From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
spike66@attglobal.net wrote:
>> Being a creationist is pretty dumb, true. However, "directed
>>evolution" at least sounds plausible, and merrits some attention.
>> RIGHT! Evolution *is* directed, definitely. It is directed by
>> sexual selection. This part of the equation is often
>>overlooked, but sexual preference directs evolution more than
>>natural selection, which has a huge random factor to it. spike
>In _Evolution as Entropy_ (2/e), Brooks and Wiley broach the
>subject of orthogenesis -- AKA directed evolution. I mostly agree
>with their take, which is similar to what another list member here
>brought up, that there are self-organizing tendencies in
>biological systems, even above the organism level. (Of course, to
>them all of this is driven by lower level phenomena, though each
>new level adds some constraints to the lower level stuff.)
>I've brought up this book before here, but no one has taken a
>crack at it...
The Nov/Dec issue of MIT's Technology Review had an article about
directed evolution and the biotech companies that are using it to
create new products, and solve difficult problems faster than using
other biotech techniques.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:19 MDT