更改

{{short description|Hypothesis that living organisms interact with their surroundings in a self-regulating system}}

{{short description|Hypothesis that living organisms interact with their surroundings in a self-regulating system}}

In 1997, Tyler Volk argued that a Gaian system is almost inevitably produced as a result of an evolution towards far-from-equilibrium homeostatic states that maximise [[entropy]] production, and Kleidon (2004) agreed stating: "...homeostatic behavior can emerge from a state of MEP associated with the planetary albedo"; "...the resulting behavior of a biotic Earth at a state of MEP may well lead to near-homeostatic behavior of the Earth system on long time scales, as stated by the Gaia hypothesis". Staley (2002) has similarly proposed "...an alternative form of Gaia theory based on more traditional Darwinian principles... In [this] new approach, environmental regulation is a consequence of population dynamics, not Darwinian selection. The role of selection is to favor organisms that are best adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. However, the environment is not a static backdrop for evolution, but is heavily influenced by the presence of living organisms. The resulting co-evolving dynamical process eventually leads to the convergence of equilibrium and optimal conditions".

In 1997, Tyler Volk argued that a Gaian system is almost inevitably produced as a result of an evolution towards far-from-equilibrium homeostatic states that maximise [[entropy]] production, and Kleidon (2004) agreed stating: "...homeostatic behavior can emerge from a state of MEP associated with the planetary albedo"; "...the resulting behavior of a biotic Earth at a state of MEP may well lead to near-homeostatic behavior of the Earth system on long time scales, as stated by the Gaia hypothesis". Staley (2002) has similarly proposed "...an alternative form of Gaia theory based on more traditional Darwinian principles... In [this] new approach, environmental regulation is a consequence of population dynamics, not Darwinian selection. The role of selection is to favor organisms that are best adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. However, the environment is not a static backdrop for evolution, but is heavily influenced by the presence of living organisms. The resulting co-evolving dynamical process eventually leads to the convergence of equilibrium and optimal conditions".

Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of [[greedy reductionism]] in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. He also states that most of his critics are biologists but that his hypothesis includes experiments in fields outside biology, and that some self-regulating phenomena may not be mathematically explainable.<ref name="Lovelock, James 2001"/>

Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of [[greedy reductionism]] in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. He also states that most of his critics are biologists but that his hypothesis includes experiments in fields outside biology, and that some self-regulating phenomena may not be mathematically explainable.<ref name="Lovelock, James 2001"/>

===Natural selection and evolution自然选择和进化===

===Natural selection and evolution自然选择和进化===

The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal ''Climatic Change'' in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it.<ref name="kirchner2002"/><ref name="volk2002"/> Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties"<ref>{{cite book |last=Waltham |first=David |authorlink=David Waltham |date=2014 |title=Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional – and What that Means for Life in the Universe |url=https://archive.org/details/luckyplanetwhyea0000walt |location= |publisher=Icon Books |page= |isbn=9781848316560 |accessdate= |url-access=registration }}</ref> to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background"<ref name="beerling2007"/> to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cockell |first1=Charles |authorlink1=Charles Cockell |last2=Corfield |first2=Richard |last3=Dise |first3= Nancy  |last4=Edwards |first4=Neil  |last5=Harris |first5=Nigel  |date=2008 |title= An Introduction to the Earth-Life System |url= http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/palaeontology-and-life-history/introduction-earth-life-system |location=Cambridge (UK) |publisher= Cambridge University Press |page= |isbn= 9780521729536 |accessdate= }}</ref> The [[CLAW hypothesis]],<ref name="CLAW87" /> initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of [[cloud condensation nuclei]] has improved.<ref>{{Citation |last1= Quinn |first1=P.K. |last2= Bates |first2=T.S. |title =The case against climate regulation via oceanic phytoplankton sulphur emissions |journal =Nature |volume=480 |issue=7375 |pages =51–56 |date = 2011 |doi=10.1038/nature10580|bibcode = 2011Natur.480...51Q |pmid=22129724|url=https://zenodo.org/record/1233319 }}</ref> In 2009 the [[Medea hypothesis]] was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.<ref>Peter Ward (2009), ''The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?'', {{ISBN|0-691-13075-2}}</ref>

The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal ''Climatic Change'' in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it.<ref name="kirchner2002"/><ref name="volk2002"/> Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties"<ref>{{cite book |last=Waltham |first=David |authorlink=David Waltham |date=2014 |title=Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional – and What that Means for Life in the Universe |url=https://archive.org/details/luckyplanetwhyea0000walt |location= |publisher=Icon Books |page= |isbn=9781848316560 |accessdate= |url-access=registration }}</ref> to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background"<ref name="beerling2007"/> to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cockell |first1=Charles |authorlink1=Charles Cockell |last2=Corfield |first2=Richard |last3=Dise |first3= Nancy  |last4=Edwards |first4=Neil  |last5=Harris |first5=Nigel  |date=2008 |title= An Introduction to the Earth-Life System |url= http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/palaeontology-and-life-history/introduction-earth-life-system |location=Cambridge (UK) |publisher= Cambridge University Press |page= |isbn= 9780521729536 |accessdate= }}</ref> The [[CLAW hypothesis]],<ref name="CLAW87" /> initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of [[cloud condensation nuclei]] has improved.<ref>{{Citation |last1= Quinn |first1=P.K. |last2= Bates |first2=T.S. |title =The case against climate regulation via oceanic phytoplankton sulphur emissions |journal =Nature |volume=480 |issue=7375 |pages =51–56 |date = 2011 |doi=10.1038/nature10580|bibcode = 2011Natur.480...51Q |pmid=22129724|url=https://zenodo.org/record/1233319 }}</ref> In 2009 the [[Medea hypothesis]] was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.<ref>Peter Ward (2009), ''The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?'', {{ISBN|0-691-13075-2}}</ref>