Relaxed Selection, a b-level posting

[Nick Thompson]

Russell Standish offered the following question:

> > What do you think of "relaxed selection" ?

My inexpert response:

Well, I am uneasy about the concept.  When I used to be a teacher of these
things, students LOVED the idea that some ages and places are harsh and
some are mellow, and that selection is relaxed in the latter.  The metaphor
is drawn, I assumed, from human economics, where some decades can be easy
and some difficult.  But the metaphor is dangerously misleading ...
[thompson loves metaphors but he loves some metaphors a whole lot less than
others, and this one is a terrible one.]   The metaphor is terrible because
the time-scale of oscillations of good and bad times in economics is WAY
too short for the reproductive capacity of the species to respond.  So the
"times" are sort of independent of the reproduction of the species.  

But in the evolutionary time scale, whether times are good and bad is
determined not by how lush the environment but by whether the environment
has been lush long enough for the reproductive potential of the species to
catch up and de-lush it.   So rather than think about "good times" in
evolution, I would tend to think of periods of rapid expansion of
populations (when selection is relaxed) and rapid contraction of
populations (when selection is intensified) and periods of stability (when
selection is intermediate.)

One of your respondents seemed (sorry, too lazy to go back and look) to
confound this issue with the question of how bushy or trunky the
evolutionary tree is.  I dont think... that the two are related.  Bushy
phylogenies ... like that of australopithecines (the bipedal apes that were
around as genus homo was coming into being) would seem to be generated by
the distribution of the species over a spatially variant but temporally
invariant landscape.   Trunky phylogenies are produced by the distribution
of the species over temporally variant and a spacially  invariant
landscape.  This latter pattern characteried the evolution of the genus
homo.  The attributions of variance and invariance, of course, have to be
made in terms of the longevity of the species and its tendancy to move
accross the landscape.  

So whether relaxed selection produces "exploration of morphology space"
will depend on the structure and stability of the environment in terms of
size and longevity of the species.

That's what I think of relaxed selection.  Apologies if I have been reading
carelessly.

NIck

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])

> *************************************



============================================================
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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> The metaphor is terrible because
> the time-scale of oscillations of good and bad times in economics is WAY
> too short for the reproductive capacity of the species to respond.  So the
> "times" are sort of independent of the reproduction of the species.  
>  
Perhaps not..

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11326195

============================================================
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

[Russell Standish]

One should not confuse economics with biological selection. It would
seem plausible that good economic times might lead to rapid evolution
of economies, such as during the recent Internet bubble for instance,
but not that it would have any influence on us at the genetic level.

The sort of idea that David Green was proposing was that ecosystems
(aka foodwebs) would cycle between a chaotic and a stable phase. My
take on this is that immediately after a mass extinction, just about
any foodweb is stable, because there are not enough connections to
make it chaotic. Selection under such circumstances would be fairly
relaxed. As evolution proceeds, the foodweb becomes more
complex until such a time as chaotic behaviour sets in. Extinction
becomes increasingly likely, and corresponding selection becomes
"fierce".

Cycles of mass extinction followed by species radiation _may_ be a
driving cause of ecosystem complexity.

I'm trying a slightly different tack with Tierra, of artificially
inducing mass extinctions every now and then. I have also tried
reducing parsimony pressure from time to time (I'm not sure what would
be the biological world equivalent of this - possibly variation in
background radioactivity or cosmic rays). But currently my simulation
code is broken, so I haven't got too far with this to date :(

