Dave, As somebody in the .... um ... later years of life, I tend to regard the distinction between living and non-living as ... well .... pretty important.
Reluctant to see it cast aside as you and russ seem so eager to do. Nick -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:56 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves? Steve, Yes, I think co-evolution is as 'simple as declaring them to be singular (taken as a whole subsystem ...).' But that does not make the issue itself simple. And there are other consequences - the need to abandon the arbitrary distinction between "living" and "non-living" things. Co-evolutuion cannot be restricted to networks of relations among predator and prey, but must also include average-daily-temperature and percent of nitrogen in surface soil. I remember reading years ago (I will find a reference) about the origins of life, not in a lightning powered primordial soup, but in clay - and the formation of complex molecules, ala amino acids, and the transition between that which was perceived as 'non-living' to that which was perceived as 'living' that is germane to the above. davew On Tue, 10 May 2011 16:11 -0600, sasm...@swcp.com wrote: > Dave - > > Can you put my assumption that one can speak meaningfully of the > evolution of a "system" or "subsystem" into the context of your "minor > points"? > > What of co-evolution of interdependent species (humans/grains, > megafauna/megafruit, predator/prey/forage networks, etc.) or of a > "network" > thereof? e.g. Whence Pollenating Insects w/o Pollen Plants, etc? > > Is it as simple as declaring them to be singular (taken as a whole > sub-system > of the Universe)? Or is this entirely a misuse in your view? > > Thanks to Nick for inserting the term "Creodic" into the discussion. > I suppose this is a fundamental issue in the Creationism debate? In > some sense, the more receptive of the Creationists might allow > "Biological Evolution" > if > it were essentially *creodic* (the world unfolding under the > benevolent eye and predestined plan of God in this case?) as you say? > > - Steve > > > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > > --_----------=_1305050715233870 > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400 > > X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface > > > > minor points > > > > 1- evolution takes a singular subject - some individual thing > > evolves. > > > > 2- what originally evolved was a book or scroll - i.e. it unrolled - > > hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded hence evolved. > > > > 3- a human evolves - according to homunculus theory of embryology > > - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription of evolution > > as unrolling. > > > > 4- things go awry when evolvution is metaphorically applied to the > > plural - e.g. taxa, species. To make it work the plural must be > > reified as singular. > > > > 5- an error of a different sort is made when evolution is applied to > > society or some other multi-component system which is singular and > > therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the word. > > The error is forgetting that there is really only one system (The > > Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or The Infinite > > Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go all quantum on > > me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined subsets that > > are still part of the whole - an encapsulation error. > > > > 6- yet another error is made - as Nick points out - when a > > subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of > > arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of the > > book is more profound than the first simply because it was the last > > revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom because it > > came first in a sequence). [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific" > > discipline filled hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all > > carefully arranged in rows in order to prove that the brain > > contained within the skulls reached its 'evolutionary' > > apex with 19th century northern European males.] > > > > 7- devolution - if allowed at all - would reflect a similar > > superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight line - > > e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves into > > a withered remnant of less value than either. > > > > dave west > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson" > > <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > Steve: > > > > > > This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse=E2=80=99s hoof > > or a human hand.? > > > > > > Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the > > question wrong, it should have been horses > > =E2=80=9Cforearm=E2=80=9D) > > > > > > Why? Because the word =E2=80=9Cadvanced=E2=80=9D means just > > =E2=80=9Calter= ed from the ancestral structure that gave rise to > > both the hoof and the hand.=E2=80=9D That ancestral structure was a > > hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back > > from our own hand. > > The horse=E2=80=99s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a > > hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many > > more steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures. > > Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is > > given to irony. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > From: friam-boun...@redfish.com > > [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith > > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves? > > > > > > Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick).. > > I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging > > and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not > > so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half > > as impressive as yours! Now *there* is some personal > > evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack > > there Nick!" > > I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of > > the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want > > to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or > > political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of. I > > appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is > > problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more > > strict sense. > > I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which > > of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution. > > At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of > > evolution... biological evolution, by definition, is always > > adaptive to changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution > > to be reversed in some sense. > > When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know > > today (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping > > appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One > > might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to > > say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant > > and that the cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their > > ancestors, they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new > > niche which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for > > land locomotion. > > Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the biosphere? > > Do we not see the increasing complexity (and > > heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, > > more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of > > species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, > > corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde > > evolution in the biosphere? Or to a single one (humans with > > very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this > > description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object > > terran biosphere. > > Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of > > species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single > > species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes > > at the same time. In this context the only use of "devolve" or > > "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity > > again... a biological niche whose major elements die off completely > > somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara > > perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland seas when they > > become too briny (and polluted) to support life? > > I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm > > undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of > > evolution/devolution). > > - Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow) > > > > Dear Victoria, > > > > > > The word =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D has a history before biologists > > made o= ff with it, but I can=E2=80=99t speak to those uses. I > > think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and > > referred to the > > unfolding of a flower. The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully > > is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker > > happens to approve of. As in, =E2=80=9Csociety is > > evolving.=E2=80=9D The= term devolution comes out of that > > misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of > > is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The > > development of the British empire would have been, to those people, > > a case of evolution. > > Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken > > over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution. > > > > > > Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to > > recognize that the use of the term, =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D, > > implies a = values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take > > for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a > > =E2=80=9Chighly evolved=E2=80=9D discussion (};-])* > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > > > > > *=E2=80=94old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face. > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > > > Clark University > > > > [1]http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > [2]http://www.cusf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [3]friam-boun...@redfish.com > > [[4]mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves? > > > > > > > > A couple of other questions then: > > > > What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if > > not why not, etc > > > > and > > > > Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a > > different word for it? > > > > ie: > > > > If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding > > what is positive and sustainable? > > > > > > One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have > > 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very > > problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between > > different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each > > other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that > > evolution? if so why, etc > > > > Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, > > does that mean it is good? > > > > There is often a confusion between description and purpose. > > > > > > I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must > > be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper > > limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only > > perspective that holds up in the long term. > > > > > > This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the > > intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into > > something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading > > and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing > > skills in this brilliant and eclectic context. > > > > I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill? > > > > > > Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the > > great phrase, NIck- > > > > > > Victoria > > > > > > > > On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: > > > > Russ, > > Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a > > little, and get more specific if he does not. > > This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual > > confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people > > do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not > > know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most > > common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves", > > or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular > > option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the > > course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the > > genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and > > Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. > > Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great > > quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." > > Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems. > > I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve. > > If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level > > selection people and saying that the systems evolve. > > The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it > > hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let > > you say. > > Eric > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott <[5]russ.abb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple > > question. > > > > > > When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we > > all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is > > it that evolves? > > > > > > We generally mean more by evolution than just that change > > occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. > > We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a > > species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since > > evolution also involves the creation of new species. > > Besides, the very notion of species is [6]controversial. (But that's > > a different discussion.) > > > > > > Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, > > that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological > > evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers. > > But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X > > evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its > > subject? > > > > > > An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really > > "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it > > does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution > > occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is > > (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it > > more clearly? > > > > > > I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially > > interested in what biologists have to say about this. > > > > > > -- Russ > > > > > > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > > Assistant Professor of Psychology > > Penn State University > > Altoona, PA 16601 > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 > > D=3D=3D= > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 > > D=3D=3D= > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > [7]http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 > > D=3D=3D= > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 > > D=3D=3D= > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at [8]http://www.friam.org > > > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 > > D=3D=3D= > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 > > D=3D=3D= > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > http://www.friam.org > > > > References > > > > 1. http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > 2. http://www.cusf.org/ > > 3. mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > > 4. mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > > 5. mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com > > 6. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/ > > 7. http://www.friam.org/ > > 8. http://www.friam.org/ > > > > --_----------=_1305050715233870 > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" > > Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400 > > X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface > > > > <!--/*SC*/DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"/*EC*/--> > > <html><head><title></title></head><body><div > style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;" dir="ltr"><div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">minor points</span></div> <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">1- evolution takes a singular > > subject - some > individual thing evolves.</span></div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">2- what originally evolved was a > > book or > scroll - i.e. it unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which > unfolded hence evolved.</span></div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">3- a human evolves - according to > > homunculus > theory of embryology - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric > conscription of evolution as unrolling.</span></div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">4- things go awry when evolvution is > metaphorically applied to the plural - e.g. taxa, species. To > make it work the plural must be reified as singular.</span></div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">5- an error of a different sort is > > made when > evolution is applied to society or some other multi-component system > which is singular and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original > sense of the word. The error is forgetting that there is really > only one system (The Universe if it is granted that there is only one, > or The Infinite Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go > all quantum on me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined > subsets that are still part of the whole > - an > encapsulation error.