Nick - I am too much a Vedic/Buddhist to take seriously the idea that there distinction between "living" and "non-living." But not to despair - the end result is all living.
davew On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:35 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > 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 > ============================================================ 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
