3 ms·

This theory strikes me as teleological rather than explanatory-- it explains phenomena in terms of their effects rather than their causes. Effects come afterwar

• trhway 10y ago
  > Effects come afterwards, so they can't be the explanation for something that's already happened. actually theory of emergence of dissipative structures in the energy flows is kind of showing that the energy flow, i.e. 2nd law is the cause, not the effect >Really I do not see what this idea is supposed to add. even without showing it as a cause, there is still important role of these works is to show compatibility at all stages and scales of the life process with the basic physics laws like the 2nd law. We kind of intuitively know that this is true, yet to be shown scientifically true is still a pretty big work. >Darwinian evolution is a perfectly complete, tight, and verified explanation for the existence and complexity of life. Does it explain clearly and in all the details why we have RNA and those 20 amino acids instead of some other structure and those amino acids that has recently been and will be more in future synthesized in the lab? "Better fit" is obviously a right answer, yet it doesn't provide any details on what specifically was better "fit" with "what". It is like Archimedes law - we still have huge field of naval engineering resulting in multitude of hulls, etc.. despite the law itself being "complete, tight, and verified explanation".