From
here, quoted in its entirety below:
One of the things in the second section I noticed, (when reviewing the disputevC over what Hukley did or did not think) was
quote:
The key words here are already present. Reginald Punnett, in his book Mimicry in Butterflies offered a similar appraisal of the environment (Natural Selection) in 1915:
Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existent likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed. (Quoted in Berg, page 314) my emphasis.
There is quite a bit of work needed to keep funtionalities and relationships clearly seperated in anyone's mind and it did come to mind to me that MENDEL, (
http://www.mendelweb.org/MWpaptoc.html), DID NOT say that a given constancy of differential character(s) denoted relations across generations but across # of experiments. Furthermore, in this light, it seems that Punnet might have used exponentiation, (Multiplication) where Mendel's A + 2Aa + a (not A^2&a^2)was TO COVER what might instead be an ADDITION, only (during DNA replication biophysics). Thus it is not clear, obviously, to me that "preponderant" must be in this "environment" even though the coverage would speak to ANY built buildup denied.
Now in this thought, I was led to consider that the "evolution" of dominance is CORRELATED (in fact if the thought is not tough and on etc) with electrolytic EFFICIENCY (deviations from that predictable by TWO FARADAY LAWS).
I know that my own thought, this far, however would not directly support JAD's
The important point is that there is no evidence that such transformations involved in any way the introduction of species specific information into the genome.
necessarily so I am left to wonder IF the "combination series"
http://www.mendelweb.org/MWgloss.html#combser of
http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html#s8 are not NOT within a Darwinian token economics.
The reason I address this is that while JAD has dropped BOTH darwinism and lamarkianism, Gladyshev simply asks, WHAT IS THE TIME PERIOD being studied BEFORE adjudicating this question of Darwin or Lamark.
I think that only by using additions where the punnet square suggests multiplications can the be re-solved but i have not carried this into this discussion. It is unclear to me if Gould held this clearly before his recognition as he does make a distinction between utility and temporality but I dont know if he also really made it between temporality and not utility. I would have suspected Gould to have remanded species specific information here as well. Well BSM, SJG, JAD, GPG, & Wilson can not be ALL right and ALL wrong at the same time, it seems to me.
{Did my stab at cleaning up the formatting some - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-01-2004 12:13 PM
I'm not looking for debate of Brad's comments, but rather just some commentary on his writing form/structure. My formating edits were quite minor, mostly just adding some spaces between words.
Adminnemooseus
™ Version 4.2
