A recent paper titled “Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution” published in Nature has sparked controversy among scientists. The authors, led by Lee Cronin at the University of Glasgow and Sara Walker at Arizona State University, claim that their theory provides an interface between physics and biology and explains how complex biological forms can evolve.
While some headlines hailed the paper as a bold new theory that could unite physics and evolution, many scientists expressed confusion and criticism. One evolutionary biologist even tweeted that they had no idea what the paper was doing even after multiple reads.
As a biologist who studies evolution, the author of this article felt compelled to read the paper themselves. They questioned whether assembly theory was truly a radical new paradigm or simply “abject wankwaffle,” as its critics claimed.
Upon reading the paper, the author took issue with the very first sentence of the abstract, which suggested that scientists grapple with reconciling biological evolution with the laws of physics. They argued that no biologist they know has a problem with the laws of physics or sees any conflict between them and evolution.
The paper also claimed that the laws of physics do not predict the origin, evolution, and development of life, culture, and technology. The author found this complaint reminiscent of creationist arguments against evolution, which further raised concerns among evolutionary biologists.
The author also questioned the need for a new approach to understanding how diverse forms can emerge from physics without a design blueprint. They argued that evolutionary theory already rejects the notion of teleology or a predetermined endpoint, so the absence of a design blueprint should not require explanation.
The central concept of assembly theory is the “assembly index,” which measures the complexity of an object and its likelihood of evolving. However, the author found this approach problematic as it implies that there is only one pathway to produce complex objects, which is not the case in reality.
Additionally, the author noted that chemists can often recognize complex molecules without the need for assembly theory. They concluded that the negative reaction to the paper may stem from its poor writing and the use of phrases reminiscent of creationist arguments.
While assembly theory may have potential applications in recognizing signs of life on alien planets or creating artificial life, the author argued that it does not address a problem that actually exists.
