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
