How do we know that new laws are not needed to account for important details of evolution?

Question

I have been asking this question in different ways, but I am still not getting a satisfactory answer. We have some mechanisms for evolution in some populations in laboratory experiments. There is more than that in the evolution theory, but let's focus on that. To be interesting, these mechanisms in these specific populations must generalize to all the family tree in real life. So, they must be quite complex mechanisms. Some say they can be reduced to chemistry & physics. We might believe this, but I don't think we have actually proved that -- and a reduction is not something where evidence is enough, it is a mathematical process. So, how do we know that known physics & chemistry is enough? When evolutionists insist that there is a reduction, I am thinking that may be the model for the family tree is much simpler than I think, and there is not so much complexity. So, I try to see what it is formally, but I only got answers about religions, etc. Please no discussion about religions.

Also, the issue is not whether there is plenty of evidence for the main statement of evolution. I see that there has been evolution. The question has nothing to do with this. The fact that natural selection is an important mechanism is also well established. The question is how do we know that new laws are not needed in these mechanisms. If there is a (mathematical) reduction, where is it? If there is none, then we simply don't know. There is no principle in science that says, if you don't know, then assume that the known laws are enough.

mangidabx: I like your answer. I feel I am getting somewhere. When you say that physics & chemistry are perhaps not sufficient for some aspect evolution (I think you have in mind sexual selection), you must mean that some new fundamentals laws of nature are perhaps needed. Some would disagree because they believe that everything, even thoughts, love, etc. are determined by the known laws of physics.. You suggest that perhaps new laws are needed -- we don't know, but I think this makes sense.

Now, besides sexual selection and natural selection, for example even at the level of the interaction between DNA and its environment, it may be that we cannot reduce evolution to known laws of physics. Here, I prefer to say physics than physics & chemistry because, if chemistry is not reducible to physics, it implies some new fundamental laws, which is my main question.

Hello secretsauce. Great to see you. I am glad to make you repeat that we don't know that new laws aren't needed. It is just when you say "as-of-yet-undiscovered detail of evolution" that I get confused. Are you saying, for example, that sexual selection is an "as-of-yet-undiscovered detail of evolution?" This is in part why I asked for a rigorous model of the application domains of the theory. I think it is needed to clarify this kind of issues.

Oh I just read your added point. So, you are saying that sexual selection is reducible to physics (Again, I think it is definitively cleaner to only consider physics because if chemistry is not reducible to physics, then already some new fundamental laws is needed). Well, I think you do not know what we mean by reduction in science. A reduction is a mathematical process. Some reduction can be proven (CM to QM, QM to QFT), but it is very difficult. For example, the current belief is that chemistry is reducible to physics (QFT), but we have no proof. If we have no proof, then we don't know. In particular, we don't know for sexual selection and also for the interaction between DNA and its environment, etc., which aren't "as-of-yet-undiscovered details of evolution."

Point added: Writing down a theory or some mechanisms for each of the two levels is not mathematical. Still, the point is that the reduction itself is mathematical.

secretsauce: I emphasize that in the case of a reduction from a theory A to a theory B, a proof is needed. This is a mathematical concept. Of course, how we accept or reject each theory A or B is not mathematical and is based on evidence. You are confusing two different aspects of science. In science, there is no principle that says that if you cannot reduce a high level theory A to a more basic theory B, then just assume that this reduction exists. In fact, what you are saying is that we must believe that the current laws of physics = the (ultimate, eternal, etc.) laws of nature even in their application to life. This is because you are taking science as a belief system:

God is eternal -- Laws are eternal

God is everywhere -- Laws are the same everywhere

God is omniscient -- Laws control even our thoughts
....
Alleluia Alleluia !

Yes, this discussion could apply to chemistry. In fact, chemistry laws are part of the evolution laws. What is your point? My point remains the same.

Secretsauce (continuing): Maybe it wasn't clear to you that I do accept the evidence for the mechanisms of evolution. I am not against the theory itself, except the implicit assumption that it reduces to the known laws of physics. This assumption is not needed to apply the theory. It is not proven, and as a reduction, it must be proven before we can accept it. So, I don't accept it. I only accept the theory of evolution by itself, not this additional assumption.

Answer 1

First, complex and unpredictable results do not have to have
complex causes, they can arise from quite simple phenomena. See the books entitled Chaos and Complexity.
Second, if there are areas of evolutionary theory that are
still mysterious or poorly understood, then there may be new
principles to be discovered. However, in biology there are
few laws like those of chemistry and physics. Causation in
biology is often diffuse, with many independent influences at
work, each of them contributing only a little to the final result.
This makes prediction very difficult and also makes determination of the real causes of events hard to unravel.
Biological phenomena have to conform to the laws of physics
and chemistry, but they are not completely determined by
them because some biological phenomena do not even
exist at the level of physics and chemistry. The reproductive
rate of a species of organism, for example, has no obvious
connection with physics or chemistry. It certainly is affected
in various ways by physical and chemical phenomena, but
not tdotally determined by them.

