A better example of design?

[Friar Broccoli]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg

Or via shortened link:
http://goo.gl/Odflr

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Burkhard]

On 22 Mar, 10:36, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjo...

>
> Or via shortened link:http://goo.gl/Odflr
>

Ah, that would be the heads of the nails that keep the earth fixed in
absolute space and at the centre of the universe, just ask Pagano

[Robert Camp]

On Mar 22, 3:36�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjo...
>

> Or via shortened link:http://goo.gl/Odflr
>
> --
> � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

Or this,

http://hexnet.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/image/paleodictyon-5.jpg

Which is quite possibly,

"...an expression of our planet's underlying hexagonal intelligence,
perhaps in a similar manner to crop circles."

http://hexnet.org/content/paleodictyon

[jonathan]

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...

>
>
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>
> Or via shortened link:
> http://goo.gl/Odflr

In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
the ideal form?

Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
process isn't goal oriented. Now whether the cause
for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
thinking in this ng?

Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.

The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
here.

Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
debate.

Thanks in advance


Jonathan

[John Harshman]

On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli"<eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>
>> Or via shortened link:
>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>
>
> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
> the ideal form?

Neither. Evolution follows a partly random path (neutral evolution) and
a partly directed one (natural selection), but the goals, such as they
are, are short-term, having to do with immediate impact on reproductive
success.

> Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

No.

> I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
> Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
> process isn't goal oriented.

No, it's quite easy, actually. You are a puddle marveling that a hole in
the ground is perfectly shaped to fit you.

> Now whether the cause
> for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
> otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
> thinking in this ng?

The current thinking is that there is indeed no such preferred
direction. We may have gone from microbes to Microsoft (and is that
really an advance?) but most of the biota is still at that microbial
level. If there's a direction, why have so few species taken that path,
even part way? That would seem to kill the directionality argument all
by itself.

> Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
> somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
> few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
> is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
> independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.

There's an old rule of thumb that anything calling itself "XYZ Science"
isn't really a science.

> The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
> and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
> solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
> which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
> environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
> here.

That sounds very like gibberish to me, and I, from experience, am not
confident in your ability to turn it into something more.

> Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
> debate.
>
> Thanks in advance

You're welcome?

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:

> "Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>
>> Or via shortened link:
>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>
>
> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
> the ideal form?

Neither. First, random and directed are neither mutually exclusive nor
exhaustive categories. (Consider static as another option, for
example.) Second, randomness or planned direction, or either or both,
may or may not lead towards an ideal.

Evolution proceeds according to multiple influences, both random and
regular, accidental and determinate. All play a part. All the types of
influences may (in my view, at least) be considered essential aspects of
evolution.

> Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

No. Or at least, there is no evidence of any such thing.

> I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
> Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
> process isn't goal oriented.

If you take Microsoft as the endpoint, it is hard to argue that the
process *is* goal-oriented.

> Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
> somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
> few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
> is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
> independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.
>
> The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
> and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
> solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
> which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
> environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
> here.

To the non-sentient forces you're talking about, "ideal" has no meaning.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:58:29 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>
>> Or via shortened link:
>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>
>
>In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
>the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
>a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
>the ideal form?
>
>Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

When the Barbados Threadsnake lost its sight, what was its goal?
When whales/dolphins lost their feet, what was their goal?
When seals and walruses kept their leg bones, what was their goal?
When horses went from 3 rear and 4 front toes to one toe (with splints)
per leg what was their goal?
When apes lost their tails, what was their goal?
When tunicates and barnacles went from free living animals to stationary
filter feeders what was their goal?

Available evidence suggests that the mechanism for evolutionary change
is essentially random, mutations to the heritable genetic material,
consequently evolution can have no goal. It appears that species just
move into whatever niche they can conveniently occupy. If existing
characteristics can be used, they are. If slight modifications to those
characteristics help in the struggle for existence, they will sometimes
arise. If existing characteristics are of no benefit, they will
normally be discarded.

>I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
>Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
>process isn't goal oriented. Now whether the cause
>for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
>otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
>thinking in this ng?
>
>Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
>somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
>few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
>is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
>independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.

So far you have appeared unable to reply to or even understand the most
basic and obvious questions concerning "complexity science".

>The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
>and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
>solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
>which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
>environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
>here.
>
>Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
>debate.
>
>Thanks in advance

You're welcome.

[jonathan]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message
news:kiiqvp$o7o$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:
>> "Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>>
>>> Or via shortened link:
>>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>>
>>
>> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
>> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
>> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
>> the ideal form?

>
> Neither.

That's a totally illogical answer.

>First, random and directed are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive
>categories.

You don't seem to understand the distinction.
Either a system converges towards some predictable
future, or it does not. Does evolution have an inherent
tendency towards more order, less or neutral over time?

Because the mathematics of the chaos and complexity
sciences are rather clear that self organizing systems
evolve towards criticality or the ideal given the chance.
And randomness is a key element of this direction
towards order.

>(Consider static as another option, for example.) Second, randomness or
>planned direction, or either or both, may or may not lead towards an ideal.
>
> Evolution proceeds according to multiple influences, both random and
> regular, accidental and determinate. All play a part. All the types of
> influences may (in my view, at least) be considered essential aspects of
> evolution.
>
>> Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?
>
> No. Or at least, there is no evidence of any such thing.
>
>> I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
>> Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
>> process isn't goal oriented.
>
> If you take Microsoft as the endpoint, it is hard to argue that the
> process *is* goal-oriented.

That's a ridiculous statement, it's plainly obvious life
and intelligence are far more ordered, complex or
evolved than microbes.

Random systems have certain mathematical properties.
Spontaneous cyclic order and hill-climbing are among
the properties which emerge from random networks.


(Random) Boolean Networks - Dynamic Organisms

"Order for free, utterly natural, if previously mostly unknown,
will change our view of life"

~Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe, Ch 4.
http://www.calresco.org/boolean.htm


Calresco.org
http://www.calresco.org/

[alias Ernest Major]

Gould's views on the issue are generally better regarded than Conway
Morris's.

You might also note that the universe is widely argued to be
"fine-tuned" for life. Regardless of whether the universe is fine-tuned
or has to have parameters as observed, the fact that life as we know it
is sensitively dependent on the basic constants of the universe is an
argument against your alleged robustness of self-organisation.

That Complexity Science, like Catastrophe Theory and Chaos Theory before
it, offers some insights into process generalities that don't depend on
the particular substrate doesn't mean that it is a panacea that allows
you to ignore the substrate, as you seem to think. It is my impression
that as a research program (e.g. the Santa Fe Institute) it has not been
strikingly productive.


--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/22/13 5:57 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message
> news:kiiqvp$o7o$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>> "Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Or via shortened link:
>>>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>>>
>>> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
>>> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
>>> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
>>> the ideal form?
>>
>> Neither.
>
> That's a totally illogical answer.

Perhaps to the question you intended, but not to the question you asked.

>> First, random and directed are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive
>> categories.
>
> You don't seem to understand the distinction.
> Either a system converges towards some predictable
> future, or it does not.

All systems, without exception, are unpredictable, even in the present.
Ask Heisenberg about it.

Or are you making distinctions such as "the sun will rise tomorrow" vs.
"at sunrise tomorrow there will be exactly so many protons in the solar
wind, neither more nor less"? The former is predictable, but only by
taking a very selective interpretation of what the "system" is. And if
you are making that distinction, you are asking about people's selective
interpretations, not about the system itself.

> Does evolution have an inherent
> tendency towards more order, less or neutral over time?

No, because "order" is undefined. You may know what you are talking
about, but I sure don't.

> Because the mathematics of the chaos and complexity
> sciences are rather clear that self organizing systems
> evolve towards criticality or the ideal given the chance.
> And randomness is a key element of this direction
> towards order.

Or randomness is the ideal.

>> (Consider static as another option, for example.) Second, randomness or
>> planned direction, or either or both, may or may not lead towards an ideal.
>>
>> Evolution proceeds according to multiple influences, both random and
>> regular, accidental and determinate. All play a part. All the types of
>> influences may (in my view, at least) be considered essential aspects of
>> evolution.
>>
>>> Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?
>>
>> No. Or at least, there is no evidence of any such thing.
>>
>>> I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
>>> Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
>>> process isn't goal oriented.
>>
>> If you take Microsoft as the endpoint, it is hard to argue that the
>> process *is* goal-oriented.
>
> That's a ridiculous statement, it's plainly obvious life
> and intelligence are far more ordered, complex or
> evolved than microbes.

If it is so plain, demonstrate it. It is not plain to me. In fact, it
is plain to me that microbes are exactly as evolved as Bill Gates.

Anyway, that was not my point. My point was that considering Microsoft
to be some sort of ideal or goal of life in general is, well, a
ridiculous statement.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:58:29 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>

>"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>
>> Or via shortened link:
>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>
>
>In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
>the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
>a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
>the ideal form?

NOTA. Yours is a false dichotomy. Evolution is not random, and it
doesn't have a directed path. It tracks the current state of the
environment.

>Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

It depends on what you mean by 'designed'. Evolution is a process,
and like other processes, can be modeled as performing a function or
functions, with input, output, and feedback. To assume that design
implies evolution has a purpose or intent, that a designer must lie
behind evolution, those are illusions based on a superficial
understanding of how evolution works.

>I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
>Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
>process isn't goal oriented.

Go outside where you have an unobstructed view of a natural horizon
and sky. It will appear to you as if you stand at the center of the
Universe, that the Universe radiates out from you in all directions.
If you are like most people, you learned as a child that this
appearance of a self-centered Universe is an illusion of your
subjective perspective.

In a similar way, historical events give the appearance of happening
with a purpose, that past events happened 'just so' in order to create
the present. This is also an illusion, resulting from a subjective
perspective of looking into the past from the present.

The current results from evolution are based on the current
environment and the current state of a population's genome. In turn,
a genome's current state is based on past environments. It may appear
that life is designed, that it followed steps 'just so' to create the
life seen today, but that's just another illusion of subjective
historical perspective.

>Now whether the cause
>for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
>otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
>thinking in this ng?

There seems to be two basic groups. One group believes evolution is
contingent and has no preferred direction. The other group assumes
their illusions are reality.

>Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
>somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
>few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
>is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
>independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.

To the degree that evolution is contingent on the environment, to that
degree evolution isn't like your hobby.

>The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
>and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
>solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
>which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
>environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
>here.

Your last sentence is incorrect. Evolution is not wholly dependent on
its interaction with the environment, and nobody who knows about
evolution says that it is.

>Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
>debate.

You have been posting to T.O. for some years. You could have figured
these things out by now.

[wiki trix]

On Mar 22, 6:58�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjo...

Pointless drivel.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 23 mar, 02:29, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:58:29 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >"Friar Broccoli" <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
> >>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjo...

> >> Or via shortened link:
> >>http://goo.gl/Odflr
> >In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
> >the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
> >a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
> >the ideal form?

> NOTA. 嚙磐ours is a false dichotomy. 嚙瘟volution is not random, and it
> doesn't have a directed path. 嚙瘢t tracks the current state of the

> environment.
> >Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

> It depends on what you mean by 'designed'. 嚙瘟volution is a process,

> and like other processes, can be modeled as performing a function or

> functions, with input, output, and feedback. 嚙確o assume that design

> implies evolution has a purpose or intent, that a designer must lie
> behind evolution, those are illusions based on a superficial
> understanding of how evolution works.
> >I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
> >Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
> >process isn't goal oriented.
> Go outside where you have an unobstructed view of a natural horizon

> and sky. 嚙瘢t will appear to you as if you stand at the center of the

> Universe, that the Universe radiates out from you in all directions.
> If you are like most people, you learned as a child that this
> appearance of a self-centered Universe is an illusion of your
> subjective perspective.
> In a similar way, historical events give the appearance of happening
> with a purpose, that past events happened 'just so' in order to create

> the present. 嚙確his is also an illusion, resulting from a subjective

> perspective of looking into the past from the present.
> The current results from evolution are based on the current

> environment and the current state of a population's genome. 嚙瘢n turn,
> a genome's current state is based on past environments. 嚙瘢t may appear

> that life is designed, that it followed steps 'just so' to create the
> life seen today, but that's just another illusion of subjective
> historical perspective.
> >Now whether the cause
> >for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
> >otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
> >thinking in this ng?

> There seems to be two basic groups. 嚙瞌ne group believes evolution is
> contingent and has no preferred direction. 嚙確he other group assumes

> their illusions are reality.
> >Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
> >somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
> >few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
> >is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
> >independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.
> To the degree that evolution is contingent on the environment, to that
> degree evolution isn't like your hobby.
> >The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
> >and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
> >solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
> >which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
> >environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
> >here.

> Your last sentence is incorrect. 嚙瘟volution is not wholly dependent on

> its interaction with the environment, and nobody who knows about
> evolution says that it is.
> >Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
> >debate.

> You have been posting to T.O. for some years. 嚙磐ou could have figured

> these things out by now.

To me, Darwinian evolution process is the outcome of a mixture of
random events and deterministic constraints/opportunities:
- examples of random events: of course mutations but also any relevant
historical events such as the ones which led to the five well-known
massive extinctions;
- examples of deterministic constraints/opportunities: carbon-based
chemistry, essential role of liquid water, emergence of lipid vesicles
with bilayer membrane, specific environmental constraints/
opportunities at a given period such as the existence of tectonic
plates, the absence of atmospheric oxygen on early Earth and then its
rising in atmosphere, or internal such as the emergence of the genetic
code, etc.
Of course Darwinian evolution has no goal, only environmental and
internal constraints and opportunities where random plays an essential
role.

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:11:16 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

I suppose it's just me, but I can't tell who you agree with, if
anybody. Either way, I'll add this to my comments:

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>

"Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument
completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and
selection is the very opposite of chance."

[eridanus]

El viernes, 22 de marzo de 2013 22:58:29 UTC, jonathan escribi�:

> "Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>
> >
>
> > Or via shortened link:
>
> > http://goo.gl/Odflr
>
>
>
>
>
> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do>
> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
> the ideal form?
>
> Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?
>
> I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
> Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
> process isn't goal oriented. Now whether the cause
> for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
> otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
> thinking in this ng?

I think this is a wrong paradigm. For all the proud we
feel about our technical achievements, our machines, buildings
bridges, computers, etc. All these rest on huge amounts
of energy obtained from the fossil fuels. Just try to imagine
three undesired events such as the exhaustion of fossil fuels,
the massive starving of our population due to the scarcity of
energy and the anthropogenic global warming. As a consequence
of these undesired events, the present population of 7 billion
would become just 500 million people and faster shrinking to less.

Will you say that "evolution had a plan" for humanity, of the
evolution had a goal to go from the amoebas to the homo sapiens?

Just figure that things is farther deteriorating and we are pushed
backwards toward hunting gathering with stone tools again. Would
you postulate that nature had a plan for us?

Just figure an asteroid a little bigger that the one that killed
dinosaurs. The hit would cause a severe winter that would last
some decades. All our harvests would be destroyed by climate if
they were far away from the continent where occurred the impact.

Just figure only a few "humans would be able to survive by eating
some seafood in equatorial latitudes. Would this proved evolution
had a plan or a goal for humans.
I remember now the case of the natives of Tasmania. When Europeans
explored the island, the natives do not have the ability to make
a fire. It is supposed the arrived there from Australia, and they
knew the same things that common natives of Australia knew. But
life in Tasmania was so harsh that they lost an important part of
the intelligence they had before arriving. Can we say that evolution
had a plan of improvement, some goal, for the natives that arrived
to the island of Tasmania?

In a few centuries or less, this planet can become too hot, and most
of the land could become deserts. Or either, it can become almost
frozen, for reasons we cannot explain. In both this cases, all
living creatures would become extinct, or almost extinct. Do do you
think evolution has a goal for that? Or among those still alive
at the time of the change would be selected in a sense or another,
for they had some genes that are favorable for extreme heat or cold?

But if the change is really extreme, most of the mammals and vertebrates
would probably become extinct.

Eridanus

[jonathan]

"alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote in message
news:oa73t.105446$eq1....@fx11.fr7...

Thanks for replying, I never tire of these subjects.

Of course it's a given the universe must have conditions that
allows for planets and life etc, that doesn't enter into
this debate at all. This debate is about whether the evolution
which exists under the current set of fundamental constants
has a tendency towards any particular future, and if so
what future?

>
> That Complexity Science, like Catastrophe Theory and Chaos Theory before
> it, offers some insights into process generalities that don't depend on
> the particular substrate doesn't mean that it is a panacea that allows you
> to ignore the substrate, as you seem to think.

Not ignore, but to decide whether evolution is a process
where it's behavior is mostly driven by external or internal forces.
The difference is night and day in terms of the overall path
evolution takes into the future..

If evolution is mostly an internal process where the environment
is a ...lesser influence, then evolution would easily be seen as having
a non-random path, as opposed to a random path, creating more order
over time if left to itself. For instance, gravity is behavior which
converges over time, abstractly called subcritical as in a sequence
converging towards a point or more order. Supercritical would be
like a gas law or a diverging behavioral tendency towards disorder.

Which is evolution? Convergent towards order, or divergent
towards disorder, or neither? The reason evolution produces
more order over time, has a direction, is because the randomness
Darwinists cite as an obstacle for increasing order has been
shown to be the actual source of spontaneous cyclic order
and relentless hill-climbing.

That's what I'm trying to get across, and if true and it is, that
changes everything. Suddenly the overwhelming cacophany of
random interactions are seen as a infinitely nested and
scale independent system wide force ...for evolution.

And the mathematics is clear on this point, random networks
have the quality of spontaneously initiating cyclic order and
hill-climbing out of essentially nothing. Boiled down the concept
is easy to see. A totally random system can be considered
to have zero order, if you...randomly disturb such a system
it must then have a non-zero level of order, and in fact such
a system often spontaneously produces cyclic or persistant
behavior.

Evolution get's it's initial impetus from random events.

I'm not making this stuff up btw, I'm relating well established
mainstream mathematics. A nice essay with very little
math describing the mathematical foundation of these
new ideas is below.

(Random) Boolean Networks - Dynamic Organisms

"Order for free, utterly natural, if previously mostly unknown,
will change our view of life"

~Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe, Ch 4.
http://www.calresco.org/boolean.htm


Calresco.org
http://www.calresco.org/

>It is my impression that as a research program (e.g. the Santa Fe
>Institute) it has not been strikingly productive.

Complexity Science has exploded in the last five or ten years and is
currently redefining most of the scientific disciplines which exist.
Just Google 'Complexity Science and______". Placing into the
blanks just about any scientific discipline at all having to do
with the natural world. It's been more then successful, it's
considered a supra-science, a science from which all others
can be derived. That's never really happened before.

Complexity Science has placed Darwin in totally abstract
terms, so it can be applied universally. And the ideas of
self-organizing systems are being applied far and wide
from particle physics, to cosmology, sociology and business
and everything in between.


I would think anyone interested in Darwin might find
that a rather interesting development.



s



>
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 23 mar, 13:31, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:11:16 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr

> wrote:
> >On 23 mar, 02:29, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:58:29 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >"Friar Broccoli" <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
> >> >>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjo...
> >> >> Or via shortened link:
> >> >>http://goo.gl/Odflr
> >> >In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
> >> >the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
> >> >a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
> >> >the ideal form?

> >> NOTA. �Yours is a false dichotomy. �Evolution is not random, and it
> >> doesn't have a directed path. �It tracks the current state of the

> >> environment.
> >> >Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

> >> It depends on what you mean by 'designed'. �Evolution is a process,

> >> and like other processes, can be modeled as performing a function or

> >> functions, with input, output, and feedback. �To assume that design

> >> implies evolution has a purpose or intent, that a designer must lie
> >> behind evolution, those are illusions based on a superficial
> >> understanding of how evolution works.
> >> >I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
> >> >Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
> >> >process isn't goal oriented.
> >> Go outside where you have an unobstructed view of a natural horizon

> >> and sky. �It will appear to you as if you stand at the center of the

> >> Universe, that the Universe radiates out from you in all directions.
> >> If you are like most people, you learned as a child that this
> >> appearance of a self-centered Universe is an illusion of your
> >> subjective perspective.
> >> In a similar way, historical events give the appearance of happening
> >> with a purpose, that past events happened 'just so' in order to create

> >> the present. �This is also an illusion, resulting from a subjective

> >> perspective of looking into the past from the present.
> >> The current results from evolution are based on the current

> >> environment and the current state of a population's genome. �In turn,
> >> a genome's current state is based on past environments. �It may appear

> >> that life is designed, that it followed steps 'just so' to create the
> >> life seen today, but that's just another illusion of subjective
> >> historical perspective.
> >> >Now whether the cause
> >> >for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
> >> >otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
> >> >thinking in this ng?

