Re: Evolution is alive and well
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Wed, 07 Oct 1998 14:48:26 -0500 (EST)
At 02:22 PM 10/7/98 -0400, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>At 01:58 PM 10/7/98 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>I fail to see how evolutionary theory is a la par with basic physics.
>
>I'm not saying it is. I was simply remarking that a system (weather),
>which seems much closer to basic physics than the development of living
>things, exhibits the unpredictable behavior and sensitive dependence on
>initial conditions we associate with evolution. In no way was I trying to
>claim they are equivalent -- only that you don't need a system with as many
>interacting components as you have in a biological population to exhibit
>some of the characteristic behaviors we see in evolution.
>
>That
>>sort of comparison pretends a scientific respectability for evolutionary
>>theory which it clearly does not possess.
>
>
>Bill Hamilton
I know that you were not trying to equate the two. It is true that
deterministic chaos gives rise to a degree of complexity that is not
apparent in the formulas which determine the dynamics of the problem. The
difficulty with a truly scientific theory of origins is that the appearance
of living things from non-living matter is astronomical orders of magnitudes
more complex than that which originates in chaotic systems. That is why my
gut feeling is that such a theory does not exist.
Moorad