More than one scholarly observer has remarked in the contrast between physics, characterized mostly by deterministic, hard-and-fast laws that operate the same way everywhere and always (at least the Newtonian physics that apply to Earth sciences) and biology. Biology is portrayed as being much more fluid and dynamic, in the sense that chance (e.g., mutations) and environmental adaptations play a major role. As Gregory Chaitin (2012; a mathematician, by the way, not a biologist) puts it, biota and evolution are creative, while physics is not. This tension is sometimes portrayed or exemplified as a Newtonian (as in Isaac Newton) vs. Darwinian (i.e., Charles Darwinian) outlook. 

I have much love for both Newton (left) and Darwin, but have chosen to follow Darwin with respect to my hairstyle. 

Historical contingency in fluviokarst landscape evolution was just published in Geomorphology 303: 41-52.  When I first came to central Kentucky in 2000 I began noticing the strong contrasts in landscape and landform development on inner vs. outer Kentucky River incised meander bends. Investigating this and related phenomena has occupied me off and on ever since. Only a few years ago I realized that given the nature of bend development over the past 1.5 Ma or so, the bend interiors represent a chronosequence of landforms. This paper exploits those chronosequences, using graph theory, to explore the role of historical contingency.

Chronosequence of strath terraces (T1, T2, T3) and other geomorphic surfaces at Polly’s Bend, Kentucky. The surfaces nearest the river are youngest; those farther away are oldest.