> >> There seems to be two basic groups. �One group believes evolution is
> >> contingent and has no preferred direction. �The other group assumes

> >> their illusions are reality.
> >> >Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
> >> >somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
> >> >few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
> >> >is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
> >> >independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.
> >> To the degree that evolution is contingent on the environment, to that
> >> degree evolution isn't like your hobby.
> >> >The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
> >> >and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
> >> >solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
> >> >which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
> >> >environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
> >> >here.

> >> Your last sentence is incorrect. �Evolution is not wholly dependent on

> >> its interaction with the environment, and nobody who knows about
> >> evolution says that it is.
> >> >Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
> >> >debate.

> >> You have been posting to T.O. for some years. �You could have figured

> >> these things out by now.
> >To me, Darwinian evolution process is the outcome of a mixture of
> >random events and deterministic constraints/opportunities:
> >- examples of random events: of course mutations but also any relevant
> >historical events such as the ones which led to the five well-known
> >massive extinctions;
> >- examples of deterministic constraints/opportunities: carbon-based
> >chemistry, essential role of liquid water, emergence of lipid vesicles
> >with bilayer membrane, specific environmental constraints/
> >opportunities at a given period such as the existence of tectonic
> >plates, the absence of atmospheric oxygen on early Earth and then its
> >rising in atmosphere, or internal such as the emergence of the genetic
> >code, etc.
> >Of course Darwinian evolution has no goal, only environmental and
> >internal constraints and opportunities where random plays an essential
> >role.
> I suppose it's just me, but I can't tell who you agree with, if
> anybody. �Either way, I'll add this to my comments:
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>
> "Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument
> completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and
> selection is the very opposite of chance."

My reply was a response to Jonathan's claim that evolution has a
goal.
I tried to show that of course Darwinian evolution has no goal:
1) First because of the major role of chance,
2) Second because, even when there are specific environmental and/or
internal constraints and opportunities which allow natural selection
to operate and determine the way to follow during a certain period of
time, these specific environmental and/or internal constraints and
opportunities appear most often by chance (the most striking examples
in the history of evolution are the five well-known massive extinction
events).

[jonathan]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:N92dnQ8fp6a...@giganews.com...

> On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:
>> "Friar Broccoli"<eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>>
>>> Or via shortened link:
>>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>>
>>
>> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
>> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
>> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
>> the ideal form?


>

> Neither. Evolution follows a partly random path (neutral evolution)and a

> partly directed one (natural selection), but the goals, such as they are,
> are short-term, having to do with immediate impact on reproductive
> success.

You've stated that in an interesting way, my hobby is math so I
like to place everything in abstract terms to allow easier
comparisons. Would it be fair to say your statement above
could be called 'short range order, combined with long range
disorder'. Where reproductive effects create more order
in the shorter scales, while randomness creates neutral
or less order in the longer scales? So the overall direction
would appear to be less order over time, or at least
unclear?

Short range order.combined with long range disorder
is also an abstract way of describing a ...fluid, molecules
tend to drag nearby molecules other along for a short
time, but that order quickly dissipates from the surrounding
turbulence/environment.

However, short range order combined with long range disorder
also describes gravity, where the forces are strong nearby
but quickly diminishes with distance.

AND, short range order combined with long range disorder
also describes a power-law, which is the mathematical
relationship which abstractly defines the behavior of an
astonishing number of natural and living systems. From
hurricanes to rumors.

Putting ...behavior...in abstract terms allows us to see the
commonalties across disciplines.

Since life, fitness functions and gravity share a common
underlying mathematical structure, which is to say the
well-known and pervasive inverse-square law, we can
easily understand the preferred direction of biological
evolution. Gravity wells and fitness peaks share two
key properties.

The higher the peak, the larger the basin of attraction.
And the larger peaks tend to clump together on the
possibility landscape.

Those two properties combined translate into a view
of reality where /any random path/ through such a
space is /more likely/ to fall into a region of higher
fitness/gravity than a lower one.

This is the mathematical foundation for the notion
that randomness translates to increasing order
over time, a non-random or directed path towards
the ideal.

Evolution is an inherent property of the...universe
not just life. And that changes everything.

Now we can see the coevolutionary relationships
extend into the universe. Not just into the biosphere
creating a vision or our reality more beautiful and
wondrous than can be imagined.


Jonathan


s

[Steven L.]

But we've already had mass extinctions.

And yet despite those,
there has still been a long-term trend (over tens of millions of years)
toward increasing Encephalization Quotient.

The dinosaur Troodon was likely smarter than any animal that lived prior
to the Permian extinction.

Apes were likely smarter than any dinosaur that lived prior to the K-T
extinction.

And of course, we're the smartest of the apes.

And that's despite the tremendous mass extinctions that wiped out so
much of the planet's fauna.



--
Steven L.

[Steven L.]

Not at all.

The question is whether there are long-term trends--I don't like
teleological terms like "goal"--affecting the total sum of the biota.

From an extraterrestrial's perspective, the key thing about Earth is
not that there are so many bacteria but that at least one species has
finally figured out ways to communicate beyond the planet.

And one thing that we have noticed is that intelligence powerful enough
to construct and use tools--the beginning of technology--occurs again
and again.

Besides humans: Chimpanzees, crows, dolphins, even octopi, have been
observed using and even constructing tools.

Since several species of birds use tools, it wouldn't be surprising if a
few species of dinosaurs--Troodon perhaps--used tools as well.

So there does seem to be a long-term trend that the smartest species on
Earth at any given time is smarter than any prior species.



--
Steven L.

[John Harshman]

No, that would be a problmatic restatement, given that "order" and
"disorder" are undefined and that their meanings seem to wander about
quite a bit. You have changed your original language, talking about
directed and random paths and ideal forms, as if there were no
difference. But it's all so vague as to be useless.

> Short range order.combined with long range disorder
> is also an abstract way of describing a ...fluid, molecules
> tend to drag nearby molecules other along for a short
> time, but that order quickly dissipates from the surrounding
> turbulence/environment.
>
> However, short range order combined with long range disorder
> also describes gravity, where the forces are strong nearby
> but quickly diminishes with distance.
>
> AND, short range order combined with long range disorder
> also describes a power-law, which is the mathematical
> relationship which abstractly defines the behavior of an
> astonishing number of natural and living systems. From
> hurricanes to rumors.
>
> Putting ...behavior...in abstract terms allows us to see the
> commonalties across disciplines.

It also allows us to manufacture commonalities that aren't really there.
And I think that's what you've done in this case. While mathematics aims
for precision, your vague waves in the direction of similarity aims for
the opposite. I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish.

> Since life, fitness functions and gravity share a common
> underlying mathematical structure, which is to say the
> well-known and pervasive inverse-square law, we can
> easily understand the preferred direction of biological
> evolution. Gravity wells and fitness peaks share two
> key properties.
>
> The higher the peak, the larger the basin of attraction.
> And the larger peaks tend to clump together on the
> possibility landscape.
>
> Those two properties combined translate into a view
> of reality where /any random path/ through such a
> space is /more likely/ to fall into a region of higher
> fitness/gravity than a lower one.
>
> This is the mathematical foundation for the notion
> that randomness translates to increasing order
> over time, a non-random or directed path towards
> the ideal.

Again, your comparison between gravity and natural selection is spurious
in almost every way you mention. There is no inverse-square law of
fitness. There is no reason that higher fitness peaks necessarily
correlate with broader peaks. There is no reason peaks should clump
together. And random paths are the antithesis of paths through fitness
space.

> Evolution is an inherent property of the...universe
> not just life. And that changes everything.

This is new-age woo, nothing more. You have made evolution a universal
by stripping the term of all meaning.

> Now we can see the coevolutionary relationships
> extend into the universe. Not just into the biosphere
> creating a vision or our reality more beautiful and
> wondrous than can be imagined.

Uplifting piffle. Sorry.

[John Harshman]

Wait: dolphins? Please elaborate.

And at any rate, you have listed a small number of closely related
species, every one of them a bilaterian metazoan.

> Since several species of birds use tools, it wouldn't be surprising if a
> few species of dinosaurs--Troodon perhaps--used tools as well.
>
> So there does seem to be a long-term trend that the smartest species on
> Earth at any given time is smarter than any prior species.

Which is exactly what we would expect from a random walk beginning from
dumb; as species diffuse through intelligence-space, the extremes get
farther and farther from the initial state. There is no need to
hypothesize any preferred direction.

A "trend" affecting the total sum of the biota requires only that there
be a lower limit, and would be helped if the starting point were near
that limit. There is likewise a "trend" toward greater maximum size of
organisms, and maximum generation length, and any number of other maxima.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 24, 3:10�pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 7:32 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:

> >> "Friar Broccoli"<elia...@gmail.com> �wrote in message
> >>news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
> >>>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjo...

I suppose you are aware of Gould's theory of the left wall of minimal
complexity:
"Gould (1997) argues that there is no selective pressure for higher
levels of complexity, but there is selective pressure against
complexity below the level of bacteria. This minimum required level of
complexity, combined with random mutation, implies that the average
level of complexity of life must increase over time. Gould (1997) uses
the analogy of a random walk that begins near a wall. Although the
walk is random, the walker cannot pass through the wall, so we should
expect the walker to move increasingly further from the wall as time
passes. This does not imply that the walker is driven away from the
wall. The wall is analogous to the complexity level of bacteria. We
should expect evolution to wander increasingly further from this level
of complexity, but it does not imply that evolution is driven towards
increasing complexity" (from Wikipedia).
Personally I would amend Gould's theory by the following two
assertions:
1) the minimal complexity can be simpler than bacteria: e.g. virus and
prions;
2) at the beginning of the story of Darwinian evolution the minimal
complexity was likely even simpler. With the emergence of Darwinian
evolution my hypothesis is that the left wall of minimal complexity
drifted to the right because of the better fitness of more complex
organisms. Thus the simplest organisms became extinct due to the
strong competition. Once the latter were extinct the situation was
irreversible and thus the left wall of minimal complexity moved
irreversibly to the right.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 24/03/2013 15:59, John Harshman wrote:
>> Besides humans: Chimpanzees, crows, dolphins, even octopi, have been
>> observed using and even constructing tools.
>
> Wait: dolphins? Please elaborate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1157020/
--
alias Ernest Major

[Friar Broccoli]

You mean things like an increasing number of ecological niches
(diversity) and an increasing number of specialized cell types within
organisms?

This appears to be both more extreme states as well as an increasing
number of states subject to becoming more extreme. To me this seems to
cry out for an explanation, and "preferred direction" appears plausible
because competition is going to created a requirement for increasingly
diverse and numerous countermeasures in each individual species if it is
to survive.

[jillery]

Mass extinction events are in a class onto themselves. Their causes
make little distinction about what they kill, and they happen so
rarely that any adaptation that results is eventually masked over.

Besides, almost all extinctions, whether caused by catastrophic or
mundane events, are more the result of bad luck than bad genes.

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:59:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

I am aware that your reply was a response to Jonathan's claim, even
though you replied to my post. However, as Jonathan allowed "that
evolution follows a random path into the future", I am still uncertain
whether you agree or disagree with him, or me, or anybody.

Do you understand that "large" and "major" are not synonyms in
English?

[James Beck]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:06:07 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

There will be an illusion of direction just because extreme value
distributions are self-locking and there is a survivorship bias.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 24 mar, 18:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:59:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr

Don't you agree that random has plaid a major role in evolution not
only through mutations but also through major historical events such
as the five major massive extinctions?

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:39:21 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

>On 24 mar, 18:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:59:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:
> >On 23 mar, 13:31, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:11:16 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On 23 mar, 02:29, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:58:29 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >"Friar Broccoli" <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjo...
>> >> >> >> Or via shortened link:
>> >> >> >>http://goo.gl/Odflr
>> >> >> >In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
>> >> >> >the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
>> >> >> >a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
>> >> >> >the ideal form?

>> >> >> NOTA. 锟結ours is a false dichotomy. 锟紼volution is not random, and it
>> >> >> doesn't have a directed path. 锟絀t tracks the current state of the

>> >> >> environment.
>> >> >> >Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

>> >> >> It depends on what you mean by 'designed'. 锟紼volution is a process,

>> >> >> and like other processes, can be modeled as performing a function or

>> >> >> functions, with input, output, and feedback. 锟絋o assume that design

>> >> >> implies evolution has a purpose or intent, that a designer must lie
>> >> >> behind evolution, those are illusions based on a superficial
>> >> >> understanding of how evolution works.
>> >> >> >I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
>> >> >> >Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
>> >> >> >process isn't goal oriented.
>> >> >> Go outside where you have an unobstructed view of a natural horizon

>> >> >> and sky. 锟絀t will appear to you as if you stand at the center of the

>> >> >> Universe, that the Universe radiates out from you in all directions.
>> >> >> If you are like most people, you learned as a child that this
>> >> >> appearance of a self-centered Universe is an illusion of your
>> >> >> subjective perspective.
>> >> >> In a similar way, historical events give the appearance of happening
>> >> >> with a purpose, that past events happened 'just so' in order to create

>> >> >> the present. 锟絋his is also an illusion, resulting from a subjective

>> >> >> perspective of looking into the past from the present.
>> >> >> The current results from evolution are based on the current

>> >> >> environment and the current state of a population's genome. 锟絀n turn,
>> >> >> a genome's current state is based on past environments. 锟絀t may appear

>> >> >> that life is designed, that it followed steps 'just so' to create the
>> >> >> life seen today, but that's just another illusion of subjective
>> >> >> historical perspective.
>> >> >> >Now whether the cause
>> >> >> >for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
>> >> >> >otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
>> >> >> >thinking in this ng?

>> >> >> There seems to be two basic groups. 锟絆ne group believes evolution is
>> >> >> contingent and has no preferred direction. 锟絋he other group assumes

>> >> >> their illusions are reality.
>> >> >> >Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
>> >> >> >somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
>> >> >> >few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
>> >> >> >is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
>> >> >> >independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.
>> >> >> To the degree that evolution is contingent on the environment, to that
>> >> >> degree evolution isn't like your hobby.
>> >> >> >The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
>> >> >> >and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
>> >> >> >solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
>> >> >> >which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
>> >> >> >environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
>> >> >> >here.

>> >> >> Your last sentence is incorrect. 锟紼volution is not wholly dependent on

>> >> >> its interaction with the environment, and nobody who knows about
>> >> >> evolution says that it is.
>> >> >> >Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
>> >> >> >debate.

>> >> >> You have been posting to T.O. for some years. 锟結ou could have figured

>> >> >> these things out by now.
>> >> >To me, Darwinian evolution process is the outcome of a mixture of
>> >> >random events and deterministic constraints/opportunities:
>> >> >- examples of random events: of course mutations but also any relevant
>> >> >historical events such as the ones which led to the five well-known
>> >> >massive extinctions;
>> >> >- examples of deterministic constraints/opportunities: carbon-based
>> >> >chemistry, essential role of liquid water, emergence of lipid vesicles
>> >> >with bilayer membrane, specific environmental constraints/
>> >> >opportunities at a given period such as the existence of tectonic
>> >> >plates, the absence of atmospheric oxygen on early Earth and then its
>> >> >rising in atmosphere, or internal such as the emergence of the genetic
>> >> >code, etc.
>> >> >Of course Darwinian evolution has no goal, only environmental and
>> >> >internal constraints and opportunities where random plays an essential
>> >> >role.
>> >> I suppose it's just me, but I can't tell who you agree with, if

>> >> anybody. 锟紼ither way, I'll add this to my comments:

>> >> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>
>> >> "Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument
>> >> completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and
>> >> selection is the very opposite of chance."
>> >My reply was a response to Jonathan's claim that evolution has a
>> >goal.
>> >I tried to show that of course Darwinian evolution has no goal:
>> >1) First because of the major role of chance,
>> >2) Second because, even when there are specific environmental and/or
>> >internal constraints and opportunities which allow natural selection
>> >to operate and determine the way to follow during a certain period of
>> >time, these specific environmental and/or internal constraints and
>> >opportunities appear most often by chance (the most striking examples
>> >in the history of evolution are the five well-known massive extinction
>> >events).
>> I am aware that your reply was a response to Jonathan's claim, even

>> though you replied to my post. 锟紿owever, as Jonathan allowed "that

>> evolution follows a random path into the future", I am still uncertain
>> whether you agree or disagree with him, or me, or anybody.
>> Do you understand that "large" and "major" are not synonyms in
>> English?
>
>Don't you agree that random has plaid a major role in evolution not
>only through mutations but also through major historical events such
>as the five major massive extinctions?

IIUC natural selection plays the major role in biological evolution.
Random events are the grist for the evolutionary mill, not the mill
itself. Here is what Richard Dawkins says:

<http://natgeotv.com/uk/dawkins-darwin-evolution/dawkins-interview-darwin>

"I would not like to say that we are here today as a matter of chance,
because natural selection is not a chance process. Mutation is a
matter of chance, but natural selection is a non-random force, because
generations of genes have been non randomly chosen for reproduction
and survival. If people think that Darwin said that life was down to
chance, then no wonder they object to it."

Another problem with stating that random chance plays the major role
is that doing so unnecessarily exposes you all kinds of
pseudo-scientific assertions about stochastic improbabilities, like
Hoyle's tornado in a junkyard. That's not how evolution works.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:37:34 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>

My money is on Harshman criticizing this "defense" because a
"self-locking" mechanism would be a ratchet which would give evolution a
direction.

Myself, I am more inclined to ask how you are distinguishing reality
from illusion here?

[John Harshman]

Cool. But it's tool use, not tool construction. Chimps and crows do the
latter. Galapagos woodpecker finches and dolphins do the former.

[John Harshman]

Yes. A random walk could explain either.

> This appears to be both more extreme states as well as an increasing
> number of states subject to becoming more extreme.

No idea what that last means. How do you tell if a state is subject to
becoming more extreme?

> To me this seems to
> cry out for an explanation, and "preferred direction" appears plausible
> because competition is going to created a requirement for increasingly
> diverse and numerous countermeasures in each individual species if it is
> to survive.

Increased diversity isn't a selectable feature, as it applies to biotas,
not individuals or even species. You appear to be using "more diverse"
in a meaning different from "increased diversity".

Increased number of cell types might be selectable, as it can vary among
organisms and species. But the pattern isn't that species consistently
evolve more cell types, it's that the species with the largest number of
cell types has (or may have -- evidence is hard to come by, actually)
more cell types in the present than in the past. Which is explained by a
random walk among number of cell types. If there were a real trend in
need of explanation we would see a general increase in numbers of cell
types within most lineages, rather than a few outliers.

[John Harshman]

Agreed. What James describes here is natural selection, I think. If a
particular selective regime applied across the board (to all lineages),
that would be a direction.

> Myself, I am more inclined to ask how you are distinguishing reality
> from illusion here?

Me too. If his description is accurate, I would call that a real direction.

[John Harshman]

Doesn't follow, since virus and prions only work in the context of
complex cells. In fact, given this, the argument goes in the opposite
direction from what you say: the environment changed to move the left
wall further to the left. I.e., once there's something to parasitize,
parasites become possible, and they tend to be simpler than free-living
organisms.

> With the emergence of Darwinian
> evolution my hypothesis is that the left wall of minimal complexity
> drifted to the right because of the better fitness of more complex
> organisms.

You have assumed that more complex = more fit, which assumes what you
want to show.

[Paul J Gans]

There's also, as mentioned above, the situation that for a number
of these traits we start a random walk at zero (or 1, if we are
counting the number of cells). There's nowhere to go but up
from there.

As for reversals of direction, we can't be absolutely sure that
they don't happen. Such things may turn up as we sequence the
genome of more and more entitites.

But I'd try to remember that almost every living thing is
unicellular. We multicellular things are in the very small
numerical minority and are already outliers.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[John Harshman]

If reversals don't happen, that isn't a random walk. That's a
directional trend.

> But I'd try to remember that almost every living thing is
> unicellular. We multicellular things are in the very small
> numerical minority and are already outliers.

Exactly.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kio7m9$54c$1...@reader2.panix.com>,

Most living things are non eucaryotes. Eucaryotes are extreme oddballs
of life on this planet. Slime molds are a very advanced life form.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[James Beck]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:05:16 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

Survivorship does have a direction albeit vague. It 'survives' rather
than not, for a particular state of nature.

>Myself, I am more inclined to ask how you are distinguishing reality
>from illusion here?

Reality is random mutations, some of which survive to be observed. The
illusion is thinking the observed realization was the only
possibility.

[James Beck]

I don't know what you mean by reversals of direction.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 25, 12:58�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:39:21 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr

> wrote:
> >On 24 mar, 18:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:59:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> wrote:
> > >On 23 mar, 13:31, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:11:16 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On 23 mar, 02:29, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:58:29 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >"Friar Broccoli" <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjo...
> >> >> >> >> Or via shortened link:
> >> >> >> >>http://goo.gl/Odflr
> >> >> >> >In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
> >> >> >> >the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
> >> >> >> >a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
> >> >> >> >the ideal form?

> >> >> >> NOTA. Yours is a false dichotomy. Evolution is not random, and it
> >> >> >> doesn't have a directed path. It tracks the current state of the

> >> >> >> environment.
> >> >> >> >Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

> >> >> >> It depends on what you mean by 'designed'. Evolution is a process,

> >> >> >> and like other processes, can be modeled as performing a function or

> >> >> >> functions, with input, output, and feedback. To assume that design

> >> >> >> implies evolution has a purpose or intent, that a designer must lie
> >> >> >> behind evolution, those are illusions based on a superficial
> >> >> >> understanding of how evolution works.
> >> >> >> >I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
> >> >> >> >Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
> >> >> >> >process isn't goal oriented.
> >> >> >> Go outside where you have an unobstructed view of a natural horizon

> >> >> >> and sky. It will appear to you as if you stand at the center of the

> >> >> >> Universe, that the Universe radiates out from you in all directions.
> >> >> >> If you are like most people, you learned as a child that this
> >> >> >> appearance of a self-centered Universe is an illusion of your
> >> >> >> subjective perspective.
> >> >> >> In a similar way, historical events give the appearance of happening
> >> >> >> with a purpose, that past events happened 'just so' in order to create

> >> >> >> the present. This is also an illusion, resulting from a subjective

> >> >> >> perspective of looking into the past from the present.
> >> >> >> The current results from evolution are based on the current

> >> >> >> environment and the current state of a population's genome. In turn,
> >> >> >> a genome's current state is based on past environments. It may appear

> >> >> >> that life is designed, that it followed steps 'just so' to create the
> >> >> >> life seen today, but that's just another illusion of subjective
> >> >> >> historical perspective.
> >> >> >> >Now whether the cause
> >> >> >> >for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
> >> >> >> >otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
> >> >> >> >thinking in this ng?

> >> >> >> There seems to be two basic groups. One group believes evolution is
> >> >> >> contingent and has no preferred direction. The other group assumes

> >> >> >> their illusions are reality.
> >> >> >> >Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
> >> >> >> >somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
> >> >> >> >few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
> >> >> >> >is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
> >> >> >> >independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.
> >> >> >> To the degree that evolution is contingent on the environment, to that
> >> >> >> degree evolution isn't like your hobby.
> >> >> >> >The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
> >> >> >> >and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
> >> >> >> >solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
> >> >> >> >which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
> >> >> >> >environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
> >> >> >> >here.

> >> >> >> Your last sentence is incorrect. Evolution is not wholly dependent on

> >> >> >> its interaction with the environment, and nobody who knows about
> >> >> >> evolution says that it is.
> >> >> >> >Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
> >> >> >> >debate.

> >> >> >> You have been posting to T.O. for some years. You could have figured

> >> >> >> these things out by now.
> >> >> >To me, Darwinian evolution process is the outcome of a mixture of
> >> >> >random events and deterministic constraints/opportunities:
> >> >> >- examples of random events: of course mutations but also any relevant
> >> >> >historical events such as the ones which led to the five well-known
> >> >> >massive extinctions;
> >> >> >- examples of deterministic constraints/opportunities: carbon-based
> >> >> >chemistry, essential role of liquid water, emergence of lipid vesicles
> >> >> >with bilayer membrane, specific environmental constraints/
> >> >> >opportunities at a given period such as the existence of tectonic
> >> >> >plates, the absence of atmospheric oxygen on early Earth and then its
> >> >> >rising in atmosphere, or internal such as the emergence of the genetic
> >> >> >code, etc.
> >> >> >Of course Darwinian evolution has no goal, only environmental and
> >> >> >internal constraints and opportunities where random plays an essential
> >> >> >role.
> >> >> I suppose it's just me, but I can't tell who you agree with, if

> >> >> anybody. Either way, I'll add this to my comments:

> >> >> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>
> >> >> "Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument
> >> >> completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and
> >> >> selection is the very opposite of chance."
> >> >My reply was a response to Jonathan's claim that evolution has a
> >> >goal.
> >> >I tried to show that of course Darwinian evolution has no goal:
> >> >1) First because of the major role of chance,
> >> >2) Second because, even when there are specific environmental and/or
> >> >internal constraints and opportunities which allow natural selection
> >> >to operate and determine the way to follow during a certain period of
> >> >time, these specific environmental and/or internal constraints and
> >> >opportunities appear most often by chance (the most striking examples
> >> >in the history of evolution are the five well-known massive extinction
> >> >events).
> >> I am aware that your reply was a response to Jonathan's claim, even

> >> though you replied to my post. However, as Jonathan allowed "that

> >> evolution follows a random path into the future", I am still uncertain
> >> whether you agree or disagree with him, or me, or anybody.
> >> Do you understand that "large" and "major" are not synonyms in
> >> English?
> >Don't you agree that random has plaid a major role in evolution not
> >only through mutations but also through major historical events such
> >as the five major massive extinctions?
> IIUC natural selection plays the major role in biological evolution.
> Random events are the grist for the evolutionary mill, not the mill
> itself. �Here is what Richard Dawkins says:
> <http://natgeotv.com/uk/dawkins-darwin-evolution/dawkins-interview-darwin>
> "I would not like to say that we are here today as a matter of chance,
> because natural selection is not a chance process. Mutation is a
> matter of chance, but natural selection is a non-random force, because
> generations of genes have been non randomly chosen for reproduction
> and survival. If people think that Darwin said that life was down to
> chance, then no wonder they object to it."
> Another problem with stating that random chance plays the major role
> is that doing so unnecessarily exposes you all kinds of
> pseudo-scientific assertions about stochastic improbabilities, like
> Hoyle's tornado in a junkyard. �That's not how evolution works.

Of course natural selection is the second major process which
Darwinian evolution uses in addition to random.
Random provides Darwinian evolution with its creative side (e.g.
mutations, major historical events). Without random there wouldn't be
new ways for Darwinian evolution to explore.
But of ourse, without natural selection, evolution would go
anarchically.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 25, 1:47�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Don't you think that cells with the genetic code had much more
possibilities for evolving and then were much more competitive than
lipid vesicles without such a genetic code?

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:43:49 -0700, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 3/24/13 5:05 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:37:34 -0600, James Beck<jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:06:07 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:59:40 -0700, John Harshman
>>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

[snip]

>>>>> Which is exactly what we would expect from a random walk beginning from
>>>>> dumb; as species diffuse through intelligence-space, the extremes get
>>>>> farther and farther from the initial state. There is no need to
>>>>> hypothesize any preferred direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "trend" affecting the total sum of the biota requires only that there
>>>>> be a lower limit, and would be helped if the starting point were near
>>>>> that limit.
>>>>
>>>>> There is likewise a "trend" toward greater maximum size of
>>>>> organisms, and maximum generation length, and any number of other maxima.
>>>>
>>>> You mean things like an increasing number of ecological niches
>>>> (diversity) and an increasing number of specialized cell types within
>>>> organisms?

.

>>>> This appears to be both more extreme states as well as an increasing
>>>> number of states subject to becoming more extreme.

Referring to the other subthread: "an increasing number of states
subject to becoming more extreme" is intended to point to the fact that
prior to cell specialization being significantly bigger, or having more
(specialized) cell types was not an option.

Similarly, prior to the development of nerve cells, being able to engage
in significantly more complex and adaptive behavior was a much more
limited option.

>>>> To me this seems to
>>>> cry out for an explanation, and "preferred direction" appears plausible
>>>> because competition is going to created a requirement for increasingly
>>>> diverse and numerous countermeasures in each individual species if it is
>>>> to survive.
>>
>> .
>>
>>> There will be an illusion of direction just because extreme value
>>> distributions are self-locking and there is a survivorship bias.
>>
>> My money is on Harshman criticizing this "defense" because a
>> "self-locking" mechanism would be a ratchet which would give evolution a
>> direction.

.

>Agreed. What James describes here is natural selection, I think. If a
>particular selective regime applied across the board (to all lineages),
>that would be a direction.

I want to be clear on what you may be implying here:

Are you suggesting/affirming that there are some relevant ratchets at
play in the group of species which includes us and sharks, which are for
example:

- holding our intelligence at high levels due to competitive pressures
and
- holding our immune systems at complex levels also due to competitive
pressures?

Again referring to the other subthread: More niches results in there
being more organisms out their to compete with us in more varied ways
thus driving the ratchet: - thus niches and specialization are linked.

I am also thinking about exploring the fact(?) that all those presumed
simple RNA world organisms have been wiped out and replaced by us:
"DNA -> RNA -> 20 Amino Acids -> fold into protein -> make stuff"
folks.

which suggests to me that the *entire* biota has been shifted up in
something intuitively resembling a complexity scale. To then argue that
it is a general trend, not just a random walk.

[John Harshman]

Yes. But that's one thing that happened once. It doesn't make any sort
of general case. And it's completely separate from your example of
viruses and prions.

[John Harshman]

No, I'm not. I'm merely saying that this would be possible.

> which are for
> example:
>
> - holding our intelligence at high levels due to competitive pressures
> and
> - holding our immune systems at complex levels also due to competitive
> pressures?
>
> Again referring to the other subthread: More niches results in there
> being more organisms out their to compete with us in more varied ways
> thus driving the ratchet: - thus niches and specialization are linked.
>
> I am also thinking about exploring the fact(?) that all those presumed
> simple RNA world organisms have been wiped out and replaced by us:
> "DNA -> RNA -> 20 Amino Acids -> fold into protein -> make stuff"
> folks.
>
> which suggests to me that the *entire* biota has been shifted up in
> something intuitively resembling a complexity scale. To then argue that
> it is a general trend, not just a random walk.

Go for it, but so far the waving of your arms is creating a slight
breeze. One might grant your premise, but if so, this general trend
ended several billion years ago.

[jonathan]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:SM6dnZobvOn...@giganews.com...

In the context of biologicial systems, a human would display
more order than a microbe. That should be obvious to even
a child.

> and that their meanings seem to wander about quite a bit. You have changed
> your original language, talking about directed and random paths and ideal
> forms, as if there were no difference.

A directed path is simply one which simply has a bias in
a particular direction, since the question of increasing order
is the subject, directed would obviously mean a process
which tends to increase order over time. And ideal form
is simply a trend which converges upon some maximum, in
this case the trend being discussed is increasing order, which
taken to it's logical conclusion would define the ideal.

I can only conclude you're trying to dodge my question and
answers. My question is utterly simple, does evolution
increase or decrease order over time, or otherwise.
You're the one giving a convoluted answer with 'neither'.
....some aspects increase order, others decrease.
Your answer is stating the obvious, my question is which
of those two competing forces...wins? And which
path into the future is the probable one?

> But it's all so vague as to be useless.
>

You're the one answering out of both sides of your mouth.
If you don't know which aspect is the more defining in
terms of global direction, then just say so.

>> Short range order.combined with long range disorder
>> is also an abstract way of describing a ...fluid, molecules
>> tend to drag nearby molecules other along for a short
>> time, but that order quickly dissipates from the surrounding
>> turbulence/environment.
>>
>> However, short range order combined with long range disorder
>> also describes gravity, where the forces are strong nearby
>> but quickly diminishes with distance.
>>
>> AND, short range order combined with long range disorder
>> also describes a power-law, which is the mathematical
>> relationship which abstractly defines the behavior of an
>> astonishing number of natural and living systems. From
>> hurricanes to rumors.
>>
>> Putting ...behavior...in abstract terms allows us to see the
>> commonalties across disciplines.
>
> It also allows us to manufacture commonalities that aren't really there.
> And I think that's what you've done in this case. While mathematics aims
> for precision, your vague waves in the direction of similarity aims for
> the opposite. I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish.

But you failed to show why the comparisons don't hold.
My logic is pretty straight forward, do you take issue with
the fact a liquid or gravity creates stronger correlations
with short range interactions than long range ones?
Just saying something is gibberish without any reason
is the same thing as saying you don't understand the
concepts.

>
>> Since life, fitness functions and gravity share a common
>> underlying mathematical structure, which is to say the
>> well-known and pervasive inverse-square law, we can
>> easily understand the preferred direction of biological
>> evolution. Gravity wells and fitness peaks share two
>> key properties.
>>
>> The higher the peak, the larger the basin of attraction.
>> And the larger peaks tend to clump together on the
>> possibility landscape.
>>
>> Those two properties combined translate into a view
>> of reality where /any random path/ through such a
>> space is /more likely/ to fall into a region of higher
>> fitness/gravity than a lower one.
>>
>> This is the mathematical foundation for the notion
>> that randomness translates to increasing order
>> over time, a non-random or directed path towards
>> the ideal.
>
> Again, your comparison between gravity and natural selection is spurious
> in almost every way you mention. There is no inverse-square law of
> fitness.

Evolution follows a power-law relationship, a power law
is a form of the inverse square law. Power law relationships
describe a staggering amount of natural behaviors.

> There is no reason that higher fitness peaks necessarily correlate with
> broader peaks.

What? You can't be serious?

> There is no reason peaks should clump together.

Again, what? There's no reason gravity should attract
other masses, that' is what you just said, please respond
in a more serious fashion?

> And random paths are the antithesis of paths through fitness space.
>

So you're saying that in any given fitness space, no random
paths (sequence of events) are possible or allowed?
All paths (events) are non-random or directed then in your view?
You can't be serious?

>> Evolution is an inherent property of the...universe
>> not just life. And that changes everything.
>
> This is new-age woo, nothing more.

It's your response which is lacking in any substance,
logic or common sense. I can defend every sentence
with the hard math and cites if you like, you merely
need to ask which parts you don't understand and
I'll provide the necessary information.

But if you're just going to take the book and
chew on the cover, let me know.

> You have made evolution a universal by stripping the term of all meaning.
>
>> Now we can see the coevolutionary relationships
>> extend into the universe. Not just into the biosphere
>> creating a vision or our reality more beautiful and
>> wondrous than can be imagined.
>
> Uplifting piffle. Sorry.
>

But just for a minute, for the sake of argument, if it's true
what Complexity Science says about the direction of
evolution, and it's universal reach, what would you
conclude? Would that be a source of inspiration and
wonder?

Take the leap and try imagining if this were true
and extrapolate to the logical or ultimate conclusions.


s

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:58:51 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

[...]

IIUC you say in paraphrase that random chance plays the major role,
that it's the largest, most significant, primary component of
evolution.

Since you ignored my previous cites, try these:

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random.html>

"So, while it's wrong to think that evolutionary theory implies that
structures such as the eye and wing arose by accident, chance does
play a role in evolution."

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm>

"A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental
evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a
study of different species of roundworms."

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am.html>

"First of all, evolution most definitely is not random. There are
elements of evolutionary change that are unpredictable, but the
principal force driving evolution, which is natural selection is most
definitely a non-random force..."

I have now cited 5 separate sources which state that evolution is not
primarily the result of random chance, that evolution should not be
considered random. Now please provide any cites which support your
assertion that random chance is the major driving force of evolution.

[John Harshman]

You obviously have some personal definition of "order" that enables you
to say this, but I don't know what it is. Many things that are obvious
to a child are not true.

>> and that their meanings seem to wander about quite a bit. You have changed
>> your original language, talking about directed and random paths and ideal
>> forms, as if there were no difference.
>
> A directed path is simply one which simply has a bias in
> a particular direction, since the question of increasing order
> is the subject, directed would obviously mean a process
> which tends to increase order over time. And ideal form
> is simply a trend which converges upon some maximum, in
> this case the trend being discussed is increasing order, which
> taken to it's logical conclusion would define the ideal.

> I can only conclude you're trying to dodge my question and
> answers.

You are wrong. Not for the first time.

> My question is utterly simple, does evolution
> increase or decrease order over time, or otherwise.

Note that this is a considerable change in wording from your original
question, though perhaps it's what you intended. But you can't expect
others to know what you intend, only what you actually say.

But until you give us your definition of "order", nobody can answer your
question. If I take the clue that humans are more ordered than bacteria,
though, and translate the question into whether there is a trend for
evolution to proceed from bacteria to humans, then the evidence seems
obvious that there is no such trend. Most organisms are still bacteria,
after several billion years of being bacteria. It's an odd universal
trend that affects only one species.

> You're the one giving a convoluted answer with 'neither'.
> ....some aspects increase order, others decrease.
> Your answer is stating the obvious, my question is which
> of those two competing forces...wins? And which
> path into the future is the probable one?

It should be obvious from the current biota that bacteria are the past,
present, and future trend.

>> But it's all so vague as to be useless.
>
> You're the one answering out of both sides of your mouth.
> If you don't know which aspect is the more defining in
> terms of global direction, then just say so.

There is no global direction. But if we took a global median (assuming
your measurement of "order" is even meaningful), it wouldn't have
changed in 3 billion years. So the global direction could be said to be
static, if you really had to say anything.

>>> Short range order.combined with long range disorder
>>> is also an abstract way of describing a ...fluid, molecules
>>> tend to drag nearby molecules other along for a short
>>> time, but that order quickly dissipates from the surrounding
>>> turbulence/environment.
>>>
>>> However, short range order combined with long range disorder
>>> also describes gravity, where the forces are strong nearby
>>> but quickly diminishes with distance.
>>>
>>> AND, short range order combined with long range disorder
>>> also describes a power-law, which is the mathematical
>>> relationship which abstractly defines the behavior of an
>>> astonishing number of natural and living systems. From
>>> hurricanes to rumors.
>>>
>>> Putting ...behavior...in abstract terms allows us to see the
>>> commonalties across disciplines.
>>
>> It also allows us to manufacture commonalities that aren't really there.
>> And I think that's what you've done in this case. While mathematics aims
>> for precision, your vague waves in the direction of similarity aims for
>> the opposite. I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish.
>
> But you failed to show why the comparisons don't hold.

Not my job. You have to show why they do.

> My logic is pretty straight forward, do you take issue with
> the fact a liquid or gravity creates stronger correlations
> with short range interactions than long range ones?

That's a bizarre way of saying it. But yes, the strength of gravity does
decline with distance, as do the interactions of particles in a fluid.
But "interaction declines with distance" is such a trivial point of
similarity that your strong conclusions of process identity are unwarranted.

> Just saying something is gibberish without any reason
> is the same thing as saying you don't understand the
> concepts.

True, it might be that you are so far beyond me that it's impossible to
communicate your genius to my poor, tiny brain. I will try to take that
possibility into account as much as I can.

