The Plausibility of Life('s confusing arguments)

[Nick Thompson]

Phil,

In general I agree with you.  I just make an exception for PLAUSIBILITY OF
LIFE.  Oh.  And.  Whatever happened before the Big Bang.  

(you know those cans of springy things you used to be able to get at joke
shops.  So it says walnuts or something, but when you open it the top flies
off and all these springs come out.  It's a trick to compress all those
springs in that can to set the joke up.  That is how I imagine God and the
Pre-Big-Bang.  

So much in your message it made my head spin.  Let's focus on one issue
here and see if we can get it tidied up.  

You say PLAUSIBILITY argues for directed evolution; I say it argues for
facilitated evolution; you say there is no difference between the two:  Do
I have us straight so far????  

If so, let's deny ourselves the use of EITHER word and see if we can make
the distinction.  

I think PLAUSIBILITY is claiming that while the direction of evolution is
somewhat predictible (because of environmental changes and the constraints
of developmental building blocks) it is not controlled, as, say, the
temperature in our apartment is [not] controlled by its thermostat.   So,
predictable, but not regulated.  

I associate direction with goal correction, and I think PLAUSIBILITY does
also.  I think this the basis for their distinction between direction and
and facilitation.  But, as I said, I do not have the book before me.  

I am half way through Carrol's Endless forms. So far he seems to be leaning
pretty heavily on the "genefur" notion (as in, "genefur blue eyes"), but I
should be fair and give them the benefit of the doubt.  

As we have this discussion, let's try to have it in little pieces for a
while; see if we can makes some progress and build some confidence.  As
Wittegenstein said, In philosophy, if you arent moving slowly you arent
moving.  Or was that W.  

N.



Nick





> [Original Message]
> From: Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com>
> To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>

