happens on its own, or the chance that an event happens that causes the mutation. You would use the same equation to model either of those.