gene-culture coevolution
Locked
 
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
I have been trying to make the point about culture - not only for evolution, but for cognition as well. Had many an argument with Nick on this topic at Mother Church.
davew On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 2:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > Researchers: Culture drives human evolution more than genetics > https://phys.org/news/2021-06-culture-human-evolution-genetics.html > > Paywalled Paper: > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.0538 > > Accessible version: > https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=eco_facpub > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: gene-culture coevolution
|
|
The paper makes intuitive sense for me. Human traits are a complex function of genes and culture. Genetic evolution has stopped, or is very weak, and culture is evolving very fast. The changes in future human traits will therefore almost exclusively be determined by cultural evolution. But, this is assuming humans are not going to modify their genes, or the genes of their children. With current technology it's probably very risky to do that, but what will the future hold? On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 04:25, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote: I have been trying to make the point about culture - not only for evolution, but for cognition as well. Had many an argument with Nick on this topic at Mother Church. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Interesting topic but the paper contains no model: no mathematical theory, no experimental data, no agent-based model, nothing. I think it would help a lot to understand gene-culture coevolution if people would start to notice there are indeed hidden genes in cultural evolution, but that's just my point of view. Cultural evolution is notoriously difficult to model because it is based on language and computers can not understand language (yet). Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd have written a number of books about it and tried to model it mathematically, but it unclear to me how far their complex models match reality. Even religion is extremely difficult to model, although it is the most basic form of a collective organism in cultural evolution. It is difficult to model because it is based on abstract beliefs and the understanding of language. The best model I can think of is a swarm, because the rules of swarm intelligence are isomorphic to the basic religious rules in "abstract behavior phase space" (as I try to explain in the book). It is possible to use abstract models though which simulate strategies like cooperation and defection, collective processes like wars, tributes and taxes, etc. Robert Axelrod's tribute model for example is a classic agent-based model which is useful to study the emergence of states and empires. I have tried to implement the model in 2 dimensions at the weekend: https://github.com/JochenFromm/SwarmIntelligence/blob/master/notebooks/Emergence%20of%20Political%20Actors.ipynb -J. -------- Original message -------- From: "uǝlƃ ☤>$" <[hidden email]> Date: 6/7/21 22:17 (GMT+01:00) To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution https://phys.org/news/2021-06-culture-human-evolution-genetics.html Paywalled Paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.0538 Accessible version: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=eco_facpub -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: gene-culture coevolution
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
It’s not clear to me a mechanism that facilitates more and more greenhouse gas producing agents is necessarily a good thing. Anyway, it defines how fitness is defined. Culture is a sort of field that makes people think the same way. Why have billions of agents if there are effectively a small number of forms or prototypes for them? When Europeans sneer at the U.S. for having little culture, I take
that as a compliment! From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
Jochen Fromm Interesting topic but the paper contains no model: no mathematical theory, no experimental data, no agent-based model, nothing. I think it would help a lot to understand gene-culture coevolution if people would start to notice there are
indeed hidden genes in cultural evolution, but that's just my point of view. Cultural evolution is notoriously difficult to model because it is based on language and computers can not understand language (yet). Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd have written a number of books about it and tried to model it mathematically,
but it unclear to me how far their complex models match reality. Even religion is extremely difficult to model, although it is the most basic form of a collective organism in cultural evolution. It is difficult to model because it is based on abstract beliefs and the understanding of language. The best
model I can think of is a swarm, because the rules of swarm intelligence are isomorphic to the basic religious rules in "abstract behavior phase space" (as I try to explain in the book). It is possible to use abstract models though which simulate strategies like cooperation and defection, collective processes like wars, tributes and taxes, etc. Robert Axelrod's tribute model for example is a classic agent-based model which
is useful to study the emergence of states and empires. I have tried to implement the model in 2 dimensions at the weekend: -J. -------- Original message -------- From: "uǝlƃ ☤>$" <[hidden email]>
Date: 6/7/21 22:17 (GMT+01:00) To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution
Researchers: Culture drives human evolution more than genetics - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp
Dispatch from the bog. Assumption that behavioral adaptation is necessary quicker than genetic gratuitous STOP in region of west where there have been no rattle snakes for a zillion years, prairie dogs still have behavioral defenses long after their venom resistance has faded STOP yes I can think of other explanations STOP there are always other explanations STOP Also, genes are relations not things STOP Nick Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp The paper makes intuitive sense for me. Human traits are a complex function of genes and culture. Genetic evolution has stopped, or is very weak, and culture is evolving very fast. The changes in future human traits will therefore almost exclusively be determined by cultural evolution. On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 04:25, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: gene-culture coevolution
