Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Judith,Howard, et al,

I don't see any inconsistency at all between Rosen's remarks on evolution in
Life Itself and his stance in Anticipatory System. In AS, Rosen uses the
notions of 'adaptation' and 'fitness' to distinguish what processes are
evolution and to what kinds of systems the notion of evolution applies:

"It must be emphasized that it is in fact meaningless to characterize a
phenotype, or behavior, as adaptive apart from a postulated measure of
fitness. Therefore, for example, the autonomous behavior of non-biological
systems cannot be considered as adaptive in our sense. A familiar example of
such behavior which is often regarded as intrinsically adaptive is expressed
by the well-known Principle of Le Chatelier; if a system in equilibrium is
disturbed by the variation of one of the environmental quantities which
determine that equilibrium, the system will move to a new equilibrium is
(sic) such a way to as to oppose the initial variation. In this example,
there is no postulated measure of fitness, and hence no adaptation." [AS
374]

In relation to the comments in LI [LI 255], "evolution without life" would
require notions of fitness and adaption that - from the quote above - cannot
be made sensible. Hence, from the view of both AS and LI (and I think,
Essays too), evolution, as a concept, is sensible only when the population
considered to be evolving is biological life.

I've seen the term "chemical evolution" applied to the pre-biotic chemical
activity which is considered to have led to the generation of the first
living organisms. Of course, we can then say that chemical evolution was
preceded by "geophysical evolution" which was preceded by "solar system
evolution" and so on. And in a historical, physical, sense, this seems
correct and we can grossly lump it all together as being "evolution". But I
think doing so misses the essential points of adaptation and fitness that
apply only to the biological evolution.

Regards,
Tim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 10:01 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?
>
>
> Hi Howard,
>
> Anticipatory Systems was written while Dad was IN Halifax,
> although the idea
> that it is based on came to him in Santa Barbara, the year that he was
> involved with Robert Hutchins' "Center For The Study Of Democratic
> Institutions".
>
> Is it shocking to say that life has to exist first before life can evolve
> into multiple levels/creatures/ecosystems? 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? 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.
>
> I suppose I should define my terms! Evolution, the way my father used it,
> refers to the adaptive changes in living systems over very long periods of
> time. The word, however, is often used elsewhere to refer to all kinds of
> things, including car design and fashion.
>
> Judith
>
>
>
>
> Howard Pattee wrote:
> Note however, that this quote is from Rosen's pre-Halifax era when he was
> still engaged with colleagues and students. As Judith pointed out by her
> quote, evolution is an essential concept in Anticipatory Systems.
> But there
> is a total change of view in Life Itself:
>
> [Rosen, LI, p. 255] "Ever more insistently over the past century,
> and never
> more so than today, we hear the argument that biology is evolution; that
> living things instantiate evolutionary processes rather than life; and
> ironically, that these processes are devoid of entailment, immune to
> natural law, and hence outside science completely. To me it is easy to
> conceive of life, and hence biology, without evolution. But not of
> evolution without life. Thus it is that the word "evolution" has hardly
> been mentioned in the preceding pages."
>
> Howard