BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jerry - is there much difference between standard Darwinism and
Neo-Darwinism with regard to how adaptation and evolution emerges and
develops?
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 06/04/17 2:51 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina,
I put myself forth as a biologist before anything else and I object
to your classification of mutation/natural selection (rather, descent
with modification) as a neoDarwinian hypothesis. That’s just
terrible.
There is a lot that has been contemplated about chance/spontaneity
in evolutionary processes. Goldschmidt’s hopeful monsters and
Waddington’s epigenetic landscape and atavism come to mind (cf.,
Baldwin effect).
From a quick glance of the introduction of Brooks/Wiley book, I
suspect there ought to be no contradictions between these since it
was Waddington who organized the Bellagio conference.
Best,
Jerry R
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Clark, list:
1) First - I don't accept the neoDarwinian hypothesis that
adaptation and evolution are due to randomness and Natural Selection.
I think that adaptation and evolution are actions of Mind; that is,
the biological systems adapt to environmental realities - not
randomly - but as INFORMED systems. That is, to leave adaptation up
to randomness - would effectively mean extinction for the species -
since a 'lucky guess' coming along 'just in time' is as specious a
hope as my winning the lottery [sigh]. I consider that biological
systems as semiosic are informationally networked with their
environment and therefore, develop a number of potential responses to
environmental stresses. Any one of these potential responses would be
functional. The selection of ONE of these potential responses MIGHT
be 'random' but again, any one of these potential responses would
have been functional.
As has been pointed out by several of us, chance is not the same as
randomness. Change/spontaneity is an action of freedom-to-develop; in
this case, a freedom to develop a new morphological nature as an
INFORMED response to environmental realities. This is NOT a random
action but a free action, based on informed knowledge of 'what's
going on out there'. A common example is where a bird will develop a
harder beak as the seeds in the environment develop harder shells.
This is NOT random, which means UNINFORMED and pure 'lottery-win'
[though I have my doubts about the randomness of lottery
wins...mutter, mutter...]
That is, - and this is found in a number of modern biologists - [see
Daniel Brooks: Evolution as Entropy] - this view rejects equilibrium
between organisms and their environment; rejects randomness as the
cause of new morphologies; rejects natural selection as the ultimate
cause; rejects optimality theory; rejects independent evolution of
each species.
By entropy I am referring to the nature of a biological system that
'holds' or binds energy as matter within its morphological nature.
So, a particular biological species that changes its capacity to hold
onto this matter-and its metabolic transformation, and it might to
this for any number of reasons - might release energy/matter to the
'world', which is then rapidly made use of by another biological
system. So, we will see an increasing complexity in an ecosystem. A
swamp with myriad grasses might see the development of more
'individualistic grasses' which function only in a narrow range of
the swamp, BUT, this might lead to a proliferation of more diverse
grasses and plants; more diverse insects and birds - some at the
periphery of the swamp, some in the mainstream.
In each of these new types of organic systems, a new 'habit of
existence and continuity' will develop.
I don't know if this helps. I suspect that it's not really
clarifying your questions.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [2]
On Thu 06/04/17 1:45 PM , Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com [3] sent:
On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
- chance does not form habits but only facilitates breaking them -
and since chance/Firstness is primordial, then, breaking habits is so
to speak, necessary and normal in the universe. Just as habits are
primordial; just as differentiation into discrete instantiations is
primordial..
Could you clarify this? Are you speaking of biological systems at a
starting point where our analysis presumes they already are there?
(Say a swamp in the year 2000 as the starting point - there are
already habitual behaviors in place)
The question I have is that I assume you think new habits can
develop. While this isn’t purely random due to selection, surely
chance is a major component to developing new habits.
John, list - I agree with you that Firstness, in itself, is not
entropic - since it also operates within a stable system as
vagueness, openness. But Firstness as spontaneity, within that
vagueness, can lead as Peirce pointed out to minute changes in the
form of the system, which can be accepted within Thirdness and lead
to new habits of formation and interaction.
I also agree that randomness and spontaneity are not identical - and
that Firstness is 'spontaneity'.
I’ll hold off for now discussing the distinction between
spontaneity, chance and randomness. I do think if we use the terms we
need to be clear what we mean by them since they are all ambiguous
terms.
The problem I have here is what you mean by entropy and change.
After all change can happen that doesn’t increase entropy. While
change typically increases entropy of the system of course it can
reduce the entropy of the subsystem (as is common in evolutionary
change). So I’m not quite sure relative to your topic of biological
creatures what you mean by entropy. Could you clarify a little? (Sorry
as my training just isn’t in biology but physics. I recognize I’m
bringing a set of expectations that perhaps don’t apply.)
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [4] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [5] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/ [6]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.primus.ca
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cl...@lextek.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
