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=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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><style type="text/css"><!-- body{padding:1ex;margin:0;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:small}a[href]{color:-moz-hyperlinktext!important;text-decoration:-moz-anchor-decoration}blockquote{margin:0;border-left:2px solid #144fae;padding-left:1em}blockquote blockquote{border-color:#006312}blockquote blockquote blockquote{border-color:#540000} --></style></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-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve:<o:p></o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";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-serif"">Dear Victoria, </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">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-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">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-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Nick Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">*—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-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Nicholas S. Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">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-serif"">Clark University</span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><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-serif""><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-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </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-serif"">From:</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com";>friam-boun...@redfish.com</a> [<a href="mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com";>mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com</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>></span> 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:#003333"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal"> > > <span style="font-style: > italic"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003333">-- 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
