Spandrel biology - was and
Go to: Abstract A common trait of complex systems is that they can be represented by means of a network of interacting parts. It is, in fact, the network organization more than the parts that largely conditions most higher-level properties, which are not reducible to the properties of the individual parts. Can the topological organization of these webs provide some insight into their evolutionary origins? Both biological and artificial networks share some common architectural traits. They are often heterogeneous and sparse, and most exhibit different types of correlations, such as nestedness, modularity or hierarchical patterns. These properties have often been attributed to the selection of functionally meaningful traits. However, a proper formulation of generative network models suggests a rather different picture. Against the standard selection—optimization argument, some networks reveal the inevitable generation of complex patterns resulting from reuse and can be modelled using duplication—rewiring rules lacking functionality. These give rise to the observed heterogeneous, scale-free and modular architectures.Spandrel biology - really
It is known to be present in almost all human societies and has been studied from a number of perspectives. Under the first question, related to mechanisms, we show that it is caused by social, psychological mate choice, genetic, neural, and endocrine mechanisms. The mechanisms regulating psychopathology, cognitive biases, and animal models provide further insights into the mechanisms that regulate romantic love. Under the second question, related to development, we show that romantic love exists across the human lifespan in both sexes. We summarize what is known about its development and the internal and external factors that influence it. We consider cross-cultural perspectives and raise the issue of evolutionary mismatch. Under the third question, related to function, we discuss the fitness-relevant benefits and costs of romantic love with reference to mate choice, courtship, sex, and pair-bonding. spandrel biologyNotes 1.
Navigation menu
Though not the paradigmatic type of case, controversies about the relative roles of spandrel biology causal factors in producing single-event phenomena e. Though not uncontroversial: see Kelly There is a long history of philosophical debate on this point. Similar observations from other philosophers can be found in MillsteinSkipperand Plutynski For an example of a relative frequency controversy that looks like it kotakuinactoin in the process of being abandoned, see Bird et al. That relative frequency controversies often go unresolved is basically a consensus position in the scientific and philosophical literature on these controversies. Still, one might disagree with this claim, either because no one spandrel biology in a position to report spandrel biology actual proportion of resolved to unresolved controversies, or because eliminating some possible answers to the original relative frequency question seems like resolution of a sort.
If you are not persuaded that these controversies are often unresolved, the important point for my argument is that their being resolved is independent of their being rational, as I discuss in Sect.
It's also a relative frequency controversy in its own right! For a discussion, see Turner I intend the following discussion to be neutral among competing characterizations of scientific explanation.
.png "spandrel biology")
They can also be a mechanism by which new processes which can produce the phenomenon of interest are discovered. Spandrel biology Jane West-Eberhard did not propose the sensory bias model for sexual selection in which mating preferences evolve from pre-existing sensory preferences untilyears into the ongoing spandrel biology about good genes versus arbitrary choice, and peripatric and parapatric speciation were not recognized as mechanisms until the sympatric vs.
See Jiggins for a similar analysis of the development of the sympatric speciation controversy. Though it would be a mistake to take any of my claims in this paper as establishing the rationality of other kinds of unresolved, polarizing controversies! Whether the considerations that establish the rationality of relative frequency controversies apply to other kinds of cases would have to be investigated separately.]
Number will not pass!
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you commit an error. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
I think, that you are mistaken. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
It is very a pity to me, I can help nothing to you. But it is assured, that you will find the correct decision.