|
|
Nick, I'm not sure I follow your logic. It seems you imply behaviour cannot be caused by genes? Help me if I understand you wrong. The way I see it is that the behaviour of the prairie dogs is caused mainly by their genes, that's why it changes very slowly. Human behaviour on the other hand is caused to a much larger extent, but certainly not exclusively, we are not born blank slates, by culture that's why it changes much faster. On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 17:36, <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
Pieter, Are you perhaps caught in a tautology, here? If genetic changes are DEFINED as those that occur slowly, then the statement that genetic changes occur slowly has no empirical force. Such tautologies have been the life-blood of my work. Gardening makes me skeptical. Why didn’t my peas come up this year, when the beans right next to them leapt from the soil. I dunno. I can have hunches, and I do have hunches, and having hunches makes my world seem a safer place. When I garden, I easily get lost in what Philosophers would probably call a Humean Swamp. It’s the same as having IBD which 30 percent of the American population does. Every day’s different; every day’s the same in being different; and no doctor has a clue. One can do experiments, and experiments are suggest that changes in the population of some events will lead to changes in the population of some other events. But to speak of causality in a single instance, as we all so confidently do, is just nonsense. Out here amongst the humus the world returns to its natural state, a blooming buzzing confusion. I get to wondering how ANY Darwinian process can occur, anatomical, physiological, OR behavioral: i.e., natural selection OR learning. For something to be selected in any way, it has to be isolated from all other consequences except the desired one. In a garden (as in a gut) things just seem just too ENTANGLED for selection to be possible. Now back to our conversation about rate of change. It seems to me that the rate of change is determined in part by the degree of entanglement of the trait of interest. Highly entangled traits change slowly, whether by learning or by natural selection; free standing traits change quickly. THE BEAK OF THE FINCH has a wonderful example of the bill shapes of one of Darwin’s finches changing in cycles according to El Nino. (Geez! I hope I remember that right!) One can suppose that learned traits are easier to disentangle than “genetic” ones, but I don’t know any rule that makes that so. I think the puzzle of evolution and the puzzle of learning are the same. In whose interest is the platform, the level playing field, the disentanglement, that makes selection possible. Is it possible that Darwinian mechanisms are self -disentangling? Pieter, I have taken the liberty of forwarding this to the list, so I can resume being dope-slapped by the Erics and Glencus. It’s time to drain my Humean swamp. Nick Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> Nick, please enjoy your gardening, I really don't mind if you ignore this email. But if you don't understand it or are offended by it, then I'll gladly change my wording in future. On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 21:47, <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: gene-culture coevolution
|
|
Nick, There are so many points in your post that I want to comment on, but I always like to make my messages clear and to do that I prefer to comment, for now, only on your " Are you perhaps caught in a tautology, here? If genetic changes are DEFINED as those that occur slowly, then the statement that genetic changes occur slowly has no empirical force. Such tautologies have been the life-blood of my work" I plead guilty, I've been using short-cuts and assumed others can read my mind between the words. Let me explain, hopefully better, what I tried to say. Prairie dogs having venom resistance From my understanding of biology and evolution, genetic evolution offers a very good explanation of why prairie dogs' physiology develop venom resistance against snake bites. In simple terms, if there is a genetic mutation that makes an individual prairie dog somewhat resistant, that individuals' genes have more chance to replicate, simply because more of the other dogs die and their genes are removed from the gene pool.If you repeat this many times then Bob's your uncle. But, you need time for all the prairie dogs to become immune, it simply cannot happen in less than say 5 generations, I don't say how many generations you require, maybe a thousand? If you challenge me on this one, I'll be able to code an ABM simulation demonstrating this and I don't even think it will take that much effort and/or time. (I very much enjoy challenges like this, I have many things on my plate but I have an open spot between 2 and 3 am every morning to work on this). In my opinion this offers a very good explanation why, over time, all the prairie dogs get to be resistant against snake bites. Surely this is Darwinian Evolution 101? This, as everything in science is fallible. I certainly do not claim that the above explanation is water proof and can explain every little detail. But IMO overall the explanation is good. If someone offers some other conjecture about why the prairie dogs have resistance, let them explain why they assert that. Until you, or someone comes up with a conjecture with a better explanation, I'll accept the biological Darwinian evolution theory. Science develops one step at a time, for now accept the assertion with the best explanation. For example, Einstein gave a better explanation than Newton about gravitation, but Newton's gravitational laws, although proven wrong by Einstein, are still very useful. "All models are wrong, some are useful" - Gerorge Box. Now to check my argument. Is it tautology? I don't see it. I did not define genetic changes as those that occur slowly. There could very well be other traits that change slowly because of many other reasons. Just random mutations with genetic drift could possibly explain many other traits that occur slowly. But in this case we are talking about a specific trait with a good explanation. Nowhere in my explanation do I define genetic changes as those that occur slowly, I referred to one and one example only. I'll obviously respond to comments, but if there are none, I'll continue in a subsequent post to some other points you made. Pieter On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 17:09, <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
