Spandrel

[Prof David West]

A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed to grasp.

Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random chance rather than natural selection?

Or am I still ignorant.

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]

Hi Dave,  

Ok, since you are also a metaphor enthusiast, let me explain a spandrel in
terms of its root metaphor.  A spandrel, originally, is a decoration on the
curved triangular spaces formed by the intersection of two perpendicularly
intersecting archways.  The decorations are so suited to their settings that
one might imagine that the hallways were designed to accommodate them, but,
of course, it is they that are suited to fit the spaces affording by the
intersecting hallways.  The same confusion exists with the human nose.  The
nose is presumably what was left over when the brain expanded, and the gut
and the jaw shrank.  It has been elaborated since to accommodate its new
position, but the nose it self is the result of other adaptations, not of an
adaptation FOR a nose.  The most graphic example, of course, of a spandrel
is the erectal and colored pseudopenis (hypertrophied clitoris) born by the
female stripped Hyena.  It is not an adaptation itself, but a consequence of
powerful selection between female genealogies for feeding competition at the
kill, which has select for high levels of testosterone in females.  (The
females are heavier than the males, and, in general more nasty in every way
-- definitely examples of testosterone poisoning.)  The coloration of the
pseudopenis is the spandrel-part, because selection has subsequently led to
its "decoration".  Put another way, a spandrel is a phenomenon which is an
elaboration of an epiphenomenon.

Does that help at all?

Nick    

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:43 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Spandrel

A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed to
grasp.

Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random chance
rather than natural selection?

Or am I still ignorant.

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]

Nick, thank you. I get the metaphor but I think my “definition” is more correct than ‘elaboration of epiphenom’.   I get that notion from an essay I am reading on randomness in evolution by John Tyler Bonner

Davew

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 2:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi Dave,  
>
> Ok, since you are also a metaphor enthusiast, let me explain a spandrel in
> terms of its root metaphor.  A spandrel, originally, is a decoration on the
> curved triangular spaces formed by the intersection of two perpendicularly
> intersecting archways.  The decorations are so suited to their settings that
> one might imagine that the hallways were designed to accommodate them, but,
> of course, it is they that are suited to fit the spaces affording by the
> intersecting hallways.  The same confusion exists with the human nose.  The
> nose is presumably what was left over when the brain expanded, and the gut
> and the jaw shrank.  It has been elaborated since to accommodate its new
> position, but the nose it self is the result of other adaptations, not of an
> adaptation FOR a nose.  The most graphic example, of course, of a spandrel
> is the erectal and colored pseudopenis (hypertrophied clitoris) born by the
> female stripped Hyena.  It is not an adaptation itself, but a consequence of
> powerful selection between female genealogies for feeding competition at the
> kill, which has select for high levels of testosterone in females.  (The
> females are heavier than the males, and, in general more nasty in every way
> -- definitely examples of testosterone poisoning.)  The coloration of the
> pseudopenis is the spandrel-part, because selection has subsequently led to
> its "decoration".  Put another way, a spandrel is a phenomenon which is an
> elaboration of an epiphenomenon.
>
> Does that help at all?
>
> Nick    
>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:43 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Spandrel
>
> A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed to
> grasp.
>
> Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random chance
> rather than natural selection?
>
> Or am I still ignorant.
>
> 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/

[thompnickson2]

Bonner's a great guy, but I think he's wrong on that, or you're wrong in interpreting him.  The whole thrust of Lewontin and Gould's work is that there are developmental constraints in evolution.  Even according to orthodox Darwinian theory, mutation is random, but only with respect to the opportunities a mutation affords.  Nothing says that a mutation can' be predictable, yet random in this sense.  Any "random" assertion requires a point of view from which the stated variable is random.  Any geneticist can tell you which mutations are more likely than others.  

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:04 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

Nick, thank you. I get the metaphor but I think my “definition” is more correct than ‘elaboration of epiphenom’.   I get that notion from an essay I am reading on randomness in evolution by John Tyler Bonner

Davew

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 2:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> Ok, since you are also a metaphor enthusiast, let me explain a
> spandrel in terms of its root metaphor.  A spandrel, originally, is a
> decoration on the curved triangular spaces formed by the intersection
> of two perpendicularly intersecting archways.  The decorations are so
> suited to their settings that one might imagine that the hallways were
> designed to accommodate them, but, of course, it is they that are
> suited to fit the spaces affording by the intersecting hallways.  The
> same confusion exists with the human nose.  The nose is presumably
> what was left over when the brain expanded, and the gut and the jaw
> shrank.  It has been elaborated since to accommodate its new position,
> but the nose it self is the result of other adaptations, not of an
> adaptation FOR a nose.  The most graphic example, of course, of a
> spandrel is the erectal and colored pseudopenis (hypertrophied
> clitoris) born by the female stripped Hyena.  It is not an adaptation
> itself, but a consequence of powerful selection between female
> genealogies for feeding competition at the kill, which has select for
> high levels of testosterone in females.  (The females are heavier than
> the males, and, in general more nasty in every way
> -- definitely examples of testosterone poisoning.)  The coloration of
> the pseudopenis is the spandrel-part, because selection has
> subsequently led to its "decoration".  Put another way, a spandrel is
> a phenomenon which is an elaboration of an epiphenomenon.
>
> Does that help at all?
>
> Nick    
>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:43 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Spandrel
>
> A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed
> to grasp.
>
> Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random
> chance rather than natural selection?
>
> Or am I still ignorant.
>
> 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/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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]

Nick,

first apologies for arrogance in first reply. I should have said that I find the definition derived from Bonner to be more understandable — to me — and, I think, it offers an actual mechanism / rationale that is absent, again to me, than "elaboration of epiphenomenon."  I am enjoying the essay and i see an interesting connection with Wegner's Arrival of the Fittest book. That means Jenny Q will have to read it because and I are working on a paper in that area.

davew

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 5:37 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Bonner's a great guy, but I think he's wrong on that, or you're wrong 

> in interpreting him.  The whole thrust of Lewontin and Gould's work is 

> that there are developmental constraints in evolution.  Even according 

> to orthodox Darwinian theory, mutation is random, but only with respect 

> to the opportunities a mutation affords.  Nothing says that a mutation 

> can' be predictable, yet random in this sense.  Any "random" assertion 

> requires a point of view from which the stated variable is random.  Any 

> geneticist can tell you which mutations are more likely than others.  

> 

> Nick 

> 

> Nick Thompson

> [hidden email]

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

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:04 PM

> To: [hidden email]

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> 

> Nick, thank you. I get the metaphor but I think my “definition” is more 

> correct than ‘elaboration of epiphenom’.   I get that notion from an 

> essay I am reading on randomness in evolution by John Tyler Bonner

> 

> Davew

> 

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 2:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> > Hi Dave,

> > 

> > Ok, since you are also a metaphor enthusiast, let me explain a 

> > spandrel in terms of its root metaphor.  A spandrel, originally, is a 

> > decoration on the curved triangular spaces formed by the intersection 

> > of two perpendicularly intersecting archways.  The decorations are so 

> > suited to their settings that one might imagine that the hallways were 

> > designed to accommodate them, but, of course, it is they that are 

> > suited to fit the spaces affording by the intersecting hallways.  The 

> > same confusion exists with the human nose.  The nose is presumably 

> > what was left over when the brain expanded, and the gut and the jaw 

> > shrank.  It has been elaborated since to accommodate its new position, 

> > but the nose it self is the result of other adaptations, not of an 

> > adaptation FOR a nose.  The most graphic example, of course, of a 

> > spandrel is the erectal and colored pseudopenis (hypertrophied 

> > clitoris) born by the female stripped Hyena.  It is not an adaptation 

> > itself, but a consequence of powerful selection between female 

> > genealogies for feeding competition at the kill, which has select for 

> > high levels of testosterone in females.  (The females are heavier than 

> > the males, and, in general more nasty in every way

> > -- definitely examples of testosterone poisoning.)  The coloration of 

> > the pseudopenis is the spandrel-part, because selection has 

> > subsequently led to its "decoration".  Put another way, a spandrel is 

> > a phenomenon which is an elaboration of an epiphenomenon.

