Evolution

In animals, enhanced social status triggers a hormonal boost that in some
species brings about visible physiological changes. For example, dominant
agama lizards turn from plain brown to purple and red, dominant male
orangutangs develop cheek flanges, etc. The dominant status and the
features are associated with enhanced reproductive results. Richard
Dawkins calls this the "Duke of Marlborough Effect". After the Duke came
back to Britain after his successes in Europe, his wife, Sarah Churchill,
wrote
in her diary that "he pleasured me twice in his top-boots".

Mike Waller (in Darwinism and the Enemy Within, recent _Journal of Social
and Evolutionary Studies_) has proposed the existence of comparator genes.
These work by not only giving successful individuals a hormonal boost,
but also by sending unsuccessful individual into depression and possibly
suicide. He says that there are conditions under which, from the point
of view of the genes, they would be better off killing off an
unsuccessful individual than allowing it to live. E.g. if the individual
can't breed, and if it competes for food with other individuals carrying
the same genes, then it should be killed off.

Waller's view is not orthodox. Biologists often confuse genetic
selection with selection at the level of the individual, and traditional
biologists find it hard to accept a mechanism for individul self
destruction.

From a PCT point of view, it should be obvious that there is a

control mechanism at work. It amplifies performance and speeds up
the process of adaptive change. The mechanism works by saying: If the
individual is of average performance, do nothing. If it performs well,
give it a boost. If it performs badly, kill it off.

The differences of opinion between Mike Waller and the traditional
biologists can therefore be restated as a discussion of whether
this control mechanism works two ways, amplifying both positive and
negative performance (Mike Waller's position), or whether it only works
one way, positively (the traditional position).

It seems to me that an accurately functioning two way control system
(what is this the right terminology?) would outperform the one way
control systems, and that it is plausible that such systems exist.
Comments, please!

Lars

···

From: [Lars Christian Smith (23 Feb 96 17:00 CET)]
To: Bill Powers, Rick Marken
Subject: Comparator Genes and Evolution

[From Bill Powers (2009.08.07.1934 MDT)]

To all: I'm making an attempt to pull together a PCT model of evolution. When I get it in some sort of shape, I'll invite all PCTers who have knowledge in this area to join in, filling in gaps, providing relevant references and examples, correcting my misconceptions, suggesting better organizations of the material, and in general acting as co-authors.

I think we can produce something that can be published.

In the meantime, I won't be participating in ongoing discussions as much as before. Keep the pot boiling.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.09.1020)]

Bill Powers (2009.08.07.1934 MDT)--

To all: I'm making an attempt to pull together a PCT model of evolution.

Great. And I'll make a PCT model of intelligent design for the sake of
all those out there who don't believe in evolution; we've still got a
ton of those here in the US -- they're all busy screaming "socialism"
at health care reform town halls, as though it were an epithet-- so
I'll work up something for them. I bet I finish my model before you
finish yours. I've already got the basic structure worked out:

X = current amount of life in the universe

if X <= 0 then
  set Y = a miracle occurs
  X = X+Y
end if

if X contains humans
then check for sinfulness
if sinfulness>0 then
  send son
  set sinfulness = 0 only in those who believe son
end

In the meantime, I won't be participating in ongoing discussions as much as
before. Keep the pot boiling.

I think I just did;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[From Bill Powers (940809.1107 MDT)]

Martin Taylor (940808.1530) --

Remember that the "normally fit" population is far and away the
majority, whatever happens to the mutations in the relatively unfit
few. Almost all mutations in the next generation happen in those who
were unaffected by the previous bad luck.

Yes, I said that for low mutation rates, the relatively less fit
(unmutated) population would contribute the most to speeding up the
process.

"Fitness" is the relative probability that a gene is reproduced at some
later time. That's all.

Right. It really has nothing to do with the normal meanings of "fitness"
such as strength or health or intelligence, although there are plenty of
people who seem to assume such causal connections. If the organism
reproduces more successfully it is more fit; if it is more fit, it
reproduces more successfully.

I've wondered, by the way, how this definition of fitness applies to
species which overpopulate their niches. Couldn't an improvement in
fitness (as defined) prove to be a liability to the species?

Your main thesis seems to be an intuition that neither sexual crossover
nor mutation at a fixed rate are adequate to account for the rates of
change (in what? species? characteristic features of individuals?) that
are observed.

It's more like wondering whether the numbers used in explanations
haven't been cooked to make the calculated behavior match the observed
behavior. This is model-building, after all -- one adjusts the
parameters to get a reasonable result. To get these models to work
properly you have to assume success rates for mutations (or crossovers).
Since we don't know how either a mutation or a crossover actually
affects reproductive rates, we are forced to suppose that the effect is
great enough and specific enough to the problem to account for the
historical record. If a far more effective mode of selection were found,
then there could be a corresponding relaxation in our assumptions about
how effective purely random mutations or crossovers have to be.

The ECOLI phenomenon shows us a way in which random mutations can be
given far more direct and systematic effects than they would have if
there were no systematic adjustment in frequency. If that process can be
shown to work in evolution, our story becomes more plausible.

Part of the problem seems to be that you seem to think
that if one individual acquires a bad mutation, then the species has.

I was thinking more of the situation where progressive environmental
changes gradually reduce the fitness of the "normal" population, not
through mutation but simply by making life more difficult. I assume that
such selection pressures work on all individuals in the population. If
the normal population could speed up its mutation rate when under
pressure, it would be producing variants faster and would thus go
through fewer generations before creating descendants capable of
withstanding the pressure (assuming less than one mutation per
generation). Without the increased mutation rate, the population that is
now relatively unfit would just go on reproducing as is, producing more
unfit generations instead of "looking for" more fit variants.

It's not like the E-coli situation, in which if the single entity swims
the wrong way, all of it is further from the goal.

No, but if the species as a whole goes on reproducing in an ineffective
direction, there will be fewer changes toward an effective direction.

Fitness, in evolution, is a bit like a ratchet. If one good mutation
happens to occur, by which I mean that it raises the fitness of the
genome in which it occurs, then that gene is more likely to be
represented in genomes of the next generation. It may not be, but it
is more likely to be than is the unmutated version of the gene.

Right. So if you could watch the species and press the space bar for all
those individual lines that are reproducing relatively unfit offspring,
and do this whenever relative fitness declines, you would more quickly
eliminate the wrong lines of propagation and start more profitable
lines.

RE: simulations

Could be done, but is it worthwhile other than as a matter of
entertainment interest?

What a strange question. Are you saying that if the present model seems
to work, given a friendly reviewer, there's no point looking for a
better one?

If you remember, this thread started because I argued that PCT was
probably the ONLY way stable systems could have evolved, and I used the
metaphor of evolution as a "designer" of efficient systems. The intent
was to argue (as I have often done explicitly) that organisms that
waste energy on side-effects will be less fit than those that spend
more of their energy on controlling their perceptions, and THEREFORE
that we must have evolved so that "all behaviour is the control of
perception."

I see no link between wasting energy on side-effects and being less
successful at reproduction. It is perfectly possible that the effect of
wasting energy on reproductive success, if any, is so slight that it
couldn't possible explain evolution. Your assumption is like too many of
those made by proponents of the current evolutionary model: anything
that even seems as though it might have some effect on relative
reproductive success is taken as a selection factor. This mode of
argument skips, of course, the step of showing that the supposed
selection factor would in fact affect reproductive success. All you have
to do is drop the assumption, and you will immediately think of other
ways of reasoning that could produce the opposite conclusion. The guy
who wastes energy on flashy behavior and profligate but useless displays
of expended energy might really excite the most fertile girls, whereas
the dull drab conservative energy-saver has trouble getting a mate at
all. I'm not saying that's true, either -- just pointing out that an
unbiased view of either explanation shows that it's just hot air,
generated by a foregone conclusion.

We then got into a discussion, and I did a trivial simulation that
illustrated the interesting fact that a steady mutation rate leads to
"punctate evolution." The reason for that is that when a good mutation
occurs, it may hang around for a few generations and then die off, or
it may get lucky and find itself expressed in several individuals quite
quickly.

Your simulation had nothing in it about good or bad mutations and their
effects on reproductive success. You went directly to reproductive
success. All your simulation showed was the properties of random
processes in a situation where the effects are cumulative and the total
numbers were limited. There was nothing in the simulation to explain
_reasons_ for reproductive success.

When that happens, the "good" genome usually "takes off" and very
quickly comes to be dominant in the population--always along with a
residue of the previous "normal" population, until yet another "good
mutation" occurs and the original normal population cannot stand the
added competition.