</span></div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">6- yet another error is made - as > > Nick > points out - when a subjective value scale is super-imposed on the > sequence of arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last > word of the book is more profound than the first simply because it was > the last revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom > because it came first in a sequence). > [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific" discipline filled > hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all carefully arranged in > rows in order to prove that the brain contained within the skulls > reached its 'evolutionary' apex with 19th century northern > European males.]</span></div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">7- devolution - if allowed at all - > > would > reflect a similar superimposition of values in a curve instead of a > straight line - e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom > devolves into a withered remnant of less value than > either.</span></div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <span style="font-size:small;">dave west</span></div> <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div> > > </div> > > <div class="defangedMessage"> > > <div id="me48497"> > > <div> > > On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas > > Thompson" > <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:</div> > > <blockquote class="me48497QuoteMessage" type="cite"> > > <style type="text/css"><!-- --></style> > > <div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; "> > > <div class="me48497WordSection1"> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D">Steve:<o:p></o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D">This is sort of fun: Which is more > advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human hand.? > <o:p></o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif&quo t;;color:#1F497D">Answer: > the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the question > wrong, it should have been horses “forearm”) > <o:p></o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D">Why? > Because the word “advanced” means just “altered from > the ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the > hand.” That ancestral structure was a hand-like paw, > perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own > hand. The horse’s hoof is a single hypertrophied > fingernail on a hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost > nothing. Many more steps away. Humans are in many ways > very primitive creatures. Viruses are very advanced, having lost > everything! Our Maker is given to irony. > <o:p></o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D">Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > > <div> > > <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF > > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt > 0in 0in 0in"> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-weight: bold"><span > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri > f";color:windowtext">From:</span></span><span > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri > f";color:windowtext"> friam-boun...@redfish.com > [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] <span > style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of </span>Steve Smith<br /> > > <span style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Tuesday, May > > 10, 2011 > 10:12 AM<br /> > > <span style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday > > Morning > Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br /> > > <span style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM] > > What > evolves?<o:p></o:p></span></p> > > </div> > > </div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p> </o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..<br /> > > <br /> > > I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are > > sagging > and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so > much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as > impressive as yours! Now *there* is some personal > evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got > a nice rack there Nick!"<br /> > > <br /> > > I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is > > one of > the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* > want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or > political (or > personal) > change they approve/disapprove of. I appreciate Victoria > asking this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social > circles to use Evolution in it's more strict sense.<br /> > > <br /> > > I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution > > which > of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of > devolution. At the same time, there are what appear to be > "retrograde" arcs of evolution... biological > evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions > which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some > sense. <br /> > > <br /> > > When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we > > know today > (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping > appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One > might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not > to say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water > inhabitant and that the cetaceans are in any way "less > evolved" than their ancestors, they are simply evolved to > fit more better into their new niche which selects for appendages for > swimming over appendages for land locomotion.<br /> > > <br /> > > Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" > > in the > biosphere? Do we not see the increasing complexity (and > heirarchies) of > the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust? > Would the replacement of the current diversity of species on the > planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans, > cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde evolution in the > biosphere? Or to a single one (humans with very clever > nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this description I > think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object terran > biosphere.<br /> > > <br /> > > Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of > species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single > species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at > the same time. In this context the only use of > "devolve" or "retrograde evolution" I can imagine > is linked to complexity again... a biological niche whose major > elements die off completely somehow seems like a retrograde > evolution... the pre-desert Sahara perhaps? The Interglacial > tundras? The inland seas when they become too briny (and > polluted) to support life? <br /> > > <br /> > > I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe > > I'm > undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of > evolution/devolution).<br /> > > <br /> > > - Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)<br /> > > <br /> > > <br /> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if"">Dear > Victoria, </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if"">The word “evolution” has a history before > biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those > uses. I think it first came into use in biology to refer to > development and referred to the unfolding of a flower. The > one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social > or political change the speaker happens to approve > of. As in, “society is evolving.” The term > devolution comes out of that misappropriation. One of the > properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical > structure and predictable order. The development of the British > empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. > Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over > by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called > Devolution.</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if"">Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines > is to recognize that the use of the term, “evolution”, > implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for > granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a > “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if"">Nick > Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if"">*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on > his face.</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if"">Nicholas > S. Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if"">Emeritus Professor of Psychology and > Biology</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if"">Clark > University</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""><a > href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/";>http: > //home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</a></span><o:p></o: > p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""><a > href="http://www.cusf.org/";>http://www.cusf.org</a></span><o:p></o:p>< > /p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color > -moz-use-text-color"> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-weight: bold"><span > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri > f"">From:</span></span><span > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri > f""> > <a > href="mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com";>friam-boun...@redfish.com</a> > [<a > href="mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com";>mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.c > om</a>] <span style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of </span>Victoria > Hughes<br /> > > <span style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Monday, May 09, > > 2011 > 8:26 PM<br /> > > <span style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday > > Morning > Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br /> > > <span style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM] > > What > evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > </div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > A couple of other questions then: <o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this > > discussion, > if not why not, etc<o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > and <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is > > there a > different word for it?<o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > ie: <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' > > who is > deciding what is positive and sustainable? <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > One could argue that aspects of human neurological > > evolution have > 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very > problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different > areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and > leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if > so why, etc<o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > Just because we can find out where in our genes this is > > written, > does that mean it is good?<o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > There is often a confusion between description and purpose. > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: > ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system > evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a > particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the > long term. <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush > > against the > intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve > into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by > reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and > writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic > context. <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same > thrill? <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks > > for the > great phrase, NIck-<o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > Victoria<o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:<o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <br /> > > <br /> > > <br /> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > Russ,<br /> > > Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but > > I'll > hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.<br /> > > <br /> > > This is one of the points by which a whole host of > > conceptual > confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people > do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not > know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most > common options are that "the species evolves", "the > trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, > but increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment > system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people > increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams > solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to > its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of > overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken > is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this > introduces all sorts of devious problems.<br /> > > <br /> > > I would argue that it makes more sense to say that > > species > evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the > multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The > latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard > to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you > say. <br /> > > <br /> > > Eric<br /> > > <br /> > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, <span style="font-weight: > bold">Russ Abbott <<a > href="mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com";>russ.abb...@gmail.com</a>></spa > n> > wrote:<br /> > > <br /> > > <br /> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"51)","serif"" > >I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple > question.</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-size:10.0pt">When we use the term > > <span > style="font-style: italic">evolution</span>, we have something in mind > that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: > what is it that evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-size:10.0pt">We generally mean more > > by <span > style="font-style: italic">evolution </span>than just that change > occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We > normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, > that evolves. Of course that's not quite right > since evolution also involves the creation of new > species. Besides, the very notion of species is <a > href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/";>controversial</a>. > (But that's a different discussion.) </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-size:10.0pt">Is it appropriate to > > say that > there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is > not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider > broader answers. > But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence > "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably > clear referent for its subject?</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-size:10.0pt">An alternative is to > > say that > what we mean by "X evolves" is really > "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear > to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by > "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution > is > (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it > more clearly?</span><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-size:10.0pt">I'm copying Nick > > and Eric > explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists > have to say about this.</span><br clear="all" /> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span > style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003 > 333"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-style: italic"><span > style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003 > 333">-- Russ </span></span><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > </div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > </div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> > > Eric Charles<br /> > > <br /> > > Professional Student and<br /> > > Assistant Professor of Psychology<br /> > > Penn State University<br /> > > Altoona, PA 16601<br /> > > <br /> > > <br /> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > ============================================================<br /> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br /> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br /> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a > href="http://www.friam.org";>http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > </div> > > </div> > > </div> > > <pre> > > <o:p> </o:p></pre> > > <pre> > > <o:p> </o:p></pre> > > <pre> > > ============================================================<o:p></o:p></pre > > > <pre> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></pre> > > <pre> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<o:p></o:p></pre> > > <pre> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a > href="http://www.friam.org";>http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <o:p> </o:p></p> > > </div> > > <pre> > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps > > at http://www.friam.org </pre> > > </div> > > </blockquote> > > </div> > > </div> > > <div> > > </div> > > </div></body></html> > > --_----------=_1305050715233870-- > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
