Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection

On Oct 27, 12:23=A0am, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
n
"Biological systems are often cited as supreme examples of complexity in
nature, and it is not uncommon for it to be assumed that their
complexity must be somehow of a fundamentally higher order than other
systems. And typically it is thought that this must be a consequence of
the rather unique processes of adaption and natural selection that
operate in biological systems. ... what I have come to believe is that
many of the most obvious examples of complexity in biological systems
actually have very little to do with adaption or natural selection."

=A0 =A0 --Stpehen Wolfram, _A New Kind of Science_, p. 383

=A0From the Web article:

"To summarize, the lines have been drawn thus: Darwin says that natural
selection causes complexity by continuously moving organisms into
tighter synergy with their environment, necessitating said complexity.
Wolfram says complexity arises naturally with even the smallest change
in the organism's genetic makeup, and that natural selection serves
mainly to rein it in by culling the unworkable variations."

=A0 =A0 --dk...@xxxxxxxx

I think the complexity comes from simpler things. The ultimate
source for complexity is the change in heat. It's a specific
temperature zone that allows for water and all organic chemistry.
It is a cycle of the sun that allows for the variety within those
confines.
We have a universe that is cooling overall but heating up in spots.
That leads to all complexity IMO. And all complexity is at its base, a
reflection
of temperature change.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading