Customer Reviews

Shapes: Nature's Patterns: A Tapestry in Three Parts

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

****
"If the phrases 'bicontinous periodic minimal surface' and 'reaction-diffusion process' make you break out in a cold sweat, this isn't a book for you. If your brain is still working and you're curious what daffodils and fingerprints, catalytic converters and leopard spots, or soap films and butterfly wings may have in common." -- A witty reviewer



Patterns are dominant in nature's dramatic disclosure, from the clouds hovering in the sky, to petals disposition in flowers. Where do the patterns we observe come from? Scientists have found that there is a pattern-forming tendency inherent in the basic structure and processes of nature, so that from a few simple themes, and the repetition of simple rules, endless beautiful compositions can evolve. From the patterns of spider's webs to the curl of a ram's horn, Philip Ball examines the genesis and antecedents of the shapes and forms we observe in physical and biological world. In the end, he concludes, nature is an opportunist. One of Ball's heroes, Sir D'Arcy Thompson, a pioneering mathematical biologist, remembered for his book, On Growth and Form, may have inspired him to write his book 'Forms', that contains a lot of fascinating detail about various physical, chemical and possible evolutionary processes at work.

He wonders why do honeycombs have a hexagonal shape? Why are the flowerets in a sunflower arranged in a clothoid or double spiral, a curve whose curvature grows with the distance from the origin? Most scientists would rather call on Charles Darwin to elucidate on these patterns as a random product of evolution, emerging from innumerable variations of possible shapes through natural selection. In the 18th century René de Réaumur, a French scientist, proved that the hexagon guarantee that worker bees fill the cells space efficiently while minimizing the total cellular wall area. In other words, hexagonal cells allow bees to focus on maximizing honey production and expend the least amount of energy making wax. Darwin used the beehive as an example of evolutionary progress, while Thompson argued for a less complicated physical explanation, arguing that natural selection need not be taken into consideration at all.

One of a trilogy of books exploring the analysis of patterns in nature, British writer and science populizer Philip Ball, examines how shapes from soap bubbles to honeycombs can evolve. He uncovers patterns in growth and forming in the four corners of the natural world, explaining how these patterns are formed. This book will make you take a closer look at nature with fresh eyes, and recognize amazing shapes and forms in places you would least expect. Ball is an inspired science writer, gifted to examine divergent natural phenomena and link different intellectual and academic perspectives of relative significance, weave them into a an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent tapestry that will marvel the professional and the lay reader alike. The writing is both fascinating and engaging, with nice informative illustrations.

I love the way this author uses real life examples to put the flow into the mix and then branches is quite a learning experience, if you wanna learn about the itty bitty , this book is for you!

Ball takes a logical approach to explain the physical laws that govern shapes, and the evolutionary basis for the shapes. I believe the physical laws are ordered and our job as scientists is to uncover the mysteries and find the discoveries that are already there. It's like Columbus didn't discover America. It was always there, the Europeans just didn't know it. The "Intelligent Design" and Creation people are right in that God just might be responsible for complicated shapes, but they have God intervening late in the cycle. He established the overall physical laws that living things follow to get their shapes. He didn't intervene at the last minute to make a complex spiral sea shell. This approach reconciles the Science vs. God conflict very nicely. The Creationists have the right idea generally, but are too pushy in their approach. Besides, if I was God, I wouldn't waste time diddling around with every little plant and animal, I would be more efficient and lay down the regular physical laws they should follow. Ball helpls understand the efficient God, not the detail freak God.