> Date: 2/4/2007 7:15:17 AM
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] The Plausibility of Life('s confusing arguments)
>
> Nick,
>
> > Phil,
> >
> > I am so hot on Plausibility of Life that I bought 4 cc to
> > circulate here amongst the SAF folks.  So I wont hear a WORD
> > against it.  NOT A SINGLE WORD.  
> Well, if skeptics are not ALLOWED... I guess it's not science.  I really
> think a lot of sloppy thinking is hidden from us by our habits of
> celebrating our own prejudices.   My point is that you can spot people
> milking one's own prejudices, and it helps expose very interesting
> issues that are 'hidden in sight'.
>  
> > I would mount a stalwart defense of it, except that my copy
> > is buried at the bottom of one of three HUGE book boxes I
> > sent from the east that I have not the courage (nor book
> > cases to open).  Nonetheless, I will offer the following.
> >
> > I thought their point was exactly that evolution was not
> > directed but that it was predicated; i.e., highly
> > circumscribed by that which has gone before.  
>
> My approach is more direct about the 'nuanced' type of directed
> variation they admit to be critical.  To me 'historically dependent'
> progression means variation localized in the direction of recent
> variation.  Traditional Darwinian variation is random.   Maybe they try
> to keep a lid on it, saying that their model still uses only 'random
> variation' (with respect to the selection mechanisms), but then they
> emphasize the strong directional tendency to the variation one would get
> if one somehow eliminated all the dysfunctional stuff.  I think they do
> that because it resolves Darwin's dilemma, that random variation with
> respect to the design of life would be largely destructive.   Why people
> have not been open to discussing that seems partly due to the defensive
> political position scientists have taken and that's one of the things
> that drew my attention to it.
>
> > Strings of
> > nucleotides and the cascades of enzyme events that they
> > facilitate get built in over time.  They become, in the
> > jargon of the book, highly conserved.  The interrelations
> > between these sequence are governed by "weak linkages", so it
> > is possible for a environmental event or a genetic event or a
> > hormonal event to turn on and off whole functionally
> > organized cascades of developmental events (OH, THOMPSON,
> > BLAH, BLAH, BLAH).  
> yep, and another is the possible random walks of neutral traits that in
> circumstantial combination with other things happen to suddenly become
> non-neutral.  I see those and other plausible large scale impacts of
> small changes to be mainly beside the point.  Those don't explain
> progressions of change and you require progressions of change to produce
> coordinated whole system change.  In other words, you still need a
> reason why such large (or any) changes should be biased toward
> constructive rather than destructive effect.   Just saying variation
> must be biased to the constructive because life exists, a hidden
> assertion people seem to me to have always been making, doesn't say for
> what mode of variation that applies.
>
> >
> > OK, start again.  Think about how a kid learns to ride a
> > bicycle.  She already has several highly conserved core
> > processes available to her .... balance, cornering, looming
> > of objects when going forward,  features of the pedaling
> > motion which are similar to running, etc.  The physics of the
> > situation also provide many Constance as say, the relation
> > between the tilt of the bike and the tendency of the
> > handlebars to flop to the right or left.  (somebody PLEASE
> > explain to me about angular momentum using very small
> > words!).  The kid struggles to assemble the core processes in such a
> > way that the bike doesn't fall over.   Given the goal of
> > moving forward and
> > not falling down, the physics constrains this assemblage to
> > certain combinations.... (when you start to feel the bike
> > tilt to the right, turn your handle bars to the right.  So
> > eventually, the whole mess gets put together in a functional
> > passage.  
> Yes, but in homeostatic systems all innovation is an exception to the
> rules too, leaving the issue back where it started it seems to me.  It's
> still the question of how changes that break the rules can be more
> creative than destructive.
>  
> > But was there ever A HABIT of riding a bike (analogous to a
> > gene for ....). No, the constraints that make it possible are
> > everywhere in the organism and in the environment.  
> Now aren't you slipping back into the old idea that all 'habits' of
> nature are imbedded in something other than the things that express
> them?   That would explain where the expressions come from perhaps,
> doesn't work.  I don't mind the observation that rivers flow where the
> valleys are, but it gets sticky when you also have to ask if the valleys
> then flow where the rivers are.  You need a means of *creating* form,
> not just mapping it from one place to another.
>
> >
> > In the metaphor above read "falling off the bike" as "death".
> >  So the organism can have the dual benefits of a tool box of
> > developmental "tools" that remain constant and the
> > flexibility in the face variable environments.
> Yes, precisely the point, 'tools' that are not prone to random
> dysfunction, a conserved organizational core, shielded from variation so
> that only successful experiments at the fringe are then later
> incorporated.  Put a time dimension on that and it's accumulating
> history dependent feedback.   How this process analogy gets connected to
> the genetic mechanism remains something of a gap, but the deepest core
> process 'tool' necessary seems to me to be to allow runaway divergences
> (say beomg toipped by the slope at a turn that teaches you the dangerous
> practice of banking rather than sitting bolt upright on a bike) combined
> with the reactions to either trap and eliminate such divergences from
> the established method(slamming on the brakes and getting off), or
> resolving them inventively in new method. (notice there's no template
> being impressed into the neutral form here, but alternate choices for
> how to resolve a divergence)
>  
> >
> > So it's NOT directed evolution.  its facilitated evolution.  
> by variation in a preferential history dependent direction.
>  
> > I am, by the way,VERY  familiar with the feeling that comes
