[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Description of evolution



This is the perfect segue! I was about to start replying to the part of Glen's earlier post, which involved a definition of evolution as "change over time"... and Jamie gives us another, very different, description of the same process. And both of these descriptions/definitions are radically different from the Rosennean view. So this is a great way to begin a discussion on the subject, it seems to me.
 
Somewhere in "Life, Itself" my father wrote; "For me, it's easy to conceive of life without evolution, but not of evolution without life."
 
He considered the word evolution to have a very specific meaning when it is applied to biological systems and that meaning isn't applicable to inanimate systems. So, the definition of "change over time", while perfectly correct according to the dictionary and certainly applicable to things like the formation of snowflakes from water vapor in clouds, or diamonds from carbon, etc, is a completely different concept from what evolution refers to in application to living systems. My father tended to feel that the word evolution was overused and misused, just as complexity is... and that the current usage tends to reinforce the presumption of simplicity (that living systems evolve just like snowflakes). He considered that a mistake.
 
He (RR) also believed that, just as life is entailed, evolution is also entailed. It's not just random accident. He could see patterns of entailment in the evolutionary record. But he viewed the entailments of evolution to be derived from life; life happens, therefore evolution happens. To learn about the entailments present in the evolutionary process, we must learn about the entailments present in living organisms. That's the referent and the derivation, which will be necessary in order for us to understand evolutionary entailments. Thus, Jamie's description of evolution as an ecosystemic process actively sculpting or changing living systems over time to suit the balance of the ecosystem is also counter to the Rosennean view.
 
My question to both Glen and Jamie would be; Where do the entailments come from, in your respective views of evolution as a process of change?
 
Judith
----- Original Message -----
To: ***
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Clear Dichotomy

Judith wrote, in differentiating machines fromliving systems:


>The problem is, often the tools/machines cause new, unforeseen
>problems... so we create different tools and machines to solve
>those new problems, and create even more new problems.....
>That's pretty much how I see the history of human civilization.
>It's a catalogue of side effects. We think the scientific solution
>is to learn ever more detail about the
>universe-as-we-understand-it-from-studying-our-tools... and then
>make new tools to solve the side-effect problems. We rarely ever
>question whether our original conceptualization of how the universe
>works was adequate or whether we would still agree with it today.

I offer an adaptive re-phrasing .. an alternative application:

The problem is, often [a new species] cause(s) new, unforeseen
problems.. so [the natural co-living system responds with]
different [species and relationships] to solve those new problems
[that chage the co-integrated ecology], and creates even more new
problems.... That's pretty much how I see the history of [evolution].
We think that [the process of evolution is nature adaptively trying
different systemic reactive measures, then waiting to see what
measures/nes-species succeed and which fail, resulting in the settling
of] new species and relationships [that resolve the old problems ..
systemic imbalances .. and yet produce new ones, requiring] new
[specie] to solve the side-effect problems.  [Nature responds without
question to its] original [configuration of species/speciation and
whether is was a 'best configuration' or not. Rather, it continuously
responds and creates new system wide challenges that require continual
streams of responses even if the overall nature of the system
transforms to new arrangements, functions and bases .. like morphing
from a stable anaerobic ecology to a stable aerobic one (which members
and chemical byproducts are wholly toxic to the aneaerobic life forms
that spawned the aerobic ones).]


Jamie