> I never liked this hypothesis. The way I see it, we're returning to a "dynamic complex system" view from a brief infatuation with computing, I don’t know if

> I never liked this hypothesis. The way I see it, we're returning to a "dynamic complex system" view from a brief infatuation with computing, I don’t know if there was much of the “dynamic complex system” stuff in the 1800s. (What a terrible way to describe it... but, I think you know what I was saying.) The theme seemed to be striving towards simplification. That is, as Newton transformed the convoluted epicycles and platonic spheres and all the other bizarro theories explaining astronomical movements down to F=MA with a nice simple inverse-squared law tossed in, I think scientists writ large believes a similar simplification would occur in other fields. This was justified to some degree; chemistry was beautifully simplified in a short time. As was, to some degree, medicine with the advent of germ theory. But, biology seems immune. I really don’t think many biologists were thinking in terms of complex dynamic systems. (Ironically, Turing — a computer guy — was with his paper on reaction/diffusion equations.)