How do we make sustainable environments? Is "Evolution" always the most applicable?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So what I have worked out, is that the meme "Evolution" requires certain environmental conditions, in order to be sustainable. There has to be a stable culture, curiosity, repeatability and translateability. Without these things, Evolution is topical, but not relevant; interesting but not substantive; repeated, but not in an orderly fashion; translateable but not finally. In this sense, Evolution is attempting to become a lexicon, without validating the milieu in which it operates.

When Creationists say "God created the Heavens, and the Earth" they are agreeing with the Godly validation of the basis on which knowledge of these things (and more) are able to begin. It is a context, that establishes certain things will be found to reflect others, in as much as they can relate to others (specifically Heaven and Earth). Nowhere, does Creation say "all these things are true, as long as you keep one 'eye' closed". Connections are welcomed, because they further the understanding of what it is that God is able to use, to strengthen His Creation.

When Evolutionists say "populations evolve, not individuals" what they are saying is "look at Creation through only one 'eye'", in other words "we do not understand the culture in which Evolution develops, therefore we rule it out". But if Jesus returned and said "I don't believe in the individual" He would be laughed off Earth, for good! Everytime an Evolutionist says "'one' eye is enough" they are building up contempt that will one day be judged! The point is, that they should be studying the means by which Evolution is communicated, and how it is that by that communication a steady rate of cognition is achieved, in which one could be said to be in the Evolutionary "zone".

Not every "zone" is propitious to Evolution's propagation - not merely because of hostility to being objectified, in one way or another. A sloth for example, will relate to his Evolution at a much slower pace than other creatures. A giraffe may expect great groups of Evolution, to develop over time - so that there is a choice when it comes to trees, as to how tall they grow. This is the Evolutionary milieu that accommodates Evolution in certain ways, ways that in time give rise to a more coherent Evolutionary whole - welcoming species and their differences into a more and more unified expression of co-dependence.

From the point at which you work out: how it is you work things out - what is opened up to you is that creation is more dependent on itself, than any subset of inclusion can be on its own - this is the Nash Equilibrium for Nature. We are dependent on each other and can only reach beyond ourselves when part of the greater whole. This is not a context to be pitied, for what escapes it, but rather a possibility of reinclusion, where one Evolution out of the total possible would be exhausted and exhausted in principle because of refusal to integrate with the greater whole. You are in effect a greater target if you don't work together, even if what you are working with: is Evolution.

An Evolution that includes every possibility, is one that God can approve of (selah).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So what I have worked out, is that the meme "Evolution" requires certain environmental conditions, in order to be sustainable. There has to be a stable culture, curiosity, repeatability and translateability. Without these things, Evolution is topical, but not relevant; interesting but not substantive; repeated, but not in an orderly fashion; translateable but not finally. In this sense, Evolution is attempting to become a lexicon, without validating the milieu in which it operates.

Here's the part where your 'argument', if you can call it that, immediately falls apart.
Evolution isn't any of those things, because it's never been any of those things. Evolution is merely the change in alleles in the genetics of a population in response to adaptation.

You do not understand what evolution is. Please. Stop spouting nonsense like this this and actually learn about evolution. It's not that hard. A high school course would work.

 

[Amittai]

... Evolution is merely the change in alleles in the genetics of a population in response to adaptation.

...

Warden, the change of alleles sometimes gives rise to a need for adaptation, which has not always been sufficient for survival. (Just an added nuance.)

Gottservant, our individuality and interdependence has to be seen in the dimension of integrity. You seemed to descend into ambiguous sloganeering. This is where spatial thinking is needed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden, the change of alleles sometimes gives rise to a need for adaptation, which has not always been sufficient for survival. (Just an added nuance.)

You know, I was going to argue against that by saying that it's largely an natural selection process that pushes the change... but then I was going to write "sometimes it's a biological selection" and I stopped as I thought to myself "... but that's what they just said!"

 

[Amittai]

According to S J Gould it is usually contingencies that do the actual selecting. He thought the rate of mutations varies by a different set of prior contingencies. Gould wrote about this in several of his books. He believed "progress" is not a biological value, thereby distancing himself from Teilhard de Chardin and Hegelians. (I've explained my views on Resha's threads among others - sorry I haven't been sensible enough to retain a comprehensive write-up to re-paste from.)

 

[Ophiolite]

According to S J Gould it is usually contingencies that do the actual selecting. He thought the rate of mutations varies by a different set of prior contingencies. Gould wrote about this in several of his books. He believed "progress" is not a biological value, thereby distancing himself from Teilhard de Chardin and Hegelians. (I've explained my views on Resha's threads among others - sorry I haven't been sensible enough to retain a comprehensive write-up to re-paste from.)

But let us not imagine that Gould provides the sine qua non of evolutionary thinking.

 

[Amittai]

But let us not imagine that Gould provides the sine qua non of evolutionary thinking.

I am trying, along with Warden, to get the feet of the topic back on the ground from where the OP seemed to have it but we are responding too quick to wait for the OP's explanation!

Humans should have consideration for the ecosphere, full stop. I don't see it as "evolutionary".

What's your view of the OP?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am trying, along with Warden, to get the feet of the topic back on the ground from where the OP seemed to have it but we are responding too quick to wait for the OP's explanation!

Knowing Gottservant and his posting history, his OP IS the explanation. And that there is no ground. That balloon has gone right up high.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am trying, along with Warden, to get the feet of the topic back on the ground from where the OP seemed to have it but we are responding too quick to wait for the OP's explanation!

Humans should have consideration for the ecosphere, full stop. I don't see it as "evolutionary".

What's your view of the OP?

Gottservant lives in a world of his own. I think it is probably a magical and exciting world. At times, it intersects our world at odd angles and in peculiar ways. Attempts to understand those confluences labour under the mistaken view that they have meaning. Any meaning ascribed to them has been imparted wholly by those in this world being triggered by a thought from Gottservsant. Our responses mean nothing to him, just as his mean nothing to us.

 

[Amittai]

But let us not imagine that Gould provides the sine qua non of evolutionary thinking.

Seeing as the coast is clear your phrase "the sine qua non" implies a condition in the environment. Do you see this as necessary, sufficent, or both, and why?

 

[Ophiolite]

Seeing as the coast is clear your phrase "the sine qua non" implies a condition in the environment. Do you see this as necessary, sufficent, or both, and why?

I've generally understood the phrase to indicate a "necessary" condition. Thus my original comment could be rephrased as "But let us not imagine that Gould's thinking on evolution, in total, is a necessary part of evolutionary thinking."

In checking Wikipedia, I see they use the word "indispensable", which seems a fair synonym for "necessary".

As to why? Gould's notions are intriguing, but - apart, perhaps, from the Spandrels of San Marco - rarely original. Punctuated equilibrium was resurrected, with a new name, by Gould and Eldredge, but the notion had been around for decades. Some of his ideas, I think, are probably wrong. His interpretation of the Burgess Shale for example. So, I think we could remove Gould from the literature and nothing of huge substance would be lost.

Don't misunderstand me. I value Gould's contributions, I just don't want to place him on a pedestal. (And I would really like to get a hold of his editor for The Structure of Evolutionary Theory at Harvard University Press and ask if he understood that one of the functions of an editor is to edit!)

 

[Amittai]

... apart, perhaps, from the Spandrels of San Marco - rarely original. Punctuated equilibrium was resurrected, with a new name, by Gould and Eldredge, but the notion had been around for decades. Some of his ideas, I think, are probably wrong. His interpretation of the Burgess Shale for example. So, I think we could remove Gould from the literature and nothing of huge substance would be lost.

Don't misunderstand me. I value Gould's contributions, I just don't want to place him on a pedestal. (And I would really like to get a hold of his editor for The Structure of Evolutionary Theory at Harvard University Press and ask if he understood ... )

I don't personally employ pedestals, I just throw into discussions what I've read, or read about. So few people among the public bother at all. My motive is to admire the natural world around me - weren't my generation taught that? I am enjoying the 999 thread and Resha's various threads, also creation threads where I try to counterbalance fuzzier headed creation-ism-ists and ultramaterialists alike (and press no-one's buttons!)

I would scarcely care if an idea is wholly original or if a writer is simply an advocate of it. What matters to me is relative soundness of basis, at least tentatively. In unrepeatable histories, investigation has to proceed somehow. I also see, by some inner logic or intuition, what I like about an idea, and sometimes find that its advocate has not argued as convincingly as I would have, had I had the training.

Biology is rife with image, metaphor, simile, analogy, allegory and like rhetoric. The Spandrels gambit I understand as exaptation: when a mutated form turns out to subsequently be a useful adaptation.

I feel another huge hazard in biology is fashionableness. Gould nonetheless appears to have advocated for contingency, citing statistics in relation to probability, and he is very much against reifying "progress" as a value in biological processes. I admire Gould for insisting he saw the whole thing as not going anywhere. The only message things around us need tell us is that they exist.

Though I don't have training, it occurs to me that while the (relatively speaking) punctuations are accelerated phases of mutations (which, Gould proposed, preceded contingent annihilations), the equilibriums exhibit a stabilising or damping effect that also has something to do with aesthetic form in biology. Gould was working to "conventional chronology" which at best is a heuristic.

What, in a paragraph or two each to begin with, do you see in i) punctuated equilibrium and / or antecedent ideas, ii) Burgess shale?

