You made me look. A taxon is apparently an animal or plant group having natural relations<http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=taxon>. Or any formally named taxonomic group of organisms<http://www.utep.edu/leb/pleistNM/glossary.htm>. In other words, a taxon is a node in a taxonomy, which itself is a tree structure that (presumably) has some coherent justification for its organization.
What concerns me about that perspective (taken broadly or narrowly) is that it still doesn't tell me what evolves. Saying that a node in a taxonomy evolves--from having a certain collection of properties at one time to having some other collection of properties at another time--doesn't seem to tell me much. Besides, don't we limit the use of evolve to biological or social entities? One could say that the letter "A" has evolved from a pictogram of an ox head to the letter we know today <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A>. But I wouldn't consider that evolution in the sense that I want to use the term. It's not unheard of to say that the solar system evolved from a cloud of space dust to a sun, planets, moons, etc. But I'd rather exclude that sense of evolve also. On the other hand, I don't want to exclude its use when talking about societies. The Internet has been a major factor in the evolution of civilization over the past two decades. I think that use is consistent with how I want to use the term "evolution." My tentative thought at this point is that what evolves are designs of entities that require energy to survive. I would limit the use of the term *evolution *to refer to the design of things -- and only of things that persist in a far-from-equilibrium state. Of course by design I don't mean intentional design but the mechanism(s) by which something operates. This again limits the use of the term to things that require energy to persist. Anything that "operates" consumes energy. I wouldn't want to say, though, that something like automobile designs evolve. Automobiles don't have to operate to persist. I want to limit the term to things that cease to exist if they cease to operate--like biological/societal organisms/groups. What do you think of that? *-- Russ* On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Victoria, > > > > 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. > > > > 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 (};-])* > > > > Nick Thompson > > > > *—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > http://www.cusf.org > > > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *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 <[email protected]>* 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 > controversial <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/>. (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 > > ============================================================ > 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
