Friam

What evolves?

Classic

List

Threaded

22 messages Options

Russ Abbott

What evolves?

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species. Besides, the very notion of species is controversial. (But that's a different discussion.)

Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its subject?

An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it more clearly?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Eric Charles

Re: What evolves?

Russ,
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.

This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.

I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you say.

Eric

On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species. Besides, the very notion of species is <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/" onclick="window.open('http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/');return false;">controversial. (But that's a different discussion.)

Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its subject?

An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it more clearly?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Nick Thompson

Re: What evolves?

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Russ,

I hope has been clear to everybody from the start that I am not a proper biologist. My degree is in psychology and my postdoctoral year was as an ethologist. I will leave it to Eric to tell you the same thing about himself.

If you ask me on my best days, I will say that what evolves are taxa. Nothing individual can evolve. To me, evolution is just the flexing of taxa to match the circumstances of their time. It is this that natural selection explains..

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

From: Russ Abbott [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:25 PM
To: FRIAM
Cc: Thompson, Nick; Eric Charles
Subject: What evolves?

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Nick Thompson

Re: What evolves?

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

Dear Victoria,

The word “evolution” has a history before biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those uses. I think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and referred to the unfolding of a flower. The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker happens to approve of. As in, “society is evolving.” The term devolution comes out of that misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The development of the British empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.

Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to recognize that the use of the term, “evolution”, implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*

Nick Thompson

*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

A couple of other questions then:

What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if not why not, etc

and

Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a different word for it?

ie:

If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what is positive and sustainable?

One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc

Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does that mean it is good?

There is often a confusion between description and purpose.

I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the long term.

This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.

I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?

Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the great phrase, NIck-

Victoria

On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Steve Smith

Re: What evolves?

Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..

I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as impressive as yours!   Now *there* is some personal evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack there Nick!"

I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of.   I appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more strict sense.

I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution. At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of evolution... biological evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some sense.

When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know today (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant and that the cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their ancestors, they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new niche which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for land locomotion.

Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the biosphere? Do we not see the increasing complexity (and heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde evolution in the biosphere?   Or to a single one (humans with very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object terran biosphere.

Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at the same time. In this context the only use of "devolve" or "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity again... a biological niche whose major elements die off completely somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland seas when they become too briny (and polluted) to support life?

I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of evolution/devolution).

- Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)

Dear Victoria,

The word “evolution” has a history before biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those uses. I think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and referred to the unfolding of a flower. The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker happens to approve of. As in, “society is evolving.” The term devolution comes out of that misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The development of the British empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.

Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to recognize that the use of the term, “evolution”, implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*

Nick Thompson

*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

A couple of other questions then:

What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if not why not, etc

and

Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a different word for it?

ie:

If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what is positive and sustainable?

One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc

Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does that mean it is good?

There is often a confusion between description and purpose.

I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the long term.

This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.

I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?

Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the great phrase, NIck-

Victoria

On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Russ,
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.

This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.

I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you say.

Eric

On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species. Besides, the very notion of species is controversial. (But that's a different discussion.)

Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its subject?

An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it more clearly?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: What evolves?

Steve:

This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human hand.?

Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the question wrong, it should have been horses “forearm”)

Why? Because the word “advanced” means just “altered from the ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the hand.” That ancestral structure was a hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own hand. The horse’s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many more steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures. Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is given to irony.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

Dear Victoria,

Nick Thompson

*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

A couple of other questions then:

What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if not why not, etc

and

Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a different word for it?

ie:

If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what is positive and sustainable?

Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does that mean it is good?

There is often a confusion between description and purpose.

I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?

Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the great phrase, NIck-

Victoria

On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Prof David West

Re: What evolves?

minor points

1- evolution takes a singular subject - some individual thing evolves.

2- what originally evolved was a book or scroll - i.e. it unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded hence evolved.

3- a human evolves - according to homunculus theory of embryology - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription of evolution as unrolling.

4- things go awry when evolvution is metaphorically applied to the plural - e.g. taxa, species. To make it work the plural must be reified as singular.

5- an error of a different sort is made when evolution is applied to society or some other multi-component system which is singular and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the word. The error is forgetting that there is really only one system (The Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or The Infinite Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go all quantum on me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined subsets that are still part of the whole - an encapsulation error.

6- yet another error is made - as Nick points out - when a subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of the book is more profound than the first simply because it was the last revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom because it came first in a sequence). [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific" discipline filled hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all carefully arranged in rows in order to prove that the brain contained within the skulls reached its 'evolutionary' apex with 19th century northern European males.]

7- devolution - if allowed at all - would reflect a similar superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight line - e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves into a withered remnant of less value than either.

dave west

On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve:

This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human hand.?

Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the question wrong, it should have been horses “forearm”)

Why? Because the word “advanced” means just “altered from the ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the hand.” That ancestral structure was a hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own hand. The horse’s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many more steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures. Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is given to irony.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..

I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as impressive as yours!   Now *there* is some personal evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack there Nick!"

I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of.   I appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more strict sense.

I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution. At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of evolution... biological evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some sense.

When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know today (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant and that the cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their ancestors, they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new niche which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for land locomotion.

Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the biosphere? Do we not see the increasing complexity (and heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde evolution in the biosphere?   Or to a single one (humans with very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object terran biosphere.

Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at the same time. In this context the only use of "devolve" or "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity again... a biological niche whose major elements die off completely somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland seas when they become too briny (and polluted) to support life?

I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of evolution/devolution).

- Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)

Dear Victoria,

The word “evolution” has a history before biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those uses. I think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and referred to the unfolding of a flower.   The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker happens to approve of. As in, “society is evolving.” The term devolution comes out of that misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The development of the British empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.

Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to recognize that the use of the term, “evolution”, implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*

Nick Thompson

*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

A couple of other questions then:

What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if not why not, etc

and

Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a different word for it?

ie:

If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what is positive and sustainable?

One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc

Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does that mean it is good?

There is often a confusion between description and purpose.

I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the long term.

This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.

I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?

Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the great phrase, NIck-

Victoria

On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Russ,
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.

This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.

I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you say.

Eric

On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species. Besides, the very notion of species is controversial. (But that's a different discussion.)

Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its subject?

An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it more clearly?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: What evolves?

Dave -

Can you put my assumption that one can speak meaningfully of the evolution of
a "system" or "subsystem" into the context of your "minor points"?

What of co-evolution of interdependent species (humans/grains,
megafauna/megafruit, predator/prey/forage networks, etc.) or of a "network"
thereof? e.g. Whence Pollenating Insects w/o Pollen Plants, etc?

Is it as simple as declaring them to be singular (taken as a whole sub-system
of the Universe)? Or is this entirely a misuse in your view?

Thanks to Nick for inserting the term "Creodic" into the discussion. I
suppose this is a fundamental issue in the Creationism debate? In some sense,
the more receptive of the Creationists might allow "Biological Evolution" if
it were essentially *creodic* (the world unfolding under the benevolent eye
and predestined plan of God in this case?) as you say?

- Steve

> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> --_----------=_1305050715233870
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400
> X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
>
> minor points
>
> 1- evolution takes a singular subject - some individual thing
> evolves.
>
> 2- what originally evolved was a book or scroll - i.e. it
> unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded hence
> evolved.
>
> 3- a human evolves - according to homunculus theory of embryology
> - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription of
> evolution as unrolling.
>
> 4- things go awry when evolvution is metaphorically applied to
> the plural - e.g. taxa, species. To make it work the plural must
> be reified as singular.
>
> 5- an error of a different sort is made when evolution is applied
> to society or some other multi-component system which is singular
> and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the
> word. The error is forgetting that there is really only one
> system (The Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or
> The Infinite Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go
> all quantum on me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily
> defined subsets that are still part of the whole - an
> encapsulation error.
>
> 6- yet another error is made - as Nick points out - when a
> subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of
> arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of
> the book is more profound than the first simply because it was
> the last revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom
> because it came first in a sequence). [Aside: Anthropology as a
> "scientific" discipline filled hundreds of museums with thousands
> of skulls all carefully arranged in rows in order to prove that
> the brain contained within the skulls reached its 'evolutionary'
> apex with 19th century northern European males.]
>
> 7- devolution - if allowed at all - would reflect a similar
> superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight line -
> e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves
> into a withered remnant of less value than either.
>
> dave west
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Steve:
>
>
> This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse=E2=80=99s hoof or a
> human hand.?
>
>
> Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the
> question wrong, it should have been horses =E2=80=9Cforearm=E2=80=9D)
>
>
> Why? Because the word =E2=80=9Cadvanced=E2=80=9D means just =E2=80=9Calter=
> ed from the
> ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the
> hand.=E2=80=9D That ancestral structure was a hand-like paw, perhaps
> like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own hand.
> The horse=E2=80=99s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a hand
> where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many more
> steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures.
> Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is
> given to irony.
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
>
>
> Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..
> I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are
> sagging and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his
> face not so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half
> as impressive as yours! Now *there* is some personal
> evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice
> rack there Nick!"
> I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one
> of the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do*
> want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or
> political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of. I
> appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is
> problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more
> strict sense.
> I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution
> which of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of
> devolution. At the same time, there are what appear to be
> "retrograde" arcs of evolution... biological evolution, by
> definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions which may
> lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some sense.
> When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know
> today (whales and dolphins) their
> walking/climbing/crawling/grasping appendages returned to
> functioning as swimming appendages. One might consider that a
> retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to say that being a
> land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant and that the
> cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their ancestors,
> they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new niche
> which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for
> land locomotion.
> Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the
> biosphere? Do we not see the increasing complexity (and
> heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive,
> more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of
> species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens,
> corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde
> evolution in the biosphere? Or to a single one (humans with
> very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In
> this description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to
> the object terran biosphere.
> Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of
> species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single
> species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and
> shapes at the same time. In this context the only use of
> "devolve" or "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to
> complexity again... a biological niche whose major elements die
> off completely somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the
> pre-desert Sahara perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland
> seas when they become too briny (and polluted) to support life?
> I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe
> I'm undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful
> use of evolution/devolution).
> - Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)
>
> Dear Victoria,
>
>
> The word =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D has a history before biologists made o=
> ff
> with it, but I can=E2=80=99t speak to those uses. I think it first came
> into use in biology to refer to development and referred to the
> unfolding of a flower. The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully
> is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker
> happens to approve of. As in, =E2=80=9Csociety is evolving.=E2=80=9D The=
> term
> devolution comes out of that misappropriation. One of the
> properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical
> structure and predictable order. The development of the British
> empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution.
> Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken
> over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called
> Devolution.
>
>
> Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to
> recognize that the use of the term, =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D, implies a =
> values
> stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for granted that
> we all share the same values, if we hope to have a =E2=80=9Chighly
> evolved=E2=80=9D discussion (};-])*
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
>
> *=E2=80=94old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> [1]http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> [2]http://www.cusf.org
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [3][hidden email]
> [[4]mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria
> Hughes
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
>
>
>
> A couple of other questions then:
>
> What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion,
> if not why not, etc
>
> and
>
> Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a
> different word for it?
>
> ie:
>
> If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding
> what is positive and sustainable?
>
>
> One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have
> 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very
> problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between
> different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each
> other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is
> that evolution? if so why, etc
>
> Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written,
> does that mean it is good?
>
> There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
>
>
> I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it
> must be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an
> upper limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the
> only perspective that holds up in the long term.
>
>
> This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the
> intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve
> into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by
> reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and
> writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.
>
> I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?
>
>
> Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the
> great phrase, NIck-
>
>
> Victoria
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
>
> Russ,
> Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave
> a little, and get more specific if he does not.
> This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual
> confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often
> people do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least
> they do not know the implications of what they are asserting. The
> three most common options are that "the species evolves", "the
> trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, but
> increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment
> system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people
> increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams
> solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it
> to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face
> of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An
> chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this
> introduces all sorts of devious problems.
> I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species
> evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the
> multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve.
> The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes
> it hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would
> let you say.
> Eric
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott
> <[5][hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple
> question.
>
>
> When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we
> all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what
> is it that evolves?
>
>
> We generally mean more by evolution than just that change
> occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term.
> We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a
> species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right
> since evolution also involves the creation of new species.
> Besides, the very notion of species is [6]controversial. (But
> that's a different discussion.)
>
>
> Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an
> entity, that evolves? The question is not just limited to
> biological evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers.
> But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence
> "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for
> its subject?
>
>
> An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is
> really "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me
> that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by
> "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is
> (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize
> it more clearly?
>
>
> I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially
> interested in what biologists have to say about this.
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
> Eric Charles
> Professional Student and
> Assistant Professor of Psychology
> Penn State University
> Altoona, PA 16601
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at [7]http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at [8]http://www.friam.org
>
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> References
>
> 1. http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 2. http://www.cusf.org/
> 3. mailto:[hidden email]
> 4. mailto:[hidden email]
> 5. mailto:[hidden email]
> 6. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/
> 7. http://www.friam.org/
> 8. http://www.friam.org/
>
> --_----------=_1305050715233870
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400
> X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
>
> <!--/*SC*/DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"/*EC*/-->
> <html><head><title></title><style type="text/css"></style></head><body><div
style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;" dir="ltr"><div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">minor points</span></div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">1- evolution takes a singular subject - some
individual thing evolves.</span></div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">2- what originally evolved was a book or
scroll - i.e. it unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded
hence evolved.</span></div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">3- a human evolves - according to homunculus
theory of embryology - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription
of evolution as unrolling.</span></div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">4- things go awry when evolvution is
metaphorically applied to the plural - e.g. taxa, species.  To make it
work the plural must be reified as singular.</span></div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">5- an error of a different sort is made when
evolution is applied to society or some other multi-component system which is
singular and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the
word.  The error is forgetting that there is really only one system (The
Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or The Infinite Infinity of
Universes of Universes if you want to go all quantum on me) - all other named
systems are arbitrarily defined subsets that are still part of the whole - an
encapsulation error.</span></div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">6- yet another error is made - as Nick
points out - when a subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of
arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of the book is
more profound than the first simply because it was the last revealed - or the
bud is somehow less than the blossom because it came first in a sequence).
[Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific" discipline filled hundreds of
museums with thousands of skulls all carefully arranged in rows in order to
prove that the brain contained within the skulls reached its
'evolutionary' apex with 19th century northern European
males.]</span></div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">7- devolution - if allowed at all - would
reflect a similar superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight
line - e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves into a
withered remnant of less value than either.</span></div>

> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
> <span style="font-size:small;">dave west</span></div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> <div class="defangedMessage">
> <div id="me48497">
> <div>
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas  Thompson"

<[hidden email]> wrote:</div>
> <blockquote class="me48497QuoteMessage" type="cite">
> <style type="text/css"></style>
> <div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; ">
> <div class="me48497WordSection1">
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This
is sort of fun:  Which is more advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human
hand.? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Answer:
the hoof is way more advanced.  (Actually I asked the question wrong, it
should have been horses “forearm”)  <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Why? 
Because the word “advanced” means just “altered from the
ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the hand.” 
That ancestral structure was a  hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a
raccoon, only a few steps back from our own hand.  The horse’s hoof
is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a hand where every other digit has
shrunk to almost nothing.  Many more steps away.  Humans are in many
ways very primitive creatures.  Viruses are very advanced, having lost
everything!  Our Maker is given to irony.  <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <div>
> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt
0in 0in 0in">
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span style="font-weight: bold"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] <span
style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of </span>Steve Smith<br />
> <span style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Tuesday, May 10, 2011
10:12 AM<br />
> <span style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday Morning
Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br />
> <span style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM] What
evolves?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> </div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <o:p> </o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..<br />
> <br />
> I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging
and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so
much.  I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as impressive as
yours!   Now *there* is some personal evolution!  To use a
particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack there Nick!"<br />
> <br />
> I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of
the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want to use
the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or political (or personal)
change they approve/disapprove of.   I appreciate Victoria asking
this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social circles to use
Evolution in it's more strict sense.<br />
> <br />
> I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which
of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution. 
At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of
evolution...  biological evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to
changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some
sense. <br />
> <br />
> When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know today
(whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping appendages
returned to functioning as swimming appendages.  One might consider that
a retrograde bit of evolution.  That is not to say that being a land
inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant and that the
cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their ancestors, 
they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new niche which selects
for appendages for swimming over appendages for land locomotion.<br />
> <br />
> Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the
biosphere?  Do we not see the increasing complexity (and heirarchies) of
the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust?  Would the
replacement of the current diversity of species on the planet to a small
number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense
retrograde evolution in the biosphere?   Or to a single one (humans
with very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this
description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object
terran biosphere.<br />
> <br />
> Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of
species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single species
independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at the same
time.  In this context the only use of "devolve" or
"retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity
again...  a biological niche whose major elements die off completely
somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara
perhaps?  The Interglacial tundras?  The inland seas when they
become too briny (and polluted) to support life? <br />
> <br />
> I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm
undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of
evolution/devolution).<br />
> <br />
> - Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)<br />
>  <br />
> <br />
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Dear
Victoria, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The
word “evolution” has a history before biologists made off with it,
but I can’t speak to those uses.  I think it first came into use in
biology to refer to development and referred to the unfolding of a
flower.   The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to
whatever social  or political change the speaker happens to  approve
of.  As in, “society is evolving.”  The term devolution
comes out of that misappropriation.  One of the properties that some
people approve of is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable
order.  The development of the British empire would have been, to those
people, a case of evolution.  Thus, when parliaments were formed and
government functions taken over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was
called Devolution.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Perhaps
most important in any discussion along these lines is to recognize that the
use of the term, “evolution”, implies a values stance of some sort
and that we should NOT take for granted that we all share the same values,
 if we hope to have a “highly evolved” discussion
(};-])*</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Nick
Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">*—old
bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Nicholas
S. Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Emeritus
Professor of Psychology and Biology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Clark
University</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><a
href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/">http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><a
href="http://www.cusf.org/">http://www.cusf.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <div>
> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color">
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span style="font-weight: bold"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a
href="mailto:[hidden email]">[hidden email]</a> [<a
href="mailto:[hidden email]">mailto:[hidden email]</a>]
<span style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of </span>Victoria Hughes<br />
> <span style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Monday, May 09, 2011
8:26 PM<br />
> <span style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday Morning
Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br />
> <span style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM] What
evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>

> </div>
> </div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> <div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> A couple of other questions then: <o:p></o:p></p>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion,

if not why not, etc<o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> and <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a
different word for it?<o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> ie: <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is
deciding what is positive and sustainable? <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have
'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic
or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different areas of the brain,
often in direct opposition to each other and leading to personal and
large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc<o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written,
does that mean it is good?<o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below:
ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system evolves"
or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is
the only perspective that holds up in the long term. <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the
intangible.  We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into
something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading and
occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing skills in this
brilliant and eclectic context. <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same
thrill? <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the
great phrase, NIck-<o:p></o:p></p>

> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> Victoria<o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> <div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <br />
> <br />
> <br />
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> Russ,<br />
> Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll

hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.<br />
> <br />
> This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual
confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people do not
quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not know the
implications of what they are asserting. The three most common options are
that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves", or
"the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular option
is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the course
of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the genes",
with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it
to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of
overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken is just
an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this introduces all sorts of
devious problems.<br />
> <br />
> I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species
evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level
selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The latter is certainly
accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard to say somethings you'd
think a theory of evolution would let you say. <br />
> <br />
> Eric<br />
> <br />
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, <span style="font-weight:
bold">Russ Abbott <<a
href="mailto:[hidden email]">[hidden email]</a>></span>
wrote:<br />
> <br />
> <br />
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"51)","serif"">I'm
hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple
question.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">When we use the term <span
style="font-style: italic">evolution</span>, we have something in mind that we
all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that
evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">We generally mean more by <span
style="font-style: italic">evolution </span>than just that change
occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally
think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of
course that's not quite right since evolution also involves
the creation of new species. Besides, the very notion of species
is <a
href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/">controversial</a>. (But
that's a different discussion.)  </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">Is it appropriate to say that
there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is not just
limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers.
But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X
evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for
its subject?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">An alternative is to say that
what we mean by "X evolves" is really
"evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me
that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by
"evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is
(intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it more
clearly?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">I'm copying Nick and Eric
explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to
say about this.</span><br clear="all" />
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> <div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003333"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <span style="font-style: italic"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003333">--
Russ </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>

> </div>
> </div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> </div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
> Eric Charles<br />
> <br />
> Professional Student and<br />
> Assistant Professor of Psychology<br />
> Penn State University<br />
> Altoona, PA 16601<br />
> <br />
> <br />
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> ============================================================<br />
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br />
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br />
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a

href="http://www.friam.org">http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>

> </div>
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> </div>
> </div>
> </div>
> </div>
> <pre>
> <o:p> </o:p></pre>
> <pre>
> <o:p> </o:p></pre>
> <pre>
> ============================================================<o:p></o:p></pre>
> <pre>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></pre>
> <pre>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<o:p></o:p></pre>
> <pre>
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a

href="http://www.friam.org">http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>

> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> <o:p> </o:p></p>
> </div>
> <pre>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> </pre>
> </div>
> </blockquote>
> </div>
> </div>
> <div>
>  </div>
> </div></body></html>
> --_----------=_1305050715233870--
>
>
>

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Prof David West

Re: What evolves?

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Russ,

By "fitness" I mean nothing more than 'void filling' - much like when grinding a telescope mirror - the mirror 'fits' the template when there is no perceptible difference between the two curves - when the graphite powder shows no voids.

To deal with "process" and "what goes through the process" I have to make explicit a presupposition that I do not believe to be fundamentally "true" - i.e. there are two kinds of 'stuff' living stuff (what I previously called DNA stuff) and non-living stuff.

Given this presupposition - the non-living stuff provides an n-dimensional context that is not contiguous - that has voids and spaces within it. Living stuff exists within those voids. The non-living is dynamic and therefore new voids come into existence and existing voids are eliminated. There is no "process" anymore than there is a "process" when water in a flooding river 'fills voids' on the other side of the levee.

Having said this - I freely admit this is all must metaphor, but that was my point in the original posting. Most of the conversation about evolution is grounded the in the appropriate of a lexical term for unrolling or unfolding and using that term as a metaphor to help 'explain' a set of observations. (These observations are merely illusory perceptions to a non-Cartesian such as myself.) I was suggesting that most of the conversations is a metaphorical mis-appropriation of the lexical and that the metaphors should be abandoned and alternatives that are not dependent on reification or systems partitioning errors be found.

Nick's creodic observations parallel a conjecture I thought about but omitted from the original post - if "evolution is unfolding then the creationists have to be right.

davew

On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:55 -0700, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK. To return to my original question, what is it to which one would apply the concept of "fitness - variable conformance of DNA-stuff to its context, and change from one moment-perspective to another"? I'm less interested in the term than in the process and in what we want to say goes through that process. I'm also open--in fact I prefer--not to require that the answer necessarily have anything to do with DNA--although that's certainly not disallowed.

-- Russ
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Russ,

yes, I would assert that evolution in the Darwinian context is an abuse of metaphor. I would attempt to find a term that implied something closer to "DNA stuff filling dynamically changing voids in the non-DNA-stuff material context thereby yielding the perception of different forms."

This would remove all appearance of direction and certainly of any kind of value - leaving only the issues of fitness - variable conformance of DNA-stuff to its context, and change from one moment-perspective to another.

davew
On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:15 -0700, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dave,

I don't understand how you would apply those points to the term when used in its Darwinian context. It sounds like you would say that "Darwinian evolution" is a misuse of the term. Is that what you are saying? If so, is there another term you would substitute? If not, how do you put your points together with that use of the term?
-- Russ
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
minor points

1- evolution takes a singular subject - some individual thing evolves.

2- what originally evolved was a book or scroll - i.e. it unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded hence evolved.

3- a human evolves - according to homunculus theory of embryology - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription of evolution as unrolling.

4- things go awry when evolvution is metaphorically applied to the plural - e.g. taxa, species. To make it work the plural must be reified as singular.

5- an error of a different sort is made when evolution is applied to society or some other multi-component system which is singular and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the word. The error is forgetting that there is really only one system (The Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or The Infinite Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go all quantum on me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined subsets that are still part of the whole - an encapsulation error.

6- yet another error is made - as Nick points out - when a subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of the book is more profound than the first simply because it was the last revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom because it came first in a sequence). [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific" discipline filled hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all carefully arranged in rows in order to prove that the brain contained within the skulls reached its 'evolutionary' apex with 19th century northern European males.]

7- devolution - if allowed at all - would reflect a similar superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight line - e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves into a withered remnant of less value than either.

dave west
On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Steve:

This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human hand.?

Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the question wrong, it should have been horses “forearm”)

Why? Because the word “advanced” means just “altered from the ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the hand.” That ancestral structure was a hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own hand. The horse’s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many more steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures. Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is given to irony.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..

I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as impressive as yours!   Now *there* is some personal evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack there Nick!"

I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of.   I appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more strict sense.

I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution. At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of evolution... biological evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some sense.

When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know today (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant and that the cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their ancestors, they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new niche which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for land locomotion.

Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the biosphere? Do we not see the increasing complexity (and heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde evolution in the biosphere?   Or to a single one (humans with very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object terran biosphere.

Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at the same time. In this context the only use of "devolve" or "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity again... a biological niche whose major elements die off completely somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland seas when they become too briny (and polluted) to support life?

I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of evolution/devolution).

- Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)

Dear Victoria,

The word “evolution” has a history before biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those uses. I think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and referred to the unfolding of a flower.   The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker happens to approve of. As in, “society is evolving.” The term devolution comes out of that misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The development of the British empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.

Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to recognize that the use of the term, “evolution”, implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*

Nick Thompson

*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

A couple of other questions then:

What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if not why not, etc

and

Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a different word for it?

ie:

If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what is positive and sustainable?

One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc

Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does that mean it is good?

There is often a confusion between description and purpose.

I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the long term.

This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.

I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?

Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the great phrase, NIck-

Victoria

On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Russ,
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.

This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.

I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you say.

Eric

On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species. Besides, the very notion of species is controversial. (But that's a different discussion.)

Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its subject?

An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it more clearly?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: What evolves?

Sorry if I am dense. I am having a hard time with this one.

(1) In my world the whole conversation about “what is evolution” has to be over and done with BEFORE we can begin talking about natural selection. Metaphysically speaking, natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

(2) It’s all metaphors. There are scientific metaphors (models) and non scientific metaphors, but the difference is not in the mode of thought but in the commitment of the metaphor-maker to carry through rigorously on the implications of the metaphor and to make absolutely clear on which aspects of the metaphor he/she stands behind.

(3) We probably need to have a sub-routine on what we mean by Cartesian. To me, Descartes, with his brain in the vat, and all I have is my doubt, is the ORIGIN of all the reality-is-an-illusion talk.

(4) If we allow stuff like gravity in our metaphysics, or any enduring rule-of-the-game, for that matter, then there is no particular reason that evolution can’t have a telos of some sort. I.E., to re use the term I probably shouldn’t have introduced in the first place, that evolution could have been and still is creodic, (see also, epigenetic landscape)but keeps being frustrated by geologic change.

(5) I used to have this voluminous correspondence with a wonderful, right wing, probably a bit racist, and VERY feisty philosopher named David Stove, who referred to evolution as the grandest of all illusions. It sure LOOKS like there’s a mind involved, but ………. . I miss him.

(6) That’s all for themoment.

(7) Gbye

(8) nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:26 AM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

Russ,

Nick's creodic observations parallel a conjecture I thought about but omitted from the original post - if "evolution is unfolding then the creationists have to be right.

davew

On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:55 -0700, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK. To return to my original question, what is it to which one would apply the concept of "fitness - variable conformance of DNA-stuff to its context, and change from one moment-perspective to another"? I'm less interested in the term than in the process and in what we want to say goes through that process. I'm also open--in fact I prefer--not to require that the answer necessarily have anything to do with DNA--although that's certainly not disallowed.

-- Russ
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Russ,

yes, I would assert that evolution in the Darwinian context is an abuse of metaphor. I would attempt to find a term that implied something closer to "DNA stuff filling dynamically changing voids in the non-DNA-stuff material context thereby yielding the perception of different forms."

This would remove all appearance of direction and certainly of any kind of value - leaving only the issues of fitness - variable conformance of DNA-stuff to its context, and change from one moment-perspective to another.

davew
On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:15 -0700, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dave,

I don't understand how you would apply those points to the term when used in its Darwinian context. It sounds like you would say that "Darwinian evolution" is a misuse of the term. Is that what you are saying? If so, is there another term you would substitute? If not, how do you put your points together with that use of the term?
-- Russ
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
minor points

1- evolution takes a singular subject - some individual thing evolves.

2- what originally evolved was a book or scroll - i.e. it unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded hence evolved.

3- a human evolves - according to homunculus theory of embryology - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription of evolution as unrolling.

4- things go awry when evolvution is metaphorically applied to the plural - e.g. taxa, species. To make it work the plural must be reified as singular.

5- an error of a different sort is made when evolution is applied to society or some other multi-component system which is singular and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the word. The error is forgetting that there is really only one system (The Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or The Infinite Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go all quantum on me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined subsets that are still part of the whole - an encapsulation error.

6- yet another error is made - as Nick points out - when a subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of the book is more profound than the first simply because it was the last revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom because it came first in a sequence). [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific" discipline filled hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all carefully arranged in rows in order to prove that the brain contained within the skulls reached its 'evolutionary' apex with 19th century northern European males.]

7- devolution - if allowed at all - would reflect a similar superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight line - e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves into a withered remnant of less value than either.

dave west
On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Steve:

This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human hand.?

Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the question wrong, it should have been horses “forearm”)

Why? Because the word “advanced” means just “altered from the ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the hand.” That ancestral structure was a hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own hand. The horse’s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many more steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures. Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is given to irony.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..

I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as impressive as yours!   Now *there* is some personal evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack there Nick!"

I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of.   I appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more strict sense.

I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution. At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of evolution... biological evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some sense.

When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know today (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant and that the cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their ancestors, they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new niche which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for land locomotion.

Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the biosphere? Do we not see the increasing complexity (and heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde evolution in the biosphere?   Or to a single one (humans with very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object terran biosphere.

Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at the same time. In this context the only use of "devolve" or "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity again... a biological niche whose major elements die off completely somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland seas when they become too briny (and polluted) to support life?

I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of evolution/devolution).

- Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)

Dear Victoria,

The word “evolution” has a history before biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those uses. I think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and referred to the unfolding of a flower.   The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker happens to approve of. As in, “society is evolving.” The term devolution comes out of that misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The development of the British empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.

Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to recognize that the use of the term, “evolution”, implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*

Nick Thompson

*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

A couple of other questions then:
What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if not why not, etc
and
Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a different word for it?
ie:
If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what is positive and sustainable?

One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc
Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does that mean it is good?
There is often a confusion between description and purpose.

I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the long term.

This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.
I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?

Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the great phrase, NIck-

Victoria

On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Russ,
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.

This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.

I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you say.

Eric

On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species. Besides, the very notion of species is controversial. (But that's a different discussion.)

Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its subject?

An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it more clearly?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists have to say about this.

-- Russ

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
 
 
 
 
============================================================
 
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
 
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
 
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: What evolves?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Dave,

As somebody in the .... um ... later years of life, I tend to regard the
distinction between living and non-living as ... well .... pretty important.

Reluctant to see it cast aside as you and russ seem so eager to do.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:56 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

Steve,

Yes, I think co-evolution is as 'simple as declaring them to be singular
(taken as a whole subsystem ...).' But that does not make the issue itself
simple. And there are other consequences - the need to abandon the
arbitrary distinction between "living" and "non-living" things.
Co-evolutuion cannot be restricted to networks of relations among predator
and prey, but must also include average-daily-temperature and percent of
nitrogen in surface soil.

I remember reading years ago (I will find a reference) about the origins of
life, not in a lightning powered primordial soup, but in clay - and the
formation of complex molecules, ala amino acids, and the transition between
that which was perceived as 'non-living' to that which was perceived as
'living' that is germane to the above.

davew

On Tue, 10 May 2011 16:11 -0600, [hidden email] wrote:

> Dave -
>
> Can you put my assumption that one can speak meaningfully of the
> evolution of a "system" or "subsystem" into the context of your "minor
> points"?
>
> What of co-evolution of interdependent species (humans/grains,
> megafauna/megafruit, predator/prey/forage networks, etc.) or of a
> "network"
> thereof? e.g. Whence Pollenating Insects w/o Pollen Plants, etc?
>
> Is it as simple as declaring them to be singular (taken as a whole
> sub-system
> of the Universe)? Or is this entirely a misuse in your view?
>
> Thanks to Nick for inserting the term "Creodic" into the discussion.
> I suppose this is a fundamental issue in the Creationism debate? In
> some sense, the more receptive of the Creationists might allow
> "Biological Evolution"
> if
> it were essentially *creodic* (the world unfolding under the
> benevolent eye and predestined plan of God in this case?) as you say?
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > --_----------=_1305050715233870
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400
> > X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
> >
> > minor points
> >
> > 1- evolution takes a singular subject - some individual thing
> > evolves.
> >
> > 2- what originally evolved was a book or scroll - i.e. it unrolled -
> > hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded hence evolved.
> >
> > 3- a human evolves - according to homunculus theory of embryology
> > - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription of evolution
> > as unrolling.
> >
> > 4- things go awry when evolvution is metaphorically applied to the
> > plural - e.g. taxa, species. To make it work the plural must be
> > reified as singular.
> >
> > 5- an error of a different sort is made when evolution is applied to
> > society or some other multi-component system which is singular and
> > therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the word.
> > The error is forgetting that there is really only one system (The
> > Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or The Infinite
> > Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go all quantum on
> > me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined subsets that
> > are still part of the whole - an encapsulation error.
> >
> > 6- yet another error is made - as Nick points out - when a
> > subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of
> > arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of the
> > book is more profound than the first simply because it was the last
> > revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom because it
> > came first in a sequence). [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific"
> > discipline filled hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all
> > carefully arranged in rows in order to prove that the brain
> > contained within the skulls reached its 'evolutionary'
> > apex with 19th century northern European males.]
> >
> > 7- devolution - if allowed at all - would reflect a similar
> > superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight line -
> > e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves into
> > a withered remnant of less value than either.
> >
> > dave west
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Steve:
> >
> >
> > This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse=E2=80=99s hoof
> > or a human hand.?
> >
> >
> > Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the
> > question wrong, it should have been horses
> > =E2=80=9Cforearm=E2=80=9D)
> >
> >
> > Why? Because the word =E2=80=9Cadvanced=E2=80=9D means just
> > =E2=80=9Calter= ed from the ancestral structure that gave rise to
> > both the hoof and the hand.=E2=80=9D That ancestral structure was a
> > hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back
> > from our own hand.
> > The horse=E2=80=99s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a
> > hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many
> > more steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures.
> > Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is
> > given to irony.
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
> >
> >
> > Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..
> > I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging
> > and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not
> > so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half
> > as impressive as yours! Now *there* is some personal
> > evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack
> > there Nick!"
> > I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of
> > the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want
> > to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or
> > political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of. I
> > appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is
> > problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more
> > strict sense.
> > I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which
> > of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution.
> > At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of
> > evolution... biological evolution, by definition, is always
> > adaptive to changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution
> > to be reversed in some sense.
> > When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know
> > today (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping
> > appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One
> > might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to
> > say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant
> > and that the cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their
> > ancestors, they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new
> > niche which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for
> > land locomotion.
> > Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the biosphere?
> > Do we not see the increasing complexity (and
> > heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive,
> > more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of
> > species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens,
> > corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde
> > evolution in the biosphere? Or to a single one (humans with
> > very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this
> > description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object
> > terran biosphere.
> > Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of
> > species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single
> > species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes
> > at the same time. In this context the only use of "devolve" or
> > "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity
> > again... a biological niche whose major elements die off completely
> > somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara
> > perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland seas when they
> > become too briny (and polluted) to support life?
> > I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm
> > undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of
> > evolution/devolution).
> > - Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)
> >
> > Dear Victoria,
> >
> >
> > The word =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D has a history before biologists
> > made o= ff with it, but I can=E2=80=99t speak to those uses. I
> > think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and
> > referred to the
> > unfolding of a flower. The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully
> > is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker
> > happens to approve of. As in, =E2=80=9Csociety is
> > evolving.=E2=80=9D The= term devolution comes out of that
> > misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of
> > is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The
> > development of the British empire would have been, to those people,
> > a case of evolution.
> > Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken
> > over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to
> > recognize that the use of the term, =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D,
> > implies a = values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take
> > for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a
> > =E2=80=9Chighly evolved=E2=80=9D discussion (};-])*
> >
> >
> > Nick Thompson
> >
> >
> > *=E2=80=94old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.
> >
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> >
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> >
> > Clark University
> >
> > [1]http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> >
> > [2]http://www.cusf.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [3][hidden email]
> > [[4]mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
> >
> >
> >
> > A couple of other questions then:
> >
> > What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if
> > not why not, etc
> >
> > and
> >
> > Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a
> > different word for it?
> >
> > ie:
> >
> > If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding
> > what is positive and sustainable?
> >
> >
> > One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have
> > 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very
> > problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between
> > different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each
> > other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that
> > evolution? if so why, etc
> >
> > Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written,
> > does that mean it is good?
> >
> > There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
> >
> >
> > I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must
> > be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper
> > limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only
> > perspective that holds up in the long term.
> >
> >
> > This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the
> > intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into
> > something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading
> > and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing
> > skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.
> >
> > I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?
> >
> >
> > Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the
> > great phrase, NIck-
> >
> >
> > Victoria
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
> >
> > Russ,
> > Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a
> > little, and get more specific if he does not.
> > This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual
> > confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people
> > do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not
> > know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most
> > common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves",
> > or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular
> > option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the
> > course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the
> > genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and
> > Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene.
> > Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great
> > quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs."
> > Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.
> > I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve.
> > If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level
> > selection people and saying that the systems evolve.
> > The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it
> > hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let
> > you say.
> > Eric
> > On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott <[5][hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple
> > question.
> >
> >
> > When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we
> > all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is
> > it that evolves?
> >
> >
> > We generally mean more by evolution than just that change
> > occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term.
> > We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a
> > species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since
> > evolution also involves the creation of new species.
> > Besides, the very notion of species is [6]controversial. (But that's
> > a different discussion.)
> >
> >
> > Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity,
> > that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological
> > evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers.
> > But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X
> > evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its
> > subject?
> >
> >
> > An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really
> > "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it
> > does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution
> > occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is
> > (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it
> > more clearly?
> >
> >
> > I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially
> > interested in what biologists have to say about this.
> >
> >
> > -- Russ
> >
> >
> > Eric Charles
> > Professional Student and
> > Assistant Professor of Psychology
> > Penn State University
> > Altoona, PA 16601
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > D=3D=3D=
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > D=3D=3D=
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
> > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> > [7]http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > D=3D=3D=
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > D=3D=3D=
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at [8]http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > D=3D=3D=
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > D=3D=3D=
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
> > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> > http://www.friam.org
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> > 2. http://www.cusf.org/
> > 3. mailto:[hidden email]
> > 4. mailto:[hidden email]
> > 5. mailto:[hidden email]
> > 6. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/
> > 7. http://www.friam.org/
> > 8. http://www.friam.org/
> >
> > --_----------=_1305050715233870
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
> > Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400
> > X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
> >
> > 
> > <html><head><title></title></head><body><div
> style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;" dir="ltr"><div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">minor points</span></div> <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">1- evolution takes a singular
> > subject - some
> individual thing evolves.</span></div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">2- what originally evolved was a
> > book or
> scroll - i.e. it unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which
> unfolded hence evolved.</span></div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">3- a human evolves - according to
> > homunculus
> theory of embryology - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric
> conscription of evolution as unrolling.</span></div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">4- things go awry when evolvution is
> metaphorically applied to the plural - e.g. taxa, species.  To
> make it work the plural must be reified as singular.</span></div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">5- an error of a different sort is
> > made when
> evolution is applied to society or some other multi-component system
> which is singular and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original
> sense of the word.  The error is forgetting that there is really
> only one system (The Universe if it is granted that there is only one,
> or The Infinite Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go
> all quantum on me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined
> subsets that are still part of the whole
> - an
> encapsulation error.</span></div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">6- yet another error is made - as
> > Nick
> points out - when a subjective value scale is super-imposed on the
> sequence of arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last
> word of the book is more profound than the first simply because it was
> the last revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom
> because it came first in a sequence).
> [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific" discipline filled
> hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all carefully arranged in
> rows in order to prove that the brain contained within the skulls
> reached its 'evolutionary' apex with 19th century northern
> European males.]</span></div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">7- devolution - if allowed at all -
> > would
> reflect a similar superimposition of values in a curve instead of a
> straight line - e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom
> devolves into a withered remnant of less value than
> either.</span></div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> > <span style="font-size:small;">dave west</span></div> <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > <div class="defangedMessage">
> > <div id="me48497">
> > <div>
> > On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600,

