Is there more than one definition of natural selection?

Can you see how a causal continuum sufficiently correlates whatever effect sexual selection propertizes?The nature of the continuum of NS is usually displaced by notions of historicity instead with an improper philosophy of contingency. That seems to bridge your two sentences without me necessarily invoking Russell's use contra Leibniz of

Brad is chomping at the bit, wanting to try to explain on EVC once again:
Click for full size imagebut knowing that this is not what HOOTMON is on about must hope the question returns once again.

one ought to have clearly decided if the “forces” are being decomposed theoretically into those of gravity, weak, e-m, strong etc of physics or if something that Elliot Sober backed and Allopatrik quite adroitly interjected into EVC.When it comes to deciding if there is some “individuality” it will remand to have knowledge of the topology of physics forces where do bear on whatever chemical relations Prigogine used to prop up his *written* extension of theory. You seem to be confusing as per an equation (those with the “=” signs) a function and a relation. As soon as one tries to think about “randomizing” the nucleotides and THEN deciding if it is function (of organisms etc this time) or structure that has changed no has been able to decide.You can show me where I am wrong on this but I do not think I am. This kind of attempt to overreach or overdetermine can go back simply to Woodger’s early 50s statement that there is a difference between “biology talk” and “talk about biology”. If you insist, as you do, ON STARTING from a nonequilibrium perspective you are starting from the “about” side and then attempting to write something about the bioLOGOS. Much of the comments to you are being read back to you in the other direction from biology itself TO criticism.I too DID try to think of populations as dissipative but I find this adds a bit too much fat precisely at the place that one needs a better attention to the logic and one finds that chemical reactions conver relations which may be either structures of math functions of other things. If one KNEW how gravity, e-m, etc related to dissipation in a given adaptation then one may be able to evaluate the displacement in thought Prigogine provided but this will smear the space and time precisely where the relation of NS to the continuum remains undecided but not unequational. If you grant ecological forces being “just right” to provide a passage across an equation of forces (old idea of repulsion and attraction in biological context) then no matter what the dissipation relation is to entropy the nearest neighborhood of the possible topological individuality will come ahead of any of Prigogine’s philosophy. This much I understand. It has to be, because IF that was the case then linear process will be reducible deduction within whatever extension in place the nonequilibrium extends from former scientific thoughts on the individual topics.Bertrand Russell opined that Kant was wrong on the transcendental aesthetic because the empirical need to determine the dimensions of space made Kant’s reflective period longer than that economically occurring in science but only with pain would the sublime subsist beyond it. Russell had too much to do to show Americans wrong that he never was able to realize that the space part of descent with modification shows that the aesthetic while not in full play psychologically for physics and chemistry remained so for biologists who were now needding to shimmy the difference between artifical and natural selection.

If you desire to operationalize Progogine's ideas then you will need to enumerate the forces as a physicst does, rather biophysically, otherwise it seems to me that dissipation is as helpful as a ID.In a detailed paper, there is a presentation on the relative influence of gravity necessary to carry out dissipation over countervailing forces(Brownian motion etc). I suppose I could venture over the physics library at Cornell and try to find what I read a few years ago if that would really be of anyhelp to you. One would need to show that gravity promixately forms forms during development however and find such a biological case to invoke the Prigogine's ideas. This could be THEN related to survival and vital statistics.I guess it was the slime mold that many tried to think about dissipatively, visualizing cyclic AMP, pulses, but again this is thought of in the sense that Wright thought of population structure not in the absolute difference of Wright's and Fisher's positions (aka selection convergence vs networks of selection)for instance. It is well time for biologists to do better."Force" inside quotation marks gets no one any better understanding of evolutionary theory than following the differences of opinions of claims throughout the literature. It only permits a kind of metadiscussion of evolutionary theory. This is needed by an evolutionary theory that is trying to defend its former stronghold before language was related to its content. It enables the discussion to proceed to dynamics without worrying about occasionalism. I find this disucssion would be more profitable and may not cost as much if done in terms of actual physical forces than the insitutions' attached social realtions.If you presented a case of dissipation and then showed how it may function under selection and that this case requires the non-equilibrium equilibrium that you advocate thus discussing biology towards criticism of biology I would understand, otherwise I do not. My suspicion is that supposed cases of dissipation biology are simply ones where levels of selection have ruptured levels of organization but this is only my intution speaking and like assumptions making asses of me and you it requires tution if the doc is in, but not so much as would be required in your case that I mispoke about someone's body part.I can understand you without the pejorative's like ,"whatever the hell".

It is possible to think of an oil-water mixture in some different physical chemical states as means to substantiate Gladyshev's view on entropy as opposed to Progogines.Seeing what chemicals you DO think about, I can only say that your veiw is more like the one that life can be made of silicon as well as carbon and that man is a machine. This view is not mine. It reminds me of Newton's discussion at the end of Optikcs, however Issac both moved on, in the discussion to life being like a gentle fermentation of the salts or Earth itself, and agreed on chemistry over "conspiring motions". The problem with the non-equilibrium view is that it will require scientists to argue OVER again, agasint vitalism because the SPACE the dissipation extends TO is not occasionally vicariated from that to which former "occult" qualites were in substance for.

The only way I can see to relate thermodynamic and "genetic" entropy (of whatever statistic it be described under/for) is to demonstrate Gladyshev's view. By doing this it may even be possible to reason that the view is too retro and needs to steped up by a Wolfram-Weiner cybernetic meme. But first topological nearest neighboor first, I always say. It may be that feedback loops, synergism and the tao of disspation are not required.Gould's tome was about the persistant HETERODOXY, not about the standard neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, thus evolution was already in the offening for that Gould. One only need read some of his other works to notice that difference. Defintions were not required. Mayr said in "What Evolutio Is" why he differed from Gould. It has to do with populations themselves. Mayr never finished he second book after "The growth of biological thought" and "what it is" is simply his own view on how all the loose ends are sent down the brain drain.They dont agree because they have different perspectives particularly on how "the synthesis" translates into the anti-Soviet advance of Western Science. Mod was correct to say about Gould proping up gradualism to be knocked down by him but he also does the same for "adaptationism" and formed a pact with Provine (against Mayr) about how to read pre-synthesis biology categorizing Mayr as Lamarkist turned Darwinist. Mayr however was from an older than the molecular time Gould is still somewhat of a throwback as towards your own interest.Just so that you know where my own biology comes from: Aside from my teachers I have focused on two different things that I try to bring together. One is the geographic distribution of organisms and the desire to try to see if some kinds of rules can be extracted from this raw data about either the transformation or lack thereof of change over time. The other is to try to figure out how, if organisms in fact do remain within the same lineages for millions of years, what physically is it that keeps the forms from dissipating, dissolving, and being taken to the four winds of the earth. Can some idea of such a design be used to extract energy from these formal stabilities. Could one develop a QM demolecularizer that extracts energy from the forms of creatures that evolution built? Now, that would be a great contribution of evolutionary theory to humaninty and much of the useless debate would then disappear. We might even then be able to use insects caught in car grills to fuel our autos if such existed.Alas we do not have this, but I have taken my study of how evolution would have to work for such to be possible quite far, in truth, somewhat further than is possible in the purely secular community. It is hard for me to keep all of the trails to each rabbit however.

Hi Martin!!I received this, thinking it was spamregardless, I clicked anyway to the blog, where one can read...

quote:

---

At the time of the Origin’s release, Darwin the scientist appealed to God by saying that his own theory accords better with what we know about God, than the theories of others.

---

I guess, it was not spam after all things.I am strarting to be sensitive to this reading of Darwin's use of infinite complexity WHILE arguing for Natural Selection AND setting aside special creation, not in the context of his own time but in the heritage of my generation, two away from, the modern synthesis.In the thread on Natural Selection and Definition, one can read Modulous quote Larry Moran at . etc . , "It should not distinguish, for example, between Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution even though we know that one of these explanations is incorrect” and yet there is certainly a sense accepted by Provine and Phil Johnson (evo and creo)where Dobshanksy had already discoursed (available on request, in Lewontin ed book) that may indeed show that the emailer may have been saying something real, despite the simple quote mining technique used.Mayr says HE WAS a Lamarkian and unless someone can correct me . , it seems to me that he and others became “Darwinian” through what Moran said was now known. I know that this difference is what separated my Grandfather’s generation of biology (and Mayrs’) and my own, which is being caught up by yet another younger one . The vagueness, outside of JUST saying what Darwin was trying to say ad nauseum about Natural Selection was made obvious by Wright ( I will get the full quote) where he said what space evolution moves about in, by noting that it used to be thought that change occurred via homalleic states being fixed by mutation rather than there being multiple alleles at a loci and and species being regarded as sums across all loci.Within this propositus (Wright’s word) under Dobshansky’s understanding and sounding indeed ,there can be a “vagueness" or weirdness where a lethal effect is considered to have ZERO fitness value(what if it has macrothermodynamic chemical affects by being eaten after dying but not "digested" instead being incorporated into the decomposers chemistry). This is however all within some kind of first phase synthetic history and not Darwin’s per say.Darwin’s may apply more directly to the spiders because then Darwin’s use of “number” applies, but then one need not get the sense of controversy without the more nearly uptodate informations.However, the use of natural selection to different levels, today, makes the weirdness replicate beyond the historical anathema of US inspired eugenics etc.One really needs to be very careful in what way one is using it.It seems to be possible to restrict the hierarchical uses under a given consistent genetical reference such that one can USE Darwin”” to open the creationist bag of wishes but I am in no optimum to make this sparkle as of yet.This does not seem to mean that one can do away with some kind of fixation of alleles in microevolution(a better conclusion could be written but I am a bit tired just now).Edited by Brad McFall, : to beEdited by Brad McFall, : letter

“The basic postulate of the biological theory of evolution is that evolutionary changes are governed by natural selection. The environment presents challenges to which the species or a population responds by alterations of its gene pool. Natural selection acts as a cybernetic control mechanism, which transmits information about challenges of the environment to the gene pool of the population. The classics of evolutionism described natural selection as the survival of the fittest. We prefer to describe it as differential perpetuation of genotypes or of genetic systems. Geneotypes whose carries differ in Darwinian fitness in a given environment are transmitted from generation to generation at different rates. This last statement is frankly tautological, and yet it is illuminating.” ADAPTATION AND FITNESS by T. Dobshanksy in Population Biology and Evolution edited by Richard Lewontin.Now if one considers that cybernetics is NOT (what I do..) how axes of a relation between gene frequencies in a population and gene combinations per individual are related, given any logical (dyadic, tetradic, etc) governor of places in the space of the changes theoretically, then, if there is some Earth common environment being thought in this older meditation on translation in space and form-making then one IS open to other views on the role of this formerly considered such NS and . I am not certain that an economic metaphor/ analogy (tribute etc) obviates the POSITIONAL relations this so retro teachable natural selection played in Darwins and some more recent thoughts tracing paternity back there.By finding the closer nexus of geometry and algebra under biogeographic space seems to be just as rigorous mentally as challenging the environment of evos with a different theoretical base. I am not sure that the work you are referring to could cause me to think that simply Lysenko’s views on trees is any better than Kants.Now if one tries to think of it all outside of a certain historical tracing, I have tried to sustain throughout and instead one tries to think of “evolution” as simply a dynamic phenomenon of birth and death and information transfer then perhaps some tribute could be paid to what you are researching but I find that one needs to simply argue from the older (synthesis) view statically UNTIL a better ability to manipulate the quanta is possible. That seems to me to be a preferable material way than a psychologically dominant desire for the same. I don’t know the politics of central European biology very well. I do know that Croizat was read a bit more correctly there than in Anglo-Saxon literature generally.It may be that "tax" and my idea about macrothermodynamics may be related, but I am not sure.The next paragraph of Dobshansky was,

quote:

---

"The Darwinian fitness (also called selective vaule or adaptive value) is not synonymous with adaptedness. As mentioned above, the adaptedness is, in principle at least, measureable in absoulte units. The Darwinian fitness of a geneotype is always relative to the Darwinian fintess of other genotypes. Darwinian fitness, like adaptedness, depends on the environment. The point is, however, that the Darwinian fitness is not necessarily predictable from information concerning adaptedness or vice versa. A geneotype which is lethal in a given environment will, of course, have a zero Darwinian fitness. Yet a genotype with zero fitness may nevertheless be viable and fertile

---

Perhaps a tax can be attrributed to that portion of text. The issue is if we can get enough chemcial knoweldge such that a common evironment is being more than adumbrated. I think this is possible. That is only an opinion at this point however.