> > 

> > Does that help at all?

> > 

> > Nick     

> > 

> > Nick Thompson

> > [hidden email]

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

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:43 PM

> > To: [hidden email]

> > Subject: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> > 

> > A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed 

> > to grasp.

> > 

> > Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random 

> > chance rather than natural selection?

> > 

> > Or am I still ignorant.

> > 

> > 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/

> 

> 

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

> 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/

[thompnickson2]

Well, “elaboration of an epiphenomenon” was not the core of the mechanism I described.  It was a fancy little idea I added at the end.  So what about the mechanism that I described was difficulty to undertad.

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 8:41 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Nick,

 

first apologies for arrogance in first reply. I should have said that I find the definition derived from Bonner to be more understandable — to me — and, I think, it offers an actual mechanism / rationale that is absent, again to me, than "elaboration of epiphenomenon."  I am enjoying the essay and i see an interesting connection with Wegner's Arrival of the Fittest book. That means Jenny Q will have to read it because and I are working on a paper in that area.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 5:37 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Bonner's a great guy, but I think he's wrong on that, or you're wrong 

> in interpreting him.  The whole thrust of Lewontin and Gould's work is 

> that there are developmental constraints in evolution.  Even according 

> to orthodox Darwinian theory, mutation is random, but only with respect 

> to the opportunities a mutation affords.  Nothing says that a mutation 

> can' be predictable, yet random in this sense.  Any "random" assertion 

> requires a point of view from which the stated variable is random.  Any 

> geneticist can tell you which mutations are more likely than others.  

> 

> Nick 

> 

> Nick Thompson

> [hidden email]

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

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:04 PM

> To: [hidden email]

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> 

> Nick, thank you. I get the metaphor but I think my “definition” is more 

> correct than ‘elaboration of epiphenom’.   I get that notion from an 

> essay I am reading on randomness in evolution by John Tyler Bonner

> 

> Davew

> 

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 2:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> > Hi Dave,

> > 

> > Ok, since you are also a metaphor enthusiast, let me explain a 

> > spandrel in terms of its root metaphor.  A spandrel, originally, is a 

> > decoration on the curved triangular spaces formed by the intersection 

> > of two perpendicularly intersecting archways.  The decorations are so 

> > suited to their settings that one might imagine that the hallways were 

> > designed to accommodate them, but, of course, it is they that are 

> > suited to fit the spaces affording by the intersecting hallways.  The 

> > same confusion exists with the human nose.  The nose is presumably 

> > what was left over when the brain expanded, and the gut and the jaw 

> > shrank.  It has been elaborated since to accommodate its new position, 

> > but the nose it self is the result of other adaptations, not of an 

> > adaptation FOR a nose.  The most graphic example, of course, of a 

> > spandrel is the erectal and colored pseudopenis (hypertrophied 

> > clitoris) born by the female stripped Hyena.  It is not an adaptation 

> > itself, but a consequence of powerful selection between female 

> > genealogies for feeding competition at the kill, which has select for 

> > high levels of testosterone in females.  (The females are heavier than 

> > the males, and, in general more nasty in every way

> > -- definitely examples of testosterone poisoning.)  The coloration of 

> > the pseudopenis is the spandrel-part, because selection has 

> > subsequently led to its "decoration".  Put another way, a spandrel is 

> > a phenomenon which is an elaboration of an epiphenomenon.

> > 

> > Does that help at all?

> > 

> > Nick     

> > 

> > Nick Thompson

> > [hidden email]

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

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:43 PM

> > To: [hidden email]

> > Subject: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> > 

> > A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed 

> > to grasp.

> > 

> > Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random 

> > chance rather than natural selection?

> > 

> > Or am I still ignorant.

> > 

> > 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/

> 

> 

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

> 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]

Let me attempt to echo what i think I understand from your example and previous discussions where I lurked:

A mutation occurs in an organism resulting in an morphological change — i.e. a nose, modified jaw, and modified brain case.  I assume, first potential error, that this is a 'singular' change (e.g. a "face"), not three separate mutations and three different morphological changes to three different parts of the organism? [If there are three separate events, then how are they "coordinated?"]

One aspect of the original change, the nose, continues to change — is "decorated."

Second assumption (error): the same forces, mutation/selection, that cued the 'face' are prompting promulgation of new nose morphologies, the 'decorations'; which are selected among.

Core misunderstanding: it seems as if this demands some kind of "focused," on the nose, "micro-evolution." I do not see how such a weird phenomenon is not required; but cannot fathom from whence, and how, it came.

If mutation/selection occurs only at the 'whole', i.e. the face, then I do not see why any aspect of that face is "isolated" such that localized change is deemed somehow independent of global change and therefore merits the label: spandrel.

Now that you see how deep I am in a well of misunderstanding, is rescue possible or is it time to pour in the cement and cap the well?

davew

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 9:21 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, “elaboration of an epiphenomenon” was not the core of the mechanism I described.  It was a fancy little idea I added at the end.  So what about the mechanism that I described was difficulty to undertad.

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 8:41 PM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Nick,

 

first apologies for arrogance in first reply. I should have said that I find the definition derived from Bonner to be more understandable — to me — and, I think, it offers an actual mechanism / rationale that is absent, again to me, than "elaboration of epiphenomenon."  I am enjoying the essay and i see an interesting connection with Wegner's Arrival of the Fittest book. That means Jenny Q will have to read it because and I are working on a paper in that area.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 5:37 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Bonner's a great guy, but I think he's wrong on that, or you're wrong 

> in interpreting him.  The whole thrust of Lewontin and Gould's work is 

> that there are developmental constraints in evolution.  Even according 

> to orthodox Darwinian theory, mutation is random, but only with respect 

> to the opportunities a mutation affords.  Nothing says that a mutation 

> can' be predictable, yet random in this sense.  Any "random" assertion 

> requires a point of view from which the stated variable is random.  Any 

> geneticist can tell you which mutations are more likely than others.  

> 

> Nick 

> 

> Nick Thompson

> [hidden email]

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

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:04 PM

> To: [hidden email]

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> 

> Nick, thank you. I get the metaphor but I think my “definition” is more 

> correct than ‘elaboration of epiphenom’.   I get that notion from an 

> essay I am reading on randomness in evolution by John Tyler Bonner

> 

> Davew

> 

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 2:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> > Hi Dave,

> > 

> > Ok, since you are also a metaphor enthusiast, let me explain a 

> > spandrel in terms of its root metaphor.  A spandrel, originally, is a 

> > decoration on the curved triangular spaces formed by the intersection 

> > of two perpendicularly intersecting archways.  The decorations are so 

> > suited to their settings that one might imagine that the hallways were 

> > designed to accommodate them, but, of course, it is they that are 

> > suited to fit the spaces affording by the intersecting hallways.  The 

> > same confusion exists with the human nose.  The nose is presumably 

> > what was left over when the brain expanded, and the gut and the jaw 

> > shrank.  It has been elaborated since to accommodate its new position, 

> > but the nose it self is the result of other adaptations, not of an 

> > adaptation FOR a nose.  The most graphic example, of course, of a 

> > spandrel is the erectal and colored pseudopenis (hypertrophied 

> > clitoris) born by the female stripped Hyena.  It is not an adaptation 

> > itself, but a consequence of powerful selection between female 

> > genealogies for feeding competition at the kill, which has select for 

> > high levels of testosterone in females.  (The females are heavier than 

> > the males, and, in general more nasty in every way

> > -- definitely examples of testosterone poisoning.)  The coloration of 

> > the pseudopenis is the spandrel-part, because selection has 

> > subsequently led to its "decoration".  Put another way, a spandrel is 

> > a phenomenon which is an elaboration of an epiphenomenon.