Cheers

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 09:36:39PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Russell Standish offered the following question:
>
> > > What do you think of "relaxed selection" ?
>
> My inexpert response:
>
> Well, I am uneasy about the concept.  When I used to be a teacher of these
> things, students LOVED the idea that some ages and places are harsh and
> some are mellow, and that selection is relaxed in the latter.  The metaphor
> is drawn, I assumed, from human economics, where some decades can be easy
> and some difficult.  But the metaphor is dangerously misleading ...
> [thompson loves metaphors but he loves some metaphors a whole lot less than
> others, and this one is a terrible one.]   The metaphor is terrible because
> the time-scale of oscillations of good and bad times in economics is WAY
> too short for the reproductive capacity of the species to respond.  So the
> "times" are sort of independent of the reproduction of the species.  
>
> But in the evolutionary time scale, whether times are good and bad is
> determined not by how lush the environment but by whether the environment
> has been lush long enough for the reproductive potential of the species to
> catch up and de-lush it.   So rather than think about "good times" in
> evolution, I would tend to think of periods of rapid expansion of
> populations (when selection is relaxed) and rapid contraction of
> populations (when selection is intensified) and periods of stability (when
> selection is intermediate.)
>
> One of your respondents seemed (sorry, too lazy to go back and look) to
> confound this issue with the question of how bushy or trunky the
> evolutionary tree is.  I dont think... that the two are related.  Bushy
> phylogenies ... like that of australopithecines (the bipedal apes that were
> around as genus homo was coming into being) would seem to be generated by
> the distribution of the species over a spatially variant but temporally
> invariant landscape.   Trunky phylogenies are produced by the distribution
> of the species over temporally variant and a spacially  invariant
> landscape.  This latter pattern characteried the evolution of the genus
> homo.  The attributions of variance and invariance, of course, have to be
> made in terms of the longevity of the species and its tendancy to move
> accross the landscape.  
>
> So whether relaxed selection produces "exploration of morphology space"
> will depend on the structure and stability of the environment in terms of
> size and longevity of the species.
>
> That's what I think of relaxed selection.  Apologies if I have been reading
> carelessly.
>
> NIck
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University ([hidden email])
>
> > *************************************
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
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

[Nick Thompson]

Russell,

Allow me to use CAPS in your text to distinguish my text from yours in the
dialogue below.

Some Santa Fe locals have cautioned me severely that it is impossible to
use CAPS in an email message without shouting; but I am hoping that that
convention does not extend to the southern hemisphere, but if it does, I
apologize in advance. .  

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])




> [Original Message]
> From: Russell Standish <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 10/10/2008 7:16:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Relaxed Selection, a b-level posting
>
> One should not confuse economics with biological selection. It would
> seem plausible that good economic times might lead to rapid evolution
> of economies, such as during the recent Internet bubble for instance,
> but not that it would have any influence on us at the genetic level.

WELL, EVEN IN THE ECONOMIC DOMAIN, I AM TROUBLED BY THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
REMOVAL OF K-SELECTION (YES, FOLKS, i ADMIT THIS IS A B-LEVEL POST) MEANS
THAT ALL SELECTION HAS BEEN RELAXED.  OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS STILL R-SELECTION
TO CONTEND WITH. SO EVEN IN A POST EXTINCTION (OR POST RECESSION
ENVIRONMENT), THERE COULD BE INTENSE COMPETITION IN THE SPEED WITH WHICH
FIRMS EXPAND OR ORGANISMS REPLICATE.    
>
> The sort of idea that David Green was proposing was that ecosystems
> (aka foodwebs) would cycle between a chaotic and a stable phase. My
> take on this is that immediately after a mass extinction, just about
> any foodweb is stable, because there are not enough connections to
> make it chaotic.

I AM EVEN MORE IGNORANT THAT USUAL IN THIS, HERE, DOMAIN, BUT ISNT IT
POSSIBLE THAT A WEB COULD BE LESS STABLE BECAUSE IT HAD FEWER CONNECTIONS?
DOESNT IT DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE WEB ... LIKE WHETHER ITS EDGES (IS
THAT THE RIGHT TERM) ARE MORE SERIAL OR PARALLEL, FOR INSTANCE?  

Selection under such circumstances would be fairly
> relaxed.

MY BASIC INTUITION HERE IS THAT IT DEPENDS ON WHICH  SORT OF CATASTROPHE
[NEARLY] TAKES OUT THE SPECIES.  SELECTION IS JUST DIFFERENTIAL REPLICATION
WITH RESPECT TO SOME HERITABLE PROPERTY OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE SPECIES
[OR IN SPECIAL CASES, GROUPS OF THE SPECIES].  FOR INSTANCE, IT HAS BEEN
ARGUED THAT AT THE EXTREME BOTTLENECK WHERE HOMO SAPIENS EMERGED, THERE WAS
TREMENDOUS K SELECTION ON GROUPS.  IN  A FAMINE SITUATION, THOSE GROUPS
THAT COULD HOLD TERRITORY OR TAKE IT FROM COMPETING GROUPS WERE THE FEW
THAT SURVIVED.  HENSE THE EXTREME GROUPISHNESS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.   SO
THAT WOULD BE A POSITIVE INSTANCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.  BUT IF THE SPECIES
HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT BY SOME OTHER EVENT .... ROCKS FALLING OUT OF THE SKY
.... THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO SELECTION.  DOES THIS MAKE SENSE, OR AM
I MISUNDERSTANDING THE ARGUMENT?  

IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT FOOD WEB COLLAPSE WOULD BE ANY MORE
SELECTIVE THAN THE CHALLENGES OF RAPID REPRODUCTION????

As evolution proceeds, the foodweb becomes more
> complex until such a time as chaotic behaviour sets in. Extinction
> becomes increasingly likely, and corresponding selection becomes
> "fierce".

> Cycles of mass extinction followed by species radiation _may_ be a
> driving cause of ecosystem complexity.

MY ANSWER WOULD BE, "SOMETIMES".  PERHAPS SOMEBODY COULD HELP ME OUT, HERE.
>
> I'm trying a slightly different tack with Tierra, of artificially
> inducing mass extinctions every now and then. I have also tried
> reducing parsimony pressure from time to time (I'm not sure what would
> be the biological world equivalent of this - possibly variation in
> background radioactivity or cosmic rays). But currently my simulation
> code is broken, so I haven't got too far with this to date :(

I OF COURSE KNOW NOTHING OF THE INTRICACIES OF SIMULATION.  BUT THIS
INTERESTS ME AND I AM GLAD YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT IT.

AND I PROMISE I AM NOT SHOUTING.


NICK

>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 09:36:39PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > Russell Standish offered the following question:
> >
> > > > What do you think of "relaxed selection" ?
> >
> > My inexpert response:
> >
> > Well, I am uneasy about the concept.  When I used to be a teacher of

these
> > things, students LOVED the idea that some ages and places are harsh and
> > some are mellow, and that selection is relaxed in the latter.  The
metaphor
> > is drawn, I assumed, from human economics, where some decades can be
easy
> > and some difficult.  But the metaphor is dangerously misleading ...
> > [thompson loves metaphors but he loves some metaphors a whole lot less
than
> > others, and this one is a terrible one.]   The metaphor is terrible
because
> > the time-scale of oscillations of good and bad times in economics is WAY
> > too short for the reproductive capacity of the species to respond.  So
the
> > "times" are sort of independent of the reproduction of the species.  
> >
> > But in the evolutionary time scale, whether times are good and bad is
> > determined not by how lush the environment but by whether the
environment
> > has been lush long enough for the reproductive potential of the species
to
> > catch up and de-lush it.   So rather than think about "good times" in
> > evolution, I would tend to think of periods of rapid expansion of
> > populations (when selection is relaxed) and rapid contraction of
> > populations (when selection is intensified) and periods of stability
(when
> > selection is intermediate.)
> >
> > One of your respondents seemed (sorry, too lazy to go back and look) to
> > confound this issue with the question of how bushy or trunky the
> > evolutionary tree is.  I dont think... that the two are related.  Bushy
> > phylogenies ... like that of australopithecines (the bipedal apes that
were
> > around as genus homo was coming into being) would seem to be generated
by
> > the distribution of the species over a spatially variant but temporally
> > invariant landscape.   Trunky phylogenies are produced by the
distribution
> > of the species over temporally variant and a spacially  invariant
> > landscape.  This latter pattern characteried the evolution of the genus
> > homo.  The attributions of variance and invariance, of course, have to
be
> > made in terms of the longevity of the species and its tendancy to move
> > accross the landscape.  
> >
> > So whether relaxed selection produces "exploration of morphology space"
> > will depend on the structure and stability of the environment in terms
of
> > size and longevity of the species.
> >
> > That's what I think of relaxed selection.  Apologies if I have been
reading

> > carelessly.
> >
> > NIck
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> > Clark University ([hidden email])
> >
> > > *************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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
>
> --
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> Mathematics                        
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================
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

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Nick,
I think I agree with you.  You say "So whether relaxed selection produces
'exploration of morphology space' will depend on the structure and stability
of the environment in terms of size and longevity of the species."  

If the evidence, that S J Gould brought to everyone's attention, is that
speciation occurs typically by a rapid spurt of evolutionary change, or
alternately in a confined ecology, or both, a time & space confinement, that
describes bounds within which the genetic mould is somehow relaxed and
resolidified.  The question is if it occurs maybe once in a period of a
million years for each species... and for just one of perhaps thousands of
species in the same environment at a time, what would be required to do
that??  

