> 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
>>>>
>>>> <!--/*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>>
> ============================================================
> 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>
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College