Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 75362694" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>I don't really have a problem with that quote. They're identifying those processes as causes of heritable variation. But, as they make explicitly clear, those processes play contributory roles in providing the material conditions in which (on which) natural selection acts - which is what I said previously.</p><p></p><p>In my view, their emphasis on natural selection as no longer the 'sole creative force' is a straw man. They simply want emergent processes to be acknowledged as causes of heritable variation in addition to 'simple' mutation; the role of natural selection hasn't changed at all, it never was <em>creative, </em>it has, by definition, always been <em>selective</em> - it <em>selects</em> from the creativity of the various sources of heritable variation; i.e. mutation and the higher-level emergent processes.</p><p></p><p>To be fair, I think it's a more question of different timescales (as I said previously) than an equivocation of 'creative'. The processes that generate heritable variation are the initial creative 'forces', but the accumulation of repeated cycles of heritable variation and natural selection generate a different creativity on a longer timescale.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 75362694, member: 241055"] I don't really have a problem with that quote. They're identifying those processes as causes of heritable variation. But, as they make explicitly clear, those processes play contributory roles in providing the material conditions in which (on which) natural selection acts - which is what I said previously. In my view, their emphasis on natural selection as no longer the 'sole creative force' is a straw man. They simply want emergent processes to be acknowledged as causes of heritable variation in addition to 'simple' mutation; the role of natural selection hasn't changed at all, it never was [I]creative, [/I]it has, by definition, always been [I]selective[/I] - it [I]selects[/I] from the creativity of the various sources of heritable variation; i.e. mutation and the higher-level emergent processes. To be fair, I think it's a more question of different timescales (as I said previously) than an equivocation of 'creative'. The processes that generate heritable variation are the initial creative 'forces', but the accumulation of repeated cycles of heritable variation and natural selection generate a different creativity on a longer timescale. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
Top
Bottom