Posted by
Nick Thompson on
May 11, 2011; 4:35pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/What-evolves-tp6345895p6352608.html
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
> >
> > <!--/*SC*/DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"/*EC*/-->
> > <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