🚀 go-pugleaf

Marcelo Cantos wrote:
> 
> e904952p@hjc.edu.sg writes:
> 
> > Since far-from-equilibrium systems has a
> > tendency to go through bifurcations and 'jump' to some other (stable)
> > states, and living organisms are all open systems that are far from
> > equilibrium, I somehow feel that they are related.
> 
> I doubt it.  I believe where you go wrong is in the assertion that
> living systems are far from equilibrium.  If you look at organisms
> around you, they are extremely stable entities.  Humans don't
> spontaneously dismantle on the street as a daily occurrence; species
> don't give rise to "hopeful monsters" (macro-mutation) through
> breeding, or when they do they are generally dead.
> 
Others have already dealt with chemical stability, but I think the 
original point referred to biological stability of a species. The 
rapid 'jumps' need not be fast on the timescale of the organism's 
generation time. A particular species could evolve through a series
of micro-mutations over many generations, but this could still appear
instantaneous on the geological timescale of the fossil record (although
whether the geological timescale is correct you may also dispute ;-)
Macro mutations are not required. I believe Dawkins discusses
macro mutations and punctuated evolution (saying the latter does not
require the former, although I don't think he's happy with the latter
anyway) in the Blind Watchmaker.

Martyn