DES et al., I don't understand how we can have a conversation about evolution without engaging the problem of design. Darwin's theory was an attempt to explain design without reference to a designer; natural selection was that explanation. Unless I'm out of my mind—which of course is a possibility—population biology does not address that problem at all.
Mathematics often has a kind of predictive power: working out the implications of a theory in mathematical form can lead you to places you did not anticipate. In my geriatric bewilderment, this is what I think population biology does. I still don't think it has much to say about design, nor has there been much attempt to explore the distribution of design in nature. On the whole, there is not as much of it as people have been led to think. But sometimes natural selection seems to do a very good job, as shown by comparisons between natural objects and engineered ones. There has been a great deal of work along the lines of: “Oh wow, this thing in nature is designed just as well as something we might have designed ourselves. Holy cow, isn't that wonderful? Isn't natural selection grand?” But sometimes these effects are not produced by natural selection—or at least not entirely. Anyway, this will no doubt add to your bewilderment about my state of mind. Best, nst Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson https://substack.com/@monist
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
