On 1/14/07, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nick, Hi. Yea, thinking about the difference between instrumental (physical) and abstract (theoretical) causes of even perfectly well behaved things is a tough climb. I'm glad if anyone is willing to put the two on the table at the same time at all. No I haven't read those, but I'm always interested in the new angles people try. The usual place I find the Darwinian models to break down is in assuming the environment somehow has the future shapes of things built in and a mold pressing process of random variation and atrition is how those shapes are transfered to organisms. To me that leaves the question as to where the shapes come from unanswered. I also haven't found anyone who has connected the fact that evolution is a sequential extension of a growth process, with any particular mechanism of growth. Can you give me a snapshot of what you found satisfying in either one of them?
Hah. The Plausibility of Life was on my Christmas wish list. From the back cover: "Complex living systems are plausible only if evolution can plausibly generate them. The authors show how this has been achieved by providing many detailed examples to illustrate their theory of facilitated variation. The reveal what might be called the grammar of evolved systems, the flexible organization of processes which allows change by accretion and rearrangement. What emerges is the interesting consequence that it is life by [intelligent] design that is implausible." Sydney Brenner, Salk Institute "Change by accretion and rearrangement" sounds like it might make discontinuities in growth curves. -- rec --
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
