How does chaos-theory contradict Darwin's theory of evolution?
"New variables occur over time and do not require an outside force in order to "be". This is not a problem for physicists but is more of a problem for biologists, because it appears to contradict Darwinian ideas." (An Introduction to Chaos, Ziauddin Sardan, 1998)
It seems to me that Chaos- and evolution-theory both are very much capable of existing without contradicting eachother.
The author has also written several religious books and might use this book to promote his anti-evolution views.?
Answers:
I agree that there is no conflict between chaos theory and Darwinian evolution. In fact, mathematical chaos is the basis for the sort of complexity needed for self-organizing systems. Biology (including evolution) is driven by self-organizing systems. Basically, living systems ARE self-organizing systems, and since self-organizing systems are based on the complexity of chaotic systems, it follows that we could not have life without chaos, and hence the whole science of biology depends on chaos.
And by the way, I pasted a link to a Scientific American article that lists a bunch of scientific responses to creationists babbling. I don't recall any discussion of chaos theory, but you might find it interesting anyway.
Doesn't chaos theory dictate that things are random, but Darwin said they were based on survival of the fittest? Not a very good answer, but an answer nonetheless!
As far as i know the Chaos theory is for Physists
Drawin theory is fr biologist.
Ah, he is a creationist, there lies the problem.
Evolution and chaos fit perfectly. Evolution on a DNA & molecular level tells us that tiny adaptations in micro environments will lead to variation and differing selection processes. Chaos is an input of random effects into the environment means that the molecules most able to adapt will be the ones that survive.
Chaos is intrinsic to Evolution; however being such an impossible subject to really study, by its' very nature it is impossible to predict what part it will play, it is easy for people who refute evolution to cite it.no proof to them, is proof that evolution does not exist!
Variables do not "occur". This statement sounds cryptic.
What does "force" mean in this context? To a scientist, "force" is defined by Newton's laws. I don't see what the phrase has to do with evolution.
It sounds indeed as a religious book.
Chaos and evolutionary theory are completely compatible. The only problem that choas poses for evolution is that it argues one would not be able to predict the form a new species would take because there are too many variables. I suspect it's a religious attempt to undermine evolution.
Evolution has a theory that changes occur that make the species better over time. That a variable will be modified because of outside influences. I believe that this is true over the longterm, however chaos theory says that changes happens but not for any purpose. just change.
I agree with you that the two theories are compatible. If the author you quote wants to say one theory trumps another and that Darwinism is wrong, well, that's their right.
I believe that Darwinism would say that changes occur to 'better' a species. If the change is chaotic, then a change may or may not be better. I would say that the author is making an assumption that Darwinism assumes that a better species is only one path. Whereas, in reality, even chaotic changes could better a species. It isn't known if the species is better until it is 'tested' in reality.
I would say chaos theory and evolution actually support each other.
Creature change through mutation. These mutations are random hence chaos theory.
If the mutation is of benefit to the creature then the mutation stays.
It sounds to me like this author is clueless to modern evolutionary theory. Since he didn't bother to explain why this is an apparent contradiction, I would ignore it.
Keep in mind that someone may be absolutely brilliant in one field and an abject mornon in others.
They don't contradict one another. If anything, they compliment one another.
I'm not a Mathematician, so I defer to my friends in the field.and they find no contradictions between Chaos theory and Darwinian evolution.
This author is just another example of a non-Scientist talking pseudoscience and psychobabble in an attempt to muddy waters that are otherwise clear to those who understand it.
For a clearer exploration of this, try reading:
The Science of Disc World 3 - Darwins Watch.
Your author seems to follow the idea that, while accepting that evolution exist, its progress is guided by God. Design and evolution are therefore one in the same.
However, taking the idea that God does not have such a tight hand on the reigns, then there is no confilict between the two theories.
Agreed, actually to my mind chaos theory actually serves to validate the theory of evolution for it is variables of happenstance in genetic assignment in the zygote that causes the genetic changes which power evolution. One medical fact that has been widely researched demonstrates that almost 50% of human eggs that are fertilized are spontaneously aborted in the first few days of pregnancy because of genetic veriables which cannot sustain life. When you think of all the possible combinations of genes spontanously effected at fertilization chaos theory is probably the true reason why 50% of the combinations actually survive to create a living being.
The anti-abortionists are not above re-working scientific thought to validate their screwed up ideas. It is however easy to spot when this is being done because the person attempting the re-working usually has little or no grasp of the actual scientific fact they are attempting to alter.
i think they ensure each other - chaos theory makes the occurances in the world random, so random dangers appear for creatures, the next generation just happens to be the survivors of the worlds random dangers
I have all but given up trying to understand anti-evolutionists, who will reject anything that is not consistant with their religious dogma.
However, the theory of evolution (labelled as 'Darwinism' by creationists.even though it has been refined since Darwins 'Origin of the species') has been seen in action.
Random mutations which do not provide a benefit to the species (or are harmful) will tend to die off as soon as they crop up.
Mutations which are beneficial - and will cause a net increase to the species - may be repeated and cause the species to evolve
I dont see a problem with chaos theory and evolution
I think its Sardar, not Sardan, by the way.
The only possible argument I can think of is that if mutations are random (chaos theory) then how would that possibly lead to improvements in an organisms survivability (Darwin)?
But that argument falls down pretty easily. There *are* an equal number of good and bad mutations produced, but only the good ones are passed onto future generations.
(A simplified argument. but Sardar apparently has a simple mind.)
The chaos theory arrived out of predicting weather patterns. It must be something to do with not being able to predict evolution or something like that possibly.
i really dont think they contradict.they can quite easily work in tandom. darwinism expects a continual evolution of a species and the environment over a long period of time. chaos-theory believes that SOME events occur on an relatively instantaneous time-scale. they are one off catastrophic events that change the environment in a single motion. it is often these events that are found to be the cause of evolution and that call for darwinism to occur. it is necessary for organisms to evolve by darwins theories in order to adapt to chaotic events
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.