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:37 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Relaxed Selection, a b-level posting
>
> Russell Standish offered the following question:
>
> > > What do you think of "relaxed selection" ?
>
> My inexpert response:
>
> Well, I am uneasy about the concept.  When I used to be a teacher of
> these
> things, students LOVED the idea that some ages and places are harsh and
> some are mellow, and that selection is relaxed in the latter.  The
> metaphor
> is drawn, I assumed, from human economics, where some decades can be
> easy
> and some difficult.  But the metaphor is dangerously misleading ...
> [thompson loves metaphors but he loves some metaphors a whole lot less
> than
> others, and this one is a terrible one.]   The metaphor is terrible
> because
> the time-scale of oscillations of good and bad times in economics is
> WAY
> too short for the reproductive capacity of the species to respond.  So
> the
> "times" are sort of independent of the reproduction of the species.
>
> But in the evolutionary time scale, whether times are good and bad is
> determined not by how lush the environment but by whether the
> environment
> has been lush long enough for the reproductive potential of the species
> to
> catch up and de-lush it.   So rather than think about "good times" in
> evolution, I would tend to think of periods of rapid expansion of
> populations (when selection is relaxed) and rapid contraction of
> populations (when selection is intensified) and periods of stability
> (when
> selection is intermediate.)
>
> One of your respondents seemed (sorry, too lazy to go back and look) to
> confound this issue with the question of how bushy or trunky the
> evolutionary tree is.  I dont think... that the two are related.  Bushy
> phylogenies ... like that of australopithecines (the bipedal apes that
> were
> around as genus homo was coming into being) would seem to be generated
> by
> the distribution of the species over a spatially variant but temporally
> invariant landscape.   Trunky phylogenies are produced by the
> distribution
> of the species over temporally variant and a spacially  invariant
> landscape.  This latter pattern characteried the evolution of the genus
> homo.  The attributions of variance and invariance, of course, have to
> be
> made in terms of the longevity of the species and its tendancy to move
> accross the landscape.
>
> So whether relaxed selection produces "exploration of morphology space"
> will depend on the structure and stability of the environment in terms
> of
> size and longevity of the species.
>
> That's what I think of relaxed selection.  Apologies if I have been
> reading
> carelessly.
>
> NIck
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University ([hidden email])
>
> > *************************************
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Marcus,

Well, epigenetics is important to understand and maybe looked at another way
helps narrow the real question.  We could consider the vast variation in
canine breeds and the fact that breeding selection as an extreme form of
epigenetics has not apparently altered the species they all belong to.
Perhaps the question is how environmental pressures and experience may
clearly influence genetics, but be insufficient to originate the kind of
somehow deeper genetic change that creates new forms of life.   Among other
things it points to a distinct difference between 'shallower' and 'deeper'
genetic change indicating that some form of structure other than noisy
aggregations may be present.

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:34 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Relaxed Selection, a b-level posting
>
> Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > The metaphor is terrible because
> > the time-scale of oscillations of good and bad times in economics is
> WAY
> > too short for the reproductive capacity of the species to respond.
> So the
> > "times" are sort of independent of the reproduction of the species.
> >
> Perhaps not..
>
> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11326195
>
> ============================================================
> 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

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Russ,
You say: "I'm trying a slightly different tack with Tierra, of artificially
inducing mass extinctions every now and then. I have also tried reducing
parsimony pressure from time to time (I'm not sure what would be the
biological world equivalent of this - possibly variation in background
radioactivity or cosmic rays)..."

If your 'organisms' in Tierra were organized around feedback loops that
developed by exploring their environments, might you experiment with have
them be variably exploratory?

