Friday Fodder

[Prof David West]

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/

[thompnickson2]

Wow, Dave!  I will “lard” this by Friday!  Watch this space.  For the moment, let me say only the following.  The hyena story, pushing 50 years by now, does have the feel of a well worn tale.  I have not been back to visit that literature since forever, so you are right to be  suspicious.  But remember, the tale is told only to argue for what a spandrel might be, if ever there was a spandrel.  So we have two separate issues.  One is the definition of a spandrel; the other is the question of whether any spandrels exist.  Please keep that separation in mind as we discuss this further.  I further confess my fondness for Kipling (See attached).  I am probably in the last generation of grandparents to read Kipling’s Just So Stories to his grand children;  they are, occzsionally, so casually racist that I have to edit as I read.  And yes you do point to a terrible weakness in all evolutionary explanation.  They are historical explanations based on the comparative method, with all the perils that that sort of explanation entails.  (John Dodson take note.) But, after all, so is cosmology, and plate tectonics,  so let’s not panic yet. 

 

Later,

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Friday Fodder

 

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/

[Eric Charles-2]

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. 

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> 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/

[Prof David West]

I know the scene whereof you speak. CGI.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021, at 11:08 AM, Eric Charles wrote:

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. 

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> 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/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

[gepr]

LoL! Can you imagine how insecure you'd have to be to insist the producers CGI larger genitalia for you? As Womanizer-in-Chief, I'd buy that he did. But hell, maybe the Governator would have been fine with anatomical correctness but the director insisted that modern masculinity demands porn star proportions? ... or maybe the rhetoric is "Nobody will be scared by a robot with small genitals?" I mean, the idea that the metal had to be surrounded by flesh for the time machine to work killed my ability to suspend disbelief, already. But to insist the fleshy vesicle needed genitalia too? Seriously?  At least Battlestar Galactica and Blade Runner had believable reasons for the robots' physiological fidelity.

On 3/24/21 10:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> I know the scene whereof you speak. CGI.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Put a space laser into orbit, like, you know...

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:29 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friday Fodder

LoL! Can you imagine how insecure you'd have to be to insist the producers CGI larger genitalia for you? As Womanizer-in-Chief, I'd buy that he did. But hell, maybe the Governator would have been fine with anatomical correctness but the director insisted that modern masculinity demands porn star proportions? ... or maybe the rhetoric is "Nobody will be scared by a robot with small genitals?" I mean, the idea that the metal had to be surrounded by flesh for the time machine to work killed my ability to suspend disbelief, already. But to insist the fleshy vesicle needed genitalia too? Seriously?  At least Battlestar Galactica and Blade Runner had believable reasons for the robots' physiological fidelity.

On 3/24/21 10:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> I know the scene whereof you speak. CGI.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

[Prof David West]

I read, long ago and who knows where, that the issue came from the director, and probably more directly from the continuation editor — there were visual 'responses' from females in this scene and in the bar scene from the first one where they looked at his crotch and were "impressed" and "lustful" so it was felt that they needed to provide support for those reactions.

I just remembered where I read this, not an exact title but a postmodern critique of of eroticism, robots, and film. I have the book here somewhere and will post title when I find it.

davew


On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, at 11:29 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> LoL! Can you imagine how insecure you'd have to be to insist the
> producers CGI larger genitalia for you? As Womanizer-in-Chief, I'd buy
> that he did. But hell, maybe the Governator would have been fine with
> anatomical correctness but the director insisted that modern
> masculinity demands porn star proportions? ... or maybe the rhetoric is
> "Nobody will be scared by a robot with small genitals?" I mean, the
> idea that the metal had to be surrounded by flesh for the time machine
> to work killed my ability to suspend disbelief, already. But to insist
> the fleshy vesicle needed genitalia too? Seriously?  At least
> Battlestar Galactica and Blade Runner had believable reasons for the
> robots' physiological fidelity.
>
> On 3/24/21 10:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > I know the scene whereof you speak. CGI.
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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/