“…It was 13‐page paper that, like Thomson and Woodruff, was a general review of biology. Cannon (: 451–452) wrote,And this brings us to the most impressive characteristic of life, viz., its evolvability. Herbert Spencer seemed to think that the power to evolve is not a prerogative of living matter.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thomson () followed by Woodruff (); Woodruff and Baitsell () viewed evolvability as a characteristic of life and a feature of evolution in which endless experimentation produces variable opportunity to sustain existence. Such a sentiment was upheld independently by Cannon () in rebuttal of Spencer's apparent over‐extrapolation of the term to nonliving cosmos. Further, consideration maintained the notion that evolvability referred to the generation of variation and that such generation was a characteristic of life, perhaps via mutation (Muller, , reiterated by Wingo 1964) or pre‐genic processes (Fox, ; Hanson, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When and why transitions in the meaning of evolvability occurred is a question to be answered; however, noteworthy patterns emerge from the discussion of evolvability presented above. Numerous authors present evolvability as a process-oriented characteristic of life, as opposed to a pattern (Campbell, 1974;Cannon, 1950;Fox, 1973Fox, , 1974Hanson, 1966Hanson, , 1977Maynard Smith, 1989;Muller, 1963;Thomson, 1931;Woodruff (1941); Woodruff and Baitsell (1951). One notable deviation from evolvability-as-process was Liebau (1977) in which relative evolvability was utilized as a trait of which the evolution was inferred using an Ostracod phylogeny.…”
Evolvability has become an enormously popular concept in evolutionary biology and in machine learning software architecture. While it is claimed that the term was coined in 1988 by Richard Dawkins, it was used as early as 1931 as a characteristic of life by John A. Thomson. We quote and review the earliest uses and definitions of evolvability in biological frameworks up until 1989, which are remarkably few. The meaning changed from simply the “ability to evolve” as a characteristic of life to various versions of including necessary variation to predict whether or not something could evolve to the rate and quality of that evolution. Or, meaning changed from the ability to evolve to the “quality” of the ability to evolve. Since then, evolvability has taken on many definitions as it has exploded in usage.
“…It was 13‐page paper that, like Thomson and Woodruff, was a general review of biology. Cannon (: 451–452) wrote,And this brings us to the most impressive characteristic of life, viz., its evolvability. Herbert Spencer seemed to think that the power to evolve is not a prerogative of living matter.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thomson () followed by Woodruff (); Woodruff and Baitsell () viewed evolvability as a characteristic of life and a feature of evolution in which endless experimentation produces variable opportunity to sustain existence. Such a sentiment was upheld independently by Cannon () in rebuttal of Spencer's apparent over‐extrapolation of the term to nonliving cosmos. Further, consideration maintained the notion that evolvability referred to the generation of variation and that such generation was a characteristic of life, perhaps via mutation (Muller, , reiterated by Wingo 1964) or pre‐genic processes (Fox, ; Hanson, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When and why transitions in the meaning of evolvability occurred is a question to be answered; however, noteworthy patterns emerge from the discussion of evolvability presented above. Numerous authors present evolvability as a process-oriented characteristic of life, as opposed to a pattern (Campbell, 1974;Cannon, 1950;Fox, 1973Fox, , 1974Hanson, 1966Hanson, , 1977Maynard Smith, 1989;Muller, 1963;Thomson, 1931;Woodruff (1941); Woodruff and Baitsell (1951). One notable deviation from evolvability-as-process was Liebau (1977) in which relative evolvability was utilized as a trait of which the evolution was inferred using an Ostracod phylogeny.…”
Evolvability has become an enormously popular concept in evolutionary biology and in machine learning software architecture. While it is claimed that the term was coined in 1988 by Richard Dawkins, it was used as early as 1931 as a characteristic of life by John A. Thomson. We quote and review the earliest uses and definitions of evolvability in biological frameworks up until 1989, which are remarkably few. The meaning changed from simply the “ability to evolve” as a characteristic of life to various versions of including necessary variation to predict whether or not something could evolve to the rate and quality of that evolution. Or, meaning changed from the ability to evolve to the “quality” of the ability to evolve. Since then, evolvability has taken on many definitions as it has exploded in usage.
The last 10 years of the Ottoman Empire passed with wars such as the Tripoli War, which started in 1911, followed by the Balkan Wars, and then the First World War, and ultimately, the Anatolian War of Independence. The Union and Progress (Ittihat ve Terakki) was defeated by the Entente States in the war it entered in alliance with Germany. The Mudros Armistice Agreement, which ended the war, prepared the ground for new invasions of the Entente States rather than bringing the peace that was sought by the empire, and the situation also caused a resistance movement in Anatolia. The National Struggle leaders, especially Mustafa Kemal, faced the difficult task of organizing a years-long warring society against the Istanbul Government at home, and against the imperialism abroad. The adoption of the National Pact, which was shaped in the congresses held previously, in the Ottoman Parliament resulted in the occupation of Istanbul on March 16, 1920. Then, a new assembly was established in Ankara and this assembly fought in every way for a fully independent country within the borders of the National Pact. The Armistice of Mudanya ended the military stage of the National Struggle, and started the process leading to the signing of a new treaty that would replace the Treaty of Sevres. Things went very difficult for the Turkish Delegation under the leadership of Ismet Pasha at the negotiating table as it was also at the front. The victorious states made great efforts to win a war that was lost via diplomatic maneuvers. When the Turkish Delegation opposed every opinion and suggestion that would cast a shadow on its independence strongly, the Lausanne Negotiations came to a dead-end, and parties had to move away from the negotiations. At the end of the conference that convened for the second time, Türkiye finally succeeded in signing a peace treaty which largely acknowledged the National Pact. Not only the independence of Anatolia was approved, but also the war environment that had been going on for 10 years was ended with the Lausanne Peace Treaty. For this reason, July 24 was celebrated as the Lausanne Peace Day for a long time. It is now seen that the celebrations changed according to the conjuncture, and are finally forgotten today. Although this study aims to remind a forgotten day again, it also aims to discuss the forgetting of July 24 in a cyclical manner.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