"Nicholas 

> > Thompson"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:</div>
> > <blockquote class="me48497QuoteMessage" type="cite">
> > <style type="text/css"></style>
> > <div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; ">
> > <div class="me48497WordSection1">
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D">Steve:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D">This is sort of fun:  Which is more
> advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human hand.?
> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
>

style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif&quo
t;;color:#1F497D">Answer:

> the hoof is way more advanced.  (Actually I asked the question
> wrong, it should have been horses “forearm”) 
> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D">Why? 
> Because the word “advanced” means just “altered from
> the ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the
> hand.”  That ancestral structure was a  hand-like paw,
> perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own
> hand.  The horse’s hoof is a single hypertrophied
> fingernail on a hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost
> nothing.  Many more steps away.  Humans are in many ways
> very primitive creatures.  Viruses are very advanced, having lost
> everything!  Our Maker is given to irony. 
> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D">Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > <div>
> > <div

style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
> > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt
> 0in 0in 0in">
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
style="font-weight: bold"><span
> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
> f";color:windowtext">From:</span></span><span
> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
> f";color:windowtext"> [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] <span
> style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of </span>Steve Smith<br />
> > <span
style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Tuesday, May
> > 10, 2011
> 10:12 AM<br />
> > <span
style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday
> > Morning
> Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br />
> > <span
style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM]
> > What
> evolves?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > </div>
> > </div>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <o:p> </o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > Dear old bald guy with big
eyebrows (aka Nick)..<br />
> > <br />
> > I'm becoming an old bald
guy myself with earlobes that are
> > sagging
> and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so
> much.  I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as
> impressive as yours!   Now *there* is some personal
> evolution!  To use a particular vernacular, "You've got
> a nice rack there Nick!"<br />
> > <br />
> > I really appreciate your
careful outline of this topic, it is

> > one of
> the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do*
> want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or
> political (or
> personal)
> change they approve/disapprove of.   I appreciate Victoria
> asking this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social
> circles to use Evolution in it's more strict sense.<br />
> > <br />
> > I have been trained not to

apply a value judgment to evolution
> > which
> of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of
> devolution.  At the same time, there are what appear to be
> "retrograde" arcs of evolution...  biological
> evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions
> which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some
> sense. <br />
> > <br />
> > When pre-aquatic mammals who
evolved into the cetaceans we

> > know today
> (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping
> appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages.  One
> might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution.  That is not
> to say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water
> inhabitant and that the cetaceans are in any way "less
> evolved" than their ancestors,  they are simply evolved to
> fit more better into their new niche which selects for appendages for
> swimming over appendages for land locomotion.<br />
> > <br />
> > Nevertheless, is there not a

measure of "progress"

> > in the
> biosphere?  Do we not see the increasing complexity (and
> heirarchies) of
> the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust? 
> Would the replacement of the current diversity of species on the
> planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans,
> cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde evolution in the
> biosphere?   Or to a single one (humans with very clever
> nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this description I
> think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object terran
> biosphere.<br />
> > <br />
> > Since I was first exposed to

the notion of the co-evolution of

> species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single
> species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at
> the same time.  In this context the only use of
> "devolve" or "retrograde evolution" I can imagine
> is linked to complexity again...  a biological niche whose major
> elements die off completely somehow seems like a retrograde
> evolution... the pre-desert Sahara perhaps?  The Interglacial
> tundras?  The inland seas when they become too briny (and
> polluted) to support life? <br />
> > <br />
> > I know that all this even is

somehow anthropocentric, so maybe
> > I'm
> undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of
> evolution/devolution).<br />
> > <br />
> > - Steve (primping the 3 wild
hairs in his left eyebrow)<br />

> >  <br />
> > <br />
> > <o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if"">Dear
> Victoria, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if"">The word “evolution” has a history before
> biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those
> uses.  I think it first came into use in biology to refer to
> development and referred to the unfolding of a flower.   The
> one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social
>  or political change the speaker happens to  approve
> of.  As in, “society is evolving.”  The term
> devolution comes out of that misappropriation.  One of the
> properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical
> structure and predictable order.  The development of the British
> empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. 
> Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over
> by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called
> Devolution.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if"">Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines
> is to recognize that the use of the term, “evolution”,
> implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for
> granted that we all share the same values,  if we hope to have a
> “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if"">Nick
> Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if"">*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on
> his face.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if"">Nicholas
> S. Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if"">Emeritus Professor of Psychology and
> Biology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if"">Clark
> University</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""><a
> href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/">http:
> //home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</a></span><o:p></o:
> p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""><a
> href="http://www.cusf.org/">http://www.cusf.org</a></span><o:p></o:p><
> /p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > <div>
> > <div

style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext
> 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color
> -moz-use-text-color">
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <span
style="font-weight: bold"><span

> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
> f"">From:</span></span><span
> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
> f"">
> <a
> href="mailto:[hidden email]">[hidden email]</a>
> [<a
> href="mailto:[hidden email]">mailto:[hidden email]
> om</a>] <span style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of </span>Victoria
> Hughes<br />
> > <span

style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Monday, May 09,
> > 2011
> 8:26 PM<br />
> > <span
style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday
> > Morning
> Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br />
> > <span
style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM]
> > What
> evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > </div>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > <div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > A
couple of other questions then: <o:p></o:p></p>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this
> > discussion,
> if not why not, etc<o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
and <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is
> > there a
> different word for it?<o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
ie: <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
If evolution means 'positive sustainable change'
> > who is
> deciding what is positive and sustainable? <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
One could argue that aspects of human neurological
> > evolution have
> 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very
> problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different
> areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and
> leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if
> so why, etc<o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
Just because we can find out where in our genes this is
> > written,
> does that mean it is good?<o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below:
> ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system
> evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a
> particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the
> long term. <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush
> > against the
> intangible.  We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve
> into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by
> reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and
> writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic
> context. <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same
> thrill? <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks
> > for the
> great phrase, NIck-<o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
Victoria<o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> >
<div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<br />
> >
<br />
> >
<br />
> >
<o:p></o:p></p>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
Russ,<br />
> >
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but
> > I'll
> hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.<br />
> >
<br />
> >
This is one of the points by which a whole host of

> > conceptual
> confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people
> do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not
> know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most
> common options are that "the species evolves", "the
> trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common,
> but increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment
> system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people
> increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams
> solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to
> its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of
> overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken
> is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this
> introduces all sorts of devious problems.<br />
> >

<br />
> >
I would argue that it makes more sense to say that
> > species
> evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the
> multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The
> latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard
> to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you
> say. <br />
> >
<br />
> >
Eric<br />
> >
<br />
> >
On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, <span style="font-weight:
> bold">Russ Abbott <<a
> href="mailto:[hidden email]">[hidden email]</a>></spa
> n>
> wrote:<br />
> >
<br />
> >
<br />
> >
<o:p></o:p></p>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<span
> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"51)","serif""
> >I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple
> question.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">When we use the term
> > <span
> style="font-style: italic">evolution</span>, we have something in mind
> that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question:
> what is it that evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">We generally mean more

> > by <span
> style="font-style: italic">evolution </span>than just that change
> occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We
> normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species,
> that evolves. Of course that's not quite right
> since evolution also involves the creation of new
> species. Besides, the very notion of species is <a
> href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/">controversial</a>.
> (But that's a different discussion.)  </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> >

</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">Is it appropriate to
> > say that
> there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is
> not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider
> broader answers.
> But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence
> "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably
> clear referent for its subject?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">An alternative is to
> > say that
> what we mean by "X evolves" is really
> "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear
> to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by
> "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution
> is
> (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it
> more clearly?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">I'm copying Nick
> > and Eric
> explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists
> have to say about this.</span><br clear="all" />
> >
<o:p></o:p></p>
> >
<div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<span
> style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003
> 333"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
<span style="font-style: italic"><span
> style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003
> 333">-- Russ </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
</div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
</div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
> >
Eric Charles<br />
> >
<br />
> >
Professional Student and<br />
> >
Assistant Professor of Psychology<br />
> >
Penn State University<br />
> >
Altoona, PA 16601<br />
> >
<br />
> >
<br />
> >
<o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> >
<p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
============================================================<br />
> >
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br />
> >
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br />
> >
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a
> href="http://www.friam.org">http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
> >
</div>
> > <p
class="me48497MsoNormal">
> >
 <o:p></o:p></p>

> > </div>
> > </div>
> > </div>
> > </div>
> > <pre>
> > <o:p> </o:p></pre>
> > <pre>
> > <o:p> </o:p></pre>
> > <pre>
> >

============================================================<o:p></o:p></pre
>
> > <pre>
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></pre>
> > <pre>
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's
College<o:p></o:p></pre>

> > <pre>
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a
> href="http://www.friam.org">http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
> > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > <o:p> </o:p></p>
> > </div>
> > <pre>
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
> > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps
> > at http://www.friam.org </pre>
> > </div>
> > </blockquote>
> > </div>
> > </div>
> > <div>
> >  </div>
> > </div></body></html>
> > --_----------=_1305050715233870--
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russ Abbott

Re: What evolves?

