We have to ask how this process [development] constrains evolution — how the rules of development, which themselves evolved, can only be realised in particular ways. …
But why deviate to such issues as shape and form? And why concern ourselves with cells, molecules, and DNA? The straightforward answer is that the rules by which embryos are built govern the way that brains are built.
Blogger Comments:
From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this confuses a (first-order) phenomenon with a (second-order) metaphenomenon; that is: the process of development with the rules that model the process.
The evolution of development is a (first-order) biological evolution, whereas the evolution of the rules of development is, properly, a (second-order) semiotic evolution — an evolution in the scientific model.
Accordingly, the rules that describe development do not govern development anymore than a map that describes a landscape governs a landscape.
Moreover, in terms of interpersonal meaning, the rules that describe development are rules in the sense of modalisation (probability/usuality), rather than modulation (obligation).
The evolution of development is a (first-order) biological evolution, whereas the evolution of the rules of development is, properly, a (second-order) semiotic evolution — an evolution in the scientific model.
Accordingly, the rules that describe development do not govern development anymore than a map that describes a landscape governs a landscape.
Moreover, in terms of interpersonal meaning, the rules that describe development are rules in the sense of modalisation (probability/usuality), rather than modulation (obligation).
No comments:
Post a Comment