Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Hi Howard,

This is interesting. I'll try to respond in the same order as you did,
numbering to keep the different aspects of this discussion separated:

1.) On the subject of 'evolution before life arose/existed'; I wouldn't call
that evolution, which is probably what my father believed also (since my
definition came from him). He would say that only living systems replecate
themselves, so that pre-living complex systems are undergoing a process more
likely to be termed "development" or "organization" or something like that.
Evolution the way he used it in that quote you posted means-- the hereditary
changes (i.e. changes that are replicable/replicated in the next generation)
over time, something that can only happen in living systems. That's why he
said he could conceive of life without evolution but not evolution without
life.

For example, an organism that cannot reproduce, such as a mule, will never
evolve very far. Horses and Donkeys can evolve, so mules may change over
time because of that, but until/unless a mule can reproduce, it won't pass
the kind of changes on that are the drivers of evolution.

2.) If you study the living organism we call a mule, you can still learn
about the mule as well as about the "living-ness" of it. But you won't learn
certain essential information about mules from studying the combined
evolution, even if you could, of horses and donkeys.  I question whether it
is even correct to say that a mule "evolved" from a cross between a horse
and a donkey... that's a head-scratcher!

Incidentally, I would say that my father was after much more than "a causal,
explanatory model of life"-- He was after the truth; a full understanding of
why living things are alive. He dealt in models as one example of a method
or a "means", but they were never the "ends". Similarly, one of the things
he discovered about complex systems is that the explanation for why they are
the way they are is not the same as the explanation for how they became that
in the first place. He uses words like "the ontology of complex systems is
entirely different from their epistemology, whereas the ontology of
mechanisms is entirely subsumed under their epistemology ."

"Causal history" is not the same thing as evolution, in my father's
parlance: perhaps this is the source for perceived disagreement on the
subject?

3.) This one is complicated so I'm copying the two statements from your post
here:
I said: "Learning about complex, living, anticipatory systems may tell us a
lot about evolution of species, but theories of how evolution
happened/happens don't do much to explain how life "works", why it exists,
what causes it, etc."

[Howard said:] "Here I'm afraid we just disagree on both counts. I will tell
you how theories of evolution explain how life works, if you will tell me
how anticipatory systems explain evolution."

I think the explanation for evolution must be in Complexity, not in
anticipatory systems, per se. Anticipatory behavior is an emergent property
of complex systems that have crossed a threshold of complexity in their
level of organization. It is the same threshold that has life on one side of
it and non-life on the other. Therefore, anticipatory behavior as well as
life have their "explanations" in Complexity.

I talked to my father about evolution and his response was that once we know
what causes life, we will be in a better position to look into what really
happens with evolution. He didn't have answers to all the questions about
evolution. If life had been based on it, he would have pursued it. Once he
recognized that life causes evolution (in the sense he defined that word),
he kept on moving to find answers to "Why life?".

I instinctively think the crux of the matter is right here: The threshold
that has life on one side of it and non-living complex systems on the other
side... That threshold is something that I would want to study if I were
going into biology now. Something embodied that threshold causes so many new
properties to emerge from complex systems that I suspect it's going to be
extremely important to figure out the mysteries.

Judith


----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Pattee" <***>
Here we have some healthy differences of opinion:

[Judith] Is it shocking to say that life has to exist first before life can
evolve into multiple levels/creatures/ecosystems?

[Howard] It is not shocking but it is unreasonable and explains nothing.
Life did not suddenly "exist" but arose gradually from non-living
organizations of matter. There were several billion years of pre-Darwinian
types of evolution that is the subject of much study today.

[Judith] Or that it is possible to learn about life in the organismal
sense, without knowing anything about how certain organisms evolved into
what they are today?

[Howard] Of course one can "learn about life" in innumerable ways. What you
learn will depend on what questions you ask. What is the problem that
arouses your curiosity? Following Bob, I would ask for a causal or
explanatory model of life, and this would have to include a theory of its
evolution. Any purely descriptive model of life, "organismal" or not,
without any causal history I think he would call just simulation.

[Judith] Learning about complex, living, anticipatory systems may tell us a
lot about evolution of species, but theories of how evolution
happened/happens don't do much to explain how life "works", why it exists,
what causes it, etc.

[Howard] Here I'm afraid we just disagree on both counts. I will tell you
how theories of evolution explain how life works, if you will tell me how
anticipatory systems explain evolution.

Howard