Bit of a tangent, but...
> Consider Arnold in the role of Terminator. He managed to convey a lot of > menace and dominance simply from size and overall shape; never once > brandishing his penis to intimidate anyone. Having recently watched the theatrical release of Terminator, I was surprised to find that in addition to the numerous ass shots I knew were there, there *is* full frontal of Arnold early in the film. The dangly bits are enshadowed, but not really hidden. Happens as he's walking through a park towards 3 "punks", leading up to the iconic "Your clothes, give them to me." line. <[email protected]> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: > Because I left before it ended, I have no idea how the spandrel discussion > ended. Nick requested an explanation/elaboration/justification for my > continued skepticism/resistance (other than being willfully obstinate for > no reason) to the notion of spandrel. Hence the following — elaborated > beyond the specific question of spandrel as fodder for continuing > discussion next Friday. > > 1- I am convinced that evolutionary biologists are secretly required to > read Rudyard Kipling as prerequisite to the granting of a Ph.D.. Because, > every story about the evolution of a specific feature — Friday it was the > pseudo-penis of female hyenas — sounds like, and is as convincing as, one > of Kipling's *Just So *stories. *[Yes, trolling.]* > > 2- Pseudo-penis as spandrel: > a- Testosterone flooded female hyenas are selected because aggressive > females have survival value in matriarchal hyena society. This really > seems, to me, to pose a chicken-egg problem: matriarchy or female bullies > first? > b- Testosterone flooding creates a space — a spandrel — a space that is > then "decorated." One example of 'decoration' is the pseudo-penis. > c- by what mechanism does the decoration come about? Nick said it was a > direct result of testosterone flooding, that "all" such results would > appear, that none of them was independently 'selected for." This is a > specific area where I fail to understand what Nick is saying and need > correction. If I heard correctly that all effects of testosterone flooding > would appear — Nick emphatically said "all" and "will" in his explanation — > then: > -- we should not only see a clitoris run amok, but also beards, rock > hard pecs instead of pillow-breasts, 20-inch biceps, denser bones, and > overall greater muscle mass. > -- the "purpose" of the pseudo-penis is aggression display and > reproductive-act dominance. But, of all the results of testosterone > flooding that "will" result, a big penis seems the least useful for that > purpose. Muscles and size would seem more than sufficient. Consider Arnold > in the role of Terminator. He managed to convey a lot of menace and > dominance simply from size and overall shape; never once brandishing his > penis to intimidate anyone. (And if we assume he was as liberal a user of > steroids in his body-building career as many of his colleagues, his penis > would not have scared a squirrel.) > -- Why so baroque a decoration? > -- Why did testosterone cause the clitoris to merge with the urethra > and the vagina? Did these not exist as separate organs in predecessor > species to the hyena? How is that even possible? is the pseudo-penis not a > clitoris-urethra-vagina at all but some kind of evolution of an avian > cloaca? > -- This specific decoration seems to have anti-survival consequences > (most firstborn hyenas are also stillborn) and yet this decoration seems > immune to selection. Or maybe not, we have yet to see what might succeed > hyenas a few million years from now. > > 3- More general issue: whole-part evolution. Jon seemed to understand what > I was trying to say last Friday on this matter. > a- Consider the peregrine falcon. Some of the traits/features that make > it a formidable predator: very lightweight bones coupled with overdeveloped > muscles which contribute to its ability to withstand G forces and make 200 > mile per hour dives (and withstand the shock of kinetic energy when it hits > its prey); razor sharp talons; notched beak to sever spinal columns; > full-color binocular vision with resolution that allows seeing a pigeon at > distances greater than a mile; nictating membrane to protect from wind > force during dives; and ability to see into the ultra-violet spectrum. > b- If I understand Darwin *(a huge if):* each of these features is the > result of a sequence of selected/preserved minute changes in single > molecules: e.g. keratin, opsins, crystallins. Each of these molecules are > expressed as a sequence of amino acid 'letters', 20 in number. If the > string of letters were 100 characters in length (crystallins and opsins are > much longer) then the odds of any given string are 20 to the 100 power. By > comparison, the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is estimated to be > 10 to the 90th power. > c- If evolution proceeded with one amino acid letter pairing with a > second, getting selected, then pairing with a third, etc., each addition > being one of 20 equally probable options; then, coming up with the string > that expresses, precisely, as the falcon's beak is fantastically improbable > (winning the lottery every year since the Big Bang). > d- This brings in the question of time. Has there been sufficient time > for a process of random change / selection to allow the formation of such a > string. This was a huge issue for Darwin because the prevailing scientific > estimate of the age of the Earth was twenty-million years. [Lord Kelvin > using the equations of thermodynamics.] This was not nearly enough time for > Darwin's evolution and he was *"greatly troubled by it."* Rutherford, > using radioactive decay equations, *"saved"* Darwin by extending the age > of the Earth to 4.5 billion years. > e- *Kind-of*. If evolution literally proceeds one amino acid letter at > a time to assemble a specific string that has a probability of existing of > 1 / 20 to the hundredth power (or more) — there is insufficient time since > the Big Bang for that string to emerge via chance. > f- it seems as if some kind of short-cut is essential. Suppose you have > parallel/simultaneous evolution of 'sub-strings' and then 'main-line' > evolution proceeds upon combinations (wholes) of these strings, Then, it is > quite likely that 4.5 billion years provides sufficient time. This, it > seems to me, suggests that evolution deals with an aggregate, a whole; not > individual amino acids one-by-one, or even sub-strings one-by-one. > g- Which circles back to the falcon. If each of the mentioned > traits/features evolved independently and sequentially then we run out of > time again. If each of the traits/features evolved independently then there > seems to be a macro-problem of how they 'just happened' to occur > simultaneously and apparently 'in concert'. > > So my conclusion, *apparently wrong because it disagrees with the experts > in the group*, is that evolution must proceed whole-organism to > whole-organism and not, feature-trait by feature-trait the way that it is > presented. > > This also means, that individual feature-traits — as marvelous as the the > falcon's eye or as silly as the pseudo-penis — cannot, and should not be > "explained" independently. To do so is to focus on the 'noise' and not the > 'signal'. Such efforts are the product of 19th century thinking and > unworthy of complexity scientists like yourselves. > > davew > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > 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/