> > when some highly funded Harvard guy gets a book out of
> > something that one has been
> > struggling with for years.   It's bitter sweet.  Bad side:
> > They got the
> > word out, not me! Good side  Hooray, the word is finally
> > out!!!!  I guess the truth is that we all do our little parts
> > in making the zeitgeist happen.  It is characteristic of
> > places like Harvard that they eat the cake that others have
> > been patiently baking,  
> It is absolutely true that messengers are often chosen for their ability
> to gloss over the facts where it is polite and politic, but they'd
> probably have a lot less to talk about if it wasn't for the jerks
> pointing out the functional necessities.  
>
> In talk as well as in nature I don't think you can have order without
> suppressing divergence and nor create order without making use of it.
>
> > But would any of us really be happy
> > at such a place???  I don't think so. Harvard would say that
> > they advance the cause of thought by bringing the Good People
> > together where they can do the Best Work. (cf SFI).  We dont
> > know, however, what damage is done to the local structures of
> > intellectual development when the "good" people are torn from
> > them.  It's like rats eating dodo eggs. It makes for
> > larger and better rats.  
>
> I'd certainly agree that each strain of the intellectual culture makes
> different kinds of valuable contributions.  In every bunch there are
> both the apologists and the fomenters, for example, sometimes abiding by
> large sets of polite rules for a game of manners, and sometimes more
> spirited.   I also think we're mostly all too timid, that there's a
> whole lot of people of all stripes who are not being daring enough
> within their own disciplines if modern civilization is to survive on
> earth, and that the way we're multiplying our global mistakes puts that
> in real doubt.  That being said, I've always also been rather impressed
> by Harvard in particular for continually supporting interesting and
> unfettered new work, and producing less useless verbiage.   Maybe it
> just seems to me they're in a position where they really aught to be
> abusing the hell out of it and oddly don't.  
>
> Phil
> btw, I plugged in the prior subject line in hopes it gets treated as a
> thread...
> >
> > Nick  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:55:50 -0500
> > > From: "phil henshaw" <pfh at synapse9.com>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] The Plausibility of Life('s confusing arguments)
> > > To: "'FRIAM'" <Friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <006001c747ab$c80b9350$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > > I read several of the key arguments in Kirschner &
> > Gerhart's book and
> > > found both more key confusions to match the tortured syntax of his
> > > title, and a silver lining.   On page 12, for example, if
> > you discard
> > > the social politics and just parse the reasoning, they
> > clearly assert
> > > that if an explanation could possibly be correct in any one
> > case it must
> > > therefore be true in all cases.   It's not that I don't
> > agree with the
> > > politics, it's that it's bad science.
> > >  
> > > Then in chapter seven, though, they clearly construct a
> > mode of positive
> > > feedback for evolutionary directed variation.   This is the
> > second such
> > > proposal I now know of, in addition to my own, and that
> > would indeed
> > > explain a whole lot that Darwinian style random variation leaves
> > > blank. In 1978 I called it "The Unhidden Pattern Of Events"
> > (and I've
> > > been exploring the possibilities for communicating it ever since!)  
> > > They propose that the "conserved processes","'during embryonic
> > > development" provide a core of "robustness" because "physiological
> > > adaptability suppresses lethality" so that variation at
> > that stage is less
> > > destructive than creative.  
> > >  
> > > Their model may seem stated rather vaguely, but these
> > things can take
> > > several tries.   Still it's quite similar in form and intent to my
> > > latest proposal that genetic feedback would be the natural
> > result of
> > > selection applied to changes in a core & branch developmental
> > > structure, allowing the tips of the organizational branches to
> > > 'explore' their local peaks and valleys of new possibility.
> >  The other
> > > one I know of taking this line is Peter Allen's model of change in
> > > socio-economic systems (ECO 11/2/06) in which he also
> > explains variation as directing a
> > > core system to "explore" local pathways of possibilities.  
> > The common
> > > link is that they all describe somewhat plausible ways in which the
> > > variation would be at a developmental fringe of organization and
> > > excluded from a core of resolved and stable structure.  
> > That's part of
> > > what I'd like to publish in my plankton paper anyway, if
> > anyone would
> > > let a very well constructed independent perspective get through the
> > > door.
> > >  
> > > Some might wonder why there's a struggle to find better ways to
> > > explain something that's supposed to have already been
> > explained.  The
> > > problem with Darwin is the certainty that all evolution
> > occurs by only one
> > > unsatisfactory means.   Directed selection by itself is
> > unsatisfactory
> > > because it simply does not make new species.   It makes all kinds of
> > > different breeds of any one species, like all the kinds of
> > dogs that are
> > > still grey wolfs as a species, but they're not new species.   New
> > > species are things that may come about by multiple means,
> > but frequently
> > > by sudden appearances.   For those you need a kind of incremental
> > > process that also produces a rapid and coordinated change
> > of state, a
> > > dynamic process that begins and ends.   Feedback systems,
> > by combining
> > > directed variation with directed selection, do that
> > handily.   I really
> > > wish I could find a journal competent in discussing the data of
> > > speciation that doesn't abhor the idea that it might involve a
> > > transient process!
> > >  
> > >
> > > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > > NY NY 10040                      
> > > tel: [phone]                
> > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> > > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
>