 

[Gottservant]

Perhaps in concert with "sustainable environments", perhaps not: I have at least understood the mechanism, by which you are projecting "Evolution" - Eigenution, is the act of creating links, to later call "Evolved".

The foundation of Eigenution, is simply that you can make links of everything (but destroyed letter - let the reader beware), whether you finally put it down to progress, in the Evolutionary sense, or not?

What remains to be seen, is if effectively stopping, having made more links, specifically makes it harder to destroy the letter, or not?

The point being, that attributing links to progress, is not in itself Evolution, but in itself a functioning, for the sake of it (which may or may not be Evolution depending on how close to Evolution one makes them).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The Spandrels gambit I understand as exaptation: when a mutated form turns out to subsequently be a useful adaptation.

An evolutionary spandrel isn't an exaptation but a neutral side effect of an adaptation.

Though I don't have training, it occurs to me that while the (relatively speaking) punctuations are accelerated phases of mutations (which, Gould proposed, preceded contingent annihilations), the equilibriums exhibit a stabilising or damping effect that also has something to do with aesthetic form in biology.

I suspect that punctuations are typically periods of rapidly changing environmental conditions that impose strong selection pressures; stress responses can increase mutation rates in bacteria and fruit flies, so accelerated mutation rates may be involved, but I'm not sure they're necessarily involved.

 

[Amittai]

An evolutionary spandrel isn't an exaptation but a neutral side effect of an adaptation. ...

The spandrel is a neutral side effect of a mutation that later turns out to be an adaptation. Adaptation is "synonymous" with survival.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The spandrel is a neutral side effect of a mutation that later turns out to be an adaptation. Adaptation is "synonymous" with survival.

Sure, a neutral side effect, not an exaptation. Spandrels can become functionally useful - as 'co-opted spandrels' in Gould's jargon.

 

[Amittai]

Sure, a neutral side effect, not an exaptation. Spandrels can become functionally useful - as 'co-opted spandrels' in Gould's jargon.

Co-opted, yes I got the word wrong.

 

[Amittai]

Perhaps in concert with "sustainable environments", perhaps not: I have at least understood the mechanism, by which you are projecting "Evolution" - ...
The point being, that attributing links to progress, is not in itself Evolution, but in itself a functioning, for the sake of it (which may or may not be Evolution depending on how close to Evolution one makes them).

What I get from the situation is that some sort of stabilising or damping principle comes into play during the periods in between the phases of rapid change. Orbits wobble slightly, but not much. This principle must have been there all along. Indeed whatever causes of rapid change had occurred, probably came from a long distance off. Most cosmic theories are too cramped and localised in scale.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

What I get from the situation is that some sort of stabilising or damping principle comes into play during the periods in between the phases of rapid change. Orbits wobble slightly, but not much. This principle must have been there all along. Indeed whatever causes of rapid change had occurred, probably came from a long distance off. Most cosmic theories are too cramped and localised in scale.

Survival of the fittest acts to both stabilise organisms when they are local maxima adapted to their environment, and also results in the modification of organisms when they are ill-suited to their environment. Hence, it can act to produce punctuated equilibrium depending on a species suitability to their environment. Hence, for example, organisms evolving to be smaller when they're on a small island, but remaining in the original form on the mainland the island population came from.

When you talk about a 'stablising or damping principle' coming into play, remember that survival of the fittest can be an agent for change, or it can be an agent for stability.

An organism can be ill-suited to its environment if the environment it's in changes (which could be due to other species, not just the physical environment), or if a populatiton of hte species moves into a new environment.

Punctuated equilibrium does not require us to look for new agents of stability; natural selection is a plausible (and likely) answer in itself.

 

[Amittai]

Survival of the fittest acts to both stabilise organisms when they are local maxima adapted to their environment, and also results in the modification of organisms when they are ill-suited to their environment. Hence, it can act to produce punctuated equilibrium depending on a species suitability to their environment. Hence, for example, organisms evolving to be smaller when they're on a small island, but remaining in the original form on the mainland the island population came from.

When you talk about a 'stablising or damping principle' coming into play, remember that survival of the fittest can be an agent for change, or it can be an agent for stability.

An organism can be ill-suited to its environment if the environment it's in changes (which could be due to other species, not just the physical environment), or if a population of the species moves into a new environment.

Punctuated equilibrium does not require us to look for new agents of stability; natural selection is a plausible (and likely) answer in itself.

Stability plus genetic drift, is what occurs when other contingency doesn't occur as well. Survival of the fittest is the result of organisms being already adapted or modified to be adapted, rather than its cause.

Yes different sizes on different land masses is a manifestation of the normal stabilizing principle without added contingency. Resizing has also occurred relatively rapidly following the elimination of some species from the ecosphere due to major contingencies.

Natural processes of selection are in two halves: both big and small mutations, and eliminations. The latter is then followed by resizing and suchlike. (That might make three halves.)