Replaying the Tape of Life

[joshua 1 9]

In a famous thought experiment, evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould asked, if the “tape of life” could be turned back to the very beginning, would the same outcome prevail (Gould, 2000)?

"The great evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould often employed the metaphor “replaying life’s tape” to emphasize the preeminent role of contingency in the evolutionary process (Gould, 1990). In Gould’s view, the outcome of this Gedanken experiment would have been dramatically different from the actually observed course of events because evolution is essentially a stochastic phenomenon whereby trajectories that start infinitely close to each other soon diverge because the divergence is exponential."

Replaying the Tape of Life: Quantification of the Predictability of Evolution

 

[Larniavc]

In a famous thought experiment, evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould asked, if the “tape of life” could be turned back to the very beginning, would the same outcome prevail (Gould, 2000)?

"The great evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould often employed the metaphor “replaying life’s tape” to emphasize the preeminent role of contingency in the evolutionary process (Gould, 1990). In Gould’s view, the outcome of this Gedanken experiment would have been dramatically different from the actually observed course of events because evolution is essentially a stochastic phenomenon whereby trajectories that start infinitely close to each other soon diverge because the divergence is exponential."

Replaying the Tape of Life: Quantification of the Predictability of Evolution

That would have been great to see how different the world would be if it had another go.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That would have been great to see how different the world would be if it had another go.

The point is it would not be any different. Everything would pretty much turn out the way it is. The laws are the same everywhere in the universe. The elements are the same everywhere in the universe. The unique situation here is the size of the earth, the size of the sun, the duel planet thing the earth has going on with the moon. The distance the earth is from the Sun. If all that remains the same then life on earth is going to pretty much turn out the way it did.

The Bible tells us that the atmosphere is very important for life on earth but I do not understand that as well as I need to in order to talk about it.

 

[Larniavc]

The point is it would not be any different.

No.

As your link that you provided in your post in your thread about Gould saying everything would turn out differently due to good old, straight forwards easy to understand stochastic processes.

I’m surprised you missed it in your post that you posted your link in.

Yourself.

 

[Larniavc]

The Bible tells us that the atmosphere is very important for life on earth but I do not understand that as well as I need to in order to talk about it.

Hm.

You evidently don’t know what stochastic means, either.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hm.

You evidently don’t know what stochastic means, either.

Do you mean that God plays dice with the Universe?

 

[joshua 1 9]

No.

As your link that you provided in your post in your thread about Gould saying everything would turn out differently due to good old, straight forwards easy to understand stochastic processes.

I’m surprised you missed it in your post that you posted your link in.

Yourself.

Yes I am presenting an argument against Gould.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes I am presenting an argument against Gould.

Okay, I’ll wait for you to present it until I comment further.

Do carry on.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes I am presenting an argument against Gould.

Why? What is your objection to Gould's proposition? It seems reasonable and might even be true. So what?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why? What is your objection to Gould's proposition?

Click on the link and read the article. This has to do with a new paradigm in the way they present the tree of life. I can not read it and explain it to you, you have to read it for yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

Click on the link and read the article. This has to do with a new paradigm in the way they present the tree of life. I can not read it and explain it to you, you have to read it for yourself.

I did. I found nothing astonishing in it--interesting, but not astonishing. I also found nothing in it which necessitates "refuting" the hypothesis of a biologist who has been dead for fifteen years. Indeed, Gould would probably been most interested in the possibilities raised by this paper, which is mostly to do with the development of new methods--unavailable in his day--with which to answer the question he raised.

Hence my question: Why?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I did. I found nothing astonishing in it--interesting, but not astonishing.

I am interested in the article because of the scientific use of the word Paradigm. People think the Bible is a metaphor and it is not, the Bible is a paradigm and there is a difference. Understanding the scientific use of the word helps us to understand what a paradigm is and how the word is used and defined based on context.

Gould is no longer with us and his partner Eldridge does not seem to be keeping up with things. I believe his early death was due to an inner conflict that he was not able to resolve. But I get myself in trouble when I say stuff like that.

The comparison was with Dawkins. It is his selfish gene paradigm that is going through a shift with the new understanding we have from evo devo and other related areas of evolutionary study. Dawkin is doing what he has to do and what you say Gould would do if he were still alive. This is the sort of sloppiness that you can expect when people fail to follow the proper paradigm.

Does anyone even think these things through. Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. Yet the selfish gene paradigm has to do with individuals. Take a look at the kin selection theory. "Kin selection is the evolutionary strategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction. Kin altruism is altruistic behaviour whose evolution is driven by kin selection." wiki Even in my example of the aunt that works to preserve the genes of her sister. She sacrifices her own genes for the sake of the genes of her sister (or brother).

 

[Motherofkittens]

There are some really good points that say things would be different and other good points that say it would be the same. We don't know right now, there are a lot more things to know before , if ever, we can be reasonable sure what the answer is.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hence my question: Why?

Actually because this has more to do with the social sciences than it does Biology. This is why the conflict is between a John Kennedy form of altruism. "Ask not what your country can do for you but what YOU can do for your country". People like Dawkins wants to promote his selfish gene concept and he is selling a lot of books doing just that. The liberal agenda is one of the group sacrificing itself for the individuals rather than individuals sacrificing themselves for the sake of the group.

 

[Willby]

Take a look at the kin selection theory. "Kin selection is the evolutionary strategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction. Kin altruism is altruistic behaviour whose evolution is driven by kin selection." wiki Even in my example of the aunt that works to preserve the genes of her sister. She sacrifices her own genes for the sake of the genes of her sister (or brother).

Once again the above shows that you simply do not understand the concepts you are talking about.
Kin selection is a consequence of the Aunt having many of the same genes as her sister (or brother), copies of which will be in the nieces (or nephews). The whole point is that it anything a gene 'does' that increases the likelyhood of there being more copies of that gene (independent of which body it is in) will be selected for. She is 'helping' her own genes (copies which are in the kin) not sacrificing them. Mathmatically, helping to get two of your siblings children to reproductive age is exactly the same as getting one of yours, in many cases the former may be easier.

This area of evolutionary theory is called Inclusive Fitness. You really need to try to understand what you are trying to critic. The wikipedia article is as good a place as any to start.

Inclusive fitness - Wikipedia

 

[joshua 1 9]

Once again the above shows that you simply do not understand the concepts you are talking about. Kin selection

Edward O Wilson goes beyond Kin selection when we take social behaviour into consideration. He teaches that the grand master is multilevel selection. Kin selection operates under rare conditions that tend to be unique to humans. Where multilevel selection explains complex behavior in a wide range of species. We are compulsively driven to belong to groups or to create them as needed.

I have 11 cats in my yard. My neighbor is not happy that I give them food. He wants them to go somewhere else. Yet evolutionary theory's study of social behaviour will help us to understand the dynamics behind why animals "are compulsively driven to belong to a groups". If we look at big cities they have a huge number of people gathered into a rather small area. Kin selection and selfish genes falls short of being able to explain what we are observing in the world around us.

I am not going to be happy until we understand coevolution. To explain the dynamics behind bio diverse eco systems. Dawkins falls short of being able to do that.

 

[Willby]

J19

I linked to the following paper in another thread it adresses atleast some of what you appear to be questioning. Please have a go at reading it, it is quite technical but worth it.

Relatedness, Conflict, and the Evolution of Eusociality