Re: Evolution is alive and well
Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Fri, 09 Oct 1998 14:05:32 -0400
At 12:39 PM 10/9/98 -0400, James Taggart wrote:
>Concerning the discussion of physics as the "prototype of science," I
>wonder if you are not taking too simplistic a view of what physics is.
>Physics is quite precise when you are making predictions about a small
>number of bodies under the rules of Newtonian mechanics (or even quantum
>mechanics). When you have a large number of bodies, physics is no more
>helpful in explaining behavior than evolution is in explaining the origin
>of body plans or geology is in explaining when the next volcano is going to
>erupt. Physics can explain clearly why there are solar flares but can not
>predict when the next flareup is going to be. Physics can't even explain
>why the solar system persists. The problem is not with the science, it's
>with the complexity of the systems being examined.
>
In fact the number of bodies you need to see chaotic (and therefore
unpredictable) behavior is only three. If the predictive power of
Newtonian mechanics disappears when the number of bodies exceeds two even
though the only kind of interaction is through gravity, we shouldn't be too
hard on biology, where the number of interacting entities is far greater,
and there are far more types of interactions.
In principle, a good many engineering problems are physics problems, but
they frequently don't yield very well to the methods taught in physics
courses because there are too many interacting subsystems. Biological
systems are significantly more complex than anything we engineers design.
Bill Hamilton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems MC 480-106-390
GM R&D Center
30500 Mound Road
Warren, MI
hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com / whamilto@mich.com (home)