Pattern Formation and Gould's case for Whitman's pigeon

On pages 383 -395

Click for full size image

quote:

---

Subjects and Series | Harvard University Press

---

S. J .Gould presents (page 392) Whitman’s case where

quote:

---

natural selection bears close scrutiny as an aid (still useful today) for clarifying the borderline between two intergrading yet contradictory strategies: (1), using the structuralist and formalist concept of channels of pluralistic reinforcement with natural selection to forge helpful revisions of basic Darwinian theory (the position advocated in this book); or (2) viewing channels as so deep, so unidirectional, and so limiting that such constraints impel evolutionary change from within, leaving selection only to tinker with minor details (a truly anti-Darwinian theory that led the Modern Synthesis to reject orthogenesis completely).

---

But could the possibility of color pattern following Wolfram’s New Kind of Science
Wolfram: Computation Meets Knowledge
as I open beyond a chaotic window below for snake color patterns (stripes vs. spots in birds as in Gould on Darwin and Whitman indicated in the two pigeons above) indicate that Whitman’s case is not an exemplar for the logic of the difference (between selection as powerful or subsidiary) and that Gould misappropriates a creationist/evolutionist issue for the historiography of theories in science that instead is being altered and transformed contrary to Gould’s intended use of Whitman’s perspective on Darwin.Gould ended essentially(page 395) with,

quote:

---

Whitman surely erred in interpreting a channel of variation - a pathway of potential evolution in either direction - as a one-way street of inevitable change. (The reinterpretation of orthogenetic “one-way street of “channels” of preferred variability establishes a key “translation” for updating this older and valuable literature into relevance for our modern debates. I also strongly suspect, in opposition to both Darwin and Whitman, that ancestral pigeons were neither two-barred nor checkered, but both. After all, ancestor exist as populations, not archetypes. Both states persist in continuous gradation within many modern populations of pigeons - and this entire channel may well have been expressed among variable adults in ancestral populations.)

---

Does not Wolfram’s view remove the “archetype” label if substantive for pattern formation in organic beings and invalidate Gould’s use of Whitman??Here are the pages on Whitman,

quote:

---

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by S.J. Gould Harvard, 2002.

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : added content (Gould's pages)

I understand the body of thesis, however, I don't know what you are trying to glean from presenting it. Present a statement of aspiration or present a question to prospective posters to help the audience understand your specific position.If you clean it up a little bit, we'll promote it.

---

Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me

Disregard my last request, I see your question all the way at the bottom.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Not necessarily. Wolfram may have found a deep mechanism in simple rule automata that explains better the patterns seen. But, Gould’s contention that Natural Selection still operates to dispel Whitman’s one-way channels is valid. Both of the Wolfram rules for pigeon marking (barred and checkered) would be in effect in the population. Natural selection determines which is most prevalent.Other cellular rules that would produce other marking schemes (Whitman’s channels?) could also be present in the population only to be manifested when the niche changes and natural selection allows or inhibits the rules. Though he may not have known of the situation I see Gould in support of Wolfram.

I may have mislead you by not including all of the material content. I have added all of Gould's pages on Whitman above.Wolfram wrote (in A New Kind of Science)
Click for full size image
and which refers back to Sorry about my marginalizations.Further Wolfram had said, I am trying to point out that Gould uses Whitman's work to establish the difference which IS a part of the issues in creation and evolution that natural selection is impotent yet LOOK, Wolfram is essentially using this same thought and yet Wolfram seems to feel that his work is about "adaptation" which for Gould falls with Darwin (functionalism) rather than Whitman, postitive constraints, Gould's proposed changes (formalism) etc.So either Gould's use of the difference of functionalism and formalism is wrong(seemingly based on Darwin's use of the words "independent" and "utility" I think)or Wolfram has hyped up his contribution beyond what Feynman said to him (I have posted on this on EVC before) or both. I, think both, but that is just me and there is still some room for some of your notion as contained in the post if "variation" and "variable" were further refined. I do not find evolutionists doing this
(which is why I have
http://www.aexion.org
and
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
)
and so I think that the whole issue can not be invoked under a creation/evolution thought.Notice in particular that Wolfram said, "Self-reproduction, for example, suggests that flames are alive but mules are not." I know that people at Wolfram's business suggested contrary to me that there is no new "physics" in Wolfram's work as I had suggested on their forum but I AM suggesting there is new biology, here and now.I posted this topic because understanding it is important in answering the issues on bilaterians that Bernd raised and said he will speak about later in another thread.Are you still as certain that regardless of whether Whitman might have known of the situation or not that "Gould" seems in support of Wolfram? Gould is not Darwin.