>>> Since life, fitness functions and gravity share a common
>>> underlying mathematical structure, which is to say the
>>> well-known and pervasive inverse-square law, we can
>>> easily understand the preferred direction of biological
>>> evolution. Gravity wells and fitness peaks share two
>>> key properties.
>>>
>>> The higher the peak, the larger the basin of attraction.
>>> And the larger peaks tend to clump together on the
>>> possibility landscape.
>>>
>>> Those two properties combined translate into a view
>>> of reality where /any random path/ through such a
>>> space is /more likely/ to fall into a region of higher
>>> fitness/gravity than a lower one.
>>>
>>> This is the mathematical foundation for the notion
>>> that randomness translates to increasing order
>>> over time, a non-random or directed path towards
>>> the ideal.
>>
>> Again, your comparison between gravity and natural selection is spurious
>> in almost every way you mention. There is no inverse-square law of
>> fitness.
>
> Evolution follows a power-law relationship, a power law
> is a form of the inverse square law. Power law relationships
> describe a staggering amount of natural behaviors.

No, the inverse square law is a form of a power law. Do you even read
what you write before sending? How exactly does evolution follow a power
law relationship?

>> There is no reason that higher fitness peaks necessarily correlate with
>> broader peaks.
>
> What? You can't be serious?

Was that a question?

>> There is no reason peaks should clump together.
>
> Again, what? There's no reason gravity should attract
> other masses, that' is what you just said, please respond
> in a more serious fashion?

That would be what I've said if we were talking about gravity, or if
evolution were the same thing as gravity. But we aren't, and it isn't.

>> And random paths are the antithesis of paths through fitness space.
>
> So you're saying that in any given fitness space, no random
> paths (sequence of events) are possible or allowed?
> All paths (events) are non-random or directed then in your view?
> You can't be serious?

Another question? The answer to all your questions is no.

>>> Evolution is an inherent property of the...universe
>>> not just life. And that changes everything.
>>
>> This is new-age woo, nothing more.
>
> It's your response which is lacking in any substance,
> logic or common sense. I can defend every sentence
> with the hard math and cites if you like, you merely
> need to ask which parts you don't understand and
> I'll provide the necessary information.
>
> But if you're just going to take the book and
> chew on the cover, let me know.

Start with the sentences I have explicitly rejected above.

>> You have made evolution a universal by stripping the term of all meaning.
>>
>>> Now we can see the coevolutionary relationships
>>> extend into the universe. Not just into the biosphere
>>> creating a vision or our reality more beautiful and
>>> wondrous than can be imagined.
>>
>> Uplifting piffle. Sorry.
>
> But just for a minute, for the sake of argument, if it's true
> what Complexity Science says about the direction of
> evolution, and it's universal reach, what would you
> conclude? Would that be a source of inspiration and
> wonder?

It would certainly be a source of surprise, as a direction of evolution
would seem to be contradicted by the data we have.

> Take the leap and try imagining if this were true
> and extrapolate to the logical or ultimate conclusions.

I would prefer to wait until there is any evidence whatsoever that the
claim is true. What do you have?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 25, 4:49�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

At least it means that on early Earth there were organisms much
simpler than present cells which were able to show Darwinian
evolution. Thus, at that time the wall of minimal complexity was more
on the left side than today.
Viruses and prions are organisms of today, i..e. very much evolved
ones.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:47:18 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I can only conclude you're trying to dodge my question and
>answers. My question is utterly simple, does evolution
>increase or decrease order over time, or otherwise.

I know there is no chance that you can accept or understand what I am
about to say, but I have to try anyway.

First. In our previous discussions I concluded you were trying to dodge
my questions.

More to the point; because you know essentially nothing about how
evolution works you think you are asking clear and meaningful questions,
which are in fact so vague as to be meaningless, and are in any case
certainly underlain by misconceptions that are so deep that it will take
you years to untangle them.

How do I know this: because I started from almost exactly the same
position eight years ago.

[John Harshman]

On 3/25/13 10:26 AM, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:49 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> At least it means that on early Earth there were organisms much
> simpler than present cells which were able to show Darwinian
> evolution. Thus, at that time the wall of minimal complexity was more
> on the left side than today.
> Viruses and prions are organisms of today, i..e. very much evolved
> ones.

But are viruses and prions more complex than those extinct ancient
organisms? I don't think so. They're really much simpler than the
simplest possible non-parasite. So your moving wall seems problematic.
It seems to have moved backwards, if anything.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 25 mar, 18:13, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Well, I agree that it is not so easy to specify the complexity of an
organism or even to compare the complexity of different organisms such
as viruses, prions and for instance vesicles with only heterogeneous
membranes but which have acquired heritable characteristics
transmittable to their offspring.
However I guess that viruses are more complex because they are able to
use the genetic code and all the cell machinery to build themselves.
The complexity of a prion is in the very complex protein which is also
the product of the genetic code and of all the cell machinery. Once it
is produced it seems that the functioning of a prion is simple at a
first glance. However the property of a prion to transform a normal
protein into a prion is very complex.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 25 mar, 17:07, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution...>

> "So, while it's wrong to think that evolutionary theory implies that
> structures such as the eye and wing arose by accident, chance does
> play a role in evolution."

There is a misunderstanding here. I have never said that structures
such as the eye and wing arose by accident at least once. I agree with
you that there are deterministic specific environmental and/or

internal constraints and opportunities which allow natural selection
to operate and determine the way to follow during a certain period

oftime (it is what I wrote, if you notice it).

> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm>
> "A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental
> evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a
> study of different species of roundworms."
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am.html>
> "First of all, evolution most definitely is not random. There are
> elements of evolutionary change that are unpredictable, but the
> principal force driving evolution, which is natural selection is most
> definitely a non-random force..."
> I have now cited 5 separate sources which state that evolution is not
> primarily the result of random chance, that evolution should not be
> considered random. �Now please provide any cites which support your
> assertion that random chance is the major driving force of evolution.

I only say that random and natural selection are both essential for
Darwinian evolution to work.
Without random, again, the creativity of Darwinian evolution would be
too poor.
To you are mutations random events or not? Do you consider that chance
plaid no role in the occurrence of historical events like the ones
which led to the five massive extinctions?

[solar penguin]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:47:18 -0400, jonathan wrote:

>
> I can only conclude you're trying to dodge my question and answers. My
> question is utterly simple, does evolution increase or decrease order
> over time, or otherwise.

The answer is equally simple: Yes, evolution does increase or decrease

[John Harshman]

No it isn't. Or at least not that I can see. But how do you measure this
complexity?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 25 mar, 20:05, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Could develop your point?

> But how do you measure this complexity?

The specific information contained in the DNA or RNA of a virus is
quite impressive. Even a prion, which is a very complex protein,
contains a lot of specific information.
By contrast, in the example of lipid vesicles with heterogeneous
membranes which have acquired heritable characteristics transmittable
to their offspring, the specific information is only contained in the
hypercycles composed of the membrane sites and their corresponding
carbon-based chains with no more than ten or so carbons.

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

And I never said you said... That is not the point of the quote or
the article it came from.

>I agree with
>you that there are deterministic specific environmental and/or
>internal constraints and opportunities which allow natural selection
>to operate and determine the way to follow during a certain period
>oftime (it is what I wrote, if you notice it).
>
>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm>
>> "A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental
>> evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a
>> study of different species of roundworms."
>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am.html>
>> "First of all, evolution most definitely is not random. There are
>> elements of evolutionary change that are unpredictable, but the
>> principal force driving evolution, which is natural selection is most
>> definitely a non-random force..."
>> I have now cited 5 separate sources which state that evolution is not
>> primarily the result of random chance, that evolution should not be
>> considered random. �Now please provide any cites which support your
>> assertion that random chance is the major driving force of evolution.
>
>I only say that random and natural selection are both essential for
>Darwinian evolution to work.

You also said that chance plays the major role in evolution. You also
said that natural selection is the second major process of evolution.
I recognize that you are writing ESL, but it would help a lot if you
acknowledged that what you write doesn't agree with what you mean.

>Without random, again, the creativity of Darwinian evolution would be
>too poor.
>To you are mutations random events or not? Do you consider that chance
>plaid no role in the occurrence of historical events like the ones
>which led to the five massive extinctions?

I believe I did my due diligence, by paraphrasing my understanding of
what you wrote, by providing cites for my POV, by making explicit my
continued confusion as to what your actual concerns are in this
thread, and by suggesting possible solutions for mitigating my
confusion.

But rather than respond to any of that, you reply above with what
appears to be questions that have little correlation to anything
anybody wrote previously in this thread. I feel like I'm replying to
a brick wall.

Since you said that yours was a response to Jonathan's claim, and
since it appears I shall remain forever confused about how what you
wrote relates to what I wrote, perhaps you should start again, and
reply to his post instead of mine.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 25 mar, 21:31, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr

As you know it is not the first time we have some difficulties to
understand each other.
My first intervention was to assert that "of course Darwinian

evolution has no goal, only environmental and internal constraints and
opportunities where random plays an essential role".

Then you oppose to me a quote from "The TalkOrigins Archive" in "Five
Major Misconceptions about Evolution" by Mark Isaak: "Chance certainly

plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores
the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very
opposite of chance".

I am not of course in disagreement with Mark Isaak's quotation. I just
want to underline the crucial role of chance in Darwinian evolution.
You opposed the fact that Mark used the adjective "large" and me
"major": well, it is a rather minor difference as I think Mark
considers as I do that chance is as important as natural selection for
Darwinian evolution to work.
ISTM that you don't like the fact that chance may play a crucial role:
do you confirm it?

[eridanus]

El domingo, 24 de marzo de 2013 13:52:00 UTC, Steven L. escribi�:

> On 3/23/2013 12:25 PM, eridanus wrote:

> >> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do>
> >> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
> >> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
> >> the ideal form?
>

> >> Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?

> >> I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
> >> Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible

> >> process isn't goal oriented. Now whether the cause

> >> for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
> >> otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
> >> thinking in this ng?

> > I think this is a wrong paradigm. For all the proud we
> > feel about our technical achievements, our machines, buildings
> > bridges, computers, etc. All these rest on huge amounts
> > of energy obtained from the fossil fuels. Just try to imagine
> > three undesired events such as the exhaustion of fossil fuels,
> > the massive starving of our population due to the scarcity of
> > energy and the anthropogenic global warming. As a consequence
> > of these undesired events, the present population of 7 billion
> > would become just 500 million people and faster shrinking to less.
> > Will you say that "evolution had a plan" for humanity, of the
> > evolution had a goal to go from the amoebas to the homo sapiens?

> > Just figure that things is farther deteriorating and we are pushed
> > backwards toward hunting gathering with stone tools again. Would
> > you postulate that nature had a plan for us?
>
> > Just figure an asteroid a little bigger that the one that killed
> > dinosaurs. The hit would cause a severe winter that would last
> > some decades. All our harvests would be destroyed by climate if
> > they were far away from the continent where occurred the impact.
>
> But we've already had mass extinctions.
>
> And yet despite those,
> there has still been a long-term trend (over tens of millions of years)
> toward increasing Encephalization Quotient.
>
> The dinosaur Troodon was likely smarter than any animal that lived prior
> to the Permian extinction.
> Apes were likely smarter than any dinosaur that lived prior to the K-T
> extinction.
> And of course, we're the smartest of the apes.
>
> And that's despite the tremendous mass extinctions that wiped out so
> much of the planet's fauna.
> Steven L.

The tremendous mass extinctions you are mentioning do occurred
previously to the existence of humans. And while humans were
suffering some sort of crisis 100,000 years ago, I am not sure why,
(probably a dryness in Africa) and a little later like 75,000 years ago,
they had to suffer the explosion of supervolcano Toba, that killed
probably half the humanity at that time, the way of life of those humans
were relatively simple that they are today. Then, they had enough
intelligence to cope with the supervolcano Toba, on condition that they
were far away from the place of the explosion. Many could had died
of hunger due to climatic disturbances, an increase of cold, but it
is evident that some survived or we were not talking here about this.

The present situation is totally different, from the point of view of
this civilization. Our way of life had become so dependent of fossil
fuels and machines, that almost all humans would starve to death
if some catastrophe related to the exhaustion of energy occurs.

You only need to consider that we have oil for the next 30 years or so;
and coal for a little more. The rate of consumption of oil is such,
that we would not be able to cope with the scarcity of energy, simply
by turning to coal. This simple change, would cause probably the
starvation of half the present population. But once the coal would
also get exhausted, this would be the end. We would had to return
to a population like in 1800 of only 1 billion people.
Of course a miracle is possible. The fusion of hydrogen isotopes could
save somewhat our asses. But it would probably not be possible
in the last 30 years. By then, the problems of energy would be so
grave that we would be waging a fierce global war.

Then, our excessive industrialization had become our handicap. This
is my theory. This civilization would explode like a supernova.
The remains of the human species, would be probably some few
thousand people that would had start anew as hunter gatherers.

We are doing at present all the things that we should not be doing if
our index of intelligence were so high as you presume. But our
intelligence is diffused among many different points of reference. And
all of them are totally not related to each other. Then, on average is
as we were had not more intelligence than Medieval people or a hunter
gatherer.

Eridanus

[John Harshman]

It seems very simple to me. All the prion does is to act as a shape that
causes another protein to assume the same shape.

>> But how do you measure this complexity?
>
> The specific information contained in the DNA or RNA of a virus is
> quite impressive. Even a prion, which is a very complex protein,
> contains a lot of specific information.

"A lot"? There are a few active sites, possibly only one of which is
necessary for its prion behavior, a fair number of other sites that are
needed for secondary structure, and a large number that just take up
space in the sequence.

> By contrast, in the example of lipid vesicles with heterogeneous
> membranes which have acquired heritable characteristics transmittable
> to their offspring, the specific information is only contained in the
> hypercycles composed of the membrane sites and their corresponding
> carbon-based chains with no more than ten or so carbons.

Ah, but how many hypercycles? How specific? Since we don't actually have
any such organism to examine, it's hard to say what it looks like, but
it seems to me that anything capable of all the functions of metabolism
and reproduction would be fairly complex.

[jonathan]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:QtqdnTXd6JL...@giganews.com...

What is your opinion on the definition of order?
Why not argue that point first, before moving on?

>
>>> and that their meanings seem to wander about quite a bit. You have
>>> changed
>>> your original language, talking about directed and random paths and
>>> ideal
>>> forms, as if there were no difference.
>>
>> A directed path is simply one which simply has a bias in
>> a particular direction, since the question of increasing order
>> is the subject, directed would obviously mean a process
>> which tends to increase order over time. And ideal form
>> is simply a trend which converges upon some maximum, in
>> this case the trend being discussed is increasing order, which
>> taken to it's logical conclusion would define the ideal.
>
>> I can only conclude you're trying to dodge my question and
>> answers.
>

> You are wrong. Not for the first time.

But yet ...again you fail to say why you think something is wrong
in any meaningful way.

>
>> My question is utterly simple, does evolution
>> increase or decrease order over time, or otherwise.
>
> Note that this is a considerable change in wording from your original
> question, though perhaps it's what you intended. But you can't expect
> others to know what you intend, only what you actually say.

If I was unclear before I apologize.

> But until you give us your definition of "order", nobody can answer your
> question. If I take the clue that humans are more ordered than bacteria,
> though, and translate the question into whether there is a trend for
> evolution to proceed from bacteria to humans, then the evidence seems
> obvious that there is no such trend.

The only evidence we have is that microbes did evolve
into higher forms such as humans. It should be a given
that the observed trend is the natural or normal one
unless shown otherwise.

> Most organisms are still bacteria,

That statement shows that the newer discoveries of
chaos and complexity sciences isn't undertsood at all
The self organizing properties of complex systems
emerge from a power law distribution of events.
Picture a pyramid comprised on many thin horizontal
layers. When the total power of the base equals
the total power of the peak, and every layer in between
the system begins to spontaneously produce self tuning
properties, feedback mechanisms and so on.

In short the larger that base, the higher the peaks.
So the abundance of bacteria isn't an argument
against increasing order over time.

> after several billion years of being bacteria. It's an odd universal trend
> that affects only one species.

What's so odd about a highly successful life form
surviving so well? Why would you think ALL bacteria
have to evolve to multicelled organisms?

>
>> You're the one giving a convoluted answer with 'neither'.
>> ....some aspects increase order, others decrease.
>> Your answer is stating the obvious, my question is which
>> of those two competing forces...wins? And which
>> path into the future is the probable one?
>

> It should be obvious from the current biota that bacteria are the past,
> present, and future trend.

The ongoing existence of bacteria, of the base, only shows the
health of the ecosystem, just as the health of the top predators
shows the same thing.

>
>>> But it's all so vague as to be useless.
>>
>> You're the one answering out of both sides of your mouth.
>> If you don't know which aspect is the more defining in
>> terms of global direction, then just say so.
>

> There is no global direction.

So Earth has remained largely unchanged since it cooled?
Is that what you're trying to say? Or the advance from lifelessness
to the first microbes, then on to the first two celled organizisms
and on up to primates and humans is what A FLUKE?
Is the entire history of life on Earth just noise to you, data to be
ignored?

I think the available evidence would scream otherwise.

> But if we took a global median (assuming your measurement of "order" is
> even meaningful), it wouldn't have changed in 3 billion years. So the
> global direction could be said to be static, if you really had to say
> anything.

Ok, now you're saying life on Earth is no more evolved
or ordered than it was 3 billion years ago?

>
>>>> Short range order.combined with long range disorder
>>>> is also an abstract way of describing a ...fluid, molecules
>>>> tend to drag nearby molecules other along for a short
>>>> time, but that order quickly dissipates from the surrounding
>>>> turbulence/environment.
>>>>
>>>> However, short range order combined with long range disorder
>>>> also describes gravity, where the forces are strong nearby
>>>> but quickly diminishes with distance.
>>>>
>>>> AND, short range order combined with long range disorder
>>>> also describes a power-law, which is the mathematical
>>>> relationship which abstractly defines the behavior of an
>>>> astonishing number of natural and living systems. From
>>>> hurricanes to rumors.
>>>>
>>>> Putting ...behavior...in abstract terms allows us to see the
>>>> commonalties across disciplines.
>>>
>>> It also allows us to manufacture commonalities that aren't really there.
>>> And I think that's what you've done in this case. While mathematics aims
>>> for precision, your vague waves in the direction of similarity aims for
>>> the opposite. I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish.
>>
>> But you failed to show why the comparisons don't hold.
>
> Not my job. You have to show why they do.

I provided the link to the appropriate mathematics. I can provide
any amount of documentation you like.

>
>> My logic is pretty straight forward, do you take issue with
>> the fact a liquid or gravity creates stronger correlations
>> with short range interactions than long range ones?
>
> That's a bizarre way of saying it. But yes, the strength of gravity does
> decline with distance, as do the interactions of particles in a fluid.

And so do fitness functions.

> But "interaction declines with distance" is such a trivial point of
> similarity that your strong conclusions of process identity are
> unwarranted.

You find it trivial that an inverse square law defines the
behavior of the vast bulk of matter and the behavior
of the vast bulk of life? You don't find that worth discussing?

>
>> Just saying something is gibberish without any reason
>> is the same thing as saying you don't understand the
>> concepts.
>
> True, it might be that you are so far beyond me that it's impossible to
> communicate your genius to my poor, tiny brain. I will try to take that
> possibility into account as much as I can.

I'll wait! I'm very patient with what I feel strongly about.
But if you wish to wave the white flag of surrender which
the childish insults always accompany, that's fine.

>
>>>> Since life, fitness functions and gravity share a common
>>>> underlying mathematical structure, which is to say the
>>>> well-known and pervasive inverse-square law, we can
>>>> easily understand the preferred direction of biological
>>>> evolution. Gravity wells and fitness peaks share two
>>>> key properties.
>>>>
>>>> The higher the peak, the larger the basin of attraction.
>>>> And the larger peaks tend to clump together on the
>>>> possibility landscape.
>>>>
>>>> Those two properties combined translate into a view
>>>> of reality where /any random path/ through such a
>>>> space is /more likely/ to fall into a region of higher
>>>> fitness/gravity than a lower one.
>>>>

\>>>

>>> Again, your comparison between gravity and natural selection is spurious
>>> in almost every way you mention. There is no inverse-square law of
>>> fitness.