> > 

> > Does that help at all?

> > 

> > Nick     

> > 

> > Nick Thompson

> > [hidden email]

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

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:43 PM

> > To: [hidden email]

> > Subject: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> > 

> > A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed 

> > to grasp.

> > 

> > Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random 

> > chance rather than natural selection?

> > 

> > Or am I still ignorant.

> > 

> > 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/

> 

> 

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

> 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/

[thompnickson2]

Dave, we both agree, I think, that one of the tests of understanding is the ability to explain an idea to an honest, persistent questioner.  So it is MY understanding of spandrel that is at stake here, not yours.   I have not looked any of what follows up.  It is strictly from ambient knowledge, and I predict that by the end of the day, voracious reader that you are, you will know more about this subject than I.   One of my great weakness as a scholar is that I like to play with the blocks I have, whole new technologies could arise in block-tower-building, and I would never know it. I hope that Jon Zingale, another voracious reader, will weigh in and update me.

 

The basic idea here, is “side effect” (aka epiphenomenon).  Not all structures are the result of selection on that structure as we see it.  Study this artifact:

 

The illustration is a bit wonky, but I have seen that toy, so I know it exists.  If you see one in a yard sale please buy it for me, because neither Sober nor I can find one any more.  The idea is that you put marbles of different sizes/colors in the top of the device (i.e., blue is large, red is smaller, etc.) and you shake it.  The device sorts the balls for size, and because the different sized balls are also of different colors, it also sorts for color.  Because we are color obsessed creatures, we tend to focus on the color-sorting, but the device itself “knows” nothing of color.  Sorting for color is a “side effect” of sorting for size.  Color “comes along with” size.  It “falls out”.  In the essay I am working on I call this relation an “epiphenomenal” relation, and I am writing about it because I think it is the source of all sorts of confusion in the vital sciences. 

 

Now both Gould and Lewontin were/are? Developmental biologists.  Thinking like theirs was the basis for the old/new field of “evo-devo”.   The basic idea is genes don’t code for structures, they code for the relative speed or slowness of chemical events.  So, start with a dog’s face say, where the nose is perched out on the end of the upper jaw.  Now select for a larger brain size, while selection also for a vastly reduced dentition and jaw size.  Bingo, you get a nose!  Similarly with the hyena: select for a more aggressive female hyena, and BINGO you get a female with a penis.  As Bob’s your Uncle! 

 

The main point of Gould and Lewontin’s essay was to hammer home the idea that not all structures, however notable they may be to our eyes, are the result of selection on those structures as such.  It was meant to be a counter to all of us who were, at the time, trying to explain the presence of a penis in female hyenas by all the good that this structure does for the female when she displays it in aggressive encounters.  The fact is that both the display and the penis come about as an “unintended consequence”  of the selection for high levels of the “aggression hormone”, testosterone.  And there is tremendous evidence of countervailing selection against the hypertrophied penis because the females have to give birth through it with all of the horrific consequences that you can imagine. 

 

No, the trouble comes for me when we begin to apply the metaphor of a “spandrel”.   The spandrels of St. Marco are triangular shaped decorations that are drawn on the ceilings of hallways where two corridors meet.  The triangular shape is necessitated by the geometry of intersecting corridors.  They are so elegant that some (it’s said) have been tempted to explain the structures as designed to accommodate the drawings, but that is nonsense.  The spaces are side effects of the intersection of the corridors, and the drawings have been made to accommodate to the spaces.  But where I get confused, and where I may confuse you, is whether the spaces are the spandrels or the drawings.  I think of the drawings as the spandrels, and since the drawings are definitely “adapted”, I think of a spandrel as a secondary adaptation built on a side effect.  You might think of the spandrel as the space, in which case the spandrel is a structure created as a side effect of selection on one or more other structures.

 

So, think about arm pits.  They are hairy, and glands in the armpit disperse pheromones.  Is the shape of the armpit been selected for dispersing hormones?  We can all agree that that idea is silly.  The shape of the armpit is dictated by the needs of hanging an arm on a torso.  We can also agree the modification of the sweat glands and the hair are plausibly “for dispersing”  pheromones.  What we may stumble over is whether the “spandrel” is the space where the hair and glands are located, or the hair and glands themselves.  If you look spandrel up in Wikipedia you will see endless wrangling about the meaning on “spandrel” and I suspect that much of it can be sourced to this ambiguity of the metaphor. 

 

Before I close, let me defend for a moment my use of the word epiphenomenon.  One of most important uses of that word  is to state a theory that consciousness is a side effect of the operation of the brain but events in consciousness are not in the causal chain of the processes that produce it.  Now can we say that consciousness is a “spandrel”.  Well it depends on where we came out on the ambiguity above.  Is consciousnsess just the “space” created by the operation of the brain, and has nothing to do with its own form.  Or has the fact of consciousness been seized upon by subsequent selection to give it causal properties.  That is the language problem that I am trying to sort out.

 

I need to go get something to eat, but be fore I send this to you, I will try to steel-man what you wrote below in some larding. 

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 8:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Let me attempt to echo what i think I understand from your example and previous discussions where I lurked:

 

A mutation occurs in an organism resulting in an morphological change — i.e. a nose, modified jaw, and modified brain case.  I assume, first potential error, that this is a 'singular' change (e.g. a "face"), not three separate mutations and three different morphological changes to three different parts of the organism? [If there are three separate events, then how are they "coordinated?"]

[NST===>Well, this is the insight of evo-devo.  Because development has to adapt to the vicissitudes of growing up, it has all sorts of buffering pathways that can be capitalized on by natural selection.  So when a mutation occurs, these buffering pathways are called into action to permit, in so faras possible, a viable structure.  Development (not genes) propose; selection disposes.  <===nst]

 

One aspect of the original change, the nose, continues to change — is "decorated."[NST===>Selection goes to work on the structure that selection on other structures has provided.<===nst]  

 

Second assumption (error): the same forces, mutation/selection, that cued the 'face' are prompting promulgation of new nose morphologies, the 'decorations'; which are selected among.[NST===>Well, the fact of this flabby thing left hanging off the front of the face offers opportunities for further selection. <===nst]  

 

Core misunderstanding: it seems as if this demands some kind of "focused," on the nose, "micro-evolution." I do not see how such a weird phenomenon is not required; but cannot fathom from whence, and how, it came.[NST===>OHHHHH!  I think I see the problem.  Up till now, I have been arguing that the nose is not a “thing.”  Now , suddenly I have to argue that it becomes a thing for the purposes of further evolution.  Hmmm.  I haven’t really thought about that before.  I think my answer has to be that there are no such “things” in evolution.  Mutations are never “for” structures; structures are altered by mutations because they alter the relative rates of developmental processes.  A mutation that cannot cooperate with developmental process is lethal.  You may have just stumbled on the problem which has been bothering me about evolution ever since I came to Santa Fe: if development is such a tangled network, how on earth do we separate out any one trait for selection.  Selection requires genetic main effects, additive genetic variance; if all genetic effects are interactions, then Darwin’s theory is a non starter.  But barnyard selection would also be a non-starter, so that non-starter argument is itself a non-starter.  But here’s an odd thought I keep having:  Could it be that selection – meta selection – has arranged for additive genetic variance SO THAT (ugh!#!!!) evolution can occur?   <===nst]  

 

If mutation/selection occurs only at the 'whole', i.e. the face, then I do not see why any aspect of that face is "isolated" such that localized change is deemed somehow independent of global change and therefore merits the label: spandrel.

