[LINK] Finally up to date on the Shuttle
Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:47:57 +1100
> On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 10:06 AM, James Pearce wrote:
> > I understand biology and ecology. I don't understand physics. I don't
> > think this reflects different levels of complexity between the two, just
> > way I think.
> Physics is successful because it tackles simple problems with simple
> models. Biology is far, far more complex. A single cell is far more
> complicated than a star for instance.
> A star has axial and almost spherical symmetry. There are only a dozen
> types of nuclear reactions important at any one time. We have very good
> predictive and descriptive techniques to explain star formation and
> A cell is a double lipid layer container with ion channel entries to
> control Ph and the transfer of various kinds of ions in and out such as
> Ca and Na. There is a complicated dance of tRNA and mRNA from the DNA
> nucleus to the Ribosomes leading the production of thousands of kinds
> of protein any of which has the potential to interact with any other.
> Then there is a whole range of other organelles within the cell such as
> the mitochodria involved in energy via ATP.
> We still don't even understand what the bulk of DNA is for and even the
> simplest ecosystems are beyond clear modeling.
Having many different components and interactions does not necessarily make
it weird. I guess what I was trying to say was I find biology to be
intuitive, whereas I find physics to be counterintuitive.
It may be incredibly difficult to work out the exact way an enzyme interacts
with a protein, but its reasons for doing so are normally fairly easy to
understand (excuse the personification).