Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:48:40 -0500 (EST)
Guy Hoelzer wrote:
<snip>
> plastic behavior responds to environmental contingencies first, then the new
> phenotype becomes codified through assimilation into the genome. This is
> often, but not necessarily, accompanied by the evolution of morphology to
> permit greater effectiveness of the new behavior.
>
> This view might seem so broad as to make the BE trivial,
It is.
Somebody (possibly Baldwin himself) described it as having a selective
positive feedback aspect to it that was distinctive from that of normal
evolution. It doesn't. It's nonsense. Like a lot of concepts in
evolutionary biology, the willingness of many to believe in the
scientific validity of the Baldwin effect has more to do with bad
english than it does good science.
Beyond that it is very hard to debate BE in that it exists only as a
theoretical construct.
<snip>
Jim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- From: Guy Hoelzer
- Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- References:
- The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- From: whitesickle@xxxxxxx
- The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- Prev by Date: Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- Next by Date: Evolutionary psychophysiology to do with newsgroup numbheads (was Re: How can the evolutionary progress from slime to humans be linear?)
- Previous by thread: Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- Next by thread: Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading