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