Lots to respond to. First of all, Nick, why do you say I am discarding the distinction between living and non-living. I don't recall saying that.

To Dave's point:

By "fitness" I mean nothing more than 'void filling' ... There is no "process" anymore than there is a "process" when water in a flooding river 'fills voids' on the other side of the levee.

That still leaves open the question of the scientific explanation for how voids are filled. Is there a physical force that produces that result? In the case of water going downhill, the force is gravity. What's the analogous force (or other explanation) for void filling in evolution? What's the scientific explanation for how it happens?

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Google voice: 747-999-5105
blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________

Nick Thompson

Re: What evolves?

Well, then I read you wrong. Sorry. N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:14 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

Lots to respond to. First of all, Nick, why do you say I am discarding the distinction between living and non-living. I don't recall saying that.

To Dave's point:

By "fitness" I mean nothing more than 'void filling' ... There is no "process" anymore than there is a "process" when water in a flooding river 'fills voids' on the other side of the levee.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Google voice: 747-999-5105
blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________

Russ Abbott

Re: What evolves?

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

The answer to my question of the scientific explanation for how voids are filled is presumably the usual story of reproductive advantage as, in effect, the definition for how well a void's template is matched -- to use Dave's terminology. That's not quite circular in that it defines how well a void is filled as the extent to which whatever is filling the void succeeds in reproducing. The more successful, the better we say the void's "outline" is matched.

The problem (or rather inadequacy) I see with that definition is that it leaves open the question of whether one can find a more insightful definition for how well a void is filled. Reproductive success is fairly far removed from the notion of void filling. If one wants to use the terminology (or even analogy) of void filling, it would be nice to have a more direct way of saying what it means to fill a void successfully -- i.e., something more than just increased reproductive success.

One might argue that there is no better description. But it that's one's position, let's be clear about it. My position is that we shouldn't give up so soon. That's the motivation for my question.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lots to respond to. First of all, Nick, why do you say I am discarding the distinction between living and non-living. I don't recall saying that.

To Dave's point:

By "fitness" I mean nothing more than 'void filling' ... There is no "process" anymore than there is a "process" when water in a flooding river 'fills voids' on the other side of the levee.

That still leaves open the question of the scientific explanation for how voids are filled. Is there a physical force that produces that result? In the case of water going downhill, the force is gravity. What's the analogous force (or other explanation) for void filling in evolution? What's the scientific explanation for how it happens?

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Google voice: 747-999-5105
blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________

Nick Thompson

Re: What evolves?

Russ,

Your question, I now see, is the same one that has motivated much of my career. See natural designs website below. It would be nice to come up with a definition of natural design that was more apriori (!?) than “whatever nature selects”.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

One might argue that there is no better description. But it that's one's position, let's be clear about it. My position is that we shouldn't give up so soon. That's the motivation for my question.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lots to respond to. First of all, Nick, why do you say I am discarding the distinction between living and non-living. I don't recall saying that.

To Dave's point:

By "fitness" I mean nothing more than 'void filling' ... There is no "process" anymore than there is a "process" when water in a flooding river 'fills voids' on the other side of the levee.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Owen Densmore

Re: What evolves?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

On May 9, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

> I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.
>
> When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

Any attribute of a system that has proven robust to change.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: What evolves?

Wouldn't that be the definition of non evolution. As in, horshoe crabs have
not evolved since the ..... carboniferous (or whatever)

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:01 AM
To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

On May 9, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

> I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.
>
> When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem
to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

Any attribute of a system that has proven robust to change.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Prof David West

Re: What evolves?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick - I am too much a Vedic/Buddhist to take seriously the idea that
there distinction between "living" and "non-living." But not to despair
- the end result is all living.

davew

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:35 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> As somebody in the .... um ... later years of life, I tend to regard the
> distinction between living and non-living as ... well .... pretty
> important.
>
>
> Reluctant to see it cast aside as you and russ seem so eager to do.
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf
> Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:56 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
>
> Steve,
>
> Yes, I think co-evolution is as 'simple as declaring them to be singular
> (taken as a whole subsystem ...).' But that does not make the issue
> itself
> simple. And there are other consequences - the need to abandon the
> arbitrary distinction between "living" and "non-living" things.
> Co-evolutuion cannot be restricted to networks of relations among
> predator
> and prey, but must also include average-daily-temperature and percent of
> nitrogen in surface soil.
>
> I remember reading years ago (I will find a reference) about the origins
> of
> life, not in a lightning powered primordial soup, but in clay - and the
> formation of complex molecules, ala amino acids, and the transition
> between
> that which was perceived as 'non-living' to that which was perceived as
> 'living' that is germane to the above.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 16:11 -0600, [hidden email] wrote:
> > Dave -
> >
> > Can you put my assumption that one can speak meaningfully of the
> > evolution of a "system" or "subsystem" into the context of your "minor
> > points"?
> >
> > What of co-evolution of interdependent species (humans/grains,
> > megafauna/megafruit, predator/prey/forage networks, etc.) or of a
> > "network"
> > thereof? e.g. Whence Pollenating Insects w/o Pollen Plants, etc?
> >
> > Is it as simple as declaring them to be singular (taken as a whole
> > sub-system
> > of the Universe)? Or is this entirely a misuse in your view?
> >
> > Thanks to Nick for inserting the term "Creodic" into the discussion.
> > I suppose this is a fundamental issue in the Creationism debate? In
> > some sense, the more receptive of the Creationists might allow
> > "Biological Evolution"
> > if
> > it were essentially *creodic* (the world unfolding under the
> > benevolent eye and predestined plan of God in this case?) as you say?
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > >
> > > --_----------=_1305050715233870
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > > Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400
> > > X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
> > >
> > > minor points
> > >
> > > 1- evolution takes a singular subject - some individual thing
> > > evolves.
> > >
> > > 2- what originally evolved was a book or scroll - i.e. it unrolled -
> > > hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded hence evolved.
> > >
> > > 3- a human evolves - according to homunculus theory of embryology
> > > - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription of evolution
> > > as unrolling.
> > >
> > > 4- things go awry when evolvution is metaphorically applied to the
> > > plural - e.g. taxa, species. To make it work the plural must be
> > > reified as singular.
> > >
> > > 5- an error of a different sort is made when evolution is applied to
> > > society or some other multi-component system which is singular and
> > > therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the word.
> > > The error is forgetting that there is really only one system (The
> > > Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or The Infinite
> > > Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go all quantum on
> > > me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined subsets that
> > > are still part of the whole - an encapsulation error.
> > >
> > > 6- yet another error is made - as Nick points out - when a
> > > subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of
> > > arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of the
> > > book is more profound than the first simply because it was the last
> > > revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom because it
> > > came first in a sequence). [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific"
> > > discipline filled hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all
> > > carefully arranged in rows in order to prove that the brain
> > > contained within the skulls reached its 'evolutionary'
> > > apex with 19th century northern European males.]
> > >
> > > 7- devolution - if allowed at all - would reflect a similar
> > > superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight line -
> > > e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves into
> > > a withered remnant of less value than either.
> > >
> > > dave west
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse=E2=80=99s hoof
> > > or a human hand.?
> > >
> > >
> > > Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the
> > > question wrong, it should have been horses
> > > =E2=80=9Cforearm=E2=80=9D)
> > >
> > >
> > > Why? Because the word =E2=80=9Cadvanced=E2=80=9D means just
> > > =E2=80=9Calter= ed from the ancestral structure that gave rise to
> > > both the hoof and the hand.=E2=80=9D That ancestral structure was a
> > > hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back
> > > from our own hand.
> > > The horse=E2=80=99s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a
> > > hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many
> > > more steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures.
> > > Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is
> > > given to irony.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [hidden email]
> > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..
> > > I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging
> > > and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not
> > > so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half
> > > as impressive as yours! Now *there* is some personal
> > > evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack
> > > there Nick!"
> > > I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of
> > > the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want
> > > to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or
> > > political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of. I
> > > appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is
> > > problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more
> > > strict sense.
> > > I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which
> > > of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution.
> > > At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of
> > > evolution... biological evolution, by definition, is always
> > > adaptive to changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution
> > > to be reversed in some sense.
> > > When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know
> > > today (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping
> > > appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One
> > > might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to
> > > say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant
> > > and that the cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their
> > > ancestors, they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new
> > > niche which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for
> > > land locomotion.
> > > Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the biosphere?
> > > Do we not see the increasing complexity (and
> > > heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive,
> > > more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of
> > > species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens,
> > > corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde
> > > evolution in the biosphere? Or to a single one (humans with
> > > very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this
> > > description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object
> > > terran biosphere.
> > > Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of
> > > species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single
> > > species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes
> > > at the same time. In this context the only use of "devolve" or
> > > "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity
> > > again... a biological niche whose major elements die off completely
> > > somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara
> > > perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland seas when they
> > > become too briny (and polluted) to support life?
> > > I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm
> > > undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of
> > > evolution/devolution).
> > > - Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)
> > >
> > > Dear Victoria,
> > >
> > >
> > > The word =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D has a history before biologists
> > > made o= ff with it, but I can=E2=80=99t speak to those uses. I
> > > think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and
> > > referred to the
> > > unfolding of a flower. The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully
> > > is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker
> > > happens to approve of. As in, =E2=80=9Csociety is
> > > evolving.=E2=80=9D The= term devolution comes out of that
> > > misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of
> > > is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The
> > > development of the British empire would have been, to those people,
> > > a case of evolution.
> > > Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken
> > > over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to
> > > recognize that the use of the term, =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D,
> > > implies a = values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take
> > > for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a
> > > =E2=80=9Chighly evolved=E2=80=9D discussion (};-])*
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick Thompson
> > >
> > >
> > > *=E2=80=94old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > >
> > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> > >
> > > Clark University
> > >
> > > [1]http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> > >
> > > [2]http://www.cusf.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [3][hidden email]
> > > [[4]mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
> > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A couple of other questions then:
> > >
> > > What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if
> > > not why not, etc
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a
> > > different word for it?
> > >
> > > ie:
> > >
> > > If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding
> > > what is positive and sustainable?
> > >
> > >
> > > One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have
> > > 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very
> > > problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between
> > > different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each
> > > other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that
> > > evolution? if so why, etc
> > >
> > > Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written,
> > > does that mean it is good?
> > >
> > > There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must
> > > be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper
> > > limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only
> > > perspective that holds up in the long term.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the
> > > intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into
> > > something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading
> > > and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing
> > > skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.
> > >
> > > I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the
> > > great phrase, NIck-
> > >
> > >
> > > Victoria
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
> > >
> > > Russ,
> > > Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a
> > > little, and get more specific if he does not.
> > > This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual
> > > confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people
> > > do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not
> > > know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most
> > > common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves",
> > > or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular
> > > option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the
> > > course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the
> > > genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and
> > > Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene.
> > > Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great
> > > quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs."
> > > Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.
> > > I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve.
> > > If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level
> > > selection people and saying that the systems evolve.
> > > The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it
> > > hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let
> > > you say.
> > > Eric
> > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott <[5][hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple
> > > question.
> > >
> > >
> > > When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we
> > > all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is
> > > it that evolves?
> > >
> > >
> > > We generally mean more by evolution than just that change
> > > occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term.
> > > We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a
> > > species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since
> > > evolution also involves the creation of new species.
> > > Besides, the very notion of species is [6]controversial. (But that's
> > > a different discussion.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity,
> > > that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological
> > > evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers.
> > > But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X
> > > evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its
> > > subject?
> > >
> > >
> > > An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really
> > > "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it
> > > does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution
> > > occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is
> > > (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it
> > > more clearly?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially
> > > interested in what biologists have to say about this.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Russ
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric Charles
> > > Professional Student and
> > > Assistant Professor of Psychology
> > > Penn State University
> > > Altoona, PA 16601
> > >
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > > D=3D=3D=
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > > D=3D=3D=
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
> > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> > > [7]http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > > D=3D=3D=
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > > D=3D=3D=
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > >
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at [8]http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > > D=3D=3D=
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > > D=3D=3D=
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
> > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> > > http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > > References
> > >
> > > 1. http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> > > 2. http://www.cusf.org/
> > > 3. mailto:[hidden email]
> > > 4. mailto:[hidden email]
> > > 5. mailto:[hidden email]
> > > 6. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/
> > > 7. http://www.friam.org/
> > > 8. http://www.friam.org/
> > >
> > > --_----------=_1305050715233870
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
> > > Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400
> > > X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
> > >
> > > 
> > > <html><head><title></title></head><body><div
> > style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;" dir="ltr"><div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">minor points</span></div> <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">1- evolution takes a singular
> > > subject - some
> > individual thing evolves.</span></div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">2- what originally evolved was a
> > > book or
> > scroll - i.e. it unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which
> > unfolded hence evolved.</span></div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">3- a human evolves - according to
> > > homunculus
> > theory of embryology - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric
> > conscription of evolution as unrolling.</span></div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">4- things go awry when evolvution is
> > metaphorically applied to the plural - e.g. taxa, species.  To
> > make it work the plural must be reified as singular.</span></div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">5- an error of a different sort is
> > > made when
> > evolution is applied to society or some other multi-component system
> > which is singular and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original
> > sense of the word.  The error is forgetting that there is really
> > only one system (The Universe if it is granted that there is only one,
> > or The Infinite Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go
> > all quantum on me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined
> > subsets that are still part of the whole
> > - an
> > encapsulation error.</span></div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">6- yet another error is made - as
> > > Nick
> > points out - when a subjective value scale is super-imposed on the
> > sequence of arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last
> > word of the book is more profound than the first simply because it was
> > the last revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom
> > because it came first in a sequence).
> > [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific" discipline filled
> > hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all carefully arranged in
> > rows in order to prove that the brain contained within the skulls
> > reached its 'evolutionary' apex with 19th century northern
> > European males.]</span></div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">7- devolution - if allowed at all -
> > > would
> > reflect a similar superimposition of values in a curve instead of a
> > straight line - e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom
> > devolves into a withered remnant of less value than
> > either.</span></div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <span style="font-size:small;">dave west</span></div> <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > <div class="defangedMessage">
> > > <div id="me48497">
> > > <div>
> > > On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600,
> "Nicholas 
> > > Thompson"
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:</div>
> > > <blockquote class="me48497QuoteMessage" type="cite">
> > > <style type="text/css"></style>
> > > <div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; ">
> > > <div class="me48497WordSection1">
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D">Steve:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D">This is sort of fun:  Which is more
> > advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human hand.?
> > <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> >
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif&quo
> t;;color:#1F497D">Answer:
> > the hoof is way more advanced.  (Actually I asked the question
> > wrong, it should have been horses “forearm”) 
> > <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D">Why? 
> > Because the word “advanced” means just “altered from
> > the ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the
> > hand.”  That ancestral structure was a  hand-like paw,
> > perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own
> > hand.  The horse’s hoof is a single hypertrophied
> > fingernail on a hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost
> > nothing.  Many more steps away.  Humans are in many ways
> > very primitive creatures.  Viruses are very advanced, having lost
> > everything!  Our Maker is given to irony. 
> > <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D">Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> > > <div>
> > > <div
> style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
> > > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt
> > 0in 0in 0in">
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> style="font-weight: bold"><span
> > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
> > f";color:windowtext">From:</span></span><span
> > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
> > f";color:windowtext"> [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] <span
> > style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of </span>Steve Smith<br />
> > > <span
> style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Tuesday, May
> > > 10, 2011
> > 10:12 AM<br />
> > > <span
> style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday
> > > Morning
> > Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br />
> > > <span
> style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM]
> > > What
> > evolves?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > </div>
> > > </div>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <o:p> </o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > Dear old bald guy with big
> eyebrows (aka Nick)..<br />
> > > <br />
> > > I'm becoming an old bald
> guy myself with earlobes that are
> > > sagging
> > and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so
> > much.  I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as
> > impressive as yours!   Now *there* is some personal
> > evolution!  To use a particular vernacular, "You've got
> > a nice rack there Nick!"<br />
> > > <br />
> > > I really appreciate your
> careful outline of this topic, it is
> > > one of
> > the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do*
> > want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or
> > political (or
> > personal)
> > change they approve/disapprove of.   I appreciate Victoria
> > asking this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social
> > circles to use Evolution in it's more strict sense.<br />
> > > <br />
> > > I have been trained not to
> apply a value judgment to evolution
> > > which
> > of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of
> > devolution.  At the same time, there are what appear to be
> > "retrograde" arcs of evolution...  biological
> > evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions
> > which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some
> > sense. <br />
> > > <br />
> > > When pre-aquatic mammals who
> evolved into the cetaceans we
> > > know today
> > (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping
> > appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages.  One
> > might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution.  That is not
> > to say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water
> > inhabitant and that the cetaceans are in any way "less
> > evolved" than their ancestors,  they are simply evolved to
> > fit more better into their new niche which selects for appendages for
> > swimming over appendages for land locomotion.<br />
> > > <br />
> > > Nevertheless, is there not a
> measure of "progress"
> > > in the
> > biosphere?  Do we not see the increasing complexity (and
> > heirarchies) of
> > the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust? 
> > Would the replacement of the current diversity of species on the
> > planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans,
> > cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde evolution in the
> > biosphere?   Or to a single one (humans with very clever
> > nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this description I
> > think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object terran
> > biosphere.<br />
> > > <br />
> > > Since I was first exposed to
> the notion of the co-evolution of
> > species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single
> > species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at
> > the same time.  In this context the only use of
> > "devolve" or "retrograde evolution" I can imagine
> > is linked to complexity again...  a biological niche whose major
> > elements die off completely somehow seems like a retrograde
> > evolution... the pre-desert Sahara perhaps?  The Interglacial
> > tundras?  The inland seas when they become too briny (and
> > polluted) to support life? <br />
> > > <br />
> > > I know that all this even is
> somehow anthropocentric, so maybe
> > > I'm
> > undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of
> > evolution/devolution).<br />
> > > <br />
> > > - Steve (primping the 3 wild
> hairs in his left eyebrow)<br />
> > >  <br />
> > > <br />
> > > <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if"">Dear
> > Victoria, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if"">The word “evolution” has a history before
> > biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those
> > uses.  I think it first came into use in biology to refer to
> > development and referred to the unfolding of a flower.   The
> > one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social
> >  or political change the speaker happens to  approve
> > of.  As in, “society is evolving.”  The term
> > devolution comes out of that misappropriation.  One of the
> > properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical
> > structure and predictable order.  The development of the British
> > empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. 
> > Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over
> > by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called
> > Devolution.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if"">Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines
> > is to recognize that the use of the term, “evolution”,
> > implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for
> > granted that we all share the same values,  if we hope to have a
> > “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if"">Nick
> > Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if"">*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on
> > his face.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if"">Nicholas
> > S. Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if"">Emeritus Professor of Psychology and
> > Biology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if"">Clark
> > University</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""><a
> > href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/">http:
> > //home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</a></span><o:p></o:
> > p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""><a
> > href="http://www.cusf.org/">http://www.cusf.org</a></span><o:p></o:p><
> > /p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> > style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
> > if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <div>
> > > <div
> style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext
> > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color
> > -moz-use-text-color">
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <span
> style="font-weight: bold"><span
> > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
> > f"">From:</span></span><span
> > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
> > f"">
> > <a
> > href="mailto:[hidden email]">[hidden email]</a>
> > [<a
> > href="mailto:[hidden email]">mailto:[hidden email]
> > om</a>] <span style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of </span>Victoria
> > Hughes<br />
> > > <span
> style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Monday, May 09,
> > > 2011
> > 8:26 PM<br />
> > > <span
> style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday
> > > Morning
> > Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br />
> > > <span
> style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM]
> > > What
> > evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > </div>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > A
> couple of other questions then: <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this
> > > discussion,
> > if not why not, etc<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> and <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is
> > > there a
> > different word for it?<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> ie: <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> If evolution means 'positive sustainable change'
> > > who is
> > deciding what is positive and sustainable? <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> One could argue that aspects of human neurological
> > > evolution have
> > 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very
> > problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different
> > areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and
> > leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if
> > so why, etc<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> Just because we can find out where in our genes this is
> > > written,
> > does that mean it is good?<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
> >  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below:
> > ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system
> > evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a
> > particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the
> > long term. <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush
> > > against the
> > intangible.  We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve
> > into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by
> > reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and
> > writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic
> > context. <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same
> > thrill? <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks
> > > for the
> > great phrase, NIck-<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> Victoria<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> Russ,<br />
> > >
> Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but
> > > I'll
> > hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.<br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> This is one of the points by which a whole host of
> > > conceptual
> > confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people
> > do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not
> > know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most
> > common options are that "the species evolves", "the
> > trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common,
> > but increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment
> > system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people
> > increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams
> > solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to
> > its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of
> > overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An chicken
> > is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this
> > introduces all sorts of devious problems.<br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> I would argue that it makes more sense to say that
> > > species
> > evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the
> > multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The
> > latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard
> > to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you
> > say. <br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> Eric<br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, <span style="font-weight:
> > bold">Russ Abbott <<a
> > href="mailto:[hidden email]">[hidden email]</a>></spa
> > n>
> > wrote:<br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <span
> > style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"51)","serif""
> > >I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple
> > question.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">When we use the term
> > > <span
> > style="font-style: italic">evolution</span>, we have something in mind
> > that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question:
> > what is it that evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">We generally mean more
> > > by <span
> > style="font-style: italic">evolution </span>than just that change
> > occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We
> > normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species,
> > that evolves. Of course that's not quite right
> > since evolution also involves the creation of new
> > species. Besides, the very notion of species is <a
> > href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/">controversial</a>.
> > (But that's a different discussion.)  </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">Is it appropriate to
> > > say that
> > there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is
> > not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider
> > broader answers.
> > But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence
> > "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably
> > clear referent for its subject?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">An alternative is to
> > > say that
> > what we mean by "X evolves" is really
> > "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear
> > to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by
> > "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution
> > is
> > (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it
> > more clearly?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">I'm copying Nick
> > > and Eric
> > explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists
> > have to say about this.</span><br clear="all" />
> > >
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <span
> > style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003
> > 333"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> <span style="font-style: italic"><span
> > style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003
> > 333">-- Russ </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
> > >
> Eric Charles<br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> Professional Student and<br />
> > >
> Assistant Professor of Psychology<br />
> > >
> Penn State University<br />
> > >
> Altoona, PA 16601<br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> <br />
> > >
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > >
> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
> ============================================================<br />
> > >
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br />
> > >
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br />
> > >
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a
> > href="http://www.friam.org">http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
> > >
> </div>
> > > <p
> class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > >
>  <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > </div>
> > > </div>
> > > </div>
> > > <pre>
> > > <o:p> </o:p></pre>
> > > <pre>
> > > <o:p> </o:p></pre>
> > > <pre>
> > >
> ============================================================<o:p></o:p></pre
> >
> > > <pre>
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></pre>
> > > <pre>
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's
> College<o:p></o:p></pre>
> > > <pre>
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a
> > href="http://www.friam.org">http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
> > > <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
> > > <o:p> </o:p></p>
> > > </div>
> > > <pre>
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
> > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps
> > > at http://www.friam.org </pre>
> > > </div>
> > > </blockquote>
> > > </div>
> > > </div>
> > > <div>
> > >  </div>
> > > </div></body></html>
> > > --_----------=_1305050715233870--
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> > http://www.friam.org
> >
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
> unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Parks, Raymond

Re: What evolves?

No, the END result is everything dies.

Your morbid thought for the day.

Ray Parks

----- Original Message -----
From: Prof David West [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 02:23 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

Nick - I am too much a Vedic/Buddhist to take seriously the idea that
there distinction between "living" and "non-living." But not to despair
- the end result is all living.

davew

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:35 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
<[hidden email]> wrote:

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: What evolves?

That is very nearly a tautology.

On 5/15/11 12:16 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:

> No, the END result is everything dies.
>
> Your morbid thought for the day.
>
> Ray Parks
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Prof David West [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 02:23 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
>
> Nick - I am too much a Vedic/Buddhist to take seriously the idea that
> there distinction between "living" and "non-living." But not to despair
> - the end result is all living.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:35 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> As somebody in the .... um ... later years of life, I tend to regard the
>> distinction between living and non-living as ... well .... pretty
>> important.
>>
>>
>> Reluctant to see it cast aside as you and russ seem so eager to do.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:56 AM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Yes, I think co-evolution is as 'simple as declaring them to be singular
>> (taken as a whole subsystem ...).' But that does not make the issue
>> itself
>> simple. And there are other consequences - the need to abandon the
>> arbitrary distinction between "living" and "non-living" things.
>> Co-evolutuion cannot be restricted to networks of relations among
>> predator
>> and prey, but must also include average-daily-temperature and percent of
>> nitrogen in surface soil.
>>
>> I remember reading years ago (I will find a reference) about the origins
>> of
>> life, not in a lightning powered primordial soup, but in clay - and the
>> formation of complex molecules, ala amino acids, and the transition
>> between
>> that which was perceived as 'non-living' to that which was perceived as
>> 'living' that is germane to the above.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 16:11 -0600, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> Dave -
>>>
>>> Can you put my assumption that one can speak meaningfully of the
>>> evolution of a "system" or "subsystem" into the context of your "minor
>>> points"?
>>>
>>> What of co-evolution of interdependent species (humans/grains,
>>> megafauna/megafruit, predator/prey/forage networks, etc.) or of a
>>> "network"
>>> thereof? e.g. Whence Pollenating Insects w/o Pollen Plants, etc?
>>>
>>> Is it as simple as declaring them to be singular (taken as a whole
>>> sub-system
>>> of the Universe)? Or is this entirely a misuse in your view?
>>>
>>> Thanks to Nick for inserting the term "Creodic" into the discussion.
>>> I suppose this is a fundamental issue in the Creationism debate? In
>>> some sense, the more receptive of the Creationists might allow
>>> "Biological Evolution"
>>> if
>>> it were essentially *creodic* (the world unfolding under the
>>> benevolent eye and predestined plan of God in this case?) as you say?
>>>
>>> - Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>>>
>>>> --_----------=_1305050715233870
>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>>> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400
>>>> X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
>>>>
>>>> minor points
>>>>
>>>> 1- evolution takes a singular subject - some individual thing
>>>> evolves.
>>>>
>>>> 2- what originally evolved was a book or scroll - i.e. it unrolled -
>>>> hence it evolved; or a flower - which unfolded hence evolved.
>>>>
>>>> 3- a human evolves - according to homunculus theory of embryology
>>>> - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric conscription of evolution
>>>> as unrolling.
>>>>
>>>> 4- things go awry when evolvution is metaphorically applied to the
>>>> plural - e.g. taxa, species. To make it work the plural must be
>>>> reified as singular.
>>>>
>>>> 5- an error of a different sort is made when evolution is applied to
>>>> society or some other multi-component system which is singular and
>>>> therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original sense of the word.
>>>> The error is forgetting that there is really only one system (The
>>>> Universe if it is granted that there is only one, or The Infinite
>>>> Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go all quantum on
>>>> me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined subsets that
>>>> are still part of the whole - an encapsulation error.
>>>>
>>>> 6- yet another error is made - as Nick points out - when a
>>>> subjective value scale is super-imposed on the sequence of
>>>> arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last word of the
>>>> book is more profound than the first simply because it was the last
>>>> revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom because it
>>>> came first in a sequence). [Aside: Anthropology as a "scientific"
>>>> discipline filled hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all
>>>> carefully arranged in rows in order to prove that the brain
>>>> contained within the skulls reached its 'evolutionary'
>>>> apex with 19th century northern European males.]
>>>>
>>>> 7- devolution - if allowed at all - would reflect a similar
>>>> superimposition of values in a curve instead of a straight line -
>>>> e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom devolves into
>>>> a withered remnant of less value than either.
>>>>
>>>> dave west
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Steve:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is sort of fun: Which is more advanced; a horse=E2=80=99s hoof
>>>> or a human hand.?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Answer: the hoof is way more advanced. (Actually I asked the
>>>> question wrong, it should have been horses
>>>> =E2=80=9Cforearm=E2=80=9D)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why? Because the word =E2=80=9Cadvanced=E2=80=9D means just
>>>> =E2=80=9Calter= ed from the ancestral structure that gave rise to
>>>> both the hoof and the hand.=E2=80=9D That ancestral structure was a
>>>> hand-like paw, perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back
>>>> from our own hand.
>>>> The horse=E2=80=99s hoof is a single hypertrophied fingernail on a
>>>> hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost nothing. Many
>>>> more steps away. Humans are in many ways very primitive creatures.
>>>> Viruses are very advanced, having lost everything! Our Maker is
>>>> given to irony.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:12 AM
>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear old bald guy with big eyebrows (aka Nick)..
>>>> I'm becoming an old bald guy myself with earlobes that are sagging
>>>> and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not
>>>> so much. I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half
>>>> as impressive as yours! Now *there* is some personal
>>>> evolution! To use a particular vernacular, "You've got a nice rack
>>>> there Nick!"
>>>> I really appreciate your careful outline of this topic, it is one of
>>>> the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do* want
>>>> to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or
>>>> political (or personal) change they approve/disapprove of. I
>>>> appreciate Victoria asking this question in this manner, it is
>>>> problematic in many social circles to use Evolution in it's more
>>>> strict sense.
>>>> I have been trained not to apply a value judgment to evolution which
>>>> of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of devolution.
>>>> At the same time, there are what appear to be "retrograde" arcs of
>>>> evolution... biological evolution, by definition, is always
>>>> adaptive to changing conditions which may lead one arc of evolution
>>>> to be reversed in some sense.
>>>> When pre-aquatic mammals who evolved into the cetaceans we know
>>>> today (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping
>>>> appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages. One
>>>> might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution. That is not to
>>>> say that being a land inhabitant is "higher" than a water inhabitant
>>>> and that the cetaceans are in any way "less evolved" than their
>>>> ancestors, they are simply evolved to fit more better into their new
>>>> niche which selects for appendages for swimming over appendages for
>>>> land locomotion.
>>>> Nevertheless, is there not a measure of "progress" in the biosphere?
>>>> Do we not see the increasing complexity (and
>>>> heirarchies) of the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive,
>>>> more robust? Would the replacement of the current diversity of
>>>> species on the planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens,
>>>> corn, soybeans, cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde
>>>> evolution in the biosphere? Or to a single one (humans with
>>>> very clever nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this
>>>> description I think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object
>>>> terran biosphere.
>>>> Since I was first exposed to the notion of the co-evolution of
>>>> species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single
>>>> species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes
>>>> at the same time. In this context the only use of "devolve" or
>>>> "retrograde evolution" I can imagine is linked to complexity
>>>> again... a biological niche whose major elements die off completely
>>>> somehow seems like a retrograde evolution... the pre-desert Sahara
>>>> perhaps? The Interglacial tundras? The inland seas when they
>>>> become too briny (and polluted) to support life?
>>>> I know that all this even is somehow anthropocentric, so maybe I'm
>>>> undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of
>>>> evolution/devolution).
>>>> - Steve (primping the 3 wild hairs in his left eyebrow)
>>>>
>>>> Dear Victoria,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The word =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D has a history before biologists
>>>> made o= ff with it, but I can=E2=80=99t speak to those uses. I
>>>> think it first came into use in biology to refer to development and
>>>> referred to the
>>>> unfolding of a flower. The one use I cannot tolerate gracefully
>>>> is to refer to whatever social or political change the speaker
>>>> happens to approve of. As in, =E2=80=9Csociety is
>>>> evolving.=E2=80=9D The= term devolution comes out of that
>>>> misappropriation. One of the properties that some people approve of
>>>> is increasing hierarchical structure and predictable order. The
>>>> development of the British empire would have been, to those people,
>>>> a case of evolution.
>>>> Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken
>>>> over by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to
>>>> recognize that the use of the term, =E2=80=9Cevolution=E2=80=9D,
>>>> implies a = values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take
>>>> for granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a
>>>> =E2=80=9Chighly evolved=E2=80=9D discussion (};-])*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nick Thompson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *=E2=80=94old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>>
>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>>>
>>>> Clark University
>>>>
>>>> [1]http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>>
>>>> [2]http://www.cusf.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: [3][hidden email]
>>>> [[4]mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Victoria Hughes
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A couple of other questions then:
>>>>
>>>> What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if
>>>> not why not, etc
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a
>>>> different word for it?
>>>>
>>>> ie:
>>>>
>>>> If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding
>>>> what is positive and sustainable?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have
>>>> 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very
>>>> problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between
>>>> different areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each
>>>> other and leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that
>>>> evolution? if so why, etc
>>>>
>>>> Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written,
>>>> does that mean it is good?
>>>>
>>>> There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must
>>>> be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper
>>>> limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only
>>>> perspective that holds up in the long term.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the
>>>> intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into
>>>> something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading
>>>> and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing
>>>> skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.
>>>>
>>>> I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the
>>>> great phrase, NIck-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Victoria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Russ,
>>>> Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a
>>>> little, and get more specific if he does not.
>>>> This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual
>>>> confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people
>>>> do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not
>>>> know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most
>>>> common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves",
>>>> or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular
>>>> option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the
>>>> course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the
>>>> genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and
>>>> Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene.
>>>> Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great
>>>> quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs."
>>>> Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.
>>>> I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve.
>>>> If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level
>>>> selection people and saying that the systems evolve.
>>>> The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it
>>>> hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let
>>>> you say.
>>>> Eric
>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott<[5][hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we
>>>> all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is
>>>> it that evolves?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We generally mean more by evolution than just that change
>>>> occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term.
>>>> We normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a
>>>> species, that evolves. Of course that's not quite right since
>>>> evolution also involves the creation of new species.
>>>> Besides, the very notion of species is [6]controversial. (But that's
>>>> a different discussion.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity,
>>>> that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological
>>>> evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers.
>>>> But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X
>>>> evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its
>>>> subject?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really
>>>> "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it
>>>> does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution
>>>> occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is
>>>> (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it
>>>> more clearly?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially
>>>> interested in what biologists have to say about this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Russ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eric Charles
>>>> Professional Student and
>>>> Assistant Professor of Psychology
>>>> Penn State University
>>>> Altoona, PA 16601
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>>>> D=3D=3D=
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>>>> D=3D=3D=
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
>>>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
>>>> [7]http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>>>> D=3D=3D=
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>>>> D=3D=3D=
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at [8]http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>>>> D=3D=3D=
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>>>> D=3D=3D=
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
>>>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
>>>> http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>> References
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>> 2. http://www.cusf.org/
>>>> 3. mailto:[hidden email]
>>>> 4. mailto:[hidden email]
>>>> 5. mailto:[hidden email]
>>>> 6. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/
>>>> 7. http://www.friam.org/
>>>> 8. http://www.friam.org/
>>>>
>>>> --_----------=_1305050715233870
>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>> Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
>>>> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:05:15 -0400
>>>> X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> <html><head><title></title></head><body><div
>>> style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;" dir="ltr"><div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">minor points</span></div> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">1- evolution takes a singular
>>>> subject - some
>>> individual thing evolves.</span></div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">2- what originally evolved was a
>>>> book or
>>> scroll - i.e. it unrolled - hence it evolved; or a flower - which
>>> unfolded hence evolved.</span></div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">3- a human evolves - according to
>>>> homunculus
>>> theory of embryology - by unfolding - first level of metaphoric
>>> conscription of evolution as unrolling.</span></div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">4- things go awry when evolvution is
>>> metaphorically applied to the plural - e.g. taxa, species.  To
>>> make it work the plural must be reified as singular.</span></div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">5- an error of a different sort is
>>>> made when
>>> evolution is applied to society or some other multi-component system
>>> which is singular and therefore can evolve (unfold) in the original
>>> sense of the word.  The error is forgetting that there is really
>>> only one system (The Universe if it is granted that there is only one,
>>> or The Infinite Infinity of Universes of Universes if you want to go
>>> all quantum on me) - all other named systems are arbitrarily defined
>>> subsets that are still part of the whole
>>> - an
>>> encapsulation error.</span></div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">6- yet another error is made - as