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Nick,

> Phil,
>
> In general I agree with you.  I just make an exception for
> PLAUSIBILITY OF LIFE.  Oh.  And.  Whatever happened before
> the Big Bang.  
>
> (you know those cans of springy things you used to be able to
> get at joke shops.  So it says walnuts or something, but when
> you open it the top flies off and all these springs come out.
>  It's a trick to compress all those springs in that can to
> set the joke up.  That is how I imagine God and the Pre-Big-Bang.  

Well, the physicists have found it logically necessary to conclude the
universe had an explosive growth period, it may be we'll find it was an
emergent system like any other once the question has been asked and
explored a little...

> So much in your message it made my head spin.  Let's focus on
> one issue here and see if we can get it tidied up.  
>
> You say PLAUSIBILITY argues for directed evolution; I say it
> argues for facilitated evolution; you say there is no
> difference between the two:  Do I have us straight so far????  
I guess how you ask any question makes a difference.  Some people
interpret the word 'directed' as if you were talking about some outside
force or power of will or unavoidable embedded structure or inherent
plan etc.  My interpretation of those is that as explanations they just
pass the buck.  For me the word 'directed' means more that the process
'has a direction' rather than it is 'being directed'.  To say
'facilitated' to me means the same thing as gives or enables
'direction'.  To facilitate is to allow or enable something else to take
a direction, in this case the only 'agent' around, the evolving system.
The thing you need for humming birds and two inch flowers to co-evolve
is that they give direction to each other some how.  Random variation
doesn't seem to do that somehow.
 

> If so, let's deny ourselves the use of EITHER word and see if
> we can make the distinction.  
>
> I think PLAUSIBILITY is claiming that while the direction of
> evolution is somewhat predictible (because of environmental
> changes and the constraints of developmental building blocks)
> it is not controlled, as, say, the
> temperature in our apartment is [not] controlled by its
> thermostat.   So,
> predictable, but not regulated.  

Yes, in the simple sense, not regulated or controlled.  I would hesitate
to say we are able to understand the few tendencies observable in
evolution, though they mean some things can be expected and others are
rare.  The puzzle can be thought of as trying to identify the player of
the game.   Big complicated systems that seem to work by magic anyway,
and then suddenly they go through brief whole system transformations in
a coordinated way for no apparent reason.  What animates that I my
question.

>
> I associate direction with goal correction, and I think
> PLAUSIBILITY does also.  I think this the basis for their
> distinction between direction and and facilitation.  But, as
> I said, I do not have the book before me.  
I don't generally associate direction with goals, I associate it with
flow and path, with the physical process equivalent of the having
continuity and higher derivative rates.   Going from discontinuity to
many layers of derivatives is one of the identifying features of
systemization, and that, more than a preordained end point is what I see
as having direction.   My trick is to see systems as little whirly gigs
that are off exploring the terrain around them.  I don't always see how,
but they all seem to have the tell-tale signs of doing it somehow.

>
> I am half way through Carrol's Endless forms. So far he seems
> to be leaning pretty heavily on the "genefur" notion (as in,
> "genefur blue eyes"), but I should be fair and give them the
> benefit of the doubt.  
I think I'm supposed to remember what that means...