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 1:16 AM
> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Relaxed Selection, a b-level posting
>
> One should not confuse economics with biological selection. It would
> seem plausible that good economic times might lead to rapid evolution
> of economies, such as during the recent Internet bubble for instance,
> but not that it would have any influence on us at the genetic level.
>
> The sort of idea that David Green was proposing was that ecosystems
> (aka foodwebs) would cycle between a chaotic and a stable phase. My
> take on this is that immediately after a mass extinction, just about
> any foodweb is stable, because there are not enough connections to
> make it chaotic. Selection under such circumstances would be fairly
> relaxed. As evolution proceeds, the foodweb becomes more
> complex until such a time as chaotic behaviour sets in. Extinction
> becomes increasingly likely, and corresponding selection becomes
> "fierce".
>
> Cycles of mass extinction followed by species radiation _may_ be a
> driving cause of ecosystem complexity.
>
> I'm trying a slightly different tack with Tierra, of artificially
> inducing mass extinctions every now and then. I have also tried
> reducing parsimony pressure from time to time (I'm not sure what would
> be the biological world equivalent of this - possibly variation in
> background radioactivity or cosmic rays). But currently my simulation
> code is broken, so I haven't got too far with this to date :(
>
> Cheers
>

============================================================
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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Phil Henshaw wrote:
> We could consider the vast variation in
> canine breeds and the fact that breeding selection as an extreme form of
> epigenetics has not apparently altered the species they all belong to.
>  
Selection from breeding would mostly be constrained genetics, i.e. a big
and a small dog could be discriminated by, say, an insulin allele, say
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112).
However in epigenetic case we are talking about an inherited but
non-genetic change.
> Perhaps the question is how environmental pressures and experience may
> clearly influence genetics, but be insufficient to originate the kind of
> somehow deeper genetic change that creates new forms of life.   Among other
> things it points to a distinct difference between 'shallower' and 'deeper'
> genetic change indicating that some form of structure other than noisy
> aggregations may be present.
>  
Seems to me that everything from epigenetic gene regulation changes to
horizontal gene transfer is happening at the bacterial level..  What is
the question?

============================================================
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

[Douglas Roberts-2]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Phil Henshaw wrote:

We could consider the vast variation in
canine breeds and the fact that breeding selection as an extreme form of
epigenetics has not apparently altered the species they all belong to.
 

Selection from breeding would mostly be constrained genetics, i.e. a big and a small dog could be discriminated by, say, an insulin allele, say (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112).
However in epigenetic case we are talking about an inherited but non-genetic change.

Perhaps the question is how environmental pressures and experience may
clearly influence genetics, but be insufficient to originate the kind of
somehow deeper genetic change that creates new forms of life.   Among other
things it points to a distinct difference between 'shallower' and 'deeper'
genetic change indicating that some form of structure other than noisy
aggregations may be present.
 

Seems to me that everything from epigenetic gene regulation changes to horizontal gene transfer is happening at the bacterial level..  What is the question?

You know, not to sound too harshly judgmental, or anything, Marcus...

But:  you do seem to be in direct violation of rule #2 of the FRIAM posting guidelines which, like rule #1 reads

"Second rule of FRIAM: no one talks about specifics."

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
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

[Phil Henshaw-2]

> Marcus says:
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > We could consider the vast variation in
> > canine breeds and the fact that breeding selection as an extreme form of
> > epigenetics has not apparently altered the species they all belong to.
> >
> Selection from breeding would mostly be constrained genetics, i.e. a big
> and a small dog could be discriminated by, say, an insulin allele, say
> (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112).
> However in epigenetic case we are talking about an inherited but
> non-genetic change.

[ph] On looking up a couple definitions I find the word distinguishes
between heritable "gene expression" from heritability in general.   I
suppose there are a variety of ways gene expression might be inherited, and
I was falling into the common presumption that "it's all in the genes"...
:~(

> > Perhaps the question is how environmental pressures and experience may
> > clearly influence genetics, but be insufficient to originate the kind of
> > somehow deeper genetic change that creates new forms of life.   Among
other
> > things it points to a distinct difference between 'shallower' and
'deeper'
> > genetic change indicating that some form of structure other than noisy
> > aggregations may be present.
> >
> Seems to me that everything from epigenetic gene regulation changes to
> horizontal gene transfer is happening at the bacterial level..  What is
> the question?
[ph] There may be so many different kinds of inheritance if you open it up
like that, I would just start to differentiate by balling them all up into
one, since we really don't yet seem to have a way to distinguish what does
what and just recently discovered all that 'junk' DNA we can't map has some
other kinds of functions we can't map.   The question I was alluding to is
the argument about whether organisms have any structures at all, or are just
statistical distributions that record statistical interferences (that turn
out to be extremely different for every species).   I believe that is the
usual bottom line dispute between those who think speciation represents a
change of state and those who think it represents only statistical drift.  

