The Morphogenesis Of Evolutionary Developmental Biology

The early studies of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) come from several sources. Tributaries flowing into Evo-Devo came from such disciplines as embryology, developmental genetics, evolutionary biology, ecology, paleontology, systematics, medical embryology and mathematical modeling. This essay will trace one of the major pathways, that from evolutionary embryology to Evo-Devo and it will show the interactions of this pathway with two other sources of Evo-Devo: ecological developmental biology and medical developmental biology. Together, these three fields are forming a more inclusive evolutionary developmental biology that is revitalizing and providing answers to old and important questions involving the formation of biodiversity on Earth. The phenotype of Evo-Devo is limited by internal constraints on what could be known given the methods and equipment of the time and it has been framed by external factors that include both academic and global politics

Second To The Right, Straight On \u27Til Morning

A response to Michael Ruse\u27s Bare-Knuckle Fighting: EvoDevo Versus Natural Selection

Prospects For Peircean Epistemic Infinitism

Epistemic infinitism is the view that infinite series of inferential relations are productive of epistemic justification. Peirce is explicitly infinitist in his early work, namely his 1868 series of articles. Further, Peirce's semiotic categories of firsts, seconds, and thirds favors a mixed theory of justification. The conclusion is that Peirce was an infinitist, and particularly, what I will term an impure infinitist. However, the prospects for Peirce's infinitism depend entirely on the prospects for Peirce's early semantics, which are not good. Peirce himself revised the semantic theory later, and in so doing, it seems also his epistemic infinitism

The Generation Of Novelty: The Province Of Developmental Biology

A response to Michael Ruse\u27s Forty Years A Philosopher Of Biology: Why EvoDevo Makes Me Still Excited About My Subject

Administrative Agencies: A Comparison of New Hampshire and Federal Agencies’ History, Structure and Rulemaking Requirements

[Excerpt] In this day and age it is difficult to think of anything that is not regulated in some way by a state or federal agency. State and federal agencies routinely make decisions that impact our daily lives. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the places where we live and work are all regulated to some extent. Agencies sometimes regulate things in ways that lead to strange results. For example, New Hampshire, state regulations allow anyone to own a yak, a bison, a wild boar, or an emu, but do not permit a person to own a capuchin monkey unless that person is an “exhibitor” of animals. This may not seem like a big deal, but the result of this restriction is that people with disabilities cannot possess a capuchin monkey as a service animal unless they qualify as an “exhibitor.” Most people with disabilities that need a capuchin monkey as a service animal will not meet the “exhibitor” requirements. They don’t intend to exhibit the animal; they just need the animal to help them with daily activities. Therefore, the result of the agency’s rules is that people in New Hampshire are able to possess yaks or wild boar with little or no agency oversight, but cannot possess an animal that will bring great benefit to their daily lives. This article discusses where New Hampshire and federal agencies obtain the authority to make agency rules or regulations, and the similarities and differences in the way they make them. This article also compares the way that New Hampshire and federal agencies are structured and controlled by the executive and legislative branches of government

Achilles And The Tortoise: Some Caveats To Mathematical Modeling In Biology

Mathematical modeling has recently become a much-lauded enterprise, and many funding agencies seek to prioritize this endeavor. However, there are certain dangers associated with mathematical modeling, and knowledge of these pitfalls should also be part of a biologist\u27s training in this set of techniques. (1) Mathematical models are limited by known science; (2) Mathematical models can tell what can happen, but not what did happen; (3) A model does not have to conform to reality, even if it is logically consistent; (4) Models abstract from reality, and sometimes what they eliminate is critically important; (5) Mathematics can present a Platonic ideal to which biologically organized matter strives, rather than a trial-and-error bumbling through evolutionary processes. This “Unity of Science” approach, which sees biology as the lowest physical science and mathematics as the highest science, is part of a Western belief system, often called the Great Chain of Being (or Scala Natura), that sees knowledge emerge as one passes from biology to chemistry to physics to mathematics, in an ascending progression of reason being purification from matter. This is also an informal model for the emergence of new life. There are now other informal models for integrating development and evolution, but each has its limitations