Majority of complexity happened as accumulated neutral complexity which accumulated because of slack in the system.
what does this mean? let’s pretend it’s “neutral complexity”. as the name suggests, it grants no benefit as it is. we could call the process through which all this spandrell smårgasbortd flames into being, “variation”. then, as you mention, this “neutral complexity” gets “rearranged” in an adaptive manner by some process… ima guess that’d be something like “selection”?
well pinch my tits and call me sally, isn’t that gosh darn similar to “darwinism”? by jerks or by creeps, evolution don’t trip
At parity of other traits
brother, i was charitably feeding you the tiniest of leaps towards a sustainable, reality-compatible ontology and you take it as an occasion for a “gotcha”?
No, it’s not. Darwinism, as scientific position and not vibes, is a claim that any observable feature in biodiversity is observable because it’s causally produced differential fitness with alternative features. It is not what we see in reality.
I suggest you pause discussion of evolution and return to discussion after reading any summary of modern evolutionary theory? I recommend “The Logic of Chance: Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution”.
Darwinism is, quite simply, the theory that evolution proceeds through the mechanisms of variation and selection. I read Mary Douglas too, btw, but your “any observable feature” is clearly not a necessity not even for the staunchest Dalton/Dawkins fan, and I am frankly puzzled by the fact that such obvious tendentious read could be upvoted so much.
I have of course read Koonin—not the worse among those still trying to salvage Lewontin, but not really relevant to the above either. No one is arguing that all phenotypes currently extant confer specific evolutionary advantages.
what does this mean? let’s pretend it’s “neutral complexity”. as the name suggests, it grants no benefit as it is. we could call the process through which all this spandrell smårgasbortd flames into being, “variation”. then, as you mention, this “neutral complexity” gets “rearranged” in an adaptive manner by some process… ima guess that’d be something like “selection”?
well pinch my tits and call me sally, isn’t that gosh darn similar to “darwinism”? by jerks or by creeps, evolution don’t trip
brother, i was charitably feeding you the tiniest of leaps towards a sustainable, reality-compatible ontology and you take it as an occasion for a “gotcha”?
No, it’s not. Darwinism, as scientific position and not vibes, is a claim that any observable feature in biodiversity is observable because it’s causally produced differential fitness with alternative features. It is not what we see in reality.
I suggest you pause discussion of evolution and return to discussion after reading any summary of modern evolutionary theory? I recommend “The Logic of Chance: Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution”.
Darwinism is, quite simply, the theory that evolution proceeds through the mechanisms of variation and selection. I read Mary Douglas too, btw, but your “any observable feature” is clearly not a necessity not even for the staunchest Dalton/Dawkins fan, and I am frankly puzzled by the fact that such obvious tendentious read could be upvoted so much.
I have of course read Koonin—not the worse among those still trying to salvage Lewontin, but not really relevant to the above either. No one is arguing that all phenotypes currently extant confer specific evolutionary advantages.