*Arrival of The Fittest *is the book. Jenny and I have read it and agree that there is something important there, but not necessarily for you biologists, but as a metaphor/foundation for some things we want to say in other areas.
davew On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, at 1:54 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Thanks for getting back to me. I think the face, as such, is like the > armpit. What is the Wegner source. It should like it’s time for me to feel > guilty about not reading it. > > n > > Nick Thompson > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:34 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel > > your 'steelman' is pretty close. > > The process of mutation-selection seems to be working on a whole — a face, > just as an architect is working on a whole room or building. While doing so, > a side effect, a proto-spandrel, emerges. Now the architect notices this > proto-spandrel and decides it would look better if it was decorated; and she > then focuses her attention on the proto-spandrel and does her thing. > > What is the equivalent to the architect-with-focused-attention in Nature and > why did it arise? Is it a kind of "epicycle?" > > Or is it the case that multiple mutations - brain-forehead, chin, and nose > occur simultaneously but purely coincidentally and it is always the whole - > the face that is evolving albeit, under the covers, through a coordinated set > of quasi-independet mutation-selections? > > If the latter, then it would seem that the organism, as a whole, is the only > thing that evolves. In every iteration, a host of random mutations occur, > throughout the organism, and they work, in concert, to generate the next > iteration of the whole organism. > > What we see as independently evolving features — beaks, nesting behavior, > eyeballs, noses, spandrels — do not exist in any real sense except as > projections of our limited ability to conceptualize and deal with the > complexity of the whole, as a whole? > > Bonner's discussion of randomness, coupled with Wegner's demonstration that > results of random change in the genome are highly likely to be both viable > and consistent with the state from which they evolved. > > Of course, I am merely confirming my ignorance with this. > > davew > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021, at 11:11 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> Dave, >> >> Did I understand you correctly? Is your quandary accurately expressed >> below. If genes modulate the growth of skull, and jaws differentially, how >> can “face” become a thing for the purposes of natural selection. I think >> this question IS the basic challenge of evolutionary theory. It is the >> question of the evolution of modularity. I have always imagined that the >> answer lay in some attractor in developmental systems … blah blah. But >> SteveG persistently reminds me that it might be scaffolded by physical >> systems, in exactly the same way that life’s origins was scaffolded by the >> molecular structure of white smoker vents in the sea bottom. How could >> physical systems scaffold natural selection? >> >> Nick >> >> Nick Thompson >> [email protected] >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:57 PM >> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* RE: [FRIAM] Spandrel >> >> All== >> >> I want to call attention to Dave’s quandary at the end of his last message >> to me. If genes are not “for” traits but for processes, how does natural >> selection manage to “pick out” traits. How do you take a vastly >> interacting causal web and get additivity of variance out of it. It seems >> to me that Steve’s pathway talk might lead to an answer to that question. >> Of what process is natural selection the PRODUCT? Who or what selects the >> selector? >> >> Nick >> >> Nick Thompson >> [email protected] >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:01 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel >> >> Steve, >> Yes exactly! Humans were not selected "for noses." Humans were (the argument >> goes) selected for shorter jaws. The "protruding" nose is what you end up >> with after selection shrinks the jaw. So, if you notice that humans have >> noses, and you jump straight to asking "Why did protruding noses evolve? >> What adaptive function do they serve?" you are barking up the wrong tree. >> Ditto impacted wisdom teeth. It would be pretty silly to assert that >> impacted wisdom teeth were adaptive, even though they likely resulted from >> natural selection through the same pressures that led to noses. >> >> Now, the problem with the "nose" example is that, given the variation in >> noses around the world, it is actually quite plausible that nose size and >> shape IS adaptive. But that's a different issue ;- ) >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Nick - >>> >>> Not to beat a dead Spandrel, but the nose example doesn't wash with me. >>> >>> In many familiar animals, the nose is perched on the end of a snout, and >>> it was the snout that was deprecated in us to the point that the >>> nostril-holes with various adaptive properties (downward facing to keep >>> rain out, hair-lined and snotty to trap dust and pollen, (mildly) >>> turbinated to support humidity/temperature regulation, sensitive to >>> support "feeling" things with one's proboscis before we smash the whole >>> face into it, loaded with chemically sensitive cells for "smell", etc) >>> are highly diminished compared to various creatures like a daschund or >>> an elephant or an anteater. Our nose still has significant affordances >>> similar/familiar to those listed above (serviceable smeller, filter, >>> heat/humidity exchanger, etc ) even if it is not at all prehensile or >>> particularly discriminating and if humans have a snout at all, it is a >>> highly diminished one. >>> >>> I suspect references to "being nosy" and "sticking our noses in other's >>> business" is borrowed from watching our snoutful familiars like horses >>> or camels or racoons or dogs "nosing around". The proboscis of our nose >>> *points* where our eyes are looking (somewhat) so that conflation may be >>> mildly meaningful? >>> >>> Does "butting out" connote backing out butt-first when one recognizes >>> their nosing around isn't welcome? >>> >>> <beep><beep><beep> >>> >>> - Sneeze >>> >>> >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