Those are your own embellishments on the results; the simulation showed
nothing about good and bad genomes, or actual competition (you just
limited the numbers). The outcome of your simulation doesn't depend on
why there was reproductive success, so it can't be used as proof that
any explanation for reproductive success is correct.

My thinking right now is that it doesn't affect the argument at all if
mutation rates are changeable in situations of biochemical stress.
Changes that make for more fitness are what will be seen in later
generations more probably than not.

Yes, precisely my point. We have no disagreement about what will happen
if there are differences in reproductive success. The whole question is
whether the causes of these differences, as usually assumed, are
actually sufficient to account for the observed differences. We can
agree that _something_ is sufficient to account for the differences. I
am simply raising the question as to whether the explanations offered
off the top of people's heads for no good reason are really sufficient,
or whether we need some more powerful (and demonstrable) mechanism to
account for the observed differences.

Organisms that are good at controlling their perceptions will be fitter
than similar organisms that control worse. And so we wind up with a
world full of organisms in which "all behaviour is the control of
perception."

That's an attractive hypothesis for anyone who wants to show that the
inevitable result of evolution is control systems. Your last statement
sounds, in fact, like a bribe. But simply to assert that control systems
will reproduce more rapidly than other kinds of systems (which is all
you are saying in saying they are "fitter") is far from a sufficient
proof of the thesis. If we aren't _forced_ to this conclusion, it's
useless. I of all people would be very pleased to find that PCT
describes an inevitable organization. But I can't accept proof of the
kind you offer; it's empty.

A great deal is said about the environment "selecting" organisms. I can
see nothing in the environment, other than organisms, capable of
"selecting" anything. To speak of natural selection as something the
environment does is to use a metaphor as a way of subtly asserting what
does not exist. It seems much more plausible to me to say that species
contain selection mechanisms which include the production of random
variations as a means of creating more possibilities among which to
select. Without those capabilities, organisms could not evolve any
faster than a rock does. Evolution is a continuing experiment conducted
by a species, not by the environment. That metaphor, I think, will stand
up to close scrutiny.

···

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Tucker (940909, direct) --

([Paul] is right - most of your posts are the same length).

So I must be controlling for posts of a certain length? Actually, what
happens is that I always run out of energy before having said everything
that has occurred to me. So you are observing how much I can stand to
write in one bunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (990904.1812 EDT)]

In view of recent exchanges both on and off CSGnet, I think the following
might be of some interest. From the current issue of _The Economist_:

"According to Gallup polls, only 10% of Americans say they hold a secular
evolutionist view of the world, while 44% believe in strict biblical
creationism. Four million also believe they have been abducted by aliens.
_The Economist_ urges candidates to address the vital question this finding
raises. Should schools teach survival courses for those threatened with
alien abduction?"

Tom Bourbon [940913.0943]

[Martin Taylor 940912 13:50]

Rick Marken (940910.2100)

Bill Powers (940910.1100 MDT)

Bill described a comparison, in simulation, of E. coli arriving at "food"
randomly, or via the "E. coli" method of directed randomness. Rick liked
the demo and Martin thought it was irrelevant.
. . .

Why is it irrelevant? Because it has ONE organism that does or does not
reach its target.

Here's a related possible demo.

Instead of one organism that moves around in the space, have lots of them
(not so many as to totally clutter the screen). Let them live or die or
replicate according to how far away from the target they are. For example,
here's an algorithm. In each compute interval, let the probability an
organism survives into the next compute interval be p+(q/(1+D)) where D is
the distance from the organism to the target and p+q=1. Let the probability
that two organisms exist where one did before be some function that increases
gradually with distance to the target, such as k/(1+D) where k is varied
each compute interval to keep the total number of organisms constant.
After replication, the two organisms go on their random way independently.

Martin , what makes this demonstration "relevant," when Bill's was not?
Is it the addition of many simulated bacteria, rather than only one? If so,
that is a trivial and irrelevant difference. Is it that you would allow
organisms to survive when they only move in the direection of food,
rather than requiring that they reach and consume the food? If so, then
that is a whimsical procedure of the kind used very often by people in the
field of "artificial life." It's a good thing they call such a simulation
an exercise in "artificial life," given that it has nothing whatsoever to
do with the survival of "real life."