> As we have this discussion, let's try to have it in little
> pieces for a while; see if we can makes some progress and
> build some confidence.  As Wittegenstein said, In philosophy,
> if you arent moving slowly you arent moving.  Or was that W.  
W.?
I haven't looked at Carroll's book yet.  The trick is to look at
evidence and let the patterns transform you without transforming them.
I seem to take wild stabs at things, but it's partly because I don't get
invested in them that way.   Sometimes I just build notions to watch how
they fall apart.  If someone responds I do clean things up quickly, but
I'm not actually very goal directed.   It's one of the reasons I can
wander off down the strange side paths I explore.  Going slow is just
fine, there's usually lots to see.  

Phil

>
> N.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com>
> > To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied
> > Complexity
> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> > Date: 2/4/2007 7:15:17 AM
> > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] The Plausibility of Life('s confusing
> arguments)
> >
> > Nick,
> >
> > > Phil,
> > >
> > > I am so hot on Plausibility of Life that I bought 4 cc to
> > > circulate here amongst the SAF folks.  So I wont hear a WORD
> > > against it.  NOT A SINGLE WORD.  
> > Well, if skeptics are not ALLOWED... I guess it's not science.  I
> > really think a lot of sloppy thinking is hidden from us by
> our habits of
> > celebrating our own prejudices.   My point is that you can
> spot people
> > milking one's own prejudices, and it helps expose very interesting
> > issues that are 'hidden in sight'.
> >  
> > > I would mount a stalwart defense of it, except that my copy
> > > is buried at the bottom of one of three HUGE book boxes I
> > > sent from the east that I have not the courage (nor book
> > > cases to open).  Nonetheless, I will offer the following.
> > >
> > > I thought their point was exactly that evolution was not
> > > directed but that it was predicated; i.e., highly
> > > circumscribed by that which has gone before.  
> >
> > My approach is more direct about the 'nuanced' type of directed
> > variation they admit to be critical.  To me 'historically
> dependent'
> > progression means variation localized in the direction of recent
> > variation.  Traditional Darwinian variation is random.  
> Maybe they try
> > to keep a lid on it, saying that their model still uses
> only 'random
> > variation' (with respect to the selection mechanisms), but
> then they
> > emphasize the strong directional tendency to the variation
> one would
> > get if one somehow eliminated all the dysfunctional stuff.  I think
> > they do that because it resolves Darwin's dilemma, that
> random variation with
> > respect to the design of life would be largely destructive.
>   Why people
> > have not been open to discussing that seems partly due to the
> > defensive political position scientists have taken and
> that's one of
> > the things that drew my attention to it.
> >
> > > Strings of
> > > nucleotides and the cascades of enzyme events that they
> > > facilitate get built in over time.  They become, in the
> > > jargon of the book, highly conserved.  The interrelations
> > > between these sequence are governed by "weak linkages", so it
> > > is possible for a environmental event or a genetic event or a
> > > hormonal event to turn on and off whole functionally
> > > organized cascades of developmental events (OH, THOMPSON,
> > > BLAH, BLAH, BLAH).  
> > yep, and another is the possible random walks of neutral
> traits that
> > in circumstantial combination with other things happen to suddenly
> > become non-neutral.  I see those and other plausible large scale
> > impacts of small changes to be mainly beside the point.  
> Those don't
> > explain progressions of change and you require progressions
> of change
> > to produce coordinated whole system change.  In other
> words, you still
> > need a reason why such large (or any) changes should be
> biased toward
> > constructive rather than destructive effect.   Just saying variation
> > must be biased to the constructive because life exists, a hidden
> > assertion people seem to me to have always been making, doesn't say
> > for what mode of variation that applies.
> >
> > >
> > > OK, start again.  Think about how a kid learns to ride a
> > > bicycle.  She already has several highly conserved core
> > > processes available to her .... balance, cornering, looming
> > > of objects when going forward,  features of the pedaling
> > > motion which are similar to running, etc.  The physics of the
> > > situation also provide many Constance as say, the relation
> > > between the tilt of the bike and the tendency of the
> > > handlebars to flop to the right or left.  (somebody PLEASE
