betty: let me know if you can see the graphic!
An autocatakinetic system is defined as one that maintains its “self” as an entity constituted by, and empirically traceable to, a set of nonlinear (circularly causal) relations through the dissipation or breakdown of field (environmental) potentials (or resources) in the continuous coordinated motion of its components (from auto- “self” + cata- “down” + kinetic, “of the motion of material bodies and the forces and energy associated therewith” from kinein, “to cause to move.”
* * * * * *
The above excerpt is the Conclusion of Swenson’s article. From its beginning, he notes that living systems, unlike self-ordering or material systems, display “intentional dynamics” in their behavior, which Swenson defines as “end-directed behavior prospectively controlled, or determined by meaning or information about paths to ends,” in contrast with “end-directed behavior which can be understood as determined by local potentials, and fundamental laws.”
He continues: “Examples of the latter [are] a river flowing down a slope, or heat flowing down a gradient. We can elaborate this discussion … by including examples of autocatakinetic systems … such as the Benard experiment, tornadoes, and dust devils, systems that we call self-organizing, but we do not say are characterized by intentional dynamics. The autocatakinesis of such systems, which breaks symmetry with previously disordered regimes to access and dynamically fill higher-ordered dimensions of space time, is still determined with respect to local potentials with which they typically remain permanently connected. The autocatakinesis of living things, in contrast, is maintained with respect to non-local potentials discontinuously located in space-time to which they are not permanently connected.”
Thus the patterns that we observe in biological nature do not principally arise from the properties of matter under the control of the physical laws. There is an informative process at work that appears to be mediated by a field or fields.
In this article, Swenson lists six “main problems” with the adequacy of Darwinism as a theory of evolution:
1. Natural selection requires the intentional dynamics of living things in order to work, and this puts the intentional dynamics of living things outside the explanatory framework of Darwinian theory.
2. Darwinism has no observables by which it can address or account for the directed nature of Evolution.
3. Because natural selection works on a competitive population of many, and the Earth as a planetary system evolves as a Population of One, Darwinian theory can neither recognize nor address this planetary evolution.
4. Darwinian theory has no account of the insensitivity to initial conditions (like consequents from unlike antecedents) required to account for the reliability of intentional dynamics or the evolutionary record writ large.
5. The incommensurability between biology and physics assumed by Darwinian theory provides no basis within the theory according to which epistemic or meaningful relations between living things and their environments can take place.
6. Evolution according to Darwinism is defined as a change in gene frequencies, and this puts cultural evolution outside the reach of Darwinian theory.
Swenson's article is a great read -- if you have the time and interest!
Okay - I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a clue what this is talking about. Anybody out there to summarize in layman's terms?
FYI!!!
> “Examples of the latter [are] a river flowing down a slope...
Curiously enough, rivers are *forever* flowing down slopes. And they can keep that up because there are numerous other mechanisms at work... such as evaporation and rain, a cycle driven by an external energy source (the sun).
With such a basic blunder (vast oversimplification), seems a waste to spend a whole lot of time worrying about his concerns regarding the improbability of evolution. Anyone who can't even see the sun in the sky overhead is not someone who is likely to have much useful to say about whether or not evolution is "directed."
I don't see that one can invalidate evolutionary theory through physics.
I am sorry but this is manifest nonsense. The reason that this guy is talking nonsense is that he is taking a physical concept, entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, and interpreting it out of context.
Another way of putting this, is that he has inverted cause and effect. Either way, he can be dismissed.
Fundamentally, entropy is derived from what is known as the canonical ensembles. There are three of them depending on the boundary conditions: the micro canonical ensemble, the canonical ensemble, and the macro canonical ensemble. These mathematical formalisms allow the specific calculation of entropy, S, as an intrinsic measure of the density of states, Omega.
S=-k * ln(Omega)
where k is Boltzmann's constant and is used to convert entropy "units" to energy units to simplify the thermodynamic equations.
The fundamental mistake this guy is making is that he obviously has never derived the entropy. If you do derive it, then you find that all of the canonical ensembles assume a heat bath. The reason is that energy and entropy need to flow between the heat bath and the local system.