Later,

Tom

[From Rick Marken (940915.1120)]

Martin Taylor (940914 16:50) --

I dealt with the "shit happens" bit numerically in the posting to which I
think you are responding.

Not really. See below.

The question is whether e-coli type evolution actually exists.

The question is whether e-coli or uncontrolled mutation based evolution
exists. You seem to think that we already know that the latter exists. Well,
it's kinnda like perceptual information; just because lotsa famous people
say it's so don't mean it's so. In fact, it probably ain't so.

All the GA experiments that I know of demonstrate that the main role of
mutation is to ensure that there remains some variation in a population, not
to enhance the immediate fitness.

You miss my point. The variations I'm talking about (finch beak lengths, moth
coloration) are not mutation based; they are the normal phenotypic variations
that occur as a result of the existing genetic variation in a population.
Some low level of mutation does always exist in a population. But it's not
there to "ensure that there remains some variation in a population". In fact,
it is generally evolutionarily irrelevant.

Actually, it [mutation-based evolution] happens all the time.

Mutations happen all the time; it's the evolution part (emergence of new
organizations) that doesn't happen all the time.

As you know, I did a truly trivial simulation in HyperCard

Well, you give yourself too little credit. It wasn't "truly trivial"; it was
just trivially untrue.

You assumed "total number of organisms in the population to be the same in
each generation". This violates a basic assumption of natural selection based
evolution (that evolution -- change in a species -- occurs when the existing
species can no longer reproduce at a rate that maintains the population).
This little (mistaken) assumption ensures that the mutated versions of your
simulated organisms will eventually take over as the "new" members of the
population. You simulated the spread of a rumor, not the evolution of a
species.

Your simulation does not work the way natural selection-based evolution
is supposed to work. Remember, evolution is suppose to occur because some
change in the environment has made it more difficult for organisms to control
long enough to reproduce; the evolving organisms must, therefore, NOT be
able to reproduce at a rate sufficient to maintain their population. When you
run the simulation correctly (as I just did) you find that the mutation rate
has to be ridiculously high to make up for a non-replacement reproduction
probability. If the mutation rate is not high, the population disappears in
a few generations (depending on the replacement probability), before any
mutations can get a toehold.

The problem with this uncontrolled , natural selection approach to evolution
is that the population of organisms will almost certainly be gone before
mutation has a chance to work. One can find parameter settings that would
allow this kind of evolution to work -- but I think they would all violate
some assumptions of natural selection. For example, you could assume that
reproduction rates are sufficient to maintain the population; but, then,
why is any change needed? The existing structure of the organisms is
"working" in the sense that it is allowing maintainance of the population.

You could also assume a very high mutation rate but I think the rate would
have to be much higher than what is typically observed in "stable"
populations (given the normal reproduction [.4 for 2 offspring] and mutation
reproduction [.9, also for two, mutated offspring] rates in my simulations, a
successful mutation probability of .3 per organism was needed to save the
population). If you assume that the mutation rate goes up when the
individuals in the population are under "stress" (not able to control well)
then you are assuming controlled evolution -- and we would be in agreement
about a possible mechanism for preserving populations in the face of major
environmental change.

You could also assume that the chance of a "good" mutation reproducing
successfully (and passing on the mutation) is 1.0. This would solve the
problem; but it sounds a bit unlikely to me; it is saying that the mutated
organism is absolutely guaranteed to live to reproduce and then have it's
mutation represented phenotypically in all subsequent generations. I think
controlled evolution is a tad more likely.

Best

Rick

(Gavin Ritz 2010.10.22.17.30NZT)

Attached is an interesting
article http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html

“The link between
environmental change and evolutionary change is weak - not what Darwinists
might have predicted”

PCT confers with this.
The internal reference signals are just slightly different values to the incoming
signals from the PCV. The disturbance only makes an initial variation and then
it peters out to almost the internal reference signal. I think Darwinist’s
are maybe using a similar type of input-output model to psychologists. When I read
this article I had my PCT hat on and the first thing I thought was that’s
obvious. PCT has definitely changed my thinking patterns.

Gavin, thank you for sharing.

