evolution

[Cote_Remi]

Remi "boy" Cote
(960208.0915)

According to what I know (much less) about evolution, mutation, in the
view of today's theory, doesn't account for the variation mechanism
necessary for evolution. G G Simpson (tempo and mode in evolution),
Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky rather imply slow genetic drift than
complete random mutation.

I think that is what Bill P. imply when he talk about persistence of
the genome, but I want to tell my opinion about the 960207.0530 post
from Bill P.

If the first monocellular organism appear in an absolute gell, defined
as a place with no variation, a simple soup with absolute no variation
from one place of the soup to another. A perfect homogene thing.

Then organism wouldn't have evolve at all. Evolution is a way to adapt
to a changing environement. Does anybody agree with me even if you
know now that Remi is a BOY name.??

Fire was the only thing (according to me and Goudsblom and Ellias and
other people that I don't know of...) that could explain emergence
of civilisation. So the "adaptation" of man is not only "natural".
It as nothing to do with the evolution of other species. Man "desing"
himself, he is a sort of laboratory work as oppose to a "field experiment"

He design himself as he design wolf to be pomeranian, psillium to be wheat,
moose to be cow...

Of course it is difficult to falcifiate these affirmation. But I just
whant to reply or suggest an answer to Bill P:"Either we don't know what to
look for, or human evolution proceeds at a highly variable rate, or it has
stopped, or there is something about theprocess that we havn't yet
figured out.

Remi "the Man" Cote, (would I get less personnal message now that you
guy know that I am not a lady no more?)

XXX

[Cote_Remi]

From Remi Cote (960213.1600 EST)

Reply to [From Bill Powers (960212.0100 MST)]

In my (960208.0915) post --

I assert that mutation, in the view of today's theory (G G Simpson
(tempo and mode in evolution), Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky),
doesn't account for the variation mechanism necessary for evolution.
They rather imply slow genetic drift (derive genetique)
than complete random mutation produced by out of space cosmic ray.

You reply: "I don't think that any of the people you mention
proposed that mutation is a result of failure to control the aspects
of the environment that affect accuracy of replication."

What I just wrote is that random mutation is not THE mecanism that explain
or produce variation between species. Do you agree or ha! Grrr...

You Write:"Slow genetic drift" isn't an explanation -- it's a proposed
phenomenon...

Why can't it be an explanation.

You wrote: "We would still have to explain what is causing it." Mendel
described it. It is simple "recombinaison genetique". You are not a perfect
replica of your parent. And, good for you, it isn't due to cosmic ray...

I assert: "If the first monocellular organism appear in an absolute gell,
     defined as a place with no variation, a simple soup with absolute
     no variation from one place of the soup to another. A perfect
     homogene thing. Then organism wouldn't have evolve at all.
     Evolution is a way to adapt to a changing environement.

You replied:"Remember that evolution just means "change." It isn't
a mechanism, but the consequence of the operation of some mechanism
(not named). You are right, of course: if the environment had been
completely uniform, no living molecules could ever have developed.

So you agree that change are transmitted to genereation, only if change
profit these organisation or in PCT words, allow better control of variable...

I wrote:

     Fire was the only thing (according to me and Goudsblom and Ellias
     and other people that I don't know of...) that could explain
     emergence of civilisation.

You reply: "I suppose that if they say this is true, it must be true."

Me wrote: "How glad am I, to be able to convince you so easily..."

You said:
     So the "adaptation" of man is not only "natural". It as nothing to
     do with the evolution of other species. Man "design" himself, he is
     a sort of laboratory work as oppose to a "field experiment"

What's this, another attempt to show that human beings are fundamentally
different from all other species? I have my own proposal: homo sapiens
is the species that cares whether it is different from all other
species. This is important only if you want it to be. It's not important
to me, so I guess I don't qualify as homo sapiens. Under my proposal,
all species "design themselves."

My proposal: Fire is the only reason why human species evolved as it is
today. So what? I just wanted to question the way we see control as present
and unavoidable in living organism. The way you described it, it is not
good or bad, it is there, we can describe it, and psychologist, pedagogue,
evolutionist, even polititian can use these principle, in helping living
organism achieve better living condition, health, growth. I wanted to ask
myself publicly, can we imagined an organism becoming madder and madder
because he has to much control? Of course I learned that this list is not
the right place for that kind of questionning.

[_Martin_Taylor]

[Martin Taylor 960213 17:00]

Remi Cote (960213.1600 EST) to Bill Powers

The way you described it, it is not
good or bad, it is there, we can describe it, and psychologist, pedagogue,
evolutionist, even polititian can use these principle, in helping living
organism achieve better living condition, health, growth. I wanted to ask
myself publicly, can we imagined an organism becoming madder and madder
because he has to much control? Of course I learned that this list is not
the right place for that kind of questionning.

I don't understand how you learned that. This kind of thing has often been
discussed here. Sometimes it is asserted that the optimum society is one
in which the most people have the most control. The question is then
how this happey condition may be best brought about. However, PCT says
that it is some reference signal in me that is set to a level that makes
me want to bring this condition to be. There is no _absolute_ good or
bad about it.

PCT also proposes exactly that "we imagined an organism becoming madder
and madder because he has to much control." (I assume you mean "not too much
control"). At least it's true with a suitable translation of the word
"madder."

If "madder" means "doing actions that are not to one's actual benefit"
this is a side effect of reorganization in a situation in which there is
little opportunity for effective control. If "madder" means "angrier"
then PCT is on somewhat shakier ground. Emotions such as anger are
assumed to correlate with difficult or failed control, but the distinctions
among the different emotional qualities are not clear (at least not to
me).

If you didn't mean "not too much control" but meant instead "too much to
control", the argument is the same. Any control system has a limited
number of degrees of freedom for output, and cannot control beyond that.
If more things to control crowd upon a living organism, something has
to give, and control becomes worse overall. This can happen because
disturbances are happening too fast (too many df/sec) or because
disturbances are happening to too many perceptal variables at once.
and they can't all be control so fast at once. Same answer, therefore,
as above.

The way you described it, it [control] is not good or bad, it is there,

Yes, just as gravity is there, or magnetism. Is that a problem? If the
existence of control is what defines life, why should you have

wanted to question the way we see control as present
and unavoidable in living organism.

Are you putting forward the hypothesis that there can be life that does
not involve control? If so, then that's a proposition worth discussing
on this list. Personally, I think control is a necessary aspect of life,
and it may be sufficient as well, though that's arguable.

Martin