https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/ Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:52:58 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-810 Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:52:58 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-810 now for a (perhaps) more enlightened comment: In the 1st paragraph, you claim Nat Sel to be a “creative force” (Natural Selection is the key creative force in evolution). This is a characteristic that is not generally attributed to NS, but rather to mutation. Following this- your creative claim seems to run contrary to Mayr’s definition (the non-random elimination). I agree that leading the essay with a impact statement is important, although as it currently stands- it seems incorrect. Perhaps changing the statement to reflect “adaptive evolution” would do it better..The next statement also seems a little off, “…adaptation …is responsible for the design of organisms” I dont know- maybe seems a little too deterministic or something..Otherwise- a nice primer for the masses.. Is there already a Natural Selection entry on Wilkins concepts list?

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-809 Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:33:58 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-809 Bora- I have no idea what that definition actually means.. Explain?

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-808 Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:28:30 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-808 How about this definition:”Evolution is a change of development by ecology”?

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-807 Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:50:19 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-807 It’s interesting to push on the “necessary” aspect of this definition. Somehow, something developed to the point that it had all three characteristics, and earliest life and natural selection began. But what was the process that drove it to that point? Natural selection wasn’t yet working. But some process was. Quite likely that process had some overlap with natural selection. So which of these conditions can be lost or weakened, and still yield a useful process?

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-806 Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:29:20 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-806 Dangit! I meant to say “wonderful job!” and other such stuff. I especially like the bit at the end, discriminating between neodarwinian and darwinian formulations.

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-805 Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:27:22 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/11/22/the-three-necessary-and-suffic/#comment-805 “This jives with selection as a creative force, but neutral processes as providing the raw material.” Jibes.”The dyed hair and the clipped poodle do not meat this criterion.” Meet.

]]>