samodena at csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu (S. A. Modena) writes:
>In article <13batoINNfsc at matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nexus at matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Arseny Nikolaev Markov) writes:
>>una at grumpy.phy.duke.edu (Una Smith) writes:
>>>>>>>All other instances of evolution as so-called progress
>>>depend on special pleadings for "improvement" in some
>>>aspect of the quality or quantity of a type of organism.
>>>>"macroevoluton" follows the outlined 1--4 points. Nothinfg new under the
>>sun. Just different quantitative levels. But to reach them you need the
>Smith listed qualitative levels.
Sorry, "lapsus lingve"--lingual error. It should be "qualitative levels"
>>descrete steps of "microevolution"--"improving" or upgrading a discrete
>>"evoluting system" adding to the multitude of "connections" (gates) to
>>the "environment". The other point in the game is that the "environment"
>>is changing so fast in comparison with the equilibrium(minimum potential
>>energy and max. information flux) of the "evoluting system" that "equili
>>brium" can not be achieved practically. Only the extremes, the fluctuati
>>ng "maximums" are selected for. That's why it is so confusing to
>>equate "microevolution" and "progress". That's pretty much clear on
>>molecular level where lethal "wrongs" are neutralized very fast by high
>>gene copy number or take the evolution of a dublet genetic code to a
>What is news to me is that anything is clearer by viewing the "molecular
No wonder, Steve. That way you see things "closer". It can be even expli
cable when you reduce enough parameters of "environment". But it's nice
to wonder. Not many people nowadays can do that.
>| At e-mail: nmodena at unity.ncsu.edu |
>|samodena at csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu |
nexus at ksuvm.ksu.edunexus at matt.ksu.ksu.edu