Answer 2

I have answered this question several times, and don't know why you don't consider it "satisfactory."

We *don't* know that new laws are not needed to explain some as-of-yet-undiscovered detail of evolution.

All we can say is that the *known* laws explain the *known* details of evolution. Period.

That is all science claims. That is all science has to claim.

{edit}

I'm glad you like mangidabx's answer because I said precisely the same point about chaos theory the first time you asked this question ... apparently unsatisfactorily.

But I'd ask mangidabx to explain the statement: "The reproductive rate of a species of organism, for example, has no obvious connection with physics or chemistry." Say what? It is affected by the population density, and the reproductive behavior of individuals, which in turn is reducible to ontogeny and endochrinology, which are reducible to genetics, to biochemistry, and ultimately to physics and chemistry. Is there any step in that reduction that requires "new laws" to explain it?

Look, I'm not saying we have all the answers. I'm just claiming that there is no aspect or phenomenon of evolutionary biology (which excludes abiogenesis) that I know about that is so unexplainable by known laws that is comes anywhere *close* to pointing to a need for "new laws" of physics or chemistry.

>"Well, I think you do not know what we mean by reduction in science. A reduction is a mathematical process."

Oof. Low blow. Of course I know what a reduction is in science. When I say that population genetics is reducible to genetics, I *am* thinking of a rigorous mathematical model ... with equations describing allele frequencies, population densities, mendelian segregation, Hardy-Weinberg laws, etc. etc.. Population geneticists will know what I'm talking about. It is a large, complex model ... and it is always being refined ... but it is a model, and it is a mathematical model.

>"For example, the current belief is that chemistry is reducible to physics (QFT), but we have no proof. If we have no proof, then we don't know."

Once again you reveal that your problem is not just with evolution but with *all of science.* If you are even questioning whether chemistry is reducible to physics, then why bother talking about higher levels (like evolution) being reducible to chemistry? Go to the Chemistry forum and try this argument on them.

But "If we have no proof, then we don't know." .... What?!?!?!
This is just another version of the ol' creationist "just a theory" misunderstanding of science 101! I.e. it misses the *basic* concept that science doesn't deal in "proof" ... it deals in *evidence*.

And as such science can only go on the evidence it has. (I think I said that somewhere before.)

Answer 3

A scientific theory does not consist of scientific laws. A scientific theory is a well-founded explanation for many scientific observations that have consistently been found to be supportive of the theory and capable of predicting the results of future experiments. Regardless, our understanding of evolution today is incredible, and I think a good genetics or molecular biology class would help you better understand what you want to know about evolution than Yahoo answers.

The amount of information we have about evolution is phenomenal since the discover of DNA as the genetic material. The chemistry of DNA is consistent among all organisms, so yes, reducing evolution to the chemistry of DNA is not unreasonable to provide a general understanding. Molecular biology is the field of genetics that focuses on this. If you're a human or a bacterium or a pterodactyl, you can still get point mutations, deletions, duplications, insertions, amplifications, translocations, and inversions in your DNA. All of these have the potential to be inherited by the offspring. The exact mutation and its effects will always be different, but the biochemical reactions are largely the same. This doesn't mean we understand all of the possible reactions, but these have been observed in numerous organisms, and genetic diseases can often be linked to a specific type of mutation that we understand. Again, a good molecular biology course would probably help more than I can here.

Answer 4

"I see that there has been evolution".
Quite a statement.

I have to say that this is the first statement of it's kind that I have read.

I am well aware of adaptation, and mutation, but never have seen/heard/read proof of one organism actually changing into another and totally different one.

I'm assuming that adaptation and mutation, are forms of the same organism, but not a totally different one.

Your question about physics and chemistry possibly not being enough to explain complex mechanisms may be on target. However, it appears that's all we have at the moment.

I do wonder if some laboratory experiments are artificially induced and is it likely that any noted changes would/could occur in the wild, or naturally, in our known environment.

Other unknown environments may eventually give you an answer. Hmmmm?

Answer 5

a) You canna change the laws o' physics -- Scotty, Star Trek
b) Chemical properties determine how chemicals behave and bond. Chemicals in biological systems follow the rules for how chemicals behave and bond.

=
But if you're looking at physical properties and chemical properties, you're looking at a very "micro" level. Evolution occurs at the level of populations. Stop looking at "quantum energy levels" and start examining individuals within populations. You're not going to find "natural selection" unless you're focusing on phenotypes.

Answer 6

Give it a rest. I knew the whole time you wanted a physics based answer to a biology question. I highly doubt anyone here is a PhD in BioPhysics. Those are the people who might be able to answer this question. Biologists does overly concern themselves with physics