Edwina, list:
“We didn't sit down and forge a synthesis. We all knew each other's writings; all spoke with each other. We all had the same goal, which was simply to understand fully the evolutionary process...By combining our knowledge, we managed to straighten out all the conflicts and disagreements so that finally a united picture of evolution emerged. The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology.” ~Ernst Mayr, “C.H. Waddington’s isolation and irritation when he made his famous comment on the limitations of population genetics (Waddington, 1967), and won admiration for his panache but no consideration for his content: “The whole real guts of evolution- which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and things- is outside the mathematical theory.” ~Stephen Jay Gould This isn’t all of it. It is only a selected microcosm of an old pattern of conflict that results when one asks what suffices as an explanation (*aitia*). For instance, what does Mayr mean by “understand fully”? It is not to merely label Mayr as a reductionist (neoDarwinist, the term is associated with the meeting at Princeton, ~1940), or Waddington as a holist. Yet, there is a lot in this narrative from which one can get a better awareness of the difference of expression between “scientific” and “philosophical” desires (different types of *orexis*). For instance, compare Mayr and Provine’s “The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology” with Waddington’s “Towards a Theoretical Biology”. Each gives a personal perspective in their respective books. I would also recommend beginning with Hamburger’s essay in the former. Hth, Jerry R On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > 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 <tabor...@primus.ca> > 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 >> >> On Thu 06/04/17 1:45 PM , Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com sent: >> >> >> On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> 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 . 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>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 .
