In this case in that flawed society the fitness of the 99% of the people with 10 children was 0.
THat is because the environment may change a lot. Men have been on the verge of extinction. The last time was about 70.000 years ago, where a few thounsands survived. What a extraterrestrial evolutiometrist would say about the fitness of these people 70.000 years ago? 2013/9/10 Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> > It was zero. but the evolutiometrist said me a few decades ago that my > fitness was certainly 10. > > That is why I said that either this measure is flawed or alternatively, if > it is accurate (like this), it is useless (as a durable parameter to > predict something) > > > 2013/9/10 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I think that the whole business of putting numbers to fitness and so on >> > either is flawed or alternatively if the parameter is accurate, it is >> > useless. >> >> Snow leopards are much more likely to go extinct than E. Coli >> bacteria. The latter are much less complex, so evolved complexity >> doesn't always help. I think this is an interesting fact. >> >> > In the long term anything could happen. I can have 10 children in a >> flawed >> > society that enter in decadence and war. And maybe I support the ideas >> that >> > push this society to the limits. Then most of these sons die a few >> decades >> > later by war, hunger etc. What was my fitness?. >> >> It was zero, but for most of the people that had 10 children it turned >> out to be high, so a high estimation was a reasonable one. Couldn't >> this criticism be applied to statistics in general? Pill X cures 99.9% >> of people with pneumonia, but it killed Mr. Y because he had a weird >> genetic mutation. Was it reasonable to give Mr. Y the pill? >> >> Telmo. >> >> > >> > 2013/9/10 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Russell Standish < >> [email protected]> >> >> 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 >> >> >> <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] >> >> > 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 [email protected]. >> >> > To post to this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> >> > 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 [email protected]. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Alberto. >> > >> > -- >> > 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 [email protected]. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > Alberto. > -- Alberto. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
