Quote:
[Carey said:] Don't get pulled in by Penrose's use of the phrase 'blind-chance evolution and natural selection' . . . it's critical to see that mutations occur effectively by blind chance (in context of the entropy discussion of my last post), while natural selection is a NON-random force that pulls order out of mutational diorder. The term 'blind-chance natural selection' suggests to me that penrose doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, what evolution is really about. I'm not saying he isn't a smart guy, but remember that smart guys and girls (especially successful ones) tend also to be stubborn guys and girls.
[Penrose said:]"To my way of thinking, there is still something mysterious about evolution, with its apparent 'groping' towards some future purpose. Things at least seem to organize themselves somewhat better than they 'ought' to, just on the basis of blind-chance evolution and natural selection."
|
Actually, Penrose was rather vigilant so as to avoid any unnecessary blasphemy regarding the current Darwinian dogma that decrees, as you say, that “natural selection is a NON-random forceâ€â€”note that he indicated that things organize themselves better than they ought just on the basis of “blind-chance evolution†AND “natural selection." IOW, his “blind-chance evolution†is roughly synonymous with “random mutation,†but he still seemingly pays the required homage to “natural selection.†In fact I think he says somewhere that he’s a strong believer in “natural selection†. . . although I suspect that he too, not unlike me, sees “natural selection,†whether it be a top down or bottom up selection, as ultimately little more than a circular account that really doesn’t explain or predict all that much.
Which leaves us pretty much where we were back in the June 17 2006 post, Re: Implications of Somatic Behavior Choice, where you said:
Quote:
|
I still think there's a solid case for the argument that natural selection in practice - the process that actually occurs in the real world - is completely non-circular. The bare-bones, generalistic concept of selection as survival of the fittest has always been circular, as you and many other people in the past have repeatedly pointed out, but as soon as you begin to consider ecological detail, that apparent circularity just isn't important at all.
|
And, exasperated, I responded:
Quote:
|
OK Carey, I give up, you win: Natural selection’s “apparent circularity just isn't important at all.â€
|