> > > explain to me about angular momentum using very small
> > > words!).  The kid struggles to assemble the core
> processes in such a
> > > way that the bike doesn't fall over.   Given the goal of
> > > moving forward and
> > > not falling down, the physics constrains this assemblage to
> > > certain combinations.... (when you start to feel the bike
> > > tilt to the right, turn your handle bars to the right.  So
> > > eventually, the whole mess gets put together in a functional
> > > passage.  
> > Yes, but in homeostatic systems all innovation is an
> exception to the
> > rules too, leaving the issue back where it started it seems to me.  
> > It's still the question of how changes that break the rules can be
> > more creative than destructive.
> >  
> > > But was there ever A HABIT of riding a bike (analogous to a
> > > gene for ....). No, the constraints that make it possible are
> > > everywhere in the organism and in the environment.  
> > Now aren't you slipping back into the old idea that all 'habits' of
> > nature are imbedded in something other than the things that express
> > them?   That would explain where the expressions come from perhaps,
> > doesn't work.  I don't mind the observation that rivers
> flow where the
> > valleys are, but it gets sticky when you also have to ask if the
> > valleys then flow where the rivers are.  You need a means of
> > *creating* form, not just mapping it from one place to another.
> >
> > >
> > > In the metaphor above read "falling off the bike" as "death".
> > >  So the organism can have the dual benefits of a tool box of
> > > developmental "tools" that remain constant and the
> > > flexibility in the face variable environments.
> > Yes, precisely the point, 'tools' that are not prone to random
> > dysfunction, a conserved organizational core, shielded from
> variation
> > so that only successful experiments at the fringe are then later
> > incorporated.  Put a time dimension on that and it's accumulating
> > history dependent feedback.   How this process analogy gets
> connected to
> > the genetic mechanism remains something of a gap, but the
> deepest core
> > process 'tool' necessary seems to me to be to allow runaway
> > divergences (say beomg toipped by the slope at a turn that
> teaches you
> > the dangerous practice of banking rather than sitting bolt
> upright on
> > a bike) combined with the reactions to either trap and
> eliminate such
> > divergences from the established method(slamming on the brakes and
> > getting off), or resolving them inventively in new method. (notice
> > there's no template being impressed into the neutral form here, but
> > alternate choices for how to resolve a divergence)
> >  
> > >
> > > So it's NOT directed evolution.  its facilitated evolution.
> > by variation in a preferential history dependent direction.
> >  
> > > I am, by the way,VERY  familiar with the feeling that comes
> > > when some highly funded Harvard guy gets a book out of
> > > something that one has been
> > > struggling with for years.   It's bitter sweet.  Bad side:
> > > They got the
> > > word out, not me! Good side  Hooray, the word is finally
> > > out!!!!  I guess the truth is that we all do our little parts
> > > in making the zeitgeist happen.  It is characteristic of
> > > places like Harvard that they eat the cake that others have
> > > been patiently baking,  
> > It is absolutely true that messengers are often chosen for their
> > ability to gloss over the facts where it is polite and politic, but
> > they'd probably have a lot less to talk about if it wasn't
> for the jerks
> > pointing out the functional necessities.  
> >
> > In talk as well as in nature I don't think you can have
> order without
> > suppressing divergence and nor create order without making
> use of it.
> >
> > > But would any of us really be happy
> > > at such a place???  I don't think so. Harvard would say that
> > > they advance the cause of thought by bringing the Good People
> > > together where they can do the Best Work. (cf SFI).  We dont
> > > know, however, what damage is done to the local structures of
> > > intellectual development when the "good" people are torn from
> > > them.  It's like rats eating dodo eggs. It makes for
> > > larger and better rats.  
> >
> > I'd certainly agree that each strain of the intellectual
> culture makes
> > different kinds of valuable contributions.  In every bunch
> there are
> > both the apologists and the fomenters, for example,
> sometimes abiding
> > by large sets of polite rules for a game of manners, and
> sometimes more
> > spirited.   I also think we're mostly all too timid, that there's a
> > whole lot of people of all stripes who are not being daring enough
> > within their own disciplines if modern civilization is to
> survive on
> > earth, and that the way we're multiplying our global mistakes puts
> > that in real doubt.  That being said, I've always also been rather
> > impressed by Harvard in particular for continually
> supporting interesting and
> > unfettered new work, and producing less useless verbiage.   Maybe it
> > just seems to me they're in a position where they really
> aught to be
> > abusing the hell out of it and oddly don't.
> >
> > Phil
> > btw, I plugged in the prior subject line in hopes it gets
> treated as a
> > thread...
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Message: 1
> > > > Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:55:50 -0500
> > > > From: "phil henshaw" <pfh at synapse9.com>
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] The Plausibility of Life('s confusing
> arguments)
> > > > To: "'FRIAM'" <Friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <006001c747ab$c80b9350$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > > I read several of the key arguments in Kirschner &
> > > Gerhart's book and
> > > > found both more key confusions to match the tortured
> syntax of his
> > > > title, and a silver lining.   On page 12, for example, if
> > > you discard
> > > > the social politics and just parse the reasoning, they
> > > clearly assert
> > > > that if an explanation could possibly be correct in any one
> > > case it must
> > > > therefore be true in all cases.   It's not that I don't
> > > agree with the
> > > > politics, it's that it's bad science.
> > > >  
> > > > Then in chapter seven, though, they clearly construct a
> > > mode of positive
> > > > feedback for evolutionary directed variation.   This is the
> > > second such
> > > > proposal I now know of, in addition to my own, and that
> > > would indeed
> > > > explain a whole lot that Darwinian style random variation leaves
> > > > blank. In 1978 I called it "The Unhidden Pattern Of Events"
> > > (and I've
> > > > been exploring the possibilities for communicating it
> ever since!)
> > > > They propose that the "conserved processes","'during embryonic
> > > > development" provide a core of "robustness" because
> "physiological
> > > > adaptability suppresses lethality" so that variation at
> > > that stage is less
> > > > destructive than creative.  
> > > >  
> > > > Their model may seem stated rather vaguely, but these
> > > things can take
> > > > several tries.   Still it's quite similar in form and
> intent to my
> > > > latest proposal that genetic feedback would be the natural
> > > result of
> > > > selection applied to changes in a core & branch developmental
> > > > structure, allowing the tips of the organizational branches to
> > > > 'explore' their local peaks and valleys of new possibility.
> > >  The other
> > > > one I know of taking this line is Peter Allen's model
> of change in
> > > > socio-economic systems (ECO 11/2/06) in which he also
> > > explains variation as directing a
> > > > core system to "explore" local pathways of possibilities.  
> > > The common
> > > > link is that they all describe somewhat plausible ways in which
> > > > the
> > > > variation would be at a developmental fringe of organization and
> > > > excluded from a core of resolved and stable structure.  
> > > That's part of
> > > > what I'd like to publish in my plankton paper anyway, if
> > > anyone would
> > > > let a very well constructed independent perspective get through
> > > > the
> > > > door.
> > > >  
> > > > Some might wonder why there's a struggle to find better ways to
> > > > explain something that's supposed to have already been
> > > explained.  The
> > > > problem with Darwin is the certainty that all evolution
> > > occurs by only one
> > > > unsatisfactory means.   Directed selection by itself is
> > > unsatisfactory
> > > > because it simply does not make new species.   It makes
> all kinds of
> > > > different breeds of any one species, like all the kinds of
> > > dogs that are
> > > > still grey wolfs as a species, but they're not new
> species.   New
> > > > species are things that may come about by multiple means,
> > > but frequently
> > > > by sudden appearances.   For those you need a kind of
> incremental
> > > > process that also produces a rapid and coordinated change
> > > of state, a
> > > > dynamic process that begins and ends.   Feedback systems,
> > > by combining
> > > > directed variation with directed selection, do that
> > > handily.   I really
> > > > wish I could find a journal competent in discussing the data of
> > > > speciation that doesn't abhor the idea that it might involve a
> > > > transient process!
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > > > NY NY 10040                      
> > > > tel: [phone]                
> > > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> > > > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
> >
>
>
>