On a related note, did anybody notice that Benoit Mandelbrot died last week?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/17mandelbrot.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Benoit%20Mandelbrot%20&st=cse

You'd think that the denouement of his life would've been publicized more widely, but I found out about it by accident. :frowning:

Chad

"Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules which are repeated without end." - Benoit Mandelbrot

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Gavin Ritz <garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ> 10/22/2010 12:43 AM >>>

(Gavin Ritz 2010.10.22.17.30NZT)

Attached is an interesting article
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evol
ution.html>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolu
tion.html

"The link between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak - not
what Darwinists might have predicted"

PCT confers with this. The internal reference signals are just slightly
different values to the incoming signals from the PCV. The disturbance only
makes an initial variation and then it peters out to almost the internal
reference signal. I think Darwinist's are maybe using a similar type of
input-output model to psychologists. When I read this article I had my PCT
hat on and the first thing I thought was that's obvious. PCT has definitely
changed my thinking patterns.

It is a shame we hadn't heard about the passing of such a seminal thinker. He will be enriching our understanding for generations to come. We probably could have benefited from a wider reading of his "Misbehavior of Markets".

I think the evolution analysis may be selling the environment a little bit short. Their analysis was based upon the presumed importance of past climatic shifts, so they jumped to the idea that it may be due to internally generated genetic change within the species:

"It follows that macroevolution may, over the longer-term, be driven largely by internally generated genetic change, not adaptation to a changing environment."

However, I think that for any time but the mass extinction events, life itself has become the most important environment, meaning other life forms within the mileau. A species environment may still be the key driver, but equally and perhaps more important than an ice age, may be the appearance of an "internally generated genetic change", not in your own species, but in another species, since that would be statistically more common, given the number of species within most environments. This keeps "environmental change" at the forefront, but just much harder to detect in the geologic record.

-- Martin L

···

On 10/22/2010 7:49 AM, Chad Green wrote:

Gavin, thank you for sharing.

On a related note, did anybody notice that Benoit Mandelbrot died last week?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/17mandelbrot.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Benoit%20Mandelbrot%20&st=cse

You'd think that the denouement of his life would've been publicized more widely, but I found out about it by accident. :frowning:

Chad

"Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules which are repeated without end." - Benoit Mandelbrot

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Gavin Ritz<garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ> 10/22/2010 12:43 AM>>>

(Gavin Ritz 2010.10.22.17.30NZT)

Attached is an interesting article
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evol
ution.html>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolu
tion.html

"The link between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak - not
what Darwinists might have predicted"

PCT confers with this. The internal reference signals are just slightly
different values to the incoming signals from the PCV. The disturbance only
makes an initial variation and then it peters out to almost the internal
reference signal. I think Darwinist's are maybe using a similar type of
input-output model to psychologists. When I read this article I had my PCT
hat on and the first thing I thought was that's obvious. PCT has definitely
changed my thinking patterns.

You may call me simple-minded, but my research on the brain led me to the intuition that everything is interconnected to one degree or another. In other words, my perception (i.e., reality) by default sees everything, including you and me, as connected whether we'd like to think about it or not.

My research also led me to believe that the most fundamental processes in the brain is stochastic resonance: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Stochastic_resonance . I believe this process is also involved in the subtle forces behind environmental and evolutionary change (i.e., intrinsic noise in cells): http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/23 . Yes, it is a very weak force, but if left to its own devices, can evolve into major change events, such as a climate switch.

Until someone can prove otherwise, I view stochastic resonance as the most significant and underrated "noise" of our times. What prevents us from understanding its potential is, perhaps, a matter of limited technology. Indeed, deterministic chaos was considered useless background noise in the 20th century until the invention of more powerful computing devices, which enabled Lorenz and Mandelbrot to make their groundbreaking discoveries.

Have a great weekend folks!

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Martin Lewitt <mlewitt@COMCAST.NET> 10/22/2010 1:27 PM >>>

It is a shame we hadn't heard about the passing of such a seminal
thinker. He will be enriching our understanding for generations to
come. We probably could have benefited from a wider reading of his
"Misbehavior of Markets".

I think the evolution analysis may be selling the environment a little
bit short. Their analysis was based upon the presumed importance of
past climatic shifts, so they jumped to the idea that it may be due to
internally generated genetic change within the species:

"It follows that macroevolution may, over the longer-term, be driven
largely by internally generated genetic change, not adaptation to a
changing environment."

However, I think that for any time but the mass extinction events, life
itself has become the most important environment, meaning other life
forms within the mileau. A species environment may still be the key
driver, but equally and perhaps more important than an ice age, may be
the appearance of an "internally generated genetic change", not in your
own species, but in another species, since that would be statistically
more common, given the number of species within most environments.
This keeps "environmental change" at the forefront, but just much harder
to detect in the geologic record.