>>>> Nick
>>> points out - when a subjective value scale is super-imposed on the
>>> sequence of arbitrarily defined stages or states, e.g. when the last
>>> word of the book is more profound than the first simply because it was
>>> the last revealed - or the bud is somehow less than the blossom
>>> because it came first in a sequence).
>>> [Aside: Anthropology as a"scientific" discipline filled
>>> hundreds of museums with thousands of skulls all carefully arranged in
>>> rows in order to prove that the brain contained within the skulls
>>> reached its'evolutionary' apex with 19th century northern
>>> European males.]</span></div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">7- devolution - if allowed at all -
>>>> would
>>> reflect a similar superimposition of values in a curve instead of a
>>> straight line - e.g. the bud is less than the blossom but the blossom
>>> devolves into a withered remnant of less value than
>>> either.</span></div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <span style="font-size:small;">dave west</span></div> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> <div class="defangedMessage">
>>>> <div id="me48497">
>>>> <div>
>>>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:03 -0600,
>> "Nicholas 
>>>> Thompson"
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:</div>
>>>> <blockquote class="me48497QuoteMessage" type="cite">
>>>> <style type="text/css"></style>
>>>> <div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; ">
>>>> <div class="me48497WordSection1">
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D">Steve:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D">This is sort of fun:  Which is more
>>> advanced; a horse’s hoof or a human hand.?
>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif&quo
>> t;;color:#1F497D">Answer:
>>> the hoof is way more advanced.  (Actually I asked the question
>>> wrong, it should have been horses“forearm”) 
>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D">Why? 
>>> Because the word“advanced” means just“altered from
>>> the ancestral structure that gave rise to both the hoof and the
>>> hand.”  That ancestral structure was a  hand-like paw,
>>> perhaps like that on a raccoon, only a few steps back from our own
>>> hand.  The horse’s hoof is a single hypertrophied
>>> fingernail on a hand where every other digit has shrunk to almost
>>> nothing.  Many more steps away.  Humans are in many ways
>>> very primitive creatures.  Viruses are very advanced, having lost
>>> everything! Our Maker is given to irony. 
>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D">Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <div
>> style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
>>>> 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt
>>> 0in 0in 0in">
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>> style="font-weight: bold"><span
>>> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
>>> f";color:windowtext">From:</span></span><span
>>> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
>>> f";color:windowtext"> [hidden email]
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]<span
>>> style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of</span>Steve Smith<br />
>>>> <span
>> style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Tuesday, May
>>>> 10, 2011
>>> 10:12 AM<br />
>>>> <span
>> style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday
>>>> Morning
>>> Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br />
>>>> <span
>> style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM]
>>>> What
>>> evolves?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <o:p> </o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> Dear old bald guy with big
>> eyebrows (aka Nick)..<br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> I'm becoming an old bald
>> guy myself with earlobes that are
>>>> sagging
>>> and a nose that continues to grow despite the rest of his face not so
>>> much.  I look forward to obtaining eyebrows even half as
>>> impressive as yours!   Now *there* is some personal
>>> evolution!  To use a particular vernacular,"You've got
>>> a nice rack there Nick!"<br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> I really appreciate your
>> careful outline of this topic, it is
>>>> one of
>>> the ones I'm most likely to get snagged on with folks who *do*
>>> want to use the world evolution (exclusively) to judge social or
>>> political (or
>>> personal)
>>> change they approve/disapprove of.   I appreciate Victoria
>>> asking this question in this manner, it is problematic in many social
>>> circles to use Evolution in it's more strict sense.<br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> I have been trained not to
>> apply a value judgment to evolution
>>>> which
>>> of course obviates any use of it's presumed negative of
>>> devolution.  At the same time, there are what appear to be
>>> "retrograde" arcs of evolution...  biological
>>> evolution, by definition, is always adaptive to changing conditions
>>> which may lead one arc of evolution to be reversed in some
>>> sense. <br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> When pre-aquatic mammals who
>> evolved into the cetaceans we
>>>> know today
>>> (whales and dolphins) their walking/climbing/crawling/grasping
>>> appendages returned to functioning as swimming appendages.  One
>>> might consider that a retrograde bit of evolution.  That is not
>>> to say that being a land inhabitant is"higher" than a water
>>> inhabitant and that the cetaceans are in any way"less
>>> evolved" than their ancestors,  they are simply evolved to
>>> fit more better into their new niche which selects for appendages for
>>> swimming over appendages for land locomotion.<br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> Nevertheless, is there not a
>> measure of"progress"
>>>> in the
>>> biosphere?  Do we not see the increasing complexity (and
>>> heirarchies) of
>>> the biosphere to be somehow meaningful, positive, more robust? 
>>> Would the replacement of the current diversity of species on the
>>> planet to a small number (humans, cows, chickens, corn, soybeans,
>>> cockroaches) be in some sense retrograde evolution in the
>>> biosphere?   Or to a single one (humans with very clever
>>> nanotech replacing the biology of the planet)? In this description I
>>> think I'm using the verb evolve to apply to the object terran
>>> biosphere.<br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> Since I was first exposed to
>> the notion of the co-evolution of
>>> species, I have a hard time thinking of the evolution of a single
>>> species independent of the biological niche it inhabits and shapes at
>>> the same time.  In this context the only use of
>>> "devolve" or"retrograde evolution" I can imagine
>>> is linked to complexity again...  a biological niche whose major
>>> elements die off completely somehow seems like a retrograde
>>> evolution... the pre-desert Sahara perhaps?  The Interglacial
>>> tundras?  The inland seas when they become too briny (and
>>> polluted) to support life? <br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> I know that all this even is
>> somehow anthropocentric, so maybe
>>>> I'm
>>> undermining my own position (that there might be a meaningful use of
>>> evolution/devolution).<br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> - Steve (primping the 3 wild
>> hairs in his left eyebrow)<br />
>>>>  <br />
>>>> <br />
>>>> <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if"">Dear
>>> Victoria,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if"">The word“evolution” has a history before
>>> biologists made off with it, but I can’t speak to those
>>> uses.  I think it first came into use in biology to refer to
>>> development and referred to the unfolding of a flower.   The
>>> one use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social
>>>  or political change the speaker happens to approve
>>> of.  As in,“society is evolving.”  The term
>>> devolution comes out of that misappropriation.  One of the
>>> properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical
>>> structure and predictable order.  The development of the British
>>> empire would have been, to those people, a case of evolution. 
>>> Thus, when parliaments were formed and government functions taken over
>>> by Northern Ireland and Scotland, this was called
>>> Devolution.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if"">Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines
>>> is to recognize that the use of the term,“evolution”,
>>> implies a values stance of some sort and that we should NOT take for
>>> granted that we all share the same values, if we hope to have a
>>> “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if"">Nick
>>> Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if"">*—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on
>>> his face.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if"">Nicholas
>>> S. Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if"">Emeritus Professor of Psychology and
>>> Biology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if"">Clark
>>> University</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""><a
>>> href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/">http:
>>> //home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</a></span><o:p></o:
>>> p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""><a
>>> href="http://www.cusf.org/">http://www.cusf.org</a></span><o:p></o:p><
>>> /p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser
>>> if""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <div
>> style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext
>>> 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color
>>> -moz-use-text-color">
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <span
>> style="font-weight: bold"><span
>>> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
>>> f"">From:</span></span><span
>>> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-seri
>>> f"">
>>> <a
>>> href="mailto:[hidden email]">[hidden email]</a>
>>> [<a
>>> href="mailto:[hidden email]">mailto:[hidden email]
>>> om</a>]<span style="font-weight: bold">On Behalf Of</span>Victoria
>>> Hughes<br />
>>>> <span
>> style="font-weight: bold">Sent:</span> Monday, May 09,
>>>> 2011
>>> 8:26 PM<br />
>>>> <span
>> style="font-weight: bold">To:</span> The Friday
>>>> Morning
>>> Applied Complexity Coffee Group<br />
>>>> <span
>> style="font-weight: bold">Subject:</span> Re: [FRIAM]
>>>> What
>>> evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> A
>> couple of other questions then: <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this
>>>> discussion,
>>> if not why not, etc<o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> and <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is
>>>> there a
>>> different word for it?<o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> ie: <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> If evolution means'positive sustainable change'
>>>> who is
>>> deciding what is positive and sustainable? <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> One could argue that aspects of human neurological
>>>> evolution have
>>> 'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very
>>> problematic or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different
>>> areas of the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and
>>> leading to personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if
>>> so why, etc<o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> Just because we can find out where in our genes this is
>>>> written,
>>> does that mean it is good?<o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
>>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below:
>>> ultimately it must be "the organism-environment system
>>> evolves" or there is an upper limit to the life-span of a
>>> particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds up in the
>>> long term. <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush
>>>> against the
>>> intangible. We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve
>>> into something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by
>>> reading and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and
>>> writing skills in this brilliant and eclectic
>>> context. <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same
>>> thrill? <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks
>>>> for the
>>> great phrase, NIck-<o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> Victoria<o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>> <div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <br />
>> <br />
>> <br />
>> <o:p></o:p></p>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> Russ,<br />
>> Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but
>>>> I'll
>>> hand wave a little, and get more specific if he does not.<br />
>> <br />
>> This is one of the points by which a whole host of
>>>> conceptual
>>> confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people
>>> do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not
>>> know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most
>>> common options are that"the species evolves","the
>>> trait evolves", or"the genes evolve". A less common,
>>> but increasingly popular option is that"the organism-environment
>>> system evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people
>>> increasingly thought it was"the genes", with Williams
>>> solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to
>>> its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of
>>> overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like"An chicken
>>> is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this
>>> introduces all sorts of devious problems.<br />
>> <br />
>> I would argue that it makes more sense to say that
>>>> species
>>> evolve. If you don't like that, you are best going with the
>>> multi-level selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The
>>> latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard
>>> to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you
>>> say. <br />
>> <br />
>> Eric<br />
>> <br />
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM,<span style="font-weight:
>>> bold">Russ Abbott<<a
>>> href="mailto:[hidden email]">[hidden email]</a>></spa
>>> n>
>>> wrote:<br />
>> <br />
>> <br />
>> <o:p></o:p></p>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <span
>>> style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"51)","serif""
>>>> I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple
>>> question.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">When we use the term
>>>> <span
>>> style="font-style: italic">evolution</span>, we have something in mind
>>> that we all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question:
>>> what is it that evolves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">We generally mean more
>>>> by<span
>>> style="font-style: italic">evolution</span>than just that change
>>> occurs--although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We
>>> normally think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species,
>>> that evolves. Of course that's not quite right
>>> since evolution also involves the creation of new
>>> species. Besides, the very notion of species is <a
>>> href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/">controversial</a>.
>>> (But that's a different discussion.) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">Is it appropriate to
>>>> say that
>>> there is generally a thing, an entity, that evolves? The question is
>>> not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing to consider
>>> broader answers.
>>> But in any context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence
>>> "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably
>>> clear referent for its subject?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">An alternative is to
>>>> say that
>>> what we mean by"X evolves" is really
>>> "evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear
>>> to me that it does since the question then becomes what do we means by
>>> "evolution occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution
>>> is
>>> (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we characterize it
>>> more clearly?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <span style="font-size:10.0pt">I'm copying Nick
>>>> and Eric
>>> explicitly because I'm especially interested in what biologists
>>> have to say about this.</span><br clear="all" />
>> <o:p></o:p></p>
>> <div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <span
>>> style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003
>>> 333"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> <span style="font-style: italic"><span
>>> style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#003
>>> 333">-- Russ </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> </div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> </div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
>> Eric Charles<br />
>> <br />
>> Professional Student and<br />
>> Assistant Professor of Psychology<br />
>> Penn State University<br />
>> Altoona, PA 16601<br />
>> <br />
>> <br />
>> <o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>> ============================================================<br />
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br />
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br />
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at<a
>>> href="http://www.friam.org">http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
>> </div>
>>>> <p
>> class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>  <o:p></o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <pre>
>>>> <o:p> </o:p></pre>
>>>> <pre>
>>>> <o:p> </o:p></pre>
>>>> <pre>
>>>>
>> ============================================================<o:p></o:p></pre
>>>> <pre>
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></pre>
>>>> <pre>
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's
>> College<o:p></o:p></pre>
>>>> <pre>
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at<a
>>> href="http://www.friam.org">http://www.friam.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
>>>> <p class="me48497MsoNormal">
>>>> <o:p> </o:p></p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <pre>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
>>>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps
>>>> at http://www.friam.org</pre>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </blockquote>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </div>
>>>> <div>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> </div></body></html>
>>>> --_----------=_1305050715233870--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
>>> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
>>> http://www.friam.org
>>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
>> unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>