What is meant by the term “Natural Selection” (and what explanatory power does it posses in the overall theory? In what major way is the concept limited?
In what sense is the idea of Natural Selection a “tautology” and why is natural selection (in itself) incapable of directing or advancing evolutionary change?
The Jordan observation of the distracting hand. In magic, a “prestidigitator” may ask you to watch his hands, as if his hands, at that moment, were the focal point of the magic maneuver. In most cases however, the “watch my hands” command is meant to take your eyes off of action elsewhere. In the case of evolution, it is my general sense, that attention is often placed on Natural Selection and removed from the far greater problem of random mutation (including the character and latitude of mutation.) My own thinking has led me to believe that Natural Selection is the most certain, indeed, the absolutely unquestionable component of evolutionary theory. It is also a limited concept, and has within itself, none of the generative (or creative) power associated with the evolutionary model.
Natural Selection is totally passive, it can only be said to “act” upon what is already there.
Matteo (Blog comment) The problem with Natural Selection is that is merely another name for death, and as such is a destructive force, not a constructive one. Its fans keep speaking of it as a probability enhancer or probability multiplier, making possible that which pure chance could never accomplish.
But this is akin to saying that the monkeys at the typewriters will more quickly produce Hamlet, provided you regularly massacre the majority of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment