EvC Forum: Criticizing neo-Darwinism

I think I found out how Gould misused Nietzsche. I finally understood that Gould wanted to invoke Nietzche so that he could have a different and supposed by him better thought than J. Huxley. My grandfather always said that if someone thought they could get by with minimal activity under a high status quo they were wrong. Waddington earlier marked out the problem with Neo-D as one with only one common environment. The problem OF INTERPRETATION (and Percy’s etc . ) seems to be as when you as an organism, can react back and change the environment itself.

Below is the general outline of a page I am working on on “vicariant time”, it may help to explain some of Percy’s comments.

quote:
Is Macrothermodynamic rejuvenization the mechanism of vicariance and explanation of stasis as data within the width of a Croizat track?

I will focus on three things. The shape phenomenological thermodyanmics imparts to a relation of ontogeny and phylogeny. Gould’s change in emphasis on punctuated equilibrium from the 1970s to the 2000s and the logic of Panbiogeography as it moved from strictly within the work of Leon Croizat to its current globalization. It will be subtly important to heed the rule that Immanual Kant had lectured on, back in about 1800, “With respect to the enlargement and demarcation of our knowledge, the following rules are to be recommended: -
1*. To Determine our horizon early, but yet not until we can determine it ourselves, which usually is not before the age of twenty.
2*. Not to change it easily and often (not to pass from one to another).
3*. Not to measure the horizon of others by our own, and not to regard that as useless which is not useful to us; it would be unreasonable to which to determine the horizon of others, since we do not sufficiently know either their capacities or their purposes.
4*. Neither to extend it too much, nor to limit it too much. For he who wants to know too much, in the end knows nothing; and on the other hand, he who thinks of some things that they do not concern him, often deceives himself; as for example, if the philosopher supposed that he could dispense with a knowledge of history.
5*. To determine previously the absolute horizon of the whole of the human race (in past and future times), and in particular
6*. To determine the place that our science takes in the horizon of all knowledge. [210] For this an Encyclopedia of science is serviceable, