In evolution, there’s just inheritance—and its transmission, variation, and selection. “Inside” and “outside” are not concepts that play a significant role. What can be inherited internally” could equally well be inherited “externally”—without affecting the dynamics of the information flows involved. “Inside” and “outside” are mere geography.
Tim, you’re misreading the way ‘external’ was used in the parent comment. The ‘internal definition’ eirenicon referred to was the one specified in the article, and ‘external definitions’ are those used elsewhere.
I’m not talking about internal inheritance. I’m talking about semantics. I’m saying that the article itself offers a definition so that such a misunderstanding as this does not happen. It is proper to define your terms before setting out an argument, don’t you agree? The authors, wanting to avoid confusion, decided to use the word “evolutionary” in strict reference to genetic inheritance. This cannot be argued. They have given variable x a fixed value, y, so that x = y. Other instances in which x = z have no bearing on the value of x as it has been strictly defined in this context.
Both the authors and I are discussing evolution. You seem to think there is some significant difference between cultural evolution and DNA evolution in this context—but I don’t agree that that is correct. If you can have multiple parents in DNA evolution, you can have multiple parents in cultural evolution—and visa versa. IOW, there’s nothing special or magical about DNA as a medium of inheritance. It’s a storage medium, like any other.
Anyway, despite their section titles, the authors don’t claim that you can’t have multiple parents in real evolution. They are only talking about their toy model—which, incidentally has practically nothing to do with how or why sex evolved, AFAICS.
In evolution, there’s just inheritance—and its transmission, variation, and selection. “Inside” and “outside” are not concepts that play a significant role. What can be inherited internally” could equally well be inherited “externally”—without affecting the dynamics of the information flows involved. “Inside” and “outside” are mere geography.
Tim, you’re misreading the way ‘external’ was used in the parent comment. The ‘internal definition’ eirenicon referred to was the one specified in the article, and ‘external definitions’ are those used elsewhere.
I’m not talking about internal inheritance. I’m talking about semantics. I’m saying that the article itself offers a definition so that such a misunderstanding as this does not happen. It is proper to define your terms before setting out an argument, don’t you agree? The authors, wanting to avoid confusion, decided to use the word “evolutionary” in strict reference to genetic inheritance. This cannot be argued. They have given variable x a fixed value, y, so that x = y. Other instances in which x = z have no bearing on the value of x as it has been strictly defined in this context.
The paper doesn’t define evolution.
Both the authors and I are discussing evolution. You seem to think there is some significant difference between cultural evolution and DNA evolution in this context—but I don’t agree that that is correct. If you can have multiple parents in DNA evolution, you can have multiple parents in cultural evolution—and visa versa. IOW, there’s nothing special or magical about DNA as a medium of inheritance. It’s a storage medium, like any other.
Anyway, despite their section titles, the authors don’t claim that you can’t have multiple parents in real evolution. They are only talking about their toy model—which, incidentally has practically nothing to do with how or why sex evolved, AFAICS.