>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
It goes without saying that complexity increase from physics to biology.
However, the complexity of the subject studied ought not to be synonymous
with taking a flight of fancy with mere speculations and disregard the basic
sciences which underlie biology. I have never met an engineer who ever did
that and did not expected his/her design to fall to the ground. The crux of
biology and the questions raised there regarding the history of man will be
answered eventually on how biochemistry connects the micro to the macro.
Moorad