The two paragraphs I wrote above are almost word for word
from the Cambridge University Dept of Zoology, Complexity
Science page. It was a great page, but unfortunately they
put it behind a password some time ago along with all
their other pages.

>>
>> Evolution follows a power-law relationship, a power law
>> is a form of the inverse square law. Power law relationships
>> describe a staggering amount of natural behaviors.
>
> No, the inverse square law is a form of a power law. Do you even read what
> you write before sending? How exactly does evolution follow a power law
> relationship?

Power-law functions
The general power-law function follows the polynomial form given above, and
is a ubiquitous form throughout mathematics and science



The ubiquity of power-law relations in physics is partly due to dimensional
constraints, while in complex systems, power laws are often thought to be
signatures of hierarchy or of specificstochastic processes. A few notable
examples of power laws are the Gutenberg-Richter law for earthquake sizes,
Pareto's law of income distribution, structural self-similarity of fractals,
and scaling laws in biological systems. Research on the origins of power-law
relations, and efforts to observe and validate them in the real world, is an
active topic of research in many fields of science, including physics,
computer science, linguistics, geophysics,neuroscience, sociology, economics
and more.



Empirical examples of the power law
There is evidence that the distributions of a wide variety of physical,
biological, and man-made phenomena follow a power law, including the sizes
of earthquakes, craters on the moon and of solar flares,[2] the foraging
pattern of various species,[3] the sizes of activity patterns of neuronal
populations,[4]the frequencies of words in most languages, frequencies of
family names, the species richness in clades of organisms,[5] the sizes of
power outages, wars, and many other quantities.[1]



Universality
The equivalence of power laws with a particular scaling exponent can have a
deeper origin in the dynamical processes that generate the power-law
relation. In physics, for example, phase transitions in thermodynamic
systems are associated with the emergence of power-law distributions of
certain quantities, whose exponents are referred to as the critical
exponents of the system. Diverse systems with the same critical
exponents-that is, which display identical scaling behaviour as they
approach criticality-can be shown, via renormalization group theory, to
share the same fundamental dynamics. For instance, the behavior of water and
CO2 at their boiling points fall in the same universality class because they
have identical critical exponents. In fact, almost all material phase
transitions are described by a small set of universality classes. Similar
observations have been made, though not as comprehensively, for various
self-organized critical systems, where the critical point of the system is
an attractor. Formally, this sharing of dynamics is referred to as
universality, and systems with precisely the same critical exponents are
said to belong to the same universality class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

>
>>> There is no reason that higher fitness peaks necessarily correlate with
>>> broader peaks.
>>
>> What? You can't be serious?
>
> Was that a question?

I misread your response, what I said was higher peaks lead to
larger basins of attraction, just as with a gravity well, where
the larger the mass, the larger the well..

NATURE
Evolutionary biology: The Elvis paradox
Andrew Hendry1

Topof page AbstractEvidence for a universal driver of evolution across all
timescales could mean that the venerable paradox of stasis is dead. But even
with such evidence, some biologists would be reluctant to accept its
passing.

Disagreement has long swirled around the relative importance of various
forces that might drive evolution on timescales ranging from dozens to
millions of generations. Writing in The American Naturalist, Estes and
Arnold1 offer a provocative contribution to this debate: they propose that
evolutionary changes on all timescales might be explained by a single,
simple model of adaptation.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7132/full/446147a.html








>

[jonathan]

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4631l85jgthgcp030...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:47:18 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I can only conclude you're trying to dodge my question and
>>answers. My question is utterly simple, does evolution
>>increase or decrease order over time, or otherwise.
>
> I know there is no chance that you can accept or understand what I am
> about to say, but I have to try anyway.
>
> First. In our previous discussions I concluded you were trying to dodge
> my questions.

Which is because I found them mostly juvenile insults
and devoid of content.

>
> More to the point; because you know essentially nothing about how
> evolution works

Like that one for instance

>you think you are asking clear and meaningful questions,
> which are in fact so vague as to be meaningless,

You find the question of whether order is increasing
or decreasing over time to be vague? And you also
find it to be meaningless?

Incredible!

> and are in any case
> certainly underlain by misconceptions that are so deep that it will take
> you years to untangle them.

On the contrary, I'm relating a mathematics which you obviously
haven't studied. I'm talking about the conclusions of Complexity
Science.

In the field of calculus, the integral is the basis or foundation.
Tell me, what is the 'integral' for Complexity Science?
If you can't even answer that most basic question of all
then how can you stand there and call what I'm trying
to relate a bunch of hooey.

That would be like someone claiming Darwinian evolution is a bunch
of nonsense without even having heard of natural selection.

[jonathan]

"solar penguin" <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:kiq8ag$184$1...@dont-email.me...

Well don't you think finding out if evolution has such
a trend is important? If we can establish whether the
overall path is less or more order, we can extrapolate
that into a vision of our ultimate destiny.

Don't you want to know whether humanity is a dead end
or if we're likely to have a future where all of
humanity swims in beauty and wisdom?

Even a slight bias one way or another can translate
into magnificence or oblivion with the passage of eons
of time.




>

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:02:00 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

Thank you for your reply.

[jonathan]

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5L6dnakneo_3lNLM...@earthlink.com...

> On 3/22/2013 7:32 PM, John Harshman wrote:

>> On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:

>>> "Friar Broccoli"<eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or via shortened link:
>>>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>>>
>>>
>>> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
>>> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
>>> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
>>> the ideal form?
>>
>> Neither. Evolution follows a partly random path (neutral evolution) and
>> a partly directed one (natural selection), but the goals, such as they
>> are, are short-term, having to do with immediate impact on reproductive
>> success.
>>

Funny you should say that, I have my African Gray Parrot
on my shoulder as I type, and last night she plucked a loose
feather, a long flight feather, and grabbing it in her left claw
she used the sharp end to scratch her back for several
minutes. She then chewed on the end for a couple of minutes
then emphatically tossed it to the ground, as if to say
she's bored with it already.

>
> So there does seem to be a long-term trend that the smartest species on
> Earth at any given time is smarter than any prior species.
>

In the math I hobby in, large evolutionary steps follow a form
called the 'expansion into the adjacent possible'. Once an
evolutionary system is fully niche-filled, then suddenly new
adaptations occur which open vast new possibility spaces.
For instance intelligence allowing orders of magnitude
more food to be available.

As complexity increases, so does the ability and opportunities
to adapt. Each new door opens ten new ones, so to speak, as
complexity increases.

To quote a founder of this math....


"As species become more complex, and as features per species become more
numerous and more complex and diverse, the ways of adapting become more
numerous.

There may be a general law, however: The biosphere may, as an average trend,
tend to increase the growth of its Adjacent Possible as fast as it
sustainably can.

One can show in a simple analytic model that an economy with the diversity
of goods on the X axis and production capacities on the Y axis can be
subcritical or supracritical. In the latter case, it generates an exploding
diversity of new goods and new production capacities. In brief, the economy
generates more than one new economic niche for each new good it produces, so
the very diversity of the economy is a major factor in economic growth. Data
now support this.

The biological analogue of a good is a trait of a species member. The
analogue of a production function includes a functionality in a mutualism,
for example, the beak of Hannah rubbing off pollen grains from one flower
and transferring them to the next flower. We need novel theory here. My
strong intuition is that the biosphere is now supracritical: each new trait,
or "task", ie good or production capacity, that the biosphere engenders,
creates more than one new adaptive opportunity for the involved species, so
adaptations explode into the Adjacent Possible, invade the Adjacent
Possible, and create ever new adaptative possibilities as this expansion
happens. Thus the Adjacent Possible itself expands."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/02/the_biosphere_expanding_into_a.html








>
>
> --
> Steven L.
>

[John Harshman]

Perhaps you could present your opinion first, since you seem to have a
notion that you think is clear even to a child.

>>>> and that their meanings seem to wander about quite a bit. You have
>>>> changed
>>>> your original language, talking about directed and random paths and
>>>> ideal
>>>> forms, as if there were no difference.
>>>
>>> A directed path is simply one which simply has a bias in
>>> a particular direction, since the question of increasing order
>>> is the subject, directed would obviously mean a process
>>> which tends to increase order over time. And ideal form
>>> is simply a trend which converges upon some maximum, in
>>> this case the trend being discussed is increasing order, which
>>> taken to it's logical conclusion would define the ideal.
>>
>>> I can only conclude you're trying to dodge my question and
>>> answers.
>
>> You are wrong. Not for the first time.
>
> But yet ...again you fail to say why you think something is wrong
> in any meaningful way.

What's wrong is that there is no reason to believe that evolution
maximizes "order", whatever that is, or that there is a maximum, or ideal.

>>> My question is utterly simple, does evolution
>>> increase or decrease order over time, or otherwise.
>>
>> Note that this is a considerable change in wording from your original
>> question, though perhaps it's what you intended. But you can't expect
>> others to know what you intend, only what you actually say.
>
> If I was unclear before I apologize.
>
>> But until you give us your definition of "order", nobody can answer your
>> question. If I take the clue that humans are more ordered than bacteria,
>> though, and translate the question into whether there is a trend for
>> evolution to proceed from bacteria to humans, then the evidence seems
>> obvious that there is no such trend.
>
> The only evidence we have is that microbes did evolve
> into higher forms such as humans. It should be a given
> that the observed trend is the natural or normal one
> unless shown otherwise.

Your statement is confused. No, microbes didn't evolve into higher
(another undefined term) forms such as humans. One species of microbes
has descendants that did that, but the rest don't. Why is what one
species does the normal thing, rather than what most species do?

>> Most organisms are still bacteria,
>
> That statement shows that the newer discoveries of
> chaos and complexity sciences isn't undertsood at all
> The self organizing properties of complex systems
> emerge from a power law distribution of events.
> Picture a pyramid comprised on many thin horizontal
> layers. When the total power of the base equals
> the total power of the peak, and every layer in between
> the system begins to spontaneously produce self tuning
> properties, feedback mechanisms and so on.
>
> In short the larger that base, the higher the peaks.
> So the abundance of bacteria isn't an argument
> against increasing order over time.

You appear to have a severe confusion among levels. You started talking
about evolution, which involves populations. But you seem now to be
talking about the biota as a whole. Who can possibly tell what you mean
when you shift around so much?

So please explain how the distribution of whatever property you are
talking about (which is entirely unclear -- now it seems to be "events")
would not as likely result from a set of random walks originating at a
lower limit, rather than from some directional rule.

>> after several billion years of being bacteria. It's an odd universal trend
>> that affects only one species.
>
> What's so odd about a highly successful life form
> surviving so well? Why would you think ALL bacteria
> have to evolve to multicelled organisms?

Why would you think that one bacterium (well, eukaryote) evolving to a
multicelled organism is some sort of general rule? (Actually, depending
on definitions, multicellularity might have arisen four or more times;
more than a dozen if you're being really, really generous. Still, no
general rule here.)

>>> You're the one giving a convoluted answer with 'neither'.
>>> ....some aspects increase order, others decrease.
>>> Your answer is stating the obvious, my question is which
>>> of those two competing forces...wins? And which
>>> path into the future is the probable one?
>
>> It should be obvious from the current biota that bacteria are the past,
>> present, and future trend.
>
> The ongoing existence of bacteria, of the base, only shows the
> health of the ecosystem, just as the health of the top predators
> shows the same thing.

It appears as if any pattern can be interpreted as evidence for your
contention, which contention is still unclear.

>>>> But it's all so vague as to be useless.
>>>
>>> You're the one answering out of both sides of your mouth.
>>> If you don't know which aspect is the more defining in
>>> terms of global direction, then just say so.
>
>> There is no global direction.
>
> So Earth has remained largely unchanged since it cooled?

You have an unfortunate and pathological tendency to draw absurd
inferences from what I say. In this case, you are required to assume
that "no preferred direction" means "no change whatsoever". Why would
this be warranted.

> Is that what you're trying to say? Or the advance from lifelessness
> to the first microbes, then on to the first two celled organizisms
> and on up to primates and humans is what A FLUKE?
> Is the entire history of life on Earth just noise to you, data to be
> ignored?

The answers to your absurd questions are all "no".

> I think the available evidence would scream otherwise.

We can at least agree that someone is screaming around here.

>> But if we took a global median (assuming your measurement of "order" is
>> even meaningful), it wouldn't have changed in 3 billion years. So the
>> global direction could be said to be static, if you really had to say
>> anything.
>
> Ok, now you're saying life on Earth is no more evolved
> or ordered than it was 3 billion years ago?

Dunno. First define "more evolved" and "more ordered", and then we'll see.

>>>>> Short range order.combined with long range disorder
>>>>> is also an abstract way of describing a ...fluid, molecules
>>>>> tend to drag nearby molecules other along for a short
>>>>> time, but that order quickly dissipates from the surrounding
>>>>> turbulence/environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, short range order combined with long range disorder
>>>>> also describes gravity, where the forces are strong nearby
>>>>> but quickly diminishes with distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> AND, short range order combined with long range disorder
>>>>> also describes a power-law, which is the mathematical
>>>>> relationship which abstractly defines the behavior of an
>>>>> astonishing number of natural and living systems. From
>>>>> hurricanes to rumors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting ...behavior...in abstract terms allows us to see the
>>>>> commonalties across disciplines.
>>>>
>>>> It also allows us to manufacture commonalities that aren't really there.
>>>> And I think that's what you've done in this case. While mathematics aims
>>>> for precision, your vague waves in the direction of similarity aims for
>>>> the opposite. I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish.
>>>
>>> But you failed to show why the comparisons don't hold.
>>
>> Not my job. You have to show why they do.
>
> I provided the link to the appropriate mathematics. I can provide
> any amount of documentation you like.

I have missed that link. Do you mean the one below to Wikipedia?

>>> My logic is pretty straight forward, do you take issue with
>>> the fact a liquid or gravity creates stronger correlations
>>> with short range interactions than long range ones?
>>
>> That's a bizarre way of saying it. But yes, the strength of gravity does
>> decline with distance, as do the interactions of particles in a fluid.
>
> And so do fitness functions.

If what you're saying is that if a fitness surface is continuous, then
there must be some decline with distance from a peak (assuming it's a
peak with a monotonic slope in all directions), then sure. But in what
way does this make it so like gravity that we can consider them identical?

>> But "interaction declines with distance" is such a trivial point of
>> similarity that your strong conclusions of process identity are
>> unwarranted.
>
> You find it trivial that an inverse square law defines the
> behavior of the vast bulk of matter and the behavior
> of the vast bulk of life? You don't find that worth discussing?

Whoops. You just translated "decline with distance" into "inverse square
law" as if they were the same thing. Your tendency toward elision and
conflation is annoying.

>>> Just saying something is gibberish without any reason
>>> is the same thing as saying you don't understand the
>>> concepts.
>>
>> True, it might be that you are so far beyond me that it's impossible to
>> communicate your genius to my poor, tiny brain. I will try to take that
>> possibility into account as much as I can.
>
> I'll wait! I'm very patient with what I feel strongly about.
> But if you wish to wave the white flag of surrender which
> the childish insults always accompany, that's fine.

What are you waiting for, exactly?

>>>>> Since life, fitness functions and gravity share a common
>>>>> underlying mathematical structure, which is to say the
>>>>> well-known and pervasive inverse-square law, we can
>>>>> easily understand the preferred direction of biological
>>>>> evolution. Gravity wells and fitness peaks share two
>>>>> key properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> The higher the peak, the larger the basin of attraction.
>>>>> And the larger peaks tend to clump together on the
>>>>> possibility landscape.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those two properties combined translate into a view
>>>>> of reality where /any random path/ through such a
>>>>> space is /more likely/ to fall into a region of higher
>>>>> fitness/gravity than a lower one.
>>>>>
>
> \>>>
>>>> Again, your comparison between gravity and natural selection is spurious
>>>> in almost every way you mention. There is no inverse-square law of
>>>> fitness.
>
> The two paragraphs I wrote above are almost word for word
> from the Cambridge University Dept of Zoology, Complexity
> Science page. It was a great page, but unfortunately they
> put it behind a password some time ago along with all
> their other pages.

So much the worse for Cambridge, I'm afraid. Appeals to authority are
poor argument. Fitness functions most certainly do not follow an inverse
square law. It would be weird if they did.

Not one word in all that about evolution. There was in fact no point in
posting it.

>>>> There is no reason that higher fitness peaks necessarily correlate with
>>>> broader peaks.
>>>
>>> What? You can't be serious?
>>
>> Was that a question?
>
> I misread your response, what I said was higher peaks lead to
> larger basins of attraction, just as with a gravity well, where
> the larger the mass, the larger the well..

Yes, and I said there's no reason fitness peaks should follow this rule.
Peaks may be sharp and very localized, even if high, or wide and spread
out, even if short.

I'm sure you meant that to mean something relevant to our discussion. What?

[alias Ernest Major]

You assert that you're talking about the conclusions of Complexity
Science. I am not convinced that you understand Complexity Science
sufficiently for you to be capable of this.

I read "The Origins of Order". I didn't understand it, but I could tell
that there was some content there for me to fail to understand. In
constrast, I can't perceive any content in your writings about

Complexity Science.
>
> In the field of calculus, the integral is the basis or foundation.
> Tell me, what is the 'integral' for Complexity Science?
> If you can't even answer that most basic question of all
> then how can you stand there and call what I'm trying
> to relate a bunch of hooey.
>
> That would be like someone claiming Darwinian evolution is a bunch
> of nonsense without even having heard of natural selection.
>
>
>>
>> How do I know this: because I started from almost exactly the same
>> position eight years ago.
>>
>> --
>> Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
>> I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
>>
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 26/03/2013 00:37, jonathan wrote:
> "solar penguin" <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:kiq8ag$184$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:47:18 -0400, jonathan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I can only conclude you're trying to dodge my question and answers. My
>>> question is utterly simple, does evolution increase or decrease order
>>> over time, or otherwise.
>>
>> The answer is equally simple: Yes, evolution does increase or decrease
>> order over time, or otherwise.
>
>
> Well don't you think finding out if evolution has such
> a trend is important?

You still haven't defined order. But whether evolution has any long term
trends other than increases in the amplitude of trait distributions is
an interesting question.

If we can establish whether the
> overall path is less or more order, we can extrapolate
> that into a vision of our ultimate destiny.

However, you then make a non-sequiturial leap. (Unless by vision you
mean something non-predictive, in which case you don't need a diving
board to leap off.) For a vision of ultimate destiny you need to go to
the physics you decry as worthless reductionism - is the fate of the
universe heat death or the Big Rip? In either case in the long run the
eternal persistence of life seems unlikely.

>
> Don't you want to know whether humanity is a dead end
> or if we're likely to have a future where all of
> humanity swims in beauty and wisdom?

You can't leap to an answer to that dichotomy from knowledge of whether
evolution has a trend to increasing order.

>
> Even a slight bias one way or another can translate
> into magnificence or oblivion with the passage of eons
> of time.
>

Nor to this assertion either.

--
alias Ernest Major

[James Beck]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:31:35 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

>play in the group of species which includes us and sharks, which are for

>example:
>
>- holding our intelligence at high levels due to competitive pressures
>and
>- holding our immune systems at complex levels also due to competitive
>pressures?
>
>Again referring to the other subthread: More niches results in there
>being more organisms out their to compete with us in more varied ways
>thus driving the ratchet: - thus niches and specialization are linked.
>
>I am also thinking about exploring the fact(?) that all those presumed
>simple RNA world organisms have been wiped out and replaced by us:
>"DNA -> RNA -> 20 Amino Acids -> fold into protein -> make stuff"
>folks.
>
>which suggests to me that the *entire* biota has been shifted up in
>something intuitively resembling a complexity scale. To then argue that
>it is a general trend, not just a random walk.

Consider a replicating toy creature with a minimum of 10 sites, all of
which are independently subject to mutation and that can take values
from 0-9, each with probability of 0.1. The multiplication rule says
that the probability of getting any particular string will be
1/10,000,000,000. Call that State 0.

Designate sites 1, 2, and 3 as threshold sensitivity to oxygen,
temperature, and dryness, respectively. For convenience, assume that
when a threshold has been surpassed only creatures with a "5" at the
related site will survive.

That is, when the oxygen threshold is passed, survivors will be:

State 1 "High" oxygen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 0-9 0-9 ... 0-9

State 2 "High" oxygen, "High" temperature
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 5 0-9 0-9 ... 0-9

State 3 "High" oxygen, "High" temperature, "Low" moisture
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 5 5 0-9 0-9 ... 0-9

How is 5558675309 more complex than 4108675309? Survival is arbitrary.
It doesn't imply an increase in complexity. In the same way, you could
assign characteristics to the seven open sites like reliable
inheritance, size, speed, camouflage, stealth, longevity,
intelligence, sociability, etc., all without increasing complexity.

I also don't see how you got a trend from the idea that there are more
ways to be extreme. In this case, when a threshold is passed survivors
"jump" to the survival value at the relevant site even though all
sites continued their random permutation. Jump processes are common,
but they don't imply that there isn't a random walk.

This is simplistic, but even with a small set of attributes there are
a lot of choices available. If foxes get faster, rabbits can get
faster, sneakier, get a better sense of smell, or become nocturnal.
Both got more extreme to stay even.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 26, 12:11 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Shape recognition is a very complex property and the ability to shape
another protein is of course much more complex.
The size of the protein-prion is high. Although the exact 3D structure
of PrPSc is not known, it has a higher proportion of β-sheet structure
in place of the normal α-helix structure.
Moreover the way prions replicate is still unclear: "the first
hypothesis that tried to explain how prions replicate in a protein-
only manner was the heterodimer model. This model assumed that a
single PrPSc molecule binds to a single PrPC molecule and catalyzes
its conversion into PrPSc. The two PrPSc molecules then come apart and
can go on to convert more PrPC. However, a model of prion replication
must explain both how prions propagate, and why their spontaneous
appearance is so rare. Manfred Eigen showed that the heterodimer model
requires PrPSc to be an extraordinarily effective catalyst, increasing
the rate of the conversion reaction by a factor of around 10 at the
power of 15. This problem does not arise if PrPSc exists only in
aggregated forms such as amyloid, where cooperativity may act as a
barrier to spontaneous conversion. What is more, despite considerable
effort, infectious monomeric PrPSc has never been isolated.
An alternative model assumes that PrPSc exists only as fibrils, and
that fibril ends bind PrPC and convert it into PrPSc. If this were
all, then the quantity of prions would increase linearly, forming ever
longer fibrils. But exponential growth of both PrPSc and of the
quantity of infectious particles is observed during prion disease.
This can be explained by taking into account fibril breakage. A
mathematical solution for the exponential growth rate resulting from
the combination of fibril growth and fibril breakage has been found.
The exponential growth rate depends largely on the square root of the
PrPC concentration. The incubation period is determined by the
exponential growth rate, and in vivo data on prion diseases in
transgenic mice match this prediction. The same square root dependence
is also seen in vitro in experiments with a variety of different
amyloid protein" (from.Wikipedia "Prion").

> >> But how do you measure this complexity?
> > The specific information contained in the DNA or RNA of a virus is
> > quite impressive. Even a prion, which is a very complex protein,
> > contains a lot of specific information.
> "A lot"? There are a few active sites, possibly only one of which is
> necessary for its prion behavior, a fair number of other sites that are
> needed for secondary structure, and a large number that just take up
> space in the sequence.

I would be interested in your references (see my quotation from
Wikipedia).

> > By contrast, in the example of lipid vesicles with heterogeneous
> > membranes which have acquired heritable characteristics transmittable
> > to their offspring, the specific information is only contained in the
> > hypercycles composed of the membrane sites and their corresponding
> > carbon-based chains with no more than ten or so carbons.
> Ah, but how many hypercycles? How specific? Since we don't actually have
> any such organism to examine, it's hard to say what it looks like, but
> it seems to me that anything capable of all the functions of metabolism
> and reproduction would be fairly complex.

I recall you that the present experimental lipid vesicles are already
able to reproduce.
With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to
their offsprin, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of
hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
by their kind of hypercycle.

[John Harshman]

It is? And "of course"?

I note that your quotation says nothing relevant. But the misfolded
protein that causes the disease usually results from a single mutation,
i.e. one active site.

>>> By contrast, in the example of lipid vesicles with heterogeneous
>>> membranes which have acquired heritable characteristics transmittable
>>> to their offspring, the specific information is only contained in the
>>> hypercycles composed of the membrane sites and their corresponding
>>> carbon-based chains with no more than ten or so carbons.
>> Ah, but how many hypercycles? How specific? Since we don't actually have
>> any such organism to examine, it's hard to say what it looks like, but
>> it seems to me that anything capable of all the functions of metabolism
>> and reproduction would be fairly complex.
>
> I recall you that the present experimental lipid vesicles are already
> able to reproduce.

By what definition of "reproduce"?

> With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to
> their offsprin, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of
> hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
> natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
> by their kind of hypercycle.

Are these "alive"?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 26, 2:38 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

<snip for focus>

Your evaluation of the information corresponding to a prion is not
correct. Total information is not only in the mutation: a prion comes
from a complex protein (i.e. PrPC) which corresponds to a lot of
information.

> >>> By contrast, in the example of lipid vesicles with heterogeneous
> >>> membranes which have acquired heritable characteristics transmittable
> >>> to their offspring, the specific information is only contained in the
> >>> hypercycles composed of the membrane sites and their corresponding
> >>> carbon-based chains with no more than ten or so carbons.
> >> Ah, but how many hypercycles? How specific? Since we don't actually have
> >> any such organism to examine, it's hard to say what it looks like, but
> >> it seems to me that anything capable of all the functions of metabolism
> >> and reproduction would be fairly complex.
> > I recall you that the present experimental lipid vesicles are already
> > able to reproduce.
> By what definition of "reproduce"?

According to Szostak's experiments high concentration of encapsulated
substances leads to a significant internal osmotic pressure which
leads to vesicle swelling and thus membrane tension (Szostak 2011).
Then the initially spherical vesicles sprout short, thin tails and
these filamentous structures grow in length and diameter. As the
filamentous vesicles are extremely fragile, even very mild shear
forces caused by pressure-driven fluid disturbances are sufficient to
trigger division of the filamentous vesicles into multiple smaller
spherical daughter vesicles.

Reference:
Szostak JW. An optimal degree of physical and chemical heterogeneity
for the origin of life? Phil Trans R Soc B 2011;366:2894-2901.

> > With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to

> > their offspring, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of

> > hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
> > natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
> > by their kind of hypercycle.
> Are these "alive"?

The big question! But, to me, totally useless.
The only relevant question, scientifically speaking, is: are such
vesicles able to evolve according to Darwinian evolution? And my
response is yes.

[John Harshman]

How much? If each amino acid is 5 bits, that's around 1000 bits for the
whole thing. Is that more or less than a primitive, pre-LUCA organism?
What is the information content of whatever you're envisioning?

>>>>> By contrast, in the example of lipid vesicles with heterogeneous
>>>>> membranes which have acquired heritable characteristics transmittable
>>>>> to their offspring, the specific information is only contained in the
>>>>> hypercycles composed of the membrane sites and their corresponding
>>>>> carbon-based chains with no more than ten or so carbons.
>>>> Ah, but how many hypercycles? How specific? Since we don't actually have
>>>> any such organism to examine, it's hard to say what it looks like, but
>>>> it seems to me that anything capable of all the functions of metabolism
>>>> and reproduction would be fairly complex.
>>> I recall you that the present experimental lipid vesicles are already
>>> able to reproduce.
>> By what definition of "reproduce"?
>
> According to Szostak's experiments high concentration of encapsulated
> substances leads to a significant internal osmotic pressure which
> leads to vesicle swelling and thus membrane tension (Szostak 2011).
> Then the initially spherical vesicles sprout short, thin tails and
> these filamentous structures grow in length and diameter. As the
> filamentous vesicles are extremely fragile, even very mild shear
> forces caused by pressure-driven fluid disturbances are sufficient to
> trigger division of the filamentous vesicles into multiple smaller
> spherical daughter vesicles.

And you consider that reproduction?

> Reference:
> Szostak JW. An optimal degree of physical and chemical heterogeneity
> for the origin of life? Phil Trans R Soc B 2011;366:2894-2901.
>
>>> With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to
>>> their offspring, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of
>>> hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
>>> natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
>>> by their kind of hypercycle.
>> Are these "alive"?
>
> The big question! But, to me, totally useless.
> The only relevant question, scientifically speaking, is: are such
> vesicles able to evolve according to Darwinian evolution? And my
> response is yes.

Well, evolution of a sort. Inheritance of cell contents, whatever those
might be. What controls cell contents, aside from inheritance?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 26, 4:13�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

<snip for focus>

> >> I note that your quotation says nothing relevant. But the misfolded
> >> protein that causes the disease usually results from a single mutation,
> >> i.e. one active site.
> > Your evaluation of the information corresponding to a prion is not
> > correct. Total information is not only in the mutation: a prion comes
> > from a complex protein (i.e. PrPC) which corresponds to a lot of
> > information.
> How much? If each amino acid is 5 bits, that's around 1000 bits for the
> whole thing. Is that more or less than a primitive, pre-LUCA organism?
> What is the information content of whatever you're envisioning?

I gave you the example of the model I propose, i.e. a lipid vesicle
with a hypercycle composed on one hand of a membrane site (itself
composed of amphiphiles linked by covalence bonds) and on the other
hand of a specific enantiomer of a hydrocarbon chain of about 10
carbons.

> >>>>> By contrast, in the example of lipid vesicles with heterogeneous
> >>>>> membranes which have acquired heritable characteristics transmittable
> >>>>> to their offspring, the specific information is only contained in the
> >>>>> hypercycles composed of the membrane sites and their corresponding
> >>>>> carbon-based chains with no more than ten or so carbons.
> >>>> Ah, but how many hypercycles? How specific? Since we don't actually have
> >>>> any such organism to examine, it's hard to say what it looks like, but
> >>>> it seems to me that anything capable of all the functions of metabolism
> >>>> and reproduction would be fairly complex.
> >>> I recall you that the present experimental lipid vesicles are already
> >>> able to reproduce.
> >> By what definition of "reproduce"?
> > According to Szostak's experiments high concentration of encapsulated
> > substances leads to a significant internal osmotic pressure which
> > leads to vesicle swelling and thus membrane tension (Szostak 2011).
> > Then the initially spherical vesicles sprout short, thin tails and
> > these filamentous structures grow in length and diameter. As the
> > filamentous vesicles are extremely fragile, even very mild shear
> > forces caused by pressure-driven fluid disturbances are sufficient to
> > trigger division of the filamentous vesicles into multiple smaller
> > spherical daughter vesicles.
> And you consider that reproduction?

How do you call the fact that a vesicle splits into several daughter
vesicles?

> > Reference:
> > Szostak JW. An optimal degree of physical and chemical heterogeneity
> > for the origin of life? Phil Trans R Soc B 2011;366:2894-2901.
> >>> With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to
> >>> their offspring, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of
> >>> hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
> >>> natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
> >>> by their kind of hypercycle.
> >> Are these "alive"?
> > The big question! But, to me, totally useless.
> > The only relevant question, scientifically speaking, is: are such
> > vesicles able to evolve according to Darwinian evolution? And my
> > response is yes.
> Well, evolution of a sort. Inheritance of cell contents, whatever those
> might be. What controls cell contents, aside from inheritance?

Such vesicles with a hypercycle are able to:
1) synthesize specific enantiomers (i.e. hydrocarbon chains) which
will be selected by natural selection if favoring vesicle survival or
reproduction (by interacting with the membrane);
2) increase the inner concentration of this specific enantiomer until
a high intra-vesicular level favoring the replication of the specific
membrane site;
3) transmit its hypercycle to the offspring (i.e. daughter vesicles).
4) evolve by several ways:
- site mutations and thus synthesis of new enantiomers,
- creation or acquisition (by membrane horizontal transfer) of other
sites,
- site combinations leading to enantiomer polymerization, etc.

[Mark Isaak]

> [snip so-far fruitless discussion of complexity theory applied to
evolution]

I'll suggest (what I believe to be) one overall trend in evolution.
When a species evolves to fill a new niche, that opens up still newer
niches. For example, there is now a niche for specialized predators and
parasites on the new species. Thus a long-term trend: Diversity breeds
diversity. Occasionally an external event pushes a reset button, but
diversity builds and continues building after that.

To the best of my knowledge, complexity theory has nothing to do with
this hypothesis. In fact, jonathan cites complexity theory as showing
an increase in order, and though I still don't know what he means by
order, my intuition is that order and diversity are at opposite poles.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[John Harshman]

On 3/26/13 9:44 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > [snip so-far fruitless discussion of complexity theory applied to
> evolution]
>
> I'll suggest (what I believe to be) one overall trend in evolution. When
> a species evolves to fill a new niche, that opens up still newer niches.
> For example, there is now a niche for specialized predators and
> parasites on the new species. Thus a long-term trend: Diversity breeds
> diversity. Occasionally an external event pushes a reset button, but
> diversity builds and continues building after that.

This may be true up to a point, except that as far as can be told from
the fossil record there is a limit. That is, if there's a pattern to
diversity increases, they follow a logistic curve. It may be that the
asymptote also increases every so often, but if so, that "every so
often" is measured in hundreds of millions of years.

That is, if you believe the Sepkoski graph, there was a logistic curve
to near an asymptote in the Cambrian, another in the Ordovician, a
stable condition through the Paleozoic, and another increase beginning
some time in the Mesozoic, which may have reached its asymptote in the
Miocene.

[John Harshman]

On 3/26/13 9:12 AM, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:

> On Mar 26, 4:13 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>>>> I note that your quotation says nothing relevant. But the misfolded
>>>> protein that causes the disease usually results from a single mutation,
>>>> i.e. one active site.
>>> Your evaluation of the information corresponding to a prion is not
>>> correct. Total information is not only in the mutation: a prion comes
>>> from a complex protein (i.e. PrPC) which corresponds to a lot of
>>> information.
>> How much? If each amino acid is 5 bits, that's around 1000 bits for the
>> whole thing. Is that more or less than a primitive, pre-LUCA organism?
>> What is the information content of whatever you're envisioning?
>
> I gave you the example of the model I propose, i.e. a lipid vesicle
> with a hypercycle composed on one hand of a membrane site (itself
> composed of amphiphiles linked by covalence bonds) and on the other
> hand of a specific enantiomer of a hydrocarbon chain of about 10
> carbons.

What is its information content?

>>>>>>> By contrast, in the example of lipid vesicles with heterogeneous
>>>>>>> membranes which have acquired heritable characteristics transmittable
>>>>>>> to their offspring, the specific information is only contained in the
>>>>>>> hypercycles composed of the membrane sites and their corresponding
>>>>>>> carbon-based chains with no more than ten or so carbons.
>>>>>> Ah, but how many hypercycles? How specific? Since we don't actually have
>>>>>> any such organism to examine, it's hard to say what it looks like, but
>>>>>> it seems to me that anything capable of all the functions of metabolism
>>>>>> and reproduction would be fairly complex.
>>>>> I recall you that the present experimental lipid vesicles are already
>>>>> able to reproduce.
>>>> By what definition of "reproduce"?
>>> According to Szostak's experiments high concentration of encapsulated
>>> substances leads to a significant internal osmotic pressure which
>>> leads to vesicle swelling and thus membrane tension (Szostak 2011).
>>> Then the initially spherical vesicles sprout short, thin tails and
>>> these filamentous structures grow in length and diameter. As the
>>> filamentous vesicles are extremely fragile, even very mild shear
>>> forces caused by pressure-driven fluid disturbances are sufficient to
>>> trigger division of the filamentous vesicles into multiple smaller
>>> spherical daughter vesicles.
>> And you consider that reproduction?
>
> How do you call the fact that a vesicle splits into several daughter
> vesicles?

Do crystals reproduce? It's a very low bar.

>>> Reference:
>>> Szostak JW. An optimal degree of physical and chemical heterogeneity
>>> for the origin of life? Phil Trans R Soc B 2011;366:2894-2901.
>>>>> With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to
>>>>> their offspring, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of
>>>>> hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
>>>>> natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
>>>>> by their kind of hypercycle.
>>>> Are these "alive"?
>>> The big question! But, to me, totally useless.
>>> The only relevant question, scientifically speaking, is: are such
>>> vesicles able to evolve according to Darwinian evolution? And my
>>> response is yes.
>> Well, evolution of a sort. Inheritance of cell contents, whatever those
>> might be. What controls cell contents, aside from inheritance?
>
> Such vesicles with a hypercycle are able to:
> 1) synthesize specific enantiomers (i.e. hydrocarbon chains) which
> will be selected by natural selection if favoring vesicle survival or
> reproduction (by interacting with the membrane);
> 2) increase the inner concentration of this specific enantiomer until
> a high intra-vesicular level favoring the replication of the specific
> membrane site;

What is a membrane site?

> 3) transmit its hypercycle to the offspring (i.e. daughter vesicles).

Now that we're at it, what exactly is a hyptercycle?

> 4) evolve by several ways:
> - site mutations and thus synthesis of new enantiomers,

How do sites mutate?

> - creation or acquisition (by membrane horizontal transfer) of other
> sites,
> - site combinations leading to enantiomer polymerization, etc.

I'm presuming that by membrane horizontal transfer you mean fusion of
vesicles. Is that correct? What are site combinations?

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:33:09 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:


>You find the question of whether order is increasing
>or decreasing over time to be vague? And you also
>find it to be meaningless?

Yes, because order is a subjective concept (unless rigorously defined in
a context - something you have so far avoided doing). More pointedly,
our understanding of entropy (which I am guessing you will want to
equate with disorder) frequently conflicts with our notions of what is
or is not ordered.

>Incredible!

Well OK. Since the discussion is about biological systems and you
claim to know what is more ordered lets compare two known organisms. Say
two fish:

- A puffer fish (Tetraodon nigroviridis) whose genome is
385 million bases long
- The marbled lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus) whose genome is
130,000 million bases long

Which is more ordered?
(And please indicate the criteria you are using to make your
determination.)

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 26 mar, 17:21, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Firstly I would like to recognize the relevance of your questions.
Of course I recommend you to read my 2011 paper "Origin of Evolution
versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm" on open access and easily
available on Google.

> >>>> I note that your quotation says nothing relevant. But the misfolded
> >>>> protein that causes the disease usually results from a single mutation,
> >>>> i.e. one active site.
> >>> Your evaluation of the information corresponding to a prion is not
> >>> correct. Total information is not only in the mutation: a prion comes
> >>> from a complex protein (i.e. PrPC) which corresponds to a lot of
> >>> information.
> >> How much? If each amino acid is 5 bits, that's around 1000 bits for the
> >> whole thing. Is that more or less than a primitive, pre-LUCA organism?
> >> What is the information content of whatever you're envisioning?
> > I gave you the example of the model I propose, i.e. a lipid vesicle
> > with a hypercycle composed on one hand of a membrane site (itself
> > composed of amphiphiles linked by covalence bonds) and on the other
> > hand of a specific enantiomer of a hydrocarbon chain of about 10
> > carbons.
> What is its information content?

The specific information is only in the hypercycle. It is a hypercycle
according to the terminology by Manfred Eigen (Eigen & Schuster 1977)
as it is actually a positive feed-back composed of mutually catalytic
E/S interaction (E for the specific enantiomer synthesized by the
membrane site S).

Yes they do. On this subject I recommend you the article by A.
Cottrell "The Natural Philosophy of Engines" in Contemp Phys
1979;20:1-10.

> >>> Reference:
> >>> Szostak JW. An optimal degree of physical and chemical heterogeneity
> >>> for the origin of life? Phil Trans R Soc B 2011;366:2894-2901.
> >>>>> With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to
> >>>>> their offspring, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of
> >>>>> hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
> >>>>> natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
> >>>>> by their kind of hypercycle.
> >>>> Are these "alive"?
> >>> The big question! But, to me, totally useless.
> >>> The only relevant question, scientifically speaking, is: are such
> >>> vesicles able to evolve according to Darwinian evolution? And my
> >>> response is yes.
> >> Well, evolution of a sort. Inheritance of cell contents, whatever those
> >> might be. What controls cell contents, aside from inheritance?
> > Such vesicles with a hypercycle are able to:
> > 1) synthesize specific enantiomers (i.e. �hydrocarbon chains) which
> > will be selected by natural selection if favoring vesicle survival or
> > reproduction (by interacting with the membrane);
> > 2) increase the inner concentration of this specific enantiomer until
> > a high intra-vesicular level favoring the replication of the specific
> > membrane site;
> What is a membrane site?

Really the best would be that you read my 2011 paper (with figures it
is easier to describe the processes).

> > 3) transmit its hypercycle to the offspring (i.e. daughter vesicles).

> Now that we're at it, what exactly is a hypercycle?

See above and my paper.

> > 4) evolve by several ways:
> > - site mutations and thus synthesis of new enantiomers,
> How do sites mutate?

Without having read my paper I think impossible to catch the process.
However the process is not described in the paper. If you read the
paper I could describe it to you.

> > - creation or acquisition (by membrane horizontal transfer) of other
> > sites,
> > - site combinations leading to enantiomer polymerization, etc.
> I'm presuming that by membrane horizontal transfer you mean fusion of
> vesicles. Is that correct?

Yes, it is.

> What are site combinations?

My 2011 paper explains these with figures.

[John Harshman]

On 3/26/13 11:33 AM, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> On 26 mar, 17:21, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Firstly I would like to recognize the relevance of your questions.
> Of course I recommend you to read my 2011 paper "Origin of Evolution
> versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm" on open access and easily
> available on Google.
>
>>>>>> I note that your quotation says nothing relevant. But the misfolded
>>>>>> protein that causes the disease usually results from a single mutation,
>>>>>> i.e. one active site.
>>>>> Your evaluation of the information corresponding to a prion is not
>>>>> correct. Total information is not only in the mutation: a prion comes
>>>>> from a complex protein (i.e. PrPC) which corresponds to a lot of
>>>>> information.
>>>> How much? If each amino acid is 5 bits, that's around 1000 bits for the
>>>> whole thing. Is that more or less than a primitive, pre-LUCA organism?
>>>> What is the information content of whatever you're envisioning?
>>> I gave you the example of the model I propose, i.e. a lipid vesicle
>>> with a hypercycle composed on one hand of a membrane site (itself
>>> composed of amphiphiles linked by covalence bonds) and on the other
>>> hand of a specific enantiomer of a hydrocarbon chain of about 10
>>> carbons.
>> What is its information content?
>
> The specific information is only in the hypercycle. It is a hypercycle

> according to the terminology by Manfred Eigen (Eigen& Schuster 1977)

> as it is actually a positive feed-back composed of mutually catalytic
> E/S interaction (E for the specific enantiomer synthesized by the
> membrane site S).

That wasn't an answer. We need a number to compare to the 1000 bits in
the prion.

This is rather different than what we mean by reproduction in biology.

What is your 2011 paper? Where was it published?

>>> 3) transmit its hypercycle to the offspring (i.e. daughter vesicles).
>> Now that we're at it, what exactly is a hypercycle?
>
> See above and my paper.

What is "above" that I'm supposed to see? Is it the reference to Eigen's
terminology? That, unfortunately, depends on defining "membrane site".

[alias Ernest Major]

On 26/03/2013 16:44, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > [snip so-far fruitless discussion of complexity theory applied to
> evolution]
>
> I'll suggest (what I believe to be) one overall trend in evolution. When
> a species evolves to fill a new niche, that opens up still newer
> niches. For example, there is now a niche for specialized predators and
> parasites on the new species. Thus a long-term trend: Diversity breeds
> diversity. Occasionally an external event pushes a reset button, but
> diversity builds and continues building after that.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, complexity theory has nothing to do with
> this hypothesis. In fact, jonathan cites complexity theory as showing
> an increase in order, and though I still don't know what he means by
> order, my intuition is that order and diversity are at opposite poles.
>

What I recall from complexity theory is that the interesting (and
complex) behaviour occurs on the boundary between chaos (where
successive states are uncorrelated) and order (where successive states
converge on stasis).

I think I would agree on order and diversity being anti-correlated.
--
alias Ernest Major

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 26 mar, 19:09, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 3/26/13 11:33 AM, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > On 26 mar, 17:21, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> 锟絯rote:

> > Firstly I would like to recognize the relevance of your questions.
> > Of course I recommend you to read my 2011 paper "Origin of Evolution
> > versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm" on open access and easily
> > available on Google.
> >>>>>> I note that your quotation says nothing relevant. But the misfolded
> >>>>>> protein that causes the disease usually results from a single mutation,
> >>>>>> i.e. one active site.
> >>>>> Your evaluation of the information corresponding to a prion is not
> >>>>> correct. Total information is not only in the mutation: a prion comes
> >>>>> from a complex protein (i.e. PrPC) which corresponds to a lot of
> >>>>> information.
> >>>> How much? If each amino acid is 5 bits, that's around 1000 bits for the
> >>>> whole thing. Is that more or less than a primitive, pre-LUCA organism?
> >>>> What is the information content of whatever you're envisioning?
> >>> I gave you the example of the model I propose, i.e. a lipid vesicle
> >>> with a hypercycle composed on one hand of a membrane site (itself
> >>> composed of amphiphiles linked by covalence bonds) and on the other
> >>> hand of a specific enantiomer of a hydrocarbon chain of about 10
> >>> carbons.
> >> What is its information content?
> > The specific information is only in the hypercycle. It is a hypercycle

> > according to the terminology by Manfred Eigen (Eigen& 锟絊chuster 1977)

> > as it is actually a positive feed-back composed of mutually catalytic
> > E/S interaction (E for the specific enantiomer synthesized by the
> > membrane site S).
> That wasn't an answer. We need a number to compare to the 1000 bits in
> the prion.

I don't think I can answer this question accurately. If you read my
2011 paper perhaps you would see better how to estimate such a number.
To have access to the paper on Google you have just to type my name or
the tittle "Origin of Evolution versus Origin of Life: A Shift of
Paradigm".

Well, biology comes from physics. At the beginning the reproduction
should have been as simple as possible and according to the simplest
laws of physics.

> >>>>> Reference:
> >>>>> Szostak JW. An optimal degree of physical and chemical heterogeneity
> >>>>> for the origin of life? Phil Trans R Soc B 2011;366:2894-2901.
> >>>>>>> With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to
> >>>>>>> their offspring, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of
> >>>>>>> hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
> >>>>>>> natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
> >>>>>>> by their kind of hypercycle.
> >>>>>> Are these "alive"?
> >>>>> The big question! But, to me, totally useless.
> >>>>> The only relevant question, scientifically speaking, is: are such
> >>>>> vesicles able to evolve according to Darwinian evolution? And my
> >>>>> response is yes.
> >>>> Well, evolution of a sort. Inheritance of cell contents, whatever those
> >>>> might be. What controls cell contents, aside from inheritance?
> >>> Such vesicles with a hypercycle are able to:

> >>> 1) synthesize specific enantiomers (i.e. 锟絟ydrocarbon chains) which

> >>> will be selected by natural selection if favoring vesicle survival or
> >>> reproduction (by interacting with the membrane);
> >>> 2) increase the inner concentration of this specific enantiomer until
> >>> a high intra-vesicular level favoring the replication of the specific
> >>> membrane site;
> >> What is a membrane site?
> > Really the best would be that you read my 2011 paper (with figures it
> > is easier to describe the processes).
> What is your 2011 paper? Where was it published?

It was published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.

> >>> 3) transmit its hypercycle to the offspring (i.e. daughter vesicles).
> >> Now that we're at it, what exactly is a hypercycle?
> > See above and my paper.
> What is "above" that I'm supposed to see? Is it the reference to Eigen's
> terminology? That, unfortunately, depends on defining "membrane site".

It is a hypercycle according to the terminology by Manfred Eigen

(Eigen& 锟絊chuster 1977) as it is actually a positive feed-back

composed of mutually catalytic E/S interaction (E for the specific
enantiomer synthesized by the membrane site S).

[John Harshman]

On 3/26/13 12:49 PM, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> On 26 mar, 19:09, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 3/26/13 11:33 AM, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:

>>> On 26 mar, 17:21, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Firstly I would like to recognize the relevance of your questions.
>>> Of course I recommend you to read my 2011 paper "Origin of Evolution
>>> versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm" on open access and easily
>>> available on Google.
>>>>>>>> I note that your quotation says nothing relevant. But the misfolded
>>>>>>>> protein that causes the disease usually results from a single mutation,
>>>>>>>> i.e. one active site.
>>>>>>> Your evaluation of the information corresponding to a prion is not
>>>>>>> correct. Total information is not only in the mutation: a prion comes
>>>>>>> from a complex protein (i.e. PrPC) which corresponds to a lot of
>>>>>>> information.
>>>>>> How much? If each amino acid is 5 bits, that's around 1000 bits for the
>>>>>> whole thing. Is that more or less than a primitive, pre-LUCA organism?
>>>>>> What is the information content of whatever you're envisioning?
>>>>> I gave you the example of the model I propose, i.e. a lipid vesicle
>>>>> with a hypercycle composed on one hand of a membrane site (itself
>>>>> composed of amphiphiles linked by covalence bonds) and on the other
>>>>> hand of a specific enantiomer of a hydrocarbon chain of about 10
>>>>> carbons.
>>>> What is its information content?
>>> The specific information is only in the hypercycle. It is a hypercycle

>>> according to the terminology by Manfred Eigen (Eigen& Schuster 1977)

>>> as it is actually a positive feed-back composed of mutually catalytic
>>> E/S interaction (E for the specific enantiomer synthesized by the
>>> membrane site S).
>> That wasn't an answer. We need a number to compare to the 1000 bits in
>> the prion.
>
> I don't think I can answer this question accurately. If you read my
> 2011 paper perhaps you would see better how to estimate such a number.

So you're saying that I would be better able than you to answer the
question I asked? Why?

I can see that it resembles biological reproduction to the degree that
there is some sort of loose inheritance.

>>>>>>> Reference:
>>>>>>> Szostak JW. An optimal degree of physical and chemical heterogeneity
>>>>>>> for the origin of life? Phil Trans R Soc B 2011;366:2894-2901.
>>>>>>>>> With regard to the acquired heritable characteristics transmittable to
>>>>>>>>> their offspring, at the very beginning of the process, only one kind of
>>>>>>>>> hypercycle by lineage of vesicle population is sufficient to allow
>>>>>>>>> natural selection to operate on these lineages which are distinct only
>>>>>>>>> by their kind of hypercycle.
>>>>>>>> Are these "alive"?
>>>>>>> The big question! But, to me, totally useless.
>>>>>>> The only relevant question, scientifically speaking, is: are such
>>>>>>> vesicles able to evolve according to Darwinian evolution? And my
>>>>>>> response is yes.
>>>>>> Well, evolution of a sort. Inheritance of cell contents, whatever those
>>>>>> might be. What controls cell contents, aside from inheritance?
>>>>> Such vesicles with a hypercycle are able to:

>>>>> 1) synthesize specific enantiomers (i.e. hydrocarbon chains) which

>>>>> will be selected by natural selection if favoring vesicle survival or
>>>>> reproduction (by interacting with the membrane);
>>>>> 2) increase the inner concentration of this specific enantiomer until
>>>>> a high intra-vesicular level favoring the replication of the specific
>>>>> membrane site;
>>>> What is a membrane site?
>>> Really the best would be that you read my 2011 paper (with figures it
>>> is easier to describe the processes).
>> What is your 2011 paper? Where was it published?
>
> It was published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.
>
>>>>> 3) transmit its hypercycle to the offspring (i.e. daughter vesicles).
>>>> Now that we're at it, what exactly is a hypercycle?
>>> See above and my paper.
>> What is "above" that I'm supposed to see? Is it the reference to Eigen's
>> terminology? That, unfortunately, depends on defining "membrane site".
>
> It is a hypercycle according to the terminology by Manfred Eigen

> (Eigen& Schuster 1977) as it is actually a positive feed-back

> composed of mutually catalytic E/S interaction (E for the specific
> enantiomer synthesized by the membrane site S).

I see that S is a pair (set?) of molecules in a membrane that catalyze
the synthesis of E, and E also catalyzes the covalent bonding of the
molecules. Is that correct?

>>>>> 4) evolve by several ways:
>>>>> - site mutations and thus synthesis of new enantiomers,
>>>> How do sites mutate?
>>> Without having read my paper I think impossible to catch the process.
>>> However the process is not described in the paper. If you read the
>>> paper I could describe it to you.
>>>>> - creation or acquisition (by membrane horizontal transfer) of other
>>>>> sites,
>>>>> - site combinations leading to enantiomer polymerization, etc.
>>>> I'm presuming that by membrane horizontal transfer you mean fusion of
>>>> vesicles. Is that correct?
>>> Yes, it is.
>>>> What are site combinations?
>>> My 2011 paper explains these with figures.

OK, given all this, I can see that there might hypothetically be a set
of things we might call living that might be considered to contain less
information than a prion, though with heavy accent on the "might", as
nothing here is quantified.

Your point having hypothetically been made, what use do you make of that
in the current discussion?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 26 mar, 20:41, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Actually I don't feel at ease in estimating the number of bits in
chemistry. You seem to be more at ease even if I really can't evaluate
the correctness of your calculation.

S is a set of amphiphiles linked by covalent bonds after the catalysis
of E.

> >>>>> 4) evolve by several ways:
> >>>>> - site mutations and thus synthesis of new enantiomers,
> >>>> How do sites mutate?
> >>> Without having read my paper I think impossible to catch the process.
> >>> However the process is not described in the paper. If you read the
> >>> paper I could describe it to you.
> >>>>> - creation or acquisition (by membrane horizontal transfer) of other
> >>>>> sites,
> >>>>> - site combinations leading to enantiomer polymerization, etc.
> >>>> I'm presuming that by membrane horizontal transfer you mean fusion of
> >>>> vesicles. Is that correct?
> >>> Yes, it is.
> >>>> What are site combinations?
> >>> My 2011 paper explains these with figures.
> OK, given all this, I can see that there might hypothetically be a set
> of things we might call living that might be considered to contain less
> information than a prion, though with heavy accent on the "might", as
> nothing here is quantified.
> Your point having hypothetically been made, what use do you make of that
> in the current discussion?

This is a good question. Actually I wanted to illustrate my hypothesis
that, at the beginning, the wall of minimal complexity was more on the
left than today.

[John Harshman]

All I did was assume that there are 20 possible amino acids. It takes 5
bits to specify one out of 20. Then just multiply by the length of the
peptide. If you're going to claim that X has more information than Y,
you should be able to back that up with some kind of calculation, don't
you think?

Amphiphiles are molecules in a membrane, right. But "after the catalysis
of E" is ambiguous. Do you refer to the synthesis of E, which itself
causes those bonds, or to catalysis by E? I think it must be the latter,
but you are unclear.

>>>>>>> 4) evolve by several ways:
>>>>>>> - site mutations and thus synthesis of new enantiomers,
>>>>>> How do sites mutate?
>>>>> Without having read my paper I think impossible to catch the process.
>>>>> However the process is not described in the paper. If you read the
>>>>> paper I could describe it to you.
>>>>>>> - creation or acquisition (by membrane horizontal transfer) of other
>>>>>>> sites,
>>>>>>> - site combinations leading to enantiomer polymerization, etc.
>>>>>> I'm presuming that by membrane horizontal transfer you mean fusion of
>>>>>> vesicles. Is that correct?
>>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>>>> What are site combinations?
>>>>> My 2011 paper explains these with figures.
>> OK, given all this, I can see that there might hypothetically be a set
>> of things we might call living that might be considered to contain less
>> information than a prion, though with heavy accent on the "might", as
>> nothing here is quantified.
>> Your point having hypothetically been made, what use do you make of that
>> in the current discussion?
>
> This is a good question. Actually I wanted to illustrate my hypothesis
> that, at the beginning, the wall of minimal complexity was more on the
> left than today.

I think this may depend on what you count as "the beginning".

[William Morse]

I tend to disagree on order and diversity being anti-correlated.
Diversity is generally thought to improve the stability of ecosystems
(this is a topic of debate), which would make it correlated with order.

[William Morse]

And this gets to the heart of the question of whether observed trends in
evolution are simply the result of a random walk. I disagree with John
Harshman on this - I think they are more a result of changes in size,
intelligence, etc. opening up niches that did not previously exist. The
question is how to differentiate between the hypotheses. Do rabbits get
faster through selective pressure or random walk (e.g. they could also
get better at avoiding foxes through getting a better sense of smell)?
Any thoughts on how to differentiate between the competing hypotheses
would be greatly appreciated.

[William Morse]

On 03/24/2013 11:54 PM, James Beck wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:02:01 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> James Beck<jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:06:07 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:59:40 -0700, John Harshman
>>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On 3/24/13 7:10 AM, Steven L. wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 7:32 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:

>>>>>>>> "Friar Broccoli"<eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg

>>>>> Wait: dolphins? Please elaborate.
>>>>>
>>>>> And at any rate, you have listed a small number of closely related
>>>>> species, every one of them a bilaterian metazoan.

>>>>>
>>>>>> Since several species of birds use tools, it wouldn't be surprising if a
>>>>>> few species of dinosaurs--Troodon perhaps--used tools as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there does seem to be a long-term trend that the smartest species on
>>>>>> Earth at any given time is smarter than any prior species.
>>>>

>>>> .

>>>>
>>>>> Which is exactly what we would expect from a random walk beginning from
>>>>> dumb; as species diffuse through intelligence-space, the extremes get
>>>>> farther and farther from the initial state. There is no need to
>>>>> hypothesize any preferred direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "trend" affecting the total sum of the biota requires only that there
>>>>> be a lower limit, and would be helped if the starting point were near
>>>>> that limit.
>>>>
>>>>> There is likewise a "trend" toward greater maximum size of
>>>>> organisms, and maximum generation length, and any number of other maxima.
>>>>
>>>> You mean things like an increasing number of ecological niches
>>>> (diversity) and an increasing number of specialized cell types within
>>>> organisms?
>>>>

>>>> This appears to be both more extreme states as well as an increasing

>>>> number of states subject to becoming more extreme. To me this seems to

>>>> cry out for an explanation, and "preferred direction" appears plausible
>>>> because competition is going to created a requirement for increasingly
>>>> diverse and numerous countermeasures in each individual species if it is
>>>> to survive.
>>

>>> There will be an illusion of direction just because extreme value
>>> distributions are self-locking and there is a survivorship bias.
>>

>> There's also, as mentioned above, the situation that for a number
>> of these traits we start a random walk at zero (or 1, if we are
>> counting the number of cells). There's nowhere to go but up
>>from there.
>>
>> As for reversals of direction, we can't be absolutely sure that
>> they don't happen. Such things may turn up as we sequence the
>> genome of more and more entitites.
>
> I don't know what you mean by reversals of direction.

