How different is macro/micro evolution

Do you deny different levels of selection exist then?

I mean that idea remanded by Gould between these two pages.

quote:

---

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by SJ GOULD

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : corrected wrongly scanned page.

I supposed, but I did not say, then, that the reason people ask about how different ma/mi may be in the context of c/e is that creationists have complained that evolutionists have moved into a discussion of macro evolution against clearly won creationist (in their minds) differences of adjectives "vertical" and "horizontal" change without a continuity seemingly inherent. Creationists have not noticed, it seems to me, (but I know this literature less well), that a stricture on this move to puntuated equilibrium and other macro issues could be designed against, if a clear method of finding external AND internal purposivness embryologically were taken out of neotinic literature. It might be possible to read Aggasiz that way, but I have not tried. Instead, I was trying to ask the question in terms of evolutionary debate itself where it was an answer for Gould that time does not matter when arguing against only genes as "the" level of selection.I think that conceptually there can be others but I know of no way to determine what level of organizations are natural in this respect or regard.Edited by Brad McFall, : grammer

The issue surrounds the disintegration of sexual organisms during reproduction without (Gould's sense etc) displacing the organisms role as the natural selectee.One first gets the notion of the "evolutionary individual" and then one can discuss if selection occurs.Notice the inversion in the use of the word "organism" that Gould points to (from Wilson and Sober) on the second page I scanned.What Gould banks on, and to an good extent I agree, I think the choice against the interactor mistakes the actually transmitted sense of the focus of evolutionary thought. Incidentially Phil Johnson seems to have made this same move to the post-modern locating the issue in the "information" below the cell level. But if gene selection is the only ultimate unit then it becomes very interesting how the gene is localized and to what organic parts as it becomes difficult to seperate where expensive machines are needed when if it was an organism (or population) the eyes work just fine for the purpose.Edited by Brad McFall, : title change

K, I only added that information because you wondered what I, BSM, meant. I really did not wish to bring up both sides c-e as we already can have more than one with macro-micro.I was talking about the LEVELS OF SELECTION because Chronos said

quote:

---

They are the same process on a different timescale.

---

but Gould's argumentation sets up different causal links on *differently* on different levels making macro and micro to be, in his vision something very different than something that can be linearly related (in it's differences) to the "arrow of time".I think this is the greatest possible conceptual change to evolutionary thinking in my generation. Dennet was challenged to image it. I have had the thought but have not clearly delimited levels (of selection) in mind. Williams and Dawkins are holding out on a different course and so may be some technocrats. technocrats ideas?

quote:

---

A Different Approach to Nanothermodynamics
Terrell L. Hill, Nano Letters Vol 1 (2001) 273-275
“In contrast to macrothermodynamics, the thermodynamics of a small system will usually be different in different environments.”

---

There is however, in my learning, a means to extend the micro in to the macro which might slow down the advances conceptually that Gould wishes to accelerate (contra creationists in part sadly and in my view wrongly).Edited by Brad McFall, : link

Yes, this is pretty much it.You can read what Razd wrote bout the "difference."I think there is probably much more to it.If one is walking rather than reading a clock (as in the OP) one crosses geography even if one is walking along a geodesic say.As Subbie mentioned, I think this is quite accurate, the notion of kind fits into this discussion as well, if "the kind" was defined and deliminted better than the confusion over any difference of macro and micro is. I used to term this "meso" evolution on EVC. The word is from Dobshanksy and used by Lerner. The mods however had placed this topic under Biological Evolution so I suppose that we are to talk focusedly only on how different evolution through longer times may or (may not) be different in biological aspects.There may be an error of plausible contingency in Gould's view to extend the range of the evolutionary individual but it would require that logic restrict the notion of form from its current plurvocal instantiation into one with mulitple connotations.This can more easily be concieved from a creationist perspective where mechanism is reflectively subordinated to design but in the empirical secularlization of academia noticing how a "KIND" through geogography can result IN A LINE denoted is demoted because there would be some determinative consult and there does not appear to me to be any funds or foundation needed to support proximately empirical studies that seperate internal and external purposiveness (as in Kant's trascendentalism). The needed applications would be with the relation of the geometric manifestation and mathematical meaning of a line of points where D'archy tompson wrote of transformed co-ordinates. Without the kind this might be approached without transfinite numbers but if one wanted the broadest method the final ingredient for success probably comes when all of this base work is combined with Croizat's geography to cross the globe and trot out a framework larger than can be found coming into secular institutions because they refuse to grant the design until after it has already been printed.As to biological issues only the subtility here really has to do with "translating" the feeling of an easier go of life with siblings than with random individuals IN THE SAME LIFE and to apply this to creatures we have no real cognition in common with but can observe.If you take the trace with Dakwins and his purplest prose you will end with a foreign car and not the vehichle that rusts rather than rots when it remains for the scavengers.

source
If the sorting or shuffling was selective of rather than a selection of "cards" signing the evolutionary individual, then there might even be a larger realm than Razd considered objective but would fall in his prior non-changed position and Gould was correct about non-end to end stacking in geological time. I am not sure Gould is dead on here where if he had said, "the synthesis is effectively dead."This is what I meant by "slowing down."It is not clear to me that Razd's post avoids the point in the paragraph below: Edited by Brad McFall, : added justification

I think this is where Mayr distances himself somewhat from Gould.The paper just happened to be on the top of a pile for some inexplicable reason. I know it is hard to read to the right.I think this is from his Evolution: One Long Argument.I have tried to show in this thread that "big" is really bigger than gradual conceptually but might not in Gould's "gradual" discussion of PE, as a case for Macro Topics, be experiential. This would leave the creationist scholar to take apart Mayr's references to vertical and horizontal and restore an older intra-creationist wedge. I know that ICR writings try to take macro evo back to the Greeks but I find a better foward writing if it is only taken back to Mayr's citation of the "chain of being" which he had associated with Kant.