Subject
Fw: Nabokov's scientific writings: Mimicry. Robert Weldon
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Weldon" <robertw@cm-labs.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (131
lines) ------------------
>
> > Nabokov argued that there were other mechanisms besides natural
selection
> > that influenced evolution. Scientists have recently discovered that this
> >is so.
>
> Neither of these statements is a fact. The first is plausible,but has it
> been shown in this discussion?
>
> The second claim is an area of active debate - see, for example, the
> chapters concerning Stuart Kaufmann's work in Daniel Dennet's "Darwins
> Dangerous Idea." Many of the themes argued in this thread are discussed
> therein.
>
> Dennet divides the debate on the mechanisms of evolution between those who
> like cranes and those who prefer skyhooks. Cranes are mechanisms that
> operate ground up, and skyhooks are those ,like creation science, that
> postulate mysterious forces that cause evolution and lift genotypes to
> greater and greater complexity.
>
> Neither "nonutilitarian mechanisms", nor "puncuated equilibriums", not
"nor
> "genetic drifts", nor "non-linear dynamics" present a clear challenge to
> natural selection. In this battle, the dust is still flying. No doubt, the
> most useful and effective ideas will be the ones that survive.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Robert Weldon,
> robert.weldon@cm-labs.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU]On
> Behalf Of D. Barton Johnson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:35 PM
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fw: Nabokov's scientific writings: Mimicry. Alexander
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Victoria N. Alexander" <alexander@dactyl.org>
> To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:11 PM
> Subject: Nabokov's scientific writings
>
>
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (63
> lines) ------------------
> > Zimmer and Boyd have been discussing whether or not Nabokov wrote any
> > serious scientific papers on the topic of mimicry. They also list many
of
> > the examples of mimicry that he mentioned in his writing. I have focused
> on
> > two forms of mimicry that Nabokov specifically mentions, the deadleaf
and
> > the viceroy-monarch relation. He wrote about the dead-leaf in the
passage
> > from Speak Memory that everyone quotes. He actually tasted a viceroy and
a
> > monarch in order to test the Batesian hypothesis, and the passage in
> > "Father's Butterflies" that I quote in my paper directly addresses this
> form
> > of supposed mimicry. Although Nabokov may not have published scientific
> > works tackling the problem of mimicry per se, his anti-Darwinian
argument
> > was an argument for theoretical biology, which was the focus of
biological
> > science before Darwin. As I have shown, a lot of his scientific writing
on
> > lepidoptery is influenced by his partiality to the theoretical approach.
> So
> > there is, in fact, a lot of scientific material to support his
> > non-utilitarian approach to evolution.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nabokov had a peculiar obsession with the mechanisms behind the
formation
> of
> > lines and macules on butterfly wings. Nabokov seemed out-of-step because
> few
> > other scientists were interested in theoretical biology or teleology.
(If
> > any were, they sure wouldn't have mentioned it. It was very
"unscientific"
> > to think that way in the 30s and 40s.) For example, Nabokov had a
> passionate
> > reaction against what he felt was a misunderstanding of the mechanisms
> > responsible for the "Nymphalid Ground Plan" (discovered in the 1920s).
> The
> > ground plan is a structural archetype and a key concept in theoretical
> > biology.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nabokov argued that there were other mechanisms besides natural
selection
> > that influenced evolution. Scientists have recently discovered that this
> is
> > so. Nabokov was not wrong about there being nonutilitarian mechanisms
> > (besides random drift, which Boyd notes) that influence evolution. I've
> also
> > tried to argue that our perception of teleological phenomena (phenomena
> that
> > seem designed) is these days explained by theoretical biologists who use
> the
> > tools of nonlinear dynamics. I have shown the relevance of this research
> to
> > the concept of mimicry (apparent functional design in nature),
especially
> > the viceroy-monarch relation. I've also offered a hypothesis regarding
the
> > sudden appearance of large groups deadleaf forms, which seems to involve
> > some version of a many-to-one neutral mechanism. I've related this to
some
> > work by 19th century teleologists. Doubtless, I have guessed wrong about
> the
> > details (I'm no scientist), but the general idea is plausible. Any
> > criticisms on that matter would be helpful to me, and very much
> appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> > In any case, Darwinian gradualism isn't a real option. Some theory of
> sudden
> > speciation, whether mine, or Crutchfeild's Epochal Evolution, or some
> other
> > theory, is called for to explain the origin of the deadleaf. One can
bring
> > in natural selection after, to explain why the form is stabilized, but
one
> > should not use it to explain the origin.
> >
> >
> >
> > My argument needs to be refined, not refuted. To that end, I've found
Kurt
> > Johnson's criticisms and cautions very useful.
