Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (18473)	12/16/2007 12:41:35 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36921

Natural selection is just a term for a class of feedback systems. As such, it does not explain complexity per se. What we do know are the various mechanisms for gene evolution, namely duplication, translocation, inversion, deletion, point mutation, etc. The feedback loop of natural selection acts on the results of the above. Together, they give rise to complexity. We can simulate this sort of activity just fine. So far, it remains the case that "understanding" the process is pretty much the same as observing it or simulating it. This is not very satisfying compared to elegant equations which we are used to in physics and chemistry. The same is largely true for climate science. While certain aspects like CO2 trapping heat do have nice simple equations, the dynamic effects of oceans, winds, etc, need to be simulated. We don't "understand" them with a simple set of equations. Never will. I guess this is not really that different from lots of other fields any more. I remember taking solid state physics in college and grad school, with all those nice detailed transistor models. We "understood" things with a nice ideal view. Today, designing leading edge IC circuits requires all sorts of statistical modeling because the properties are not well controlled. So modelling and simulation are at the core of design, not some nice tidy "understanding".