On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:58:37AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> Hi Alberto,
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of
>> > entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than a
>> > bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more emergent
>> > levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic
>> > level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are
>> > aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an
>> > higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria .
>>
>> Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not
>> convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for
>> my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded
>> complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo
>> model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this
>> sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting
>> stuff but no unbounded complexification.
>>
>> One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this:
>> evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of
>> the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently
>> contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that
>> evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It
>> is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we
>> haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point.
>> This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this
>> hypothesis.
>>
>
> I think this idea goes by the name of "modal bacter". It was, perhaps, most
> forcefully argued in Stephen Gould's 1996 book "Full House".
Thanks Russell!
> I suspect the idea is wrong, because it fails to explain the
> exponential growth of diversity, seemingly observed by
> Palaeontologists such as Michael Benton:
>
> @Article{Benton01,
> author = {Michael J. Benton},
> title = {Biodiversity on Land and in the Sea},
> journal = {Geological Journal},
> year = 2001,
> volume = 36,
> pages = {211--230}
> }
Ok, but I guess that depends on how we measure diversity, which is not
a trivial matter. From a quick look at this paper, it seems to focus
on the number of biological orders/families/genus. Suppose we were
able to estimate the Kolmogorov complexity of the entire ecosystem, do
you figure it would also grow exponentially?
>> > What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria.
>> > That
>> > is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of
>> > adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a lot.
>>
>> Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a
>> species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure
>> of adaption.
>>
>
> That measure is called persistence, and no, it is not really related to
> adaption. For an adaption measure, one good possibility is Mark
> Bedau's "cumulative evolutionary activity"
>
> @InProceedings{Bedau-etal98,
> author = {Mark A. Bedau and Emile Snyder and Norman H. Packard},
> title = {A Classification of Long-Term Evolutionary Dynamics},
> crossref = {ALifeVI},
> pages={228--237}
> }
I read this paper some years ago, it's a very nice one.
I would say that cumulative evolutionary activity is a metric that
applies to the entire evolutionary system as a whole. The article
makes it depressingly clear the Holland's Echo does not match the
unbounded evolution dynamics found in the fossil record. But maybe I'm
missing something.
In the previous discussion I was arguing that persistence could be
intuitively taken as a fitness measure of some specific population or
species, and I still feel that's the case. If you want to estimate the
biological fitness of an individual, you could determine an analogous
probability of the individual producing x viable offsprings before
dying.
I think.
Telmo.
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