 

Now that you see how deep I am in a well of misunderstanding, is rescue possible or is it time to pour in the cement and cap the well?

[NST===>No.  What I see is how deep is your understanding of the fundamental problem of evolutionary theory – the isolation of variance.  Not being a voracious reader I don’t know if anybody else has worried about that problem.  It’s what attracts me to steve’s line of thought.  If, in some way, complexity theory could explain the isolation of variance sufficient for natural selection to occur, I would be very grateful. <===nst]

 

Re arrogance:  I think writing requires arrogance.  I can’t imagine starting to write without the thought that I know SOMETHING, and that of course is an illusion. 

 

Now, in haste.

 

Nick

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 9:21 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, “elaboration of an epiphenomenon” was not the core of the mechanism I described.  It was a fancy little idea I added at the end.  So what about the mechanism that I described was difficulty to undertad.

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 8:41 PM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Nick,

 

first apologies for arrogance in first reply. I should have said that I find the definition derived from Bonner to be more understandable — to me — and, I think, it offers an actual mechanism / rationale that is absent, again to me, than "elaboration of epiphenomenon."  I am enjoying the essay and i see an interesting connection with Wegner's Arrival of the Fittest book. That means Jenny Q will have to read it because and I are working on a paper in that area.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 5:37 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Bonner's a great guy, but I think he's wrong on that, or you're wrong 

> in interpreting him.  The whole thrust of Lewontin and Gould's work is 

> that there are developmental constraints in evolution.  Even according 

> to orthodox Darwinian theory, mutation is random, but only with respect 

> to the opportunities a mutation affords.  Nothing says that a mutation 

> can' be predictable, yet random in this sense.  Any "random" assertion 

> requires a point of view from which the stated variable is random.  Any 

> geneticist can tell you which mutations are more likely than others.  

> 

> Nick 

> 

> Nick Thompson

> [hidden email]

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

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:04 PM

> To: [hidden email]

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> 

> Nick, thank you. I get the metaphor but I think my “definition” is more 

> correct than ‘elaboration of epiphenom’.   I get that notion from an 

> essay I am reading on randomness in evolution by John Tyler Bonner

> 

> Davew

> 

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 2:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> > Hi Dave,

> > 

> > Ok, since you are also a metaphor enthusiast, let me explain a 

> > spandrel in terms of its root metaphor.  A spandrel, originally, is a 

> > decoration on the curved triangular spaces formed by the intersection 

> > of two perpendicularly intersecting archways.  The decorations are so 

> > suited to their settings that one might imagine that the hallways were 

> > designed to accommodate them, but, of course, it is they that are 

> > suited to fit the spaces affording by the intersecting hallways.  The 

> > same confusion exists with the human nose.  The nose is presumably 

> > what was left over when the brain expanded, and the gut and the jaw 

> > shrank.  It has been elaborated since to accommodate its new position, 

> > but the nose it self is the result of other adaptations, not of an 

> > adaptation FOR a nose.  The most graphic example, of course, of a 

> > spandrel is the erectal and colored pseudopenis (hypertrophied 

> > clitoris) born by the female stripped Hyena.  It is not an adaptation 

> > itself, but a consequence of powerful selection between female 

> > genealogies for feeding competition at the kill, which has select for 

> > high levels of testosterone in females.  (The females are heavier than 

> > the males, and, in general more nasty in every way

> > -- definitely examples of testosterone poisoning.)  The coloration of 

> > the pseudopenis is the spandrel-part, because selection has 

> > subsequently led to its "decoration".  Put another way, a spandrel is 

> > a phenomenon which is an elaboration of an epiphenomenon.

> > 

> > Does that help at all?

> > 

> > Nick     

> > 

> > Nick Thompson

> > [hidden email]

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

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:43 PM

> > To: [hidden email]

> > Subject: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> > 

> > A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed 

> > to grasp.

> > 

> > Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random 

> > chance rather than natural selection?

> > 

> > Or am I still ignorant.

> > 

> > 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/

> 

> 

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

> 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/

[Steve Smith]

I highly recommend Gould's 1997 article "The exaptive excellence of spandrels as a term and prototype" for an interesting romp through pendentives and squinches and a nod to exaptation and cooption along the way.   Contrary to SJG's defense of their earlier paper, I think someone could *contrive* a building goal, methodology, materials and sequence where the previously declared spandrels were what were selected for and the resulting arches and circular opening at top were the "byproduct".    Modern pre-fab techniques could easily start by forming the pendentives as structural insulated panels (SIPs) which when stood on end and joined properly at their tips would thereby create the "negative space" (now spandrels) of archways with open tops that "just happen" to be useful for "entering and exiting" a defined space while allowing people inside to "look up at the sky".  Yeh, I know, very contrived.

If we accept that contrivance or one like it, then the two types of elements (arches/domes) are duals. 

Foreground recedes to background and vice-versa.   I think this may be a significant feature in the exploration of the "technological adjacent possible" which we are in the midst of, using the leverage of "soft assemblage" that modern software/hardware design principles have brought us.   It may go back a lot further, and I am curious about the early industrial age when tolerancing opened up interchangeable parts and facilitated production lines and lowered the bar of skill and aptitude required of gunsmiths and other mechanics.   I believe that this is what Tinkerers and Hackers are most lauded for...   Cooption?

IF Sober's toy had been arrived at accidentally rather than contrived to create a specific illusion, I think it would be more apt.   It is illustrative but misleading.

On 3/14/21 12:02 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Dave, we both agree, I think, that one of the tests of understanding is the ability to explain an idea to an honest, persistent questioner.  So it is MY understanding of spandrel that is at stake here, not yours.   I have not looked any of what follows up.  It is strictly from ambient knowledge, and I predict that by the end of the day, voracious reader that you are, you will know more about this subject than I.   One of my great weakness as a scholar is that I like to play with the blocks I have, whole new technologies could arise in block-tower-building, and I would never know it. I hope that Jon Zingale, another voracious reader, will weigh in and update me.

 

The basic idea here, is “side effect” (aka epiphenomenon).  Not all structures are the result of selection on that structure as we see it.  Study this artifact:

 

The illustration is a bit wonky, but I have seen that toy, so I know it exists.  If you see one in a yard sale please buy it for me, because neither Sober nor I can find one any more.  The idea is that you put marbles of different sizes/colors in the top of the device (i.e., blue is large, red is smaller, etc.) and you shake it.  The device sorts the balls for size, and because the different sized balls are also of different colors, it also sorts for color.  Because we are color obsessed creatures, we tend to focus on the color-sorting, but the device itself “knows” nothing of color.  Sorting for color is a “side effect” of sorting for size.  Color “comes along with” size.  It “falls out”.  In the essay I am working on I call this relation an “epiphenomenal” relation, and I am writing about it because I think it is the source of all sorts of confusion in the vital sciences. 

 

Now both Gould and Lewontin were/are? Developmental biologists.  Thinking like theirs was the basis for the old/new field of “evo-devo”.   The basic idea is genes don’t code for structures, they code for the relative speed or slowness of chemical events.  So, start with a dog’s face say, where the nose is perched out on the end of the upper jaw.  Now select for a larger brain size, while selection also for a vastly reduced dentition and jaw size.  Bingo, you get a nose!  Similarly with the hyena: select for a more aggressive female hyena, and BINGO you get a female with a penis.  As Bob’s your Uncle! 

 

The main point of Gould and Lewontin’s essay was to hammer home the idea that not all structures, however notable they may be to our eyes, are the result of selection on those structures as such.  It was meant to be a counter to all of us who were, at the time, trying to explain the presence of a penis in female hyenas by all the good that this structure does for the female when she displays it in aggressive encounters.  The fact is that both the display and the penis come about as an “unintended consequence”  of the selection for high levels of the “aggression hormone”, testosterone.  And there is tremendous evidence of countervailing selection against the hypertrophied penis because the females have to give birth through it with all of the horrific consequences that you can imagine. 

 

No, the trouble comes for me when we begin to apply the metaphor of a “spandrel”.   The spandrels of St. Marco are triangular shaped decorations that are drawn on the ceilings of hallways where two corridors meet.  The triangular shape is necessitated by the geometry of intersecting corridors.  They are so elegant that some (it’s said) have been tempted to explain the structures as designed to accommodate the drawings, but that is nonsense.  The spaces are side effects of the intersection of the corridors, and the drawings have been made to accommodate to the spaces.  But where I get confused, and where I may confuse you, is whether the spaces are the spandrels or the drawings.  I think of the drawings as the spandrels, and since the drawings are definitely “adapted”, I think of a spandrel as a secondary adaptation built on a side effect.  You might think of the spandrel as the space, in which case the spandrel is a structure created as a side effect of selection on one or more other structures.

 

So, think about arm pits.  They are hairy, and glands in the armpit disperse pheromones.  Is the shape of the armpit been selected for dispersing hormones?  We can all agree that that idea is silly.  The shape of the armpit is dictated by the needs of hanging an arm on a torso.  We can also agree the modification of the sweat glands and the hair are plausibly “for dispersing”  pheromones.  What we may stumble over is whether the “spandrel” is the space where the hair and glands are located, or the hair and glands themselves.  If you look spandrel up in Wikipedia you will see endless wrangling about the meaning on “spandrel” and I suspect that much of it can be sourced to this ambiguity of the metaphor. 

 

Before I close, let me defend for a moment my use of the word epiphenomenon.  One of most important uses of that word  is to state a theory that consciousness is a side effect of the operation of the brain but events in consciousness are not in the causal chain of the processes that produce it.  Now can we say that consciousness is a “spandrel”.  Well it depends on where we came out on the ambiguity above.  Is consciousnsess just the “space” created by the operation of the brain, and has nothing to do with its own form.  Or has the fact of consciousness been seized upon by subsequent selection to give it causal properties.  That is the language problem that I am trying to sort out.

 

I need to go get something to eat, but be fore I send this to you, I will try to steel-man what you wrote below in some larding. 

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 8:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Let me attempt to echo what i think I understand from your example and previous discussions where I lurked:

 

A mutation occurs in an organism resulting in an morphological change — i.e. a nose, modified jaw, and modified brain case.  I assume, first potential error, that this is a 'singular' change (e.g. a "face"), not three separate mutations and three different morphological changes to three different parts of the organism? [If there are three separate events, then how are they "coordinated?"]

[NST===>Well, this is the insight of evo-devo.  Because development has to adapt to the vicissitudes of growing up, it has all sorts of buffering pathways that can be capitalized on by natural selection.  So when a mutation occurs, these buffering pathways are called into action to permit, in so faras possible, a viable structure.  Development (not genes) propose; selection disposes.  <===nst]

 

One aspect of the original change, the nose, continues to change — is "decorated."[NST===>Selection goes to work on the structure that selection on other structures has provided.<===nst]  

 

Second assumption (error): the same forces, mutation/selection, that cued the 'face' are prompting promulgation of new nose morphologies, the 'decorations'; which are selected among.[NST===>Well, the fact of this flabby thing left hanging off the front of the face offers opportunities for further selection. <===nst]  

 

Core misunderstanding: it seems as if this demands some kind of "focused," on the nose, "micro-evolution." I do not see how such a weird phenomenon is not required; but cannot fathom from whence, and how, it came.[NST===>OHHHHH!  I think I see the problem.  Up till now, I have been arguing that the nose is not a “thing.”  Now , suddenly I have to argue that it becomes a thing for the purposes of further evolution.  Hmmm.  I haven’t really thought about that before.  I think my answer has to be that there are no such “things” in evolution.  Mutations are never “for” structures; structures are altered by mutations because they alter the relative rates of developmental processes.  A mutation that cannot cooperate with developmental process is lethal.  You may have just stumbled on the problem which has been bothering me about evolution ever since I came to Santa Fe: if development is such a tangled network, how on earth do we separate out any one trait for selection.  Selection requires genetic main effects, additive genetic variance; if all genetic effects are interactions, then Darwin’s theory is a non starter.  But barnyard selection would also be a non-starter, so that non-starter argument is itself a non-starter.  But here’s an odd thought I keep having:  Could it be that selection – meta selection – has arranged for additive genetic variance SO THAT (ugh!#!!!) evolution can occur?   <===nst]  

 

If mutation/selection occurs only at the 'whole', i.e. the face, then I do not see why any aspect of that face is "isolated" such that localized change is deemed somehow independent of global change and therefore merits the label: spandrel.

 

Now that you see how deep I am in a well of misunderstanding, is rescue possible or is it time to pour in the cement and cap the well?

[NST===>No.  What I see is how deep is your understanding of the fundamental problem of evolutionary theory – the isolation of variance.  Not being a voracious reader I don’t know if anybody else has worried about that problem.  It’s what attracts me to steve’s line of thought.  If, in some way, complexity theory could explain the isolation of variance sufficient for natural selection to occur, I would be very grateful. <===nst]

 

Re arrogance:  I think writing requires arrogance.  I can’t imagine starting to write without the thought that I know SOMETHING, and that of course is an illusion. 

 

Now, in haste.

 

Nick

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 9:21 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, “elaboration of an epiphenomenon” was not the core of the mechanism I described.  It was a fancy little idea I added at the end.  So what about the mechanism that I described was difficulty to undertad.

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 8:41 PM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Nick,

 

first apologies for arrogance in first reply. I should have said that I find the definition derived from Bonner to be more understandable — to me — and, I think, it offers an actual mechanism / rationale that is absent, again to me, than "elaboration of epiphenomenon."  I am enjoying the essay and i see an interesting connection with Wegner's Arrival of the Fittest book. That means Jenny Q will have to read it because and I are working on a paper in that area.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 5:37 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Bonner's a great guy, but I think he's wrong on that, or you're wrong 

> in interpreting him.  The whole thrust of Lewontin and Gould's work is 

> that there are developmental constraints in evolution.  Even according 

> to orthodox Darwinian theory, mutation is random, but only with respect 

> to the opportunities a mutation affords.  Nothing says that a mutation 

> can' be predictable, yet random in this sense.  Any "random" assertion 

> requires a point of view from which the stated variable is random.  Any 

> geneticist can tell you which mutations are more likely than others.  

> 

> Nick 

> 

> Nick Thompson

> [hidden email]

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

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:04 PM

> To: [hidden email]

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> 

> Nick, thank you. I get the metaphor but I think my “definition” is more 

> correct than ‘elaboration of epiphenom’.   I get that notion from an 

> essay I am reading on randomness in evolution by John Tyler Bonner

> 

> Davew

> 

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 2:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> > Hi Dave,

> > 

> > Ok, since you are also a metaphor enthusiast, let me explain a 

> > spandrel in terms of its root metaphor.  A spandrel, originally, is a 

> > decoration on the curved triangular spaces formed by the intersection 

> > of two perpendicularly intersecting archways.  The decorations are so 

> > suited to their settings that one might imagine that the hallways were 

> > designed to accommodate them, but, of course, it is they that are 

> > suited to fit the spaces affording by the intersecting hallways.  The 

> > same confusion exists with the human nose.  The nose is presumably 

> > what was left over when the brain expanded, and the gut and the jaw 

> > shrank.  It has been elaborated since to accommodate its new position, 

> > but the nose it self is the result of other adaptations, not of an 

> > adaptation FOR a nose.  The most graphic example, of course, of a 

> > spandrel is the erectal and colored pseudopenis (hypertrophied 

> > clitoris) born by the female stripped Hyena.  It is not an adaptation 

> > itself, but a consequence of powerful selection between female 

> > genealogies for feeding competition at the kill, which has select for 

> > high levels of testosterone in females.  (The females are heavier than 

> > the males, and, in general more nasty in every way

> > -- definitely examples of testosterone poisoning.)  The coloration of 

> > the pseudopenis is the spandrel-part, because selection has 

> > subsequently led to its "decoration".  Put another way, a spandrel is 

> > a phenomenon which is an elaboration of an epiphenomenon.

> > 

> > Does that help at all?

> > 

> > Nick     

> > 

> > Nick Thompson

> > [hidden email]

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

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:43 PM

> > To: [hidden email]

> > Subject: [FRIAM] Spandrel

> > 

> > A while back there was a lot of discussion of spandrels that I failed 

> > to grasp.

> > 

> > Is a spandrel a stable morphological trait that results from random 

> > chance rather than natural selection?

> > 

> > Or am I still ignorant.

> > 

> > 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/

> 

> 

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

correction (arches/domes vs spandrels) are duals

If we accept that contrivance or one like it, then the two types of elements (arches/domes) are duals. 

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

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

Not to beat a dead Spandrel, but the nose example doesn't wash with me.  

In many familiar animals, the nose is perched on the end of a snout, and
it was the snout that was deprecated in us to the point that the
nostril-holes with various adaptive properties (downward facing to keep
rain out, hair-lined and snotty to trap dust and pollen, (mildly)
turbinated to support humidity/temperature regulation, sensitive to
support "feeling" things with one's proboscis before we smash the whole
face into it,  loaded with chemically sensitive cells for "smell", etc)
are highly diminished compared to various creatures like a daschund or
an elephant or an anteater.   Our nose still has significant affordances
similar/familiar to those listed above (serviceable smeller, filter,
heat/humidity exchanger, etc ) even if it is not at all prehensile or
particularly discriminating and if humans have a snout at all, it is a
highly diminished one.  

I suspect references to "being nosy" and "sticking our noses in other's
business" is borrowed from watching our snoutful familiars like horses
or camels or racoons or dogs "nosing around".  The proboscis of our nose
*points* where our eyes are looking (somewhat) so that conflation may be
mildly meaningful?

Does "butting out" connote backing out butt-first when one recognizes
their nosing around isn't welcome?

<beep><beep><beep>

 - Sneeze



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Eric Charles-2]

The spandrel is the place on the wall, whether it is decorated or not. 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:20 AM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

correction (arches/domes vs spandrels) are duals

If we accept that contrivance or one like it, then the two types of elements (arches/domes) are duals. 

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

[Eric Charles-2]

Steve, 

Yes exactly! Humans were not selected "for noses." Humans were (the argument goes) selected for shorter jaws. The "protruding" nose is what you end up with after selection shrinks the jaw. So, if you notice that humans have noses, and you jump straight to asking "Why did protruding noses evolve? What adaptive function do they serve?" you are barking up the wrong tree. Ditto impacted wisdom teeth. It would be pretty silly to assert that impacted wisdom teeth were adaptive, even though they likely resulted from natural selection through the same pressures that led to noses.

Now, the problem with the "nose" example is that, given the variation in noses around the world, it is actually quite plausible that nose size and shape IS adaptive. But that's a different issue ;- ) 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick -

Not to beat a dead Spandrel, but the nose example doesn't wash with me.  

In many familiar animals, the nose is perched on the end of a snout, and
it was the snout that was deprecated in us to the point that the
nostril-holes with various adaptive properties (downward facing to keep
rain out, hair-lined and snotty to trap dust and pollen, (mildly)
turbinated to support humidity/temperature regulation, sensitive to
support "feeling" things with one's proboscis before we smash the whole
face into it,  loaded with chemically sensitive cells for "smell", etc)
are highly diminished compared to various creatures like a daschund or
an elephant or an anteater.   Our nose still has significant affordances
similar/familiar to those listed above (serviceable smeller, filter,
heat/humidity exchanger, etc ) even if it is not at all prehensile or
particularly discriminating and if humans have a snout at all, it is a
highly diminished one.  

I suspect references to "being nosy" and "sticking our noses in other's
business" is borrowed from watching our snoutful familiars like horses
or camels or racoons or dogs "nosing around".  The proboscis of our nose
*points* where our eyes are looking (somewhat) so that conflation may be
mildly meaningful?

Does "butting out" connote backing out butt-first when one recognizes
their nosing around isn't welcome?

<beep><beep><beep>

 - Sneeze



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

> Steve, 
> Yes exactly! Humans were not selected "for noses." Humans were (the
> argument goes) selected for shorter jaws. The "protruding" nose is
> what you end up with after selection shrinks the jaw. So, if you
> notice that humans have noses, and you jump straight to asking "Why
> did protruding noses evolve? What adaptive function do they serve?"
> you are barking up the wrong tree. Ditto impacted wisdom teeth. It
> would be pretty silly to assert that impacted wisdom teeth were
> adaptive, even though they likely resulted from natural selection
> through the same pressures that led to noses.
>
> Now, the problem with the "nose" example is that, given the variation
> in noses around the world, it is actually quite plausible that nose
> size and shape IS adaptive. But that's a different issue ;- )

And impacted wisdom teeth have been exapted to provide a meaningful
coming-of-age ritual in first world contexts where oral surgeons exist
to extract them (2 or 4 at a time, with or without general anaesthesia,
and with or without chisels).   For my children, it was braces.  One
daughter needed them to have the proper bite and pretty smile that her
cohort had come to expect (well my cohort had come to expect for them)
while the other did not, and while the other did not lobby for braces
"just because", she *did* have friends who did (for whatever reason)
have "braces envy"...  go figure.


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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]

Thanks, Eric, for the correction.  I also found this website interesting for all the places where “spandrel” get’s used in construction jargon.

 

http://www.cmswillowbrook.com/constructorknowledge/2015/2/27/architectural-terms-spandrel-more-than-just-spandrel-glass

 

OK,  So the Spandrel is unambiguously the space which is “exapted” for the decoration. 

 

N

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Steve, 

Yes exactly! Humans were not selected "for noses." Humans were (the argument goes) selected for shorter jaws. The "protruding" nose is what you end up with after selection shrinks the jaw. So, if you notice that humans have noses, and you jump straight to asking "Why did protruding noses evolve? What adaptive function do they serve?" you are barking up the wrong tree. Ditto impacted wisdom teeth. It would be pretty silly to assert that impacted wisdom teeth were adaptive, even though they likely resulted from natural selection through the same pressures that led to noses.

 

Now, the problem with the "nose" example is that, given the variation in noses around the world, it is actually quite plausible that nose size and shape IS adaptive. But that's a different issue ;- ) 

 

 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick -

Not to beat a dead Spandrel, but the nose example doesn't wash with me.  

In many familiar animals, the nose is perched on the end of a snout, and
it was the snout that was deprecated in us to the point that the
nostril-holes with various adaptive properties (downward facing to keep
rain out, hair-lined and snotty to trap dust and pollen, (mildly)
turbinated to support humidity/temperature regulation, sensitive to
support "feeling" things with one's proboscis before we smash the whole
face into it,  loaded with chemically sensitive cells for "smell", etc)
are highly diminished compared to various creatures like a daschund or
an elephant or an anteater.   Our nose still has significant affordances
similar/familiar to those listed above (serviceable smeller, filter,
heat/humidity exchanger, etc ) even if it is not at all prehensile or
particularly discriminating and if humans have a snout at all, it is a
highly diminished one.  

I suspect references to "being nosy" and "sticking our noses in other's
business" is borrowed from watching our snoutful familiars like horses
or camels or racoons or dogs "nosing around".  The proboscis of our nose
*points* where our eyes are looking (somewhat) so that conflation may be
mildly meaningful?

Does "butting out" connote backing out butt-first when one recognizes
their nosing around isn't welcome?

<beep><beep><beep>

 - Sneeze



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[thompnickson2]

All==

 

I want to call attention to Dave’s quandary at the end of his last message to me.   If genes are not “for” traits but for processes, how does natural selection manage to “pick out” traits.   How do you take a vastly interacting causal web and get additivity of variance out of it.  It seems to me that Steve’s pathway talk might lead to an answer to that question.  Of what process is natural selection the PRODUCT?  Who or what selects the selector? 

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Steve, 

Yes exactly! Humans were not selected "for noses." Humans were (the argument goes) selected for shorter jaws. The "protruding" nose is what you end up with after selection shrinks the jaw. So, if you notice that humans have noses, and you jump straight to asking "Why did protruding noses evolve? What adaptive function do they serve?" you are barking up the wrong tree. Ditto impacted wisdom teeth. It would be pretty silly to assert that impacted wisdom teeth were adaptive, even though they likely resulted from natural selection through the same pressures that led to noses.

 

Now, the problem with the "nose" example is that, given the variation in noses around the world, it is actually quite plausible that nose size and shape IS adaptive. But that's a different issue ;- ) 

 

 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick -

Not to beat a dead Spandrel, but the nose example doesn't wash with me.  

In many familiar animals, the nose is perched on the end of a snout, and
it was the snout that was deprecated in us to the point that the
nostril-holes with various adaptive properties (downward facing to keep
rain out, hair-lined and snotty to trap dust and pollen, (mildly)
turbinated to support humidity/temperature regulation, sensitive to
support "feeling" things with one's proboscis before we smash the whole
face into it,  loaded with chemically sensitive cells for "smell", etc)
are highly diminished compared to various creatures like a daschund or
an elephant or an anteater.   Our nose still has significant affordances
similar/familiar to those listed above (serviceable smeller, filter,
heat/humidity exchanger, etc ) even if it is not at all prehensile or
particularly discriminating and if humans have a snout at all, it is a
highly diminished one.  

I suspect references to "being nosy" and "sticking our noses in other's
business" is borrowed from watching our snoutful familiars like horses
or camels or racoons or dogs "nosing around".  The proboscis of our nose
*points* where our eyes are looking (somewhat) so that conflation may be
mildly meaningful?

Does "butting out" connote backing out butt-first when one recognizes
their nosing around isn't welcome?

<beep><beep><beep>

 - Sneeze



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

Eric -

In my contrived (in my head, not in the post) example I imagined some stonehengian folke who had decorated acute isosceles triangular stiles with their earth/air/wind/fire dieties who *then* and only then realized that they had an obscured, unintended affordance that they could be stood on their tips and leaned together to form 4 archways around the perimeter and a larger opening above.  

By experiment they may have discovered that if they aligned the archways (now considered spandrels in this context) to the rising/setting sun and the north star (and is there anything persistent to see in the heavens through the southern arch?) that these *arches* took on a significance that was not intended but nevertheless welcome (useful to their spirit/psyche).   Building barrel vaults off of each arch and narrowing the top-opening would yield an interesting (at first) and useful (after completed) way of focusing celebrants who came to worship the 4 elementals carved in the styles on the distant heavens (rising/setting sun, pole-star, zenith, etc.)    A refined and elaborated "elemental" shrine might therefore become indistinguishable from pendentive dome that is San Marco in construction.  Parallel (nay, complementary) evolutionary paths might lead to homomorphic architectures where one man's spandrel is the other man's adaptive element?    (contrivances R Us)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendentive

consider the geodesic-triangle Aad, Bba, Ccb, Ddc as the "styles" I've contrived and the arches DAd, AaB,,BbC, CcD and circular ceiling-hole abcd to be the "unintended features" with "unexpected/unselected affordances" rather than vice-versa, and the "decorative elements" carved on the styles to be their adaptive fitness function (how effectively can I apprehend and worship my elemental dieties? and the emergence of a celestial-worshiping cult *from* the architectural artifacts began with the exaptation/cooption of the "spandrels"?

One might (and since I'm in an expansive and speculative mood, I will) suggest that the Octopus' eye might just have come up out of an exaptation of the light-sensitivity of the molluscular ancestor that developed photosensitivity on it's skin-membrane provide adaptive camouflage against *sighted* predators whose own eyes evolved out of different adaptive paths.   I forget how many (anecdotally) different parallel evolutionary paths are touted to have lead to "eyes"... i think molluscs themselves have a number of significantly different "types" of eyes (pit, pinhole, lensed, etc) ...   how many spandrels and how much exaptation or cooption might have played in all those routes to "vision"?   Perhaps an expansive (if not exhaustive) analysis of morphological features/lineages might expose that exaptation of spandrels is a significant contributor to diversity.  (maybe this is already understood and agreed upon?)  (and probably mollusc scholars know how the various eyes came to be without my "just so" stories).

maunderingly,

 - Steve

The spandrel is the place on the wall, whether it is decorated or not. 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:20 AM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

correction (arches/domes vs spandrels) are duals

If we accept that contrivance or one like it, then the two types of elements (arches/domes) are duals. 

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

[Steve Smith]

In the spirit of StephenG's dual field theory, I suggest we "verbize all the nouns" and vice-versa and the answer will emerge, even it the resulting text sounds a bit too much like reading a Dr. Seuss book on Psilocybin whilst huffing Helium.  

I must force myself into bed now, I strongly suspect that staying up late is very hazardous to my posting style and proliferation.   A good night's sleep may relieve many of you from wearing out your <delete> or <next> buttons.  I think my helium tank and mushroom-log are where I left them when I got up this morning.

On 3/14/21 11:56 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

All==

 

I want to call attention to Dave’s quandary at the end of his last message to me.   If genes are not “for” traits but for processes, how does natural selection manage to “pick out” traits.   How do you take a vastly interacting causal web and get additivity of variance out of it.  It seems to me that Steve’s pathway talk might lead to an answer to that question.  Of what process is natural selection the PRODUCT?  Who or what selects the selector? 

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Steve, 

Yes exactly! Humans were not selected "for noses." Humans were (the argument goes) selected for shorter jaws. The "protruding" nose is what you end up with after selection shrinks the jaw. So, if you notice that humans have noses, and you jump straight to asking "Why did protruding noses evolve? What adaptive function do they serve?" you are barking up the wrong tree. Ditto impacted wisdom teeth. It would be pretty silly to assert that impacted wisdom teeth were adaptive, even though they likely resulted from natural selection through the same pressures that led to noses.

 

Now, the problem with the "nose" example is that, given the variation in noses around the world, it is actually quite plausible that nose size and shape IS adaptive. But that's a different issue ;- ) 

 

 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick -

Not to beat a dead Spandrel, but the nose example doesn't wash with me.  

In many familiar animals, the nose is perched on the end of a snout, and
it was the snout that was deprecated in us to the point that the
nostril-holes with various adaptive properties (downward facing to keep
rain out, hair-lined and snotty to trap dust and pollen, (mildly)
turbinated to support humidity/temperature regulation, sensitive to
support "feeling" things with one's proboscis before we smash the whole
face into it,  loaded with chemically sensitive cells for "smell", etc)
are highly diminished compared to various creatures like a daschund or
an elephant or an anteater.   Our nose still has significant affordances
similar/familiar to those listed above (serviceable smeller, filter,
heat/humidity exchanger, etc ) even if it is not at all prehensile or
particularly discriminating and if humans have a snout at all, it is a
highly diminished one.  

I suspect references to "being nosy" and "sticking our noses in other's
business" is borrowed from watching our snoutful familiars like horses
or camels or racoons or dogs "nosing around".  The proboscis of our nose
*points* where our eyes are looking (somewhat) so that conflation may be
mildly meaningful?

Does "butting out" connote backing out butt-first when one recognizes
their nosing around isn't welcome?

<beep><beep><beep>

 - Sneeze



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[jon zingale]

EricC, What again is the connection between goal orientation and function
in the evolutionary theory literature? All I can remember, from this
summer when we were discussing it, is that it was a way to distinguish
those things selected-for from the spandrels.

Not to muddy the waters, but nose *decoration* today is selected for, at
least to some extent, secondary adaptation? The same can clearly be said
of consciousness. Some of us select our mates out of an appreciation for
their perspectives, insights into their subjective experience. The "nose"
then becomes a *thing*. I mention this relative to Nick's question:

"""
...or has the fact of consciousness been seized upon by subsequent
selection to give it causal properties?
"""

I never did grok Glen's idea of *algorithmic depth*, and now I am
wondering if selecting at the level of goal versus selecting at the level of
function is an example? One may try to argue that my preference for a
sense of humor or compassion is a short-hand or substitution for
*deeper* underlying causes, but it seems a stretch. I somehow doubt the
computational ability of my person to do such a thing.

"""
Is the shape of the armpit been selected for dispersing hormones?
"""

To add to the confusion here, I do wonder if the shape is selected for,
but not in the sense that pheromones cause armpits. Instead, assuming
the inevitability of glands, I can imagine mutation driving their
migration and armpits becoming a basin of attraction.

As far as I can imagine, the locality question is possibly related. Should
it be the case that one type of selection giving rise to the shape of my
nose[d] also gives rise to a not so easily detectable change to my ass,
while another gives rise to the "same" nose[d] together with a not so
easily detectable change to my leg?

For whatever reason, I really enjoyed thinking about this problem from
the perspective of sorting algorithms and tuples. Extensionally, the
colors become sorted regardless of the final configuration of the balls
within any given level. That is, the goal-directed "algorithm" is free
two vary while holding the function invariant. Another variation I found
interesting was to imagine, instead of color, that the smallest balls
are labeled with numbers divisible by 2, the next smallest have labels
divisible by 3, and so forth. Now when I sort, some balls divisible by
2 will be at the top, but the majority of them will sort to the bottom.
In general, we see striation up to some probability. IDK, maybe there is
some nice way to think about the connection this schema may have to the
locality problem and the additivity of variance problem?

Anyway, just entering the conversation, so please pardon any pedantry
and staggering ignorance.

[d] Up to "a quality easily detected by humans".




--
Sent from: 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/

[thompnickson2]

Dave,

 

Did I understand you correctly?  Is your quandary accurately expressed below.  If genes modulate the growth of skull, and jaws differentially, how can  “face” become a thing for the purposes of natural selection.  I think this question IS the basic challenge of evolutionary theory.  It is the question of the evolution of modularity.   I have always imagined that the answer lay in some attractor in developmental systems … blah blah.  But SteveG persistently reminds me that it might be scaffolded by physical systems, in exactly the same way that life’s origins was scaffolded by the molecular structure of white smoker vents in the sea bottom.  How could physical systems scaffold natural selection?

 

Nick   

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:57 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

All==

 

I want to call attention to Dave’s quandary at the end of his last message to me.   If genes are not “for” traits but for processes, how does natural selection manage to “pick out” traits.   How do you take a vastly interacting causal web and get additivity of variance out of it.  It seems to me that Steve’s pathway talk might lead to an answer to that question.  Of what process is natural selection the PRODUCT?  Who or what selects the selector? 

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Spandrel

 

Steve, 

Yes exactly! Humans were not selected "for noses." Humans were (the argument goes) selected for shorter jaws. The "protruding" nose is what you end up with after selection shrinks the jaw. So, if you notice that humans have noses, and you jump straight to asking "Why did protruding noses evolve? What adaptive function do they serve?" you are barking up the wrong tree. Ditto impacted wisdom teeth. It would be pretty silly to assert that impacted wisdom teeth were adaptive, even though they likely resulted from natural selection through the same pressures that led to noses.

 

Now, the problem with the "nose" example is that, given the variation in noses around the world, it is actually quite plausible that nose size and shape IS adaptive. But that's a different issue ;- ) 

 

 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick -

Not to beat a dead Spandrel, but the nose example doesn't wash with me.  

In many familiar animals, the nose is perched on the end of a snout, and
it was the snout that was deprecated in us to the point that the
nostril-holes with various adaptive properties (downward facing to keep
rain out, hair-lined and snotty to trap dust and pollen, (mildly)
turbinated to support humidity/temperature regulation, sensitive to
support "feeling" things with one's proboscis before we smash the whole
face into it,  loaded with chemically sensitive cells for "smell", etc)
are highly diminished compared to various creatures like a daschund or
an elephant or an anteater.   Our nose still has significant affordances
similar/familiar to those listed above (serviceable smeller, filter,
heat/humidity exchanger, etc ) even if it is not at all prehensile or
particularly discriminating and if humans have a snout at all, it is a
highly diminished one.  

I suspect references to "being nosy" and "sticking our noses in other's
business" is borrowed from watching our snoutful familiars like horses
or camels or racoons or dogs "nosing around".  The proboscis of our nose
*points* where our eyes are looking (somewhat) so that conflation may be
mildly meaningful?

Does "butting out" connote backing out butt-first when one recognizes
their nosing around isn't welcome?

<beep><beep><beep>

 - Sneeze



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/