-- Martin L

···

On 10/22/2010 7:49 AM, Chad Green wrote:

Gavin, thank you for sharing.

On a related note, did anybody notice that Benoit Mandelbrot died last week?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/17mandelbrot.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Benoit%20Mandelbrot%20&st=cse

You'd think that the denouement of his life would've been publicized more widely, but I found out about it by accident. :frowning:

Chad

"Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules which are repeated without end." - Benoit Mandelbrot

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Gavin Ritz<garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ> 10/22/2010 12:43 AM>>>

(Gavin Ritz 2010.10.22.17.30NZT)

Attached is an interesting article
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evol
ution.html>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolu
tion.html

"The link between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak - not
what Darwinists might have predicted"

PCT confers with this. The internal reference signals are just slightly
different values to the incoming signals from the PCV. The disturbance only
makes an initial variation and then it peters out to almost the internal
reference signal. I think Darwinist's are maybe using a similar type of
input-output model to psychologists. When I read this article I had my PCT
hat on and the first thing I thought was that's obvious. PCT has definitely
changed my thinking patterns.

Hi Chad !

Chad :
My research also led me to believe that the most fundamental processes in
the brain is stochastic resonance.

Boris :
So if the brains are part of the body and if the most fundamental processes
for the whole body is than stochastic resonance, I wonder if you were
seriously ill, would you let the doctors use new method which is based on
stochastic resonance. Or you would prefer that they cure you with usual
methods, which are based on homeostasis ?

Best,
Boris

Hi Martin !

Martin Lewitt :
However, I think that for any time but the mass extinction events, life
itself has become the most important environment, meaning other life forms
within the mileau.

Boris :
Very interesting Martin, but I have some difficulties with understanding how
general principles can have but or if.
Why should be mass extinction, exception from some real general principle ?
I think that this general principles must be valid for all cases of
extinction. Also for individual.

Example : if two people live in the same social environment, and they both
get ill by HIV. One dies (is extincted) and the other survives. Why ?

Martin Lewitt :
This keeps "environmental change" at the forefront, but just much harder to
detect in the geologic record.

Boris :
Does this mean, that environmental changes are most important for organisms
to survive and for selection of organisms ?

Best,

Boris

[Martin Lewitt Oct 23, 2010 0450 MDT]

Hi Martin !

Martin Lewitt :
However, I think that for any time but the mass extinction events, life
itself has become the most important environment, meaning other life forms
within the mileau.

Boris :
Very interesting Martin, but I have some difficulties with understanding how
general principles can have but or if.
Why should be mass extinction, exception from some real general principle ?
I think that this general principles must be valid for all cases of
extinction. Also for individual.

Rapid or extreme environmental changes can be exceptions. Most life depends upon the primary production of plants; mass extinction events have involved severe disruptions of primary production. More gradual changes, even as dramatic as the recent ice ages generally don't involve the complete disappearance of habitats and ecosystems, usually they just shrink or "move", even temperate forest species moved hundreds of miles with their climate zones.

Example : if two people live in the same social environment, and they both
get ill by HIV. One dies (is extincted) and the other survives. Why ?

Martin Lewitt :
This keeps "environmental change" at the forefront, but just much harder to
detect in the geologic record.

Boris :
Does this mean, that environmental changes are most important for organisms
to survive and for selection of organisms ?

Predator/prey relationships and competition for resources within the species and between species probably become the more important than gradual macro-environmental changes. Extinctions and speciations will be occurring, but not as significantly correlated with geologically apparent changes as mass extinction events are.

Martin L

···

On 10/23/2010 4:33 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

Best,

Boris

Hi Martin !

Thanks for answers, but you still didn't answer my question :

Example : if two people live in the same social environment, and they both
get ill by HIV. One dies (is extincted) and the other survives. Why ?

If I understand you right social environment (life itself has become the
most important environment, meaning other life forms within the mileau). So
how other people (the most important environment) couldn't save both of them ?

And I have another set of questions :
1. What's keeping temperature 37 C inside your body ? Outside environment ?
Other people ?
2. What's keeping constant internal environment (molecular structure) in any
living creature so that they stay alive ? Influences coming from outside or
your genes ?
3. What's defining the species or what keep them alive even if they don't
eat other species or absorb nutrition for some time ? Is the way how
organisms work defined by external disturbances ?

