Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Decisionmakers
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 13 (14548)
07-31-2002 4:08 AM


Supposing as Gould says, that if time was wound back, and evolution started over, that evolution would turn out differently.
What sort of events then are the decisionmakers in evolution that "choose" in effect an evolutionary course?
What are the random operators on this planet that can influence reproductive units most greatly? (random here being understood as events which per definition can turn out one way or another)
- randomness of wheather
- randomness arising from competition among reproductive units (not competition in the Darwinist variational competition sense, since the outcome is theoretically always the same there)
- nervous systems of many organisms
- general randomness in everything
- randomness of mutation
So what are the decisionmakers on earth, besides people, and how much influence does this cloud of randomness have over reproductive units? What things are relatively certain to happen, and what things are more "chosen" from a range of options which all have varying degrees of uncertainty to happen?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 07-31-2002 8:08 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 13 (14553)
07-31-2002 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
07-31-2002 4:08 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Supposing as Gould says, that if time was wound back, and evolution started over, that evolution would turn out differently.
What sort of events then are the decisionmakers in evolution that "choose" in effect an evolutionary course?[/quote]
JM: The same ones that happened before. The timing and sequence might be different and thus produce different organisms.
quote:
What are the random operators on this planet that can influence reproductive units most greatly? (random here being understood as events which per definition can turn out one way or another)
- randomness of wheather
JM: Weather is not important at all. Climate is, but weather is limited in modifying populations to a significant degree.
quote:
- randomness arising from competition among reproductive units (not competition in the Darwinist variational competition sense, since the outcome is theoretically always the same there)
JM: ??? Makes no sense. If you have different organisms and different external forcing factors, then you will have different competition.
quote:
- nervous systems of many organisms
JM: These might be different.
quote:
- general randomness in everything
JM: Why is EVERYTHING random? I don't get this. The fact that gravity causes an object to accelerate towards the center of mass is not random. The asteroid that hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs was random, but was acted upon by a non-random force. The effects of that asteroid impact on living organisms was critical to your being able to argue against evolution!
quote:
- randomness of mutation
JM: Yes, this is an important factor.
quote:
So what are the decisionmakers on earth, besides people, and how much influence does this cloud of randomness have over reproductive units? What things are relatively certain to happen, and what things are more "chosen" from a range of options which all have varying degrees of uncertainty to happen?
JM: Huh? There are no 'decision makers'. Gravity did not choose that asteroid to hit Yucatan, nor did the asteroid 'choose' to enter the pull of Earth's gravity. It's relatively certain that you will cease to exist one day. If you produce offspring (naturally), then it is certain that they will be different from both you and the mother though many traits you will have in common. It is relatively certain that your offsprint will cease to exist one day and if they have children...
Basically, you are asking the impossible question that goes like this: Suppose we started over, what would be here today? Can't answer it with specifics, but think about what might have happened if the asteroid missed the Earth 65 million years ago? Think about if the large Siberian traps volcanism did not occur 230 million years ago. Think about what the consequences of an extremely cold climate during the 800-580 million years ago period.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 07-31-2002 4:08 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Syamsu, posted 07-31-2002 9:31 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 3 of 13 (14556)
07-31-2002 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joe Meert
07-31-2002 8:08 AM


I mean when the exactsame organisms go for the exactsame resources, then that might create situations in which it's random which organism gets the resource. It would be like flipping a perfect coin.
In Darwinist variational competition the fitter always gets the resources, so there is no randomness there, or at least the theory doesn't describe in terms of randomness.
Actually the movement of planets around the sun are known to be random within some limits, so I expect an asteroid to behave random as well, within limits.
As far as I know you can't get away from using words such as determination or choice over options or outcomes, to describe *any* event that goes one way or another. If you would not use those words then your description would be likely just the same as descriptions of cause and effect.
I am not asking what would be different, I'm asking what sort of events would decide that difference.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 07-31-2002 8:08 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 07-31-2002 9:50 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 07-31-2002 12:06 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 13 (14560)
07-31-2002 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Syamsu
07-31-2002 9:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]I mean when the exactsame organisms go for the exactsame resources, then that might create situations in which it's random which organism gets the resource. It would be like flipping a perfect coin.[/QUOTE]
Except that there is no such population in nature.
No creature in nature is EXACTLY the same as another. Variation within individuals is obvious. Your example is meaningless because it doesn't apply to how things work in reality.
quote:
In Darwinist variational competition the fitter always gets the resources, so there is no randomness there, or at least the theory doesn't describe in terms of randomness.
NO!
You are forgetting that it's the ENVIRONMENT that decides which traits to favor, and the environment might favor one trait today, and then another 100 years from now.
Seletion by the environmant is exactly the opposite of randomness.
Actually the movement of planets around the sun are known to be random within some limits, so I expect an asteroid to behave random as well, within limits.[/QUOTE]
Um, what? Cite a source, please.
quote:
As far as I know you can't get away from using words such as determination or choice over options or outcomes, to describe *any* event that goes one way or another. If you would not use those words then your description would be likely just the same as descriptions of cause and effect.
I am not asking what would be different, I'm asking what sort of events would decide that difference.
Different environmental pressures would favor different traits, so different evolutionary outcomes would emerge.
Think selective breeding in domestic animals, except that the environment isn't "choosing". The environment just "is".
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Syamsu, posted 07-31-2002 9:31 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 07-31-2002 12:33 PM nator has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 5 of 13 (14573)
07-31-2002 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Syamsu
07-31-2002 9:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

In Darwinist variational competition the fitter always gets the resources, so there is no randomness there, or at least the theory doesn't describe in terms of randomness.

