""" I feel like I completely understand your problem, but cannot solve it. You point to, what is for me, the most bemusing problem in evolutionary theory, the evolution of natural selection. Given the developmental entanglement of traits, how do they become modules for the purpose of selection. The tension between developmental biologists and Dawkins-like biologists is around this poing. Nobody disagrees that there is a lot of entanglement and nobody disagrees that some traits get selected. I agree that the burden of proof lies on the side of selection theorist to explain how selection itself is possible! This what I find so tempting about Stephen’s energy flow ideas. Is there a “least action” explanation for modularity? """
Similarly, is this a place where SteveG-style descriptions will meet Gibson-style explanations? -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