I fall back to the last resort of scoundrels….Larding. Please see below. Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> Nick, I plead guilty, I've been using short-cuts and assumed others can read my mind between the words. Let me explain, hopefully better, what I tried to say. Prairie dogs having venom resistance [NST===>It’s important that we focus on the facts of this matter because they are SO counter intuitive: in the parts of the intermountain west were rattlesnakes have no longer exist (and have not for thousands of years) the prairie dogs have lost their venom resistance but retained their behavioral avoidance. <===nst] If you challenge me on this one, I'll be able to code an ABM simulation demonstrating this and I don't even think it will take that much effort and/or time. (I very much enjoy challenges like this, I have many things on my plate but I have an open spot between 2 and 3 am every morning to work on this). [NST===>Well, the “one step at a time” metaphor exactly assumes that each step you take doesn’t dissolve the one you have just taken. CF, Thomas Kuhn. <===nst]
Now to check my argument. Is it tautology? I don't see it. I did not define genetic changes as those that occur slowly. There could very well be other traits that change slowly because of many other reasons. Just random mutations with genetic drift could possibly explain many other traits that occur slowly. But in this case we are talking about a specific trait with a good explanation. Nowhere in my explanation do I define genetic changes as those that occur slowly, I referred to one and one example only. [NST===>Ok. Just checking. Tautologies are often tempting in evolutionary thought. Answer the following two questions: What is an adaptation? Why do adaptations occur? Even the great skeptical biologist George Williams once defined adapations as that which natural selection produces. <===nst]
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 17:09, <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: gene-culture coevolution
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
My causal reasoning colleagues make a distinction between statistical causation (smoking causes cancer) and token causation (pulling this trigger causes this gun to fire). --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 9:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
F is one of them nonsense? n Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly My causal reasoning colleagues make a distinction between statistical causation (smoking causes cancer) and token causation (pulling this trigger causes this gun to fire). --- On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 9:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: gene-culture coevolution
|
|
You can define both with probability assertions. If you smoke you alter the probability distribution life length. If you pull the trigger the gun will fire with probability 0.99996. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 12:26 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: gene-culture coevolution
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
For now, I'll comment only on your
[NST===>It’s important that we focus on the facts of this matter because they are SO counter intuitive: in the parts of the intermountain west were rattlesnakes have no longer exist (and have not for thousands of years) the prairie dogs have lost their venom resistance but retained their behavioral avoidance. <===nst] Why do you assume that evolution will act exactly the same, with the same timeframes, on different traits? There is a strong evolutionary "force" to develop antidotes for poisonous snakes, those that don't acquire it are removed from the gene pool very fast - they die. But if there are no poisonous snakes anymore, the evolutionary force is very weak indeed. Both those that lose and retain the trait will stay in the gene pool. So the fact that one trait is lost and another not, says exactly NOTHING. (Well apart from that one is lost and another not, but it does not even hint about the validity or not Darwinian evolution). Let's get back to the scientific process: a) All science is fallible b) Accept the science giving the best explanations of the observed phenomena. c) If better science comes up, update the science. For now, Darwinian evolution offers the best explanation of the above observed prairie dogs traits. Come up with a better conjecture and explain it, If the explanation is better than Darwinian evolution, I'll be happy to accept it. In the meantime I'll accept Darwinian evolution as the best current science for explaining the above prairie dog traits. On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 20:09, <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
So, it all goes back to my lunatic belief that all probability statements with respect to individuals are category errors. Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly You can define both with probability assertions. If you smoke you alter the probability distribution life length. If you pull the trigger the gun will fire with probability 0.99996. --- On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 12:26 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: gene-culture coevolution
|
|
The probability of heads for a fair coin is 0.5000... You will call that a tautology. It is an analytic statement but there are coins that are fair for all practical purposes. Another example of token causation might the date and time of the next total solar eclipse in Santa Fe. The causes in that case are gravitational fields. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 2:00 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |