The Six Essentials for a Darwinian Bootstrapping of Quality

[Cain]

http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1997JMemetics.htm

Abstract: Selectionism emphasizes carving patterns, memes remind us of minimal replicable patterns, but a full-fledged Darwinian process needs six essential ingredients to keep going, to recursively bootstrap quality from rude beginnings. While there may be situations ("sparse Darwinism") in which a reduced number suffice, another five ingredients, while not essential, greatly enhance the speed and stability of a Darwinian process. While our best examples are drawn from species evolution, the immune response, and evolutionary epistemology, the Darwinian process may well be a major law of the universe, right up there with chemical bonds as a prime generator of interesting combinations that discover stratified stabilities.

[Kai]

http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1997JMemetics.htm

Abstract: Selectionism emphasizes carving patterns, memes remind us of minimal replicable patterns, but a full-fledged Darwinian process needs six essential ingredients to keep going, to recursively bootstrap quality from rude beginnings. While there may be situations ("sparse Darwinism") in which a reduced number suffice, another five ingredients, while not essential, greatly enhance the speed and stability of a Darwinian process. While our best examples are drawn from species evolution, the immune response, and evolutionary epistemology, the Darwinian process may well be a major law of the universe, right up there with chemical bonds as a prime generator of interesting combinations that discover stratified stabilities.

You know, Darwin actually hated the term 'evolution'. He much preffered the phrase "descent with modification. Herbert Spencer is the person that used the word evolution to describe descent with modification, as well as the phrase "survival of the fittest". He actually refused to use that phrase until the 5th edition of his book, when he only used it once because it was so popularized. I don't think that he would be so happy with his name being used today to so vaguely describe processes that are hardly related to his original ideas.

Darwin defined his theory of natural selection as the differential elimination of individuals and lineages, that is, differential deaths and reproduction). He based this idea on four facts, four observations (that only an idiot would be so foolish to dispute).

1) That variation exists. There are individuals that have different traits, structural, physiological, behavioral, etc, than other individuals of a population has.

2) some of this variability is inheritable. Darwin didn't know /how/ things were inherited but he could see inheritance happening.

3) Organisms produce more ofspring than survive. Again, another easily observable trait.

4) There are selective deaths.

Based on these four observations he knew that populations would have to change over time. He also had the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and his own field observations of organisms such as the galapagos finches, as well as colaboration from other biologists such as Wallace, as examples of his observation in action.

Now, when you look at how completly simple and genius his ideas were, you can see they are rather universal in biology. There is variation, some of it is inheritable, organisms produce more ofspring than survive to produce, and there are selective deaths, therefore, descent with modification occurs.

However much a law of biology descent with modification is, it is often bastardized to be applied to other fields of study and called "darwinism". This is flat out wrong, bad science, and bad philosophy. One of the greatest reasons this goes bad is because people misunderstand what Darwin was talking about. There is a specific reason he hated the term evolution, which is latin for "unrolling". People have a tendency to believe in progress, both in biology and elsewhere, and Darwin saw this as a fallacy. What is progress? What is "better than something else"? He also saw that descent with modification did not always lead to increased fitness, whatever that is. Again, another term by someone else which is now used by people who misunderstand natural selection. We can see adaptations, that is, features that increase chances to survive and reproduce, increasing over time in many organism, but this is not an absolute. There is no goal in biology so there is no unrolling, no unveiling. There is no greater purpose to the process. It happens because of the four above observations, and it continues because of the four observations, and will continue until all life is extinguished or at least sterile.

With the above reasons, I object to the term "darwinism", especially outside of evolutionary biology.

[Vene]

for Kai

I may have to steal that from you the next time I see some asshole complaining about Darwinism.

[Kai]

Thanks, you can use my stuff any time you want.

Cain, sorry if I cooped your thread. It was an attack dog reaction to the word Darwinism, I went for the throat.

[Honey]

The arbitrary ape
22 August 1998
From New Scientist Print Edition
Dylan Evans, London

WE all have something of the Greek god in us. Proteus to be precise, who outwitted his enemies by constantly changing his shape. Humans may not go as far as transmogrification but when it comes to confusing a rival, our talent for erratic behaviour is second to none.

A rabbit pursued by a fox will bob and weave in a chaotic zigzag, rather than make a beeline for cover. Other animals use different forms of random behaviour to evade predators or catch their prey. But humans are the only ones who rely on unpredictability as a weapon in competition against each other, whether it be in a game of football or in international diplomacy

...

According to the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis, creativity is a spin-off from social intelligence alone. The idea is that our ancestors first evolved to cope with savannah life, then learnt to exploit their environment using tools, and finally perfected the art of social living. It was only then that creativity really took off. But until now, nobody has come up with a plausible explanation of how this might have happened. Miller's theory could have the answer by showing how proteanism evolved in the social setting, and then making the link between randomness and creativity.

Evolutionary theorists have tended to see evolutionary adaptation as a process that increases order and complexity. Natural selection was thought to build improbable regularities from random disorder. Protean behaviour defies this simple view—it is at once random and adaptive, chaotic and yet the result of selection. No wonder it took biologists so long to see it.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg15921485.400-the-arbitrary-ape.html

Hi There,

I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the above article?  I found it while searching for something else & found it very interesting but don't know really where to go with it?  Can you suggest any further reading?  Thanks.  Respect.

[Cain]

Thanks, you can use my stuff any time you want.

Cain, sorry if I cooped your thread. It was an attack dog reaction to the word Darwinism, I went for the throat.

Thats OK, though if you have any thoughts on the article itself I'd like to hear them.  Its use of Darwinism aside.  I find the idea that certain evolutionary principles may apply more broadly interesting, but I havent read the article in depth yet either, so I don't know if his evidence or theory is any good.

[Kai]

Thanks, you can use my stuff any time you want.

Cain, sorry if I cooped your thread. It was an attack dog reaction to the word Darwinism, I went for the throat.

Thats OK, though if you have any thoughts on the article itself I'd like to hear them.  Its use of Darwinism aside.  I find the idea that certain evolutionary principles may apply more broadly interesting, but I havent read the article in depth yet either, so I don't know if his evidence or theory is any good.

Well, if I put aside all the buzz words, the basis for the paper, meaning the six essential things for a system to undergo what we call in biology "progressive anagenesis", or a change in a system over time that increases the 'perfection' of a system. I'm not a fan of progressive anagenesis because I don't see progression towards perfection occuring in biology. However, a change over time leading to better functioning of a system within its environment seems to happen.

If we modify the six essentials into observations, then we can make some inferences about the changes occuring.

1) Patterns exist.
2)Some of these patters are replicating, though not necessarily self replecating.
3) variation occurs, especially in the environment (which has so many variables that we speak of environmental variability often as "chance)
4) There is competition within the pattern/system for limited resources
5) The environment which the pattern/system takes place has many variables.
6) variation preferentially occurs around the more successful of patterns.

If we say we see these observations, we can hypothesis that patterns will change over time incorporating more sucessful and advantageous variations to be more sucessful in whatever environment they inhabit.

Quite a bit more complex than Darwin's four observations. I'm not sure if I agree with the last one either.

Now, Calvin has five other "catalysts" which influence the rate of change in patterns. The observations would be:

7. Temporary stability (in environment, or low variability in the pattern) may decrease the rate of change
8. Systematic recombination, as in sexual reproduction, may increase the rate of change
9. High environmental variability may increase the rate of change
10. Parcellization (or what biologists call Island Biogeography) may increase the rate of change.
11. Loss of pattern lineages (i.e. extinctions) will cause more resources to become available and may increase the rate of change.

Honestly, I find these observations much more interesting, and much more applicable to my own field. They can be applied to Darwin's four observations easily. The rest of the paper uses language I don't understand as well as buzz words I'm trying to avoid. Those are the points I found to be interesting.

[Cain]

I would agree with your criticism re: perfection or progress as well.  Adaption to an evironment is not the same type of process in my book, not just because individuals within a species only needs to adapt enough to survive but also because environments often change as well, negating the idea of a universal and perfect evolutionary state.

As I understand, this was from the Journal of Memetics, so it may be more aimed at a sociological audience, which could explain its limited utility within a purely biological sphere.  I'll have to read it more though before I come to any decisions.  Thanks for your thoughts.

[LMNO]

Kai, would you agree to the enhanced language of "variation preferentially occurs around the more successful of patterns, for a given set of immediately accessible environmental variants"?

That is to say, for a [limited set of factors that occur farily often], variation will tend to accomodate them in a beneficial way.  

This would then take into account short-period Black Swans, and longer-term environmental changes that are still faster than generational change, like alge that chokes itself out due to growth.

[Kai]

The arbitrary ape
22 August 1998
From New Scientist Print Edition
Dylan Evans, London

WE all have something of the Greek god in us. Proteus to be precise, who outwitted his enemies by constantly changing his shape. Humans may not go as far as transmogrification but when it comes to confusing a rival, our talent for erratic behaviour is second to none.

A rabbit pursued by a fox will bob and weave in a chaotic zigzag, rather than make a beeline for cover. Other animals use different forms of random behaviour to evade predators or catch their prey. But humans are the only ones who rely on unpredictability as a weapon in competition against each other, whether it be in a game of football or in international diplomacy

...

According to the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis, creativity is a spin-off from social intelligence alone. The idea is that our ancestors first evolved to cope with savannah life, then learnt to exploit their environment using tools, and finally perfected the art of social living. It was only then that creativity really took off. But until now, nobody has come up with a plausible explanation of how this might have happened. Miller's theory could have the answer by showing how proteanism evolved in the social setting, and then making the link between randomness and creativity.

Evolutionary theorists have tended to see evolutionary adaptation as a process that increases order and complexity. Natural selection was thought to build improbable regularities from random disorder. Protean behaviour defies this simple view—it is at once random and adaptive, chaotic and yet the result of selection. No wonder it took biologists so long to see it.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg15921485.400-the-arbitrary-ape.html

Hi There,

I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the above article?  I found it while searching for something else & found it very interesting but don't know really where to go with it?  Can you suggest any further reading?  Thanks.  Respect.

I agree with the premises of the paper, that descent with modification does not always lead to order or complexity, whatever those biased statements might be. Descent with modification leads to, well, descent with modification. Its change over time, and factoring in genetic drift, none of it has to follow any ideas of order or complexity. "Mother Nature keeps what works." If seemingly "random" behavior works better, then it may be the behavior that will continue to occur. The problem is when biologists try to ascribe too much purpose or meaning to natural selection. We can talk about the function of such and such a structure, and speculate on how it evolved, but because of random events such as genetic drift and environmental variability, there is no progress. The pattern that replicates and continues replicating and does not dissapear is the one we automatically view as most sucessful because thats the only one we have physical evidence of. Perhaps the one that we would view as truly most successful is the one that got wiped out by a random event. See how human subjectivity sullies the science? I literally have to modify my language in order to overcome that bias. When I say things like more basal or more derived, I'm talking purely from a phylogenetic level, because if I use words like more complex or less complex, then I'm working on human ideals of progress, and I'm loosing sight that descent with modification does not always mean greater complexity. In fact, if we look at lineages over time, we see that often times systems symplify, while other systems become more complex, meaning, often times levels of complexity or "order" (whatever that means) don't change at all.

I wouldn't know where to point you, really.

[Kai]

Kai, would you agree to the enhanced language of "variation preferentially occurs around the more successful of patterns, for a given set of immediately accessible environmental variants"?

That is to say, for a [limited set of factors that occur farily often], variation will tend to accomodate them in a beneficial way. 

This would then take into account short-period Black Swans, and longer-term environmental changes that are still faster than generational change, like alge that chokes itself out due to growth.

Oh, I would agree that patterns with more variation tend to be more successful, but not the other way around. The way it was stated in the paper, the author seemed to decided that variation occurs around the successful patterns, as if to state that sucessful patterns will create more variation around themselves because they are successful, and will have more variation than elsewhere because less successful patterns create less variation. In other words, if he had worded the statement better I would have agreed with him. Its the variation causing sucessful patterns rather than the successful patterns causing variation.

In biology we see this benefit within species. Those species with the most genetic variation are able to compensate for environmental variability, even outside of natural selection and moving into the realm of random events such as genetic drift. There are however exceptions to this. In very stable environments, there is no need for great genetic diversity because there is little environmental variability. Example, the horseshoe crab. And there are very good examples of how this can cause extinction, like the Cheetah. I don't see that organism surviving the next thousand years without human intervention; there is too little genetic diversity to even sustain reproductive processes.

So, yes, variation within patterns will be beneficially accommodating.

[Vene]

Kai, would you agree to the enhanced language of "variation preferentially occurs around the more successful of patterns, for a given set of immediately accessible environmental variants"?

That is to say, for a [limited set of factors that occur farily often], variation will tend to accomodate them in a beneficial way. 

This would then take into account short-period Black Swans, and longer-term environmental changes that are still faster than generational change, like alge that chokes itself out due to growth.

Oh, I would agree that patterns with more variation tend to be more successful, but not the other way around. The way it was stated in the paper, the author seemed to decided that variation occurs around the successful patterns, as if to state that sucessful patterns will create more variation around themselves because they are successful, and will have more variation than elsewhere because less successful patterns create less variation. In other words, if he had worded the statement better I would have agreed with him. Its the variation causing sucessful patterns rather than the successful patterns causing variation.

In biology we see this benefit within species. Those species with the most genetic variation are able to compensate for environmental variability, even outside of natural selection and moving into the realm of random events such as genetic drift. There are however exceptions to this. In very stable environments, there is no need for great genetic diversity because there is little environmental variability. Example, the horseshoe crab. And there are very good examples of how this can cause extinction, like the Cheetah. I don't see that organism surviving the next thousand years without human intervention; there is too little genetic diversity to even sustain reproductive processes.

So, yes, variation within patterns will be beneficially accommodating.

I recall reading that this is why sex has evolved in both the animal and plant kingdoms.  It also makes me think that organisms like bdelloid rotifers are going to be around for a very, very long time.

[hooplala]

Cain, sorry for the threadjack, I have a question I'd like to ask Kai.

Kai,

Are there any examples of animals you can think of that have developed adaptations which are actually inhibiting the "progress" (for lack of a better term) of the species?

[Kai]

Cain, sorry for the threadjack, I have a question I'd like to ask Kai.

Kai,

Are there any examples of animals you can think of that have developed adaptations which are actually inhibiting the "progress" (for lack of a better term) of the species?

Meaning, stagnation, slowed change, or do you mean decline, extinction?

[hooplala]

More toward decline and extinction.  I was trying to think of an animal that had developed a modification which was an incumbrance rather than an aid, but couldn't... I figure there must be a few...