My favorite Stat Mech book is F. Mandl, "Statistical Physics", although the standard is Reif, "Statistical and Thermal Physics". What is simply derived, is that the entropy in an isolated system always increases. However, if the system is not isolated, this entropy may or may not increase. From Mandl, p. 43: "During real (as distinct from idealized reversible) processes, the entropy of an isolated system always increases. In the state of equilibrium, the entropy attains its maximum value. "
The point is that this author assumes that the biological system is isolated. It clearly isn't. It is in thermodynamic, quasi equilibrium with its environment. Thefore, the entropy can decrease locally, so long as the entropy increases globally. Since the entropy of the Universe is increasing, the localized decrease in entropy of biological systems is allowed and the second law is satisfied.
The second law was actually derived by Causius (from the Clausius-Claperyon equation). Boltzman made the observation about the second law that the disorder increased. However, this was an observation. The cause was an increase in statistical probablility. Moreover, as an observation, implicit was the boundary conditions of the original deriviation. This has been perpetually misinterpreted by by many without a physics education, including this author, to mean that the second law was cuased by a necessary increase in disorder.
The simple fact is that biological evolution does not appear to violate the second law-- at least a priori.
In order to address whether evolution does in fact violate the second law, someone would have to calculate the absolute decrease in entropy (numerically) for biological systems under the predicate of evolution. Then they would have to show that the corresponding decrease in Helmholtz Free Energy did NOT occur in the global system. This is a very, very difficult calculation. I certainly don't know how to do it. I have never seen anyone actually do it--I know of no publication that has attempted. But certainly, this idiot does not have a clue on how to do it.
betty: let me know if you can see the graphic!
5. The incommensurability between biology and physics assumed by Darwinian theory provides no basis within the theory according to which epistemic or meaningful relations between living things and their environments can take place.
Well, this is the main sticking point for yours truly. If evolution is truly "natural" then there has to be some sort of very real and obvious connection to physics and natural laws.
I also like the fact that Swenson realizes that organisms can not be so easily seperated from their ennvironments, and yet evolutionary theory seems to completely ignore this basic fact. One could argue that the connection falls under the umbrella of "natural selection, " but then selection is a destructive force only, and does not explain the symboitic relationship between organisms and their environments.
Really, evolution doesn't even explain why there even has to be evolution. jennyp speaks of the biological niches that need to be filled, but if your an organism surviving quite nicely in your little niche, there is no way it can know or discover a new niche that it now needs to evolve to occupy. In evolutionary theory, the only way it can happen is for an organism to accidently breed offspring that just happen to fill the new niche. Such a thing is within the realm of probabilty, and I think such things have been observed with very simple single-celled organisms, but then their simplicity is their virtue. It's quite another thing for a mouse to adopt to flying in order to catch tasty little insects.
All of Swenson's points are excellent and unassailable. I've seen some posters going after the low-hanging fruit of entropy, but really it's not a big deal in his argument, and could even be left out.
But the best little soundbite from this article is the one you quoted:
The autocatakinesis of living things, in contrast, is maintained with respect to non-local potentials discontinuously located in space-time to which they are not permanently connected.”
Just a fancy way of saying that outside forces have been at work in our biological world, beyond those of observable phenomena. And yet the effect of these unobservable forces can be observed, much like we can see a tree moving in the wind, but cannot see the wind itself.
The door for Intelligent Design is not only open, but is necessary to explain what we're observing!
Great article betty!
Poor Boltzmann, lost out to ultra-empiricist Mach. Lost everything.
read later
Cool post, Betty. Thanks
Life is a autocatakinetic system...and then you die
Stephen Jay Gould used to make a very obvious point that there is no sense of direction to evolution. If evolution were directed we would have long ago evolved out of diseases that regularly kill us. Evolution is the result of populations of species reacting to stresses. If being short is an advantage we become short (or rather the survivors tend to be short), if being tall is an advantage the survivors tend to be tall. If height is neutral, we see both tall and short people among the survivors.
The Second Law says that the universe will tend toward disorder, not that all things on this planet always go from order to disorder.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.