Bear sleeps several month. What's keeping him alive in that time ? External
environment ?

Best,

Boris

Hi Martin !

Thanks for answers, but you still didn't answer my question :

Example : if two people live in the same social environment, and they both
get ill by HIV. One dies (is extincted) and the other survives. Why ?

If I understand you right social environment (life itself has become the
most important environment, meaning other life forms within the mileau). So
how other people (the most important environment) couldn't save both of them ?

Actually, I considered the virus part of the mileau of life, and individual genetic possibly playing a role.

And I have another set of questions :
1. What's keeping temperature 37 C inside your body ? Outside environment ?
Other people ?

Homeostasis and clothing and the people maintaining the energy infrastructure to my home during cold months and my own actions.

2. What's keeping constant internal environment (molecular structure) in any
living creature so that they stay alive ? Influences coming from outside or
your genes ?

Robustness. "Robustness" subsumes the concepts of redundancy and overlapping function, homeostasis, developmental homeostasis, canalization and niche reduction. Robustness enables evolvability.

3. What's defining the species or what keep them alive even if they don't
eat other species or absorb nutrition for some time ? Is the way how
organisms work defined by external disturbances ?

Bear sleeps several month. What's keeping him alive in that time ? External
environment ?

The bear has selected or modified his environment to reduce the range of conditions he is exposed to during hibernation and then maintains his internal homeostasis by tapping stored energy reserves.

Do you have something else in mind?

regards,
    Martin L

···

On 10/23/2010 8:34 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

Best,

Boris

Hi Martin,

Thanks again for your answers. I'm sorry I answered you with delay. It's
time zones :):slight_smile: It's quite nice chat.

Boris earlier :
Example : if two people live in the same social environment, and they both
get ill by HIV. One dies (is extincted) and the other survives. Why ?

Martin Lewitt:
Actually, I considered the virus part of the mileau of life, and individual
genetic possibly playing a role.

Martin Lewitt earlier :
However, I think that for any time but the mass extinction events, life
itself has become the most important environment, meaning other life forms
within the mileau.

Boris :
Please notice that I'm trying to simplify the problem and that I have some
problems with language.
I think you are right that virus is part of the mileau of life, but I think
it's not in forefront when we concern the survival ability of organism that
was attacked by HIV. I think that whatever changes are happening in
environment (ice age, climate changes, changes of other species, for ex.
virus), the organisms are those who "decides" what will happen with them,
whether an external environmental distrubances (ice age, virus,
bacteria,etc.) will take effect on organisms or not. If organisms control
systems manage to compensate through negative control loop the disturbances
and maintain it's almost constant internal environment (essential variables
in physiological limits), then organism will survive, if they can't,
organisms die. So I think that in forefront are genetic changes which
enables "adaptability" to different environmental disturbances (virus, etc.).

If we have control system A and B for two people who were attacked by HIV,
then I think we can't say that HIV (environmental disturbance) killed person
B and it didn't manage to kill person A. So I think we can't say that life
environment is the most important feature, so to say that virus was
responsible for the death of person B. By my opinion it wasn't. I would
rather say that person's A immune control system manage to compensate the
environmental disturbances (whatever virus or bacteria was) and immune
control system from person B didn't manage to compensate the disturbance.

So if I try to generalize relationship between organisms internal and
external environment, I think that any organisms which were created with
variations and mutations of DNA, that are capable of counteracting
environmental disturbances (control many kind of variables) and manage to
maintain their almost constant internal environment (in physiological
limits) survive in whatever the circumstances of the environment or in
whatever changes are going on in environment. I think that diversity of
organisms which are differently "adapted" to environmental circumstances,
are matter of "generated genetic changes" in forefront not from
"environmental changes". On the relative "end" of evolution organism was
created which can compensate or counteract almost all kinds of environmental
disturbances in the cosmos and evolution is still going on.

I think it can be productive here to consider Ashby's Law of Requisite
Variety. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/reqvar.html

Best regards,

Boris

Hi Boris,

I would assert that the health care system in the U.S. is designed to treat the symptoms of disease rather than the homeostatic control center itself. Such is the all-pervasive practice of defensive medicine. Speaking of perverse incentives, why doesn't my health insurance provider cover the services of one of the most popular doctors in my locality who recently started up her own holistic medicine practice? I'm told that she quit the system because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.

