> In general, I see development, as operating not only in
> embryogenesis, but also as a long-term process in phyletic
> morphogenesis.
The terminology is a little confusing here. 'Development' to me
refers to the process of growth in an individual. The variations
or mutations that cause evolutionary 'developments' may occur at
any point in the course of the development of an individual, but
they are not in themselves long-term processes, are they?
> It is primary, because it is teleological, internally directed,
> hierarchically organized, and thus is the principle that provides
> differentiation and organization in organic life.
Teleological? I don't know that teleology is compatible with
Darwinism at any level. Internally directed? The interesting
things for evolution are the mutations; are they internally
directed? Again, it seems an awkward new usage to refer to
development as a principle rather than a process. But I have no
doubt that Kirk has interesting things to say about mutations and
development and I hope I can find his $85 book in a library.
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com