Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living. The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
"inadequate," my tush. (};-)] N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner. And Grant has chimed in regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate response from Nick, if I remember correctly. Since you're actively reading Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have meant by Jenny's quote? Repeated here for convenience: On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote: > > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature > innovates by Andreas Wagner. > > From the Preface: the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this > power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot > create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another > way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some > uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's > ability to innovate, its innovability. > On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim since it > was first made. > I think it’s nonsense, but I am not sure. > > *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric > Charles > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate > > > > Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating. > "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them." > > Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we > would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts > of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than > is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored, > short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who > don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild > foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you > have to do is select against aggression towards humans.) > > I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up in > the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation. -- gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