As for the latest methods in medicine, I would encourage someone with a strong medical background to interpret the findings from this recent journal article:

The role of noise and positive feedback in the onset of autosomal dominant diseases
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/4/93

As for human evolution, has anyone considered the possibility that our tendency to think in black and white is a function of our bilateral symmetry, and that if we are to continue to evolve in an increasingly non-polar world we must break free from this fixed mindset?

Cheers,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Boris Hartman<boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET> 10/23/2010 6:28 AM >>>

Hi Chad !

Chad :
My research also led me to believe that the most fundamental processes in
the brain is stochastic resonance.

Boris :
So if the brains are part of the body and if the most fundamental processes
for the whole body is than stochastic resonance, I wonder if you were
seriously ill, would you let the doctors use new method which is based on
stochastic resonance. Or you would prefer that they cure you with usual
methods, which are based on homeostasis ?

Best,
Boris

Hi Chad !

Chad :
I would assert that the health care system in the U.S. is designed to treat
the symptoms of disease rather than the homeostatic control center itself.
Such is the all-pervasive practice of defensive medicine.

Boris :
I'm sorry Chad. I live far away from America and I have no idea how your
health care system works. The latest news I've heard was some about 500
milliards $ or maybe more heavy injection to equalize health care rights in
America. I've heard that Obama finally makes it possible to be taken care
for all Americans not just for those who have money. I suppose that health
care can't be the privilege of rich people.

Chad :
Speaking of perverse incentives, why doesn't my health insurance provider
cover the services of one of the most popular doctors in my locality who
recently started up her own holistic medicine practice? I'm told that she
quit the system because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Boris :
If I understand right, you are complaining about not getting enough medicine
care you would like to ? So if I understand right, you would like better
system of medical health care in USA ?

Chad :
As for human evolution, has anyone considered the possibility that our
tendency to think in black and white is a function of our bilateral
symmetry, and that if we are to continue to evolve in an increasingly
non-polar world we must break free from this fixed mindset?

Boris :
Does this theoretical discourse criticize the way we think ? Well Chad I
think that you missed the forum. As I see it, here is CSGnet and here we are
supposed to talk about HPCT. I really don�t' know where is "black and white"
forum, but I warmly suggest that you try to find it. By the way : are you a
teacher ?

Cheers,

Boris

Boris, if you don't know how our health care system works here, I would
encourage you to keep it that way. It is a cascading lesson learned
that I suspect will crest soon and crash down on the subsystems that add
little to no value to the overall system.

As for HPCT, I operate comfortably within the hidden levels (12+) that
define the boundaries of our anthropocentrism. Am I a teacher?
Perhaps, but I see my role here as more of an evacuator. :slight_smile:

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Boris Hartman<boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET> 10/28/2010 12:52 PM >>>

Hi Chad !

Chad :
I would assert that the health care system in the U.S. is designed to
treat
the symptoms of disease rather than the homeostatic control center
itself.
Such is the all-pervasive practice of defensive medicine.

Boris :
I'm sorry Chad. I live far away from America and I have no idea how
your
health care system works. The latest news I've heard was some about
500
milliards $ or maybe more heavy injection to equalize health care
rights in
America. I've heard that Obama finally makes it possible to be taken
care
for all Americans not just for those who have money. I suppose that
health
care can't be the privilege of rich people.

Chad :
Speaking of perverse incentives, why doesn't my health insurance
provider
cover the services of one of the most popular doctors in my locality
who
recently started up her own holistic medicine practice? I'm told that
she
quit the system because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Boris :
If I understand right, you are complaining about not getting enough
medicine
care you would like to ? So if I understand right, you would like
better
system of medical health care in USA ?

Chad :
As for human evolution, has anyone considered the possibility that our
tendency to think in black and white is a function of our bilateral
symmetry, and that if we are to continue to evolve in an increasingly
non-polar world we must break free from this fixed mindset?

Boris :
Does this theoretical discourse criticize the way we think ? Well Chad
I
think that you missed the forum. As I see it, here is CSGnet and here
we are
supposed to talk about HPCT. I really don’t' know where is "black and
white"
forum, but I warmly suggest that you try to find it. By the way : are
you a
teacher ?

Cheers,

Boris