> >
> >
> >
> > Victoria Alexander
> >
> >
> >
>
From: "Robert Weldon" <robertw@cm-labs.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (131
lines) ------------------
>
> > Nabokov argued that there were other mechanisms besides natural
selection
> > that influenced evolution. Scientists have recently discovered that this
> >is so.
>
> Neither of these statements is a fact. The first is plausible,but has it
> been shown in this discussion?
>
> The second claim is an area of active debate - see, for example, the
> chapters concerning Stuart Kaufmann's work in Daniel Dennet's "Darwins
> Dangerous Idea." Many of the themes argued in this thread are discussed
> therein.
>
> Dennet divides the debate on the mechanisms of evolution between those who
> like cranes and those who prefer skyhooks. Cranes are mechanisms that
> operate ground up, and skyhooks are those ,like creation science, that
> postulate mysterious forces that cause evolution and lift genotypes to
> greater and greater complexity.
>
> Neither "nonutilitarian mechanisms", nor "puncuated equilibriums", not
"nor
> "genetic drifts", nor "non-linear dynamics" present a clear challenge to
> natural selection. In this battle, the dust is still flying. No doubt, the
> most useful and effective ideas will be the ones that survive.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Robert Weldon,
> robert.weldon@cm-labs.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU]On
> Behalf Of D. Barton Johnson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:35 PM
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fw: Nabokov's scientific writings: Mimicry. Alexander
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Victoria N. Alexander" <alexander@dactyl.org>
> To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:11 PM
> Subject: Nabokov's scientific writings
>
>
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (63
> lines) ------------------
> > Zimmer and Boyd have been discussing whether or not Nabokov wrote any
> > serious scientific papers on the topic of mimicry. They also list many
of
> > the examples of mimicry that he mentioned in his writing. I have focused
> on
> > two forms of mimicry that Nabokov specifically mentions, the deadleaf
and
> > the viceroy-monarch relation. He wrote about the dead-leaf in the
passage
> > from Speak Memory that everyone quotes. He actually tasted a viceroy and
a
> > monarch in order to test the Batesian hypothesis, and the passage in
> > "Father's Butterflies" that I quote in my paper directly addresses this
> form
> > of supposed mimicry. Although Nabokov may not have published scientific
> > works tackling the problem of mimicry per se, his anti-Darwinian
argument
> > was an argument for theoretical biology, which was the focus of
biological
> > science before Darwin. As I have shown, a lot of his scientific writing
on
> > lepidoptery is influenced by his partiality to the theoretical approach.
> So
> > there is, in fact, a lot of scientific material to support his
> > non-utilitarian approach to evolution.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nabokov had a peculiar obsession with the mechanisms behind the
formation
> of
> > lines and macules on butterfly wings. Nabokov seemed out-of-step because
> few
> > other scientists were interested in theoretical biology or teleology.
(If
> > any were, they sure wouldn't have mentioned it. It was very
"unscientific"
> > to think that way in the 30s and 40s.) For example, Nabokov had a
> passionate
> > reaction against what he felt was a misunderstanding of the mechanisms
> > responsible for the "Nymphalid Ground Plan" (discovered in the 1920s).
> The
> > ground plan is a structural archetype and a key concept in theoretical
> > biology.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nabokov argued that there were other mechanisms besides natural
selection
> > that influenced evolution. Scientists have recently discovered that this
> is
> > so. Nabokov was not wrong about there being nonutilitarian mechanisms
> > (besides random drift, which Boyd notes) that influence evolution. I've
> also
> > tried to argue that our perception of teleological phenomena (phenomena
> that
> > seem designed) is these days explained by theoretical biologists who use
> the
> > tools of nonlinear dynamics. I have shown the relevance of this research
> to
> > the concept of mimicry (apparent functional design in nature),
especially
> > the viceroy-monarch relation. I've also offered a hypothesis regarding
the
> > sudden appearance of large groups deadleaf forms, which seems to involve
> > some version of a many-to-one neutral mechanism. I've related this to
some
> > work by 19th century teleologists. Doubtless, I have guessed wrong about
> the
> > details (I'm no scientist), but the general idea is plausible. Any
> > criticisms on that matter would be helpful to me, and very much
> appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> > In any case, Darwinian gradualism isn't a real option. Some theory of
> sudden
> > speciation, whether mine, or Crutchfeild's Epochal Evolution, or some
> other
> > theory, is called for to explain the origin of the deadleaf. One can
bring
> > in natural selection after, to explain why the form is stabilized, but
one
> > should not use it to explain the origin.
> >
> >
> >
> > My argument needs to be refined, not refuted. To that end, I've found
Kurt
> > Johnson's criticisms and cautions very useful.
> >
> >
> >
> > Victoria Alexander
> >
> >
> >
>