The generalization of that is the question of whether any system in nature
actually has any structure of its own, or if all form is just a statistical
aggregation of random environmental perturbations.  I think it's real
obvious that systems have internal designs independent of their environments
because you can watch how their internal loops emerge without determinant
cause and develop locally to become resilient and independently responsive,
as well as having intricately organized unique functional designs.

I do understand there are a number of issues of causation it leaves
unanswered, but just because they're unanswered doesn't explain how systems
have such unfathomably complex and concentrated multi-faceted organization
without some kind of organizational development process.  I think the root
problem is one of perception, that most explanations seem to try explain
systems as being poked by their environments with sticks or pushed with
pressures, and leave it at that.  That leaves out how the internal threads
of systems are pulled with either trails of crumbs or puddles of honey.
There's certainly a lot that goes on at the interface between system and
environment, but it's both push and pull, and I think when you start asking
it's both push and pull from both inside and out.  The usual idea that
there's no way to cause things but to pry or whack them with a stick, seems
to be missing at least 3/4 of what could be happening at any real complex
system interface.   It certainly seems to give me great productive questions
to be open to that regarding complex system events in general.

Do you ever look at systems and their environments as actively interacting,
each taking advantage of each other in part, instead of just one pushing the
other around?

Phil

>
> ============================================================
> 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

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:54:45PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote:

> Russ,
> You say: "I'm trying a slightly different tack with Tierra, of artificially
> inducing mass extinctions every now and then. I have also tried reducing
> parsimony pressure from time to time (I'm not sure what would be the
> biological world equivalent of this - possibly variation in background
> radioactivity or cosmic rays)..."
>
> If your 'organisms' in Tierra were organized around feedback loops that
> developed by exploring their environments, might you experiment with have
> them be variably exploratory?
>
> Phil
>

Tierran organism are much simpler than that. They basically just
reproduce until they die. Some manage to parasitise the resources of
others. But there is little in the way of environment for them to
explore (which is a criticism levelled at these experiments to be sure).

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
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

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Well, maybe their environment is less rich than some, but is then just what
they CAN explore, and have different ways to respond to.   I guess you let
them eat each other or leave each other along.  Maybe they could also attach
different tags to each other to identify 'good guys' from 'bad guys' to be
recognized by others maybe, or other things.  In nature a major complication
is that organisms rely on others of different kinds for their resources and
so competitive advantage is generally unstable if anyone 'wins' the
'competition'.  Maybe you could have 'poison' that is toxic to all produced
and slowly dissipate if any one organism dominates or something, and see
what strategy variations might regulate their discovery of how to maximize
the community without that happening.

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 7:20 AM
> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Relaxed Selection, a b-level posting
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:54:45PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > Russ,
> > You say: "I'm trying a slightly different tack with Tierra, of
> artificially
> > inducing mass extinctions every now and then. I have also tried
> reducing
> > parsimony pressure from time to time (I'm not sure what would be the
> > biological world equivalent of this - possibly variation in
> background
> > radioactivity or cosmic rays)..."
> >
> > If your 'organisms' in Tierra were organized around feedback loops
> that
> > developed by exploring their environments, might you experiment with
> have
> > them be variably exploratory?
> >
> > Phil
> >
>
> Tierran organism are much simpler than that. They basically just
> reproduce until they die. Some manage to parasitise the resources of
> others. But there is little in the way of environment for them to
> explore (which is a criticism levelled at these experiments to be
> sure).
>
> --
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----

============================================================
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

[Jochen Fromm-4]

The idea of expansion and contraction is
interesting: rapid expansion of populations
(when selection is relaxed) vs. rapid contraction
of populations (when selection is intensified).

The human population went indeed through a
phase of rapid expansion in the last decades while
natural selection was released through cultural
and technological progress.

Seed Magazine has an article about human
evolution and relaxed selection, too
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/10/how_we_evolve_1.php 

-J.

============================================================
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

[glen ep ropella]

Thus spake Jochen Fromm circa 10/12/2008 12:11 PM:
> Seed Magazine has an article about human evolution and relaxed
> selection, too
> http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/10/how_we_evolve_1.php

[grin] There's a quote for the database:

"The fate of our civilization, and maybe our species, may be determined
by the next five generations. So I don't really give a shit what's
happening to our genetic evolution." -- Paul Ehrlich

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
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