The emergence of traits that are beneficial within an environment
is considered to be random in the sense that mutations cannot
be predicted in advance.
If different mutations occur, different traits may or may not
be selected for than those seen today.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

As far as I know you can't get away from using words such as determination or choice over options or outcomes, to describe *any* event that goes one way or another. If you would not use those words then your description would be likely just the same as descriptions of cause and effect.
I am not asking what would be different, I'm asking what sort of events would decide that difference.

I think the term decision maker was interpreted as an intelligent
decision making force, rather than just a deciding factor with no
in herent intelligence.
The factors that would make a difference are those which are basic
to the ToE ... mutations happen at random, some are selected for
due to environmental pressures, some are selected against also
due to environmental pressures, and some are niether selected nor
de-selected because they provide no net gain or loss in fitness.
Any environmental factor can affect the outcome of selection,
but the material to work on is random mutation.
This means that starting all over would likley produce different
outcomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Syamsu, posted 07-31-2002 9:31 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 13 (14574)
07-31-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
07-31-2002 9:50 AM


As if I hadn't realised there wasn't variation, thank you for reminding me of the totally obvious. When there is variation it would most likely work against randomness, I guess. But still they are much the same, and this similarity would theoretically give rise to random events in using resources.
That is what I was saying Darwinist variational competition is non-random, the opposite of random.
About planets being random, is what someone told me on talk.origins. There are supposed to be lots of situations in which quantum theory predicts several possible outcomes, so by a quick look in the books you should find lots of reference quantum theory predicting several possible outcomes, if not with this particular example of planets.
If someone made a computerprogram to simulate reproductive units, then at which points in the program is the call to the computer's random function supposed to be made?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 07-31-2002 9:50 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-31-2002 1:26 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 13 (14578)
07-31-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
07-31-2002 12:33 PM


I consider that randomness is an important factor in the first step of selection, which is the source of variation. Starting from gamete formation we can build a step-by-step reconstruction of variation and
selection (in sexually reproducing organisms)
mutation
[random-limitless]
meiosis 1: crossing-over of chromosomes
[random-limited]
meiosis 2: reduction division, haploidy
[random-limited]
mate choice (sexual selection)
[nonrandom]
fertilization
[random-limited]
development
[nonrandom]
survival in 'normal' situations
[nonrandom]
survival from catastrophes
[random-limitless]
Maybe the model needs some more elaboration
PS: it is great to see Syamsu reading Gould now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 07-31-2002 12:33 PM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 1:02 PM Andya Primanda has replied

  
mopsveldmuis
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 13 (17612)
09-17-2002 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Andya Primanda
07-31-2002 1:26 PM


Yes, mutations might be random without limit, but it is often fatal or detramental and it doesn't add any information to the system, but in stead leads to a loss of information. The same is true about selection - the information present in the species that don't survive is lost, but nothing is added to those that survive.
With this in mind, where does the variety come from that we see today, if we are all supposed to have a common ancestor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-31-2002 1:26 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 09-18-2002 2:13 AM mopsveldmuis has not replied
 Message 10 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-18-2002 3:15 AM mopsveldmuis has not replied
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 09-18-2002 4:56 AM mopsveldmuis has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 13 (17643)
09-18-2002 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mopsveldmuis
09-17-2002 1:02 PM


mops...: If you're so certain about your assertions concerning mutation and information, why not start a new topic rather than derail this one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 1:02 PM mopsveldmuis has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 13 (17645)
09-18-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mopsveldmuis
09-17-2002 1:02 PM


Mopsveldmuis, try looking at the thread 'Natural Selection Forced Complexity to Increase" in Origin of Life. Some models predicted an information increase / entropy decrease within the genome if its fate is left at the hands of natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 1:02 PM mopsveldmuis has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 11 of 13 (17655)
09-18-2002 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mopsveldmuis
09-17-2002 1:02 PM


Do you gain or loose information by finding out that
a particular direction is not the way to go?
I think information is a poor analogy in the context
of evolution in any case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 1:02 PM mopsveldmuis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2002 7:59 PM Peter has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 13 (17740)
09-18-2002 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peter
09-18-2002 4:56 AM


I would say we could gain if we kept it all spread before us. I tend to think that the west mangaed to color between the lines and obscured some of the old reality, this readin is clearly difficult for any but me to re-tease in or out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 09-18-2002 4:56 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 09-23-2002 3:51 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 13 of 13 (17995)
09-23-2002 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brad McFall
09-18-2002 7:59 PM


If you mean that western conceptualisations are too
compartmenatalised, then I agree. It is a confining
framework.
Labelling something as information is broad, but to the
western mind a label has to refer to a narrow concept.
I think a distinction between information and data has been
missed in the reasoning behind the information arguments
in the context of EvC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2002 7:59 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024