I think what he means is that a lineage decreases in intelligence, or
size, or generation length. And if this never happened it would be
convincing evidence for a "direction" in evolution. Reversals to the
best of my knowledge do happen. However, the fact that they do does not
disprove the idea that there is a "direction" in evolution, since we
know that there will always be some randomness.
>
>> But I'd try to remember that almost every living thing is
>> unicellular. We multicellular things are in the very small
>> numerical minority and are already outliers.
>

[William Morse]

On 03/22/2013 07:32 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/22/13 3:58 PM, jonathan wrote:
>> "Friar Broccoli"<eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:btcok8p1uuqh0l11e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5AwhTuO8vlQ/TbKNGHUkhRI/AAAAAAAAADA/QrYrmjoyPUM/s1600/ciudad-encantada-18.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> Or via shortened link:
>>> http://goo.gl/Odflr
>>
>>
>> In this whole convoluted debate between design and Darwin, do
>> the regulars here take the position that evolution follows
>> a random path into the future, or a directed path towards
>> the ideal form?
>
> Neither. Evolution follows a partly random path (neutral evolution) and
> a partly directed one (natural selection), but the goals, such as they
> are, are short-term, having to do with immediate impact on reproductive
> success.
>
>> Does evolution have a goal, as if designed?
>
> No.
>
>> I mean, we live on a planet that went from microbes to
>> Microsoft, it's pretty hard to argue the responsible
>> process isn't goal oriented.
>
> No, it's quite easy, actually. You are a puddle marveling that a hole in
> the ground is perfectly shaped to fit you.

I think you seriously have to look at the trend Jonathan raises. It may
well be that we are an accident of history (per Gould), but it may well
be that we are not. First life to first multiple cell life - 3 billion
to 300 million years. First multiple cell life to first tool use, 300
million to 30 million years. First tool use to first complex tool
culture, 30 million years to 3 million years. First complex tool culture
to first language, 3 million years to 300,000 years. First language to
first agriculture, 300,000 years to 30,000 years. First agriculture to
first urban culture, 30,000 years to 3,000 years. First urban culture to
printing press, 3,000 years to 300 years. First printing press to first
internet, 300 years to 30 years. Obviously the figures are rounded, but
do you notice a trend? And how do you explain it by a random walk?

>> Now whether the cause
>> for the preferred direction of evolution is natural or
>> otherwise is another debate. But what's the current
>> thinking in this ng?
>
> The current thinking is that there is indeed no such preferred
> direction. We may have gone from microbes to Microsoft (and is that
> really an advance?) but most of the biota is still at that microbial
> level. If there's a direction, why have so few species taken that path,
> even part way? That would seem to kill the directionality argument all
> by itself.
>

>> Because the view of evolution taught by my hobby differs
>> somewhat from what I see being discussed here in a
>> few ways. Complexity Science teaches self organization
>> is mostly an internal process that's highly robust or
>> independent of the initial conditions or surroundings.
>
> There's an old rule of thumb that anything calling itself "XYZ Science"
> isn't really a science.
>
>> The system seeks the ideal form from internal processes
>> and the environment selects among the ...already evolved
>> solutions. That's not quite the same thing as a process
>> which is wholly dependent on it's interaction with the
>> environment, which appears to be the sentiment around
>> here.
>
> That sounds very like gibberish to me, and I, from experience, am not
> confident in your ability to turn it into something more.
>
>> Just trying to get a sense of the current state of this
>> debate.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>
> You're welcome?
>

[John Harshman]

No, I don't notice a trend. First, you have made up most of your numbers
to fit your arbitrary scale of 3*10^x. Second, you have picked a single
lineage out of all the vast tree of life. Other than that, you have
recreated a Zeno's paradox of biology (though half your figures aren't
biological at all).

How is any of this evidence of some kind of trend, much less the general
law of universal evolution that Jonathan is trying to sell?

[Richard Norman]

In this large thread (almost 100 posts) there seems to be a certain
level of misunderstand and arguing at cross purposes about several
issues: complexity and organization, random processes, random walks,
evolution,... I am not responding specifically to you, William, but
simply using your comment and seeming disagreement with John as a
trigger finally pushing me to comment.

First, there are different notions of "random". Some people use it
only if the probabilities of all outcomes of a process are equal. That
is not how mathematicians or systems theorists use randomness or
random processes: those processes involve a probability distribution
that by no means need be uniform and, in fact, seldom is. Flipping a
highly biased coin produces a random sequence. Rolling a pair of dice
produces a random outcome that is not uniformly distributed.

A simplistic notion of evolution involves two notions: mutation and
selection (whether natural, artificial, sexual...). Generally it is
considered that mutation is random whereas selection is not. We add
genetic drift which is random. However reality is rather more
complicated. Selection is not wholly deterministic. I may have
drastically lower fitness than you but the lion happened to be on your
side of the tree, not mine, so I escape to have lots of kids and you
do not. So selection turns out to be a form of random process, also.

To look at the details consider the notion of a random walk, a
repeated random process where the results are cumulative: the starting
point for step n+1 is the result of step n. In mathematics (or system
theory or whatever fancy mathematical theory you want to name), the
probability distribution for each successive step does NOT have to
have zero mean. If it does not then there is a very distinct
systematic trend in the walk. Think of moving the tokens on a Monopoly
game board. Each step is taken by rolling the dice. The movement of
the pieces (except for going to jail) is a random walk but there is a
distinct trend as each player travels systematically clockwise around
the board. To get technical (and remaining simplistic about biology)
the combination of genetic drift plus selection is exactly this kind
of random walk: a walk where selection induces a non-zero mean to the
direction of the step. A terribly confusing point is that
mathematicians call the systematic part of such a process, the trend,
"drift" whereas biologists call the "random" part of the process
"drift" and call the trend part "selection". Drift means exactly
opposite things in the two contexts.

In particular, when most people think of selection they think purely
of what biologists call "directional selection" (there are other
forms). Most examples produced here demonstrating that evolution is
most decidedly NOT random involves very strong directional selection.
That is the argument William presents above: evolution decidedly
moves in a particular way and does not meander about aimlessly.
However it still is a random process albeit the systematic trend may
overwhelm the erratic steps: it is a very directional random process.
That is the "hill climbing on the fitness landscape" picture of
evolution.

Another complicating factor is that a particular biological community
involves a large number of populations all interacting with each other
and co-evolving: changes to one influence other members producing
closed loops of interaction allowing positive feedback in the
selection process driving systems to extremes. This is the kind of
example usually produced to show that evolution is distinctly
non-random. (Here, I fear, jonathan or marc is likely to jump in
yelling "complexity theory". Yes, these feedback cycles can be
described in terms of complexity theory but population geneticists and
population ecologists have done very nicely with classical mathematics
of sets of differential equations (sometimes partial diffeq) without
invoking complexity or chaos. Complexity theory can put on the icing
but is not the cake.)

Mutation is a rather complex issue to put into the context of the
random walk because, although random, it is random in a very different
context, a very different universe of discourse. A population
reproducing is a random walk because random mating within the gene
pool of a small population produces only a small sample size of
genotypes in the next generation that may differ from the expected
ratio (genetic drift) and because a variety of "random" extraneous
factors besides fitness determines survival and reproduction.
Mutation, on the other hand, is a random walk on the genotype space
introducing completely new alleles into the population. However it is
generally agreed that mutation, although not random in the ordinary
language sense that every nucleotide substitution and every locus has
exactly the same probability of occurring as every other substitution,
the changes do not seem show any preference caused by fitness. That
is, changing 'A' to 'T' here may result in a change in fitness but it
is decidedly NOT the case that the reason that 'A' changed to 'T' is
because that produced an increase in fitness. It IS decidedly the
case that the frequency of 'T's in that location grows with time
provided you start with a non-zero value so that eventually ALL the
'A's become 'T's because of the preference of fitness (selection) but
selection is totally distinct from mutation. On the other hand,
selection and genetic drift are just different aspects of reproduction
in finite size populations subject to vagaries of environmental
variability.

As decribed above, most people think of evolution as highy
directional. When molecular biologists look at variations in
nucleotide sequences, on the other hand, what is invariably found is
that the randomness is overwhelming. That, no doubt, results from the
fact that virtually all of the changes are as far as we can tell quite
neutral. That means there is no natural selection. Put differently,
it means that the "steps" in the random walk have zero mean.
Considering that evolution is defined technically as a change in the
genetic composition of a population, it really does turn out most
evolutionary change is entirely "random" in the ordinary language
sense of being totally non-directional. So evolution is mostly
non-random but evolution is also mostly random.

There is a completely different argument to be made about the lack of
directionality in evolution. The simple fact is that the vast
majority of life on earth is microbial. That seem to be true whether
you measure biomass, count cells, or count "organisms" (there is some
debate about biomass). Arguing about coevolution of rabbits and foxes
is really just a tiny and, from the perspective of the monera, a
completely insignificant part of "real" biology -- the study of ALL
living things.

The classic arguments about systematic increases in complexity and
organization and 'infomation content' (whatever that might mean) are
based on the well known properties of random walks with a barrier. You
start at or near the barrier (yes, the barrier might move, marc --
that doesn't change anything). We happen to be at an extreme point.
We natutrally think of evolution in terms of evolution of H. sapiens -
mammals - animals so we see an inexorable trend from simple to
complex. Most living things are at or near the barrier, just what you
expect from a random walk with repeated trials. In random walk theory
the expected distance from the starting point does grow with time --
there is "systematic increase" in that variable. The problem is that
for random walks without mathematical drift, the walks are randomly
distributed in direction from the origin albeit growing increasingly
far away. If the walk is one dimensional with the origin near that
barrier, then an increase in one direction is expected purely
"randomly". Furthermore, there will be extreme values reached in the
random walk process and these extrema will invariably increase with
time. Hence the "most complex" organisms wil become even "more and
more complex" with time. That does not mean selection, it is expected
from random walk theory in walks without selection, without trend,
without what mathematicians call "drift".

Still, what we actually find in the real world is that almost every
living thing we can find, if we only look carefully and without size
bias, is that it is all crammed down there right near that barrier.
There does not seem to be any general trend for everything to get
complex. There does seem to be a general trend for one carefully
selected line of organisms to get complex but that is cherry picking
the data to reach your foregone conclusion.

[eridanus]

Are you trying to suggest that our technological advances are due to
a direct evolutionary trait? For agriculture develops as the result of
an environmental chance. And from the results of some abundance caused by
agriculture or other device, like life in cities, the opportunities to
develop farther a particular technique increase. As the technological
means increase the free time available, a small fraction of this time
would be used to develop farther some technique or other. In other words
a minority would develop in free time some new techniques.

But this "opportunity" can work on reverse. When Europeans arrived
at the island of Tasmania for the first time, the encountered natives
that were unable to make a fire.
Some physical circumstances would had conspired against them, as the
high humidity of the place, but also for they had arrived at a very
harsh place, where feeding themselves was not any easy. If they were
pressed by the scarcity of food, they would had little spare time
to develop a way to make a fire. If the seas around the island were
very difficult, they would not have either the opportunity to make a
simple canoe or other floating artifact to fled some inhospitable
island. Then, they become trapped in this island, and all the useful
technical achievements of their forebears is Australia were forgotten.

Think about to make a fire, you need some amount of work. Perhaps
the expert that was very good at making a fire had drown when the storm
pushed them over the forsaken island. Then, the rest had an faint
idea on how to make a fire. You have to get some fragments of dry wood,
or grass. This is difficult to find in a very wet island. Then, you
have to find the suitable dry wood to rub a stick over another. This
is also a difficult task. And finally, you have to succeed trying to make
a fire, for it is not an easy task. If you are doing something wrong,
or the materials were not suitable to make fire, you are going to fail.
Then, if hunger are pressing you and your companions, you will not
repeat for the time being to make a fire. After several failures to make
a fire, nobody is going to try it again. As the years are passing nobody
will mention the idea of making a fire again.

Then all the wonders of this civilization were become forgotten, and
erased from our minds, if this civilizations collapses after the
exhaustion of cheap energy that is moving this world. Some people are
predicting this outcome for the near future.

I had observed that many adults lost their ability to read and write
after some decades after the school, if their situation is such that
they do not need any more to read and write anymore. Then anything
we had learned can easily forgotten after some decades if the person
do not need to execute this ability for a few decades. Even your
mother tongue can be forgotten if you are put in a situation in which
you do not use it anymore for a decade or more.

Each time we are repeating some useful behavior X we are reinforcing
the links of such action in the wiring of our brain. After some time
of not executing this action, not even thinking of it, it slowly is
fading. The neurons are reinforcing other circuits for other actions
and the behavior X gets weaker as time passes without executing the
action X. After a time you are barely able to remember how that was
done, the X action.

Eridanus

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 26, 11:26�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Yes, I agree that we "should be able to back that up with some kind of
calculation".
However, in the example of PrPc, your calculation doesn't take into
account the bits related to the fact that L-aminoacid enantiomers are
specifically involved in the synthesis of the protein and neither the
bits related to the synthesis of the L-aminoacids (which needs very
specific catalysers), nor the correct assembling of the L-aminoacids
(which needs all the cell machinery) etc.
The same about my model, I don't know how to calculate the bits
related to the formation of a hypercycle: do you?
Thus I think we can only make a very rough and qualitatively
estimation in both examples. However you seem to agree with me that
the number of bits needed to form a hypercycle in a lipid vesicle is
much less than the one to synthesize the PrPc.

To me, E favors the formation of the covalent bonds only after its
synthesis.

> >>>>>>> 4) evolve by several ways:
> >>>>>>> - site mutations and thus synthesis of new enantiomers,
> >>>>>> How do sites mutate?
> >>>>> Without having read my paper I think impossible to catch the process.
> >>>>> However the process is not described in the paper. If you read the
> >>>>> paper I could describe it to you.
> >>>>>>> - creation or acquisition (by membrane horizontal transfer) of other
> >>>>>>> sites,
> >>>>>>> - site combinations leading to enantiomer polymerization, etc.
> >>>>>> I'm presuming that by membrane horizontal transfer you mean fusion of
> >>>>>> vesicles. Is that correct?
> >>>>> Yes, it is.
> >>>>>> What are site combinations?
> >>>>> My 2011 paper explains these with figures.
> >> OK, given all this, I can see that there might hypothetically be a set
> >> of things we might call living that might be considered to contain less
> >> information than a prion, though with heavy accent on the "might", as
> >> nothing here is quantified.
> >> Your point having hypothetically been made, what use do you make of that
> >> in the current discussion?
> > This is a good question. Actually I wanted to illustrate my hypothesis
> > that, at the beginning, the wall of minimal complexity was more on the
> > left than today.
> I think this may depend on what you count as "the beginning".

I mean just after the emergence of Darwinian evolution.

[Ron O]

What you probably want to say is that there is a negative correlation
between order and diversity, but the correlation is not 100%. You get
a scatter plot with a downward slope instead of a solid line.

Ron Okimoto

[Friar Broccoli]

Jonathan (in November) applied ideas like that
explicitly to evolution here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/368a4dd5fdb37bc5

>I think I would agree on order and diversity being anti-correlated.

If the measure of order was efficiency of work in the thermodynamic
sense, I would expect a positive correlation.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 27, 6:35�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip for focus>

There are many deterministic chaos systems described by a set of
differential equations (although the equations are not linear), what
you call classical mathematics. The main well-known example is the
system described by Edward Norton Lorenz, an American mathematician
and meteorologist. Deterministic chaos systems are clearly
deterministic and thus non-random systems (although not predictable
after some time).

You forget to mention the role of chance in the occurrence of major
historical events that led to very significant evolutionary changes
such as the events which caused the five well-known massive
extinctions.

> There is a completely different argument to be made about the lack of
> directionality in evolution. �The simple fact is that the vast
> majority of life on earth is microbial. �That seem to be true whether
> you measure biomass, count cells, or count "organisms" (there is some
> debate about biomass). Arguing about coevolution of rabbits and foxes
> is really just a tiny and, from the perspective of the monera, a
> completely insignificant part of "real" biology -- the study of ALL
> living things.
> The classic arguments about systematic increases in complexity and
> organization and 'infomation content' (whatever that might mean) are
> based on the well known properties of random walks with a barrier. You
> start at or near the barrier (yes, the barrier might move, marc --
> that doesn't change anything).

Well, of course I don't agree with you that the fact that "the barrier
might move doesn't change anything".
If it is true that, at the beginning (i.e. just after the emergence of
Darwinian evolution), the wall of minimal complexity was further on
the left than today and progressively moved to the right then it would
explain why today the position of the wall of minimal complexity is at
a rather high level of complexity (i.e. prions) and thus might let us
think that the evolutionary path is systematically orientated towards
higher complexity.

>�We happen to be at an extreme point.

> We natutrally think of evolution in terms of evolution of H. sapiens -
> mammals - animals so we see an inexorable trend from simple to
> complex. �Most living things are at or near the barrier, just what you
> expect from a random walk with repeated trials. �In random walk theory
> the expected distance from the starting point does grow with time --
> there is "systematic increase" in that variable. �The problem is that
> for random walks without mathematical drift, the walks are randomly
> distributed in direction from the origin albeit growing increasingly
> far away. �If the walk is one dimensional with the origin near that
> barrier, then an increase in one direction is expected purely
> "randomly". �Furthermore, there will be extreme values reached in the
> random walk process and these extrema will invariably increase with
> time. �Hence the "most complex" organisms wil become even "more and
> more complex" with time. �That does not mean selection, it is expected
> from random walk theory in walks without selection, without trend,
> without what mathematicians call "drift".
> Still, what we actually find in the real world is that almost every
> living thing we can find, if we only look carefully and without size
> bias, is that it is all crammed down there right near that barrier.
> There does not seem to be any general trend for everything to get
> complex. �There does seem to be a general trend for one carefully
> selected line of organisms to get complex but that is cherry picking
> the data to reach your foregone conclusion.

On the whole a very good summary of the response to the question "Is
there a general trend to higher complexity in Darwinian evolution?",
in spite of some inaccuracies.

[John Harshman]

Well, if we have to include everything necessary to synthesize a prion
into the prion, then it appears that a prion is a eukaryote, and so is a
virus. And a tapeworm is human.

That's what I thought, but you seemed to be correcting my statement of
that, and your correction, if that's what it was, was very unclear.

Surely that would have been a gradual process for which we can't draw a
sharp line.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 27, 4:03�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

<snip for focus>

> >> All I did was assume that there are 20 possible amino acids. It takes 5
> >> bits to specify one out of 20. Then just multiply by the length of the
> >> peptide. If you're going to claim that X has more information than Y,
> >> you should be able to back that up with some kind of calculation, don't
> >> you think?
> > Yes, I agree that we "should be able to back that up with some kind of
> > calculation".
> > However, in the example of PrPc, your calculation doesn't take into
> > account the bits related to the fact that L-aminoacid enantiomers are
> > specifically involved in the synthesis of the protein and neither the
> > bits related to the synthesis of the L-aminoacids (which needs very
> > specific catalysers), nor the correct assembling of the L-aminoacids
> > (which needs all the cell machinery) etc.
> > The same about my model, I don't know how to calculate the bits
> > related to the formation of a hypercycle: do you?
> > Thus I think we can only make a very rough and qualitatively
> > estimation in both examples. However you seem to agree with me that
> > the number of bits needed to form a hypercycle in a lipid vesicle is
> > much less than the one to synthesize the PrPc.
> Well, if we have to include everything necessary to synthesize a prion
> into the prion, then it appears that a prion is a eukaryote, and so is a
> virus. And a tapeworm is human.

I think that, to calculate the number of bits of information necessary
to synthesize a parasit, it is relevant to take into account the
machinery of the host used by the parasit for its synthesis. This is
because the emergence of a parasit is the outcome of a very long story
of co-evolution of the pair host/parasit which corresponds to the
accumulation of a great number of bits of information.

No, I don't think so. To me, the transition from lipid vesicles
without the ability of Darwinian evolution to lipid vesicles with such
an ability was in one step (according to my model).

[John Harshman]

It's very unclear what "information" means in all this. And if we
include the machinery of the host, I don't really see where you stop.
Purine and pyrimidine synthesis? Phosphorylation of nucleotide
diphosphates? Cellular respiration? You might get as far as supposing
that the entire terrestrial environment is part of the virus's phenotype.

Only because your model declares it so. It seems to me that the more
fidelity and capacity for detail and diversity there is in the
inheritance mechanism, the closer we approach real Darwinian evolution.
And of course your model is highly speculative; we have no idea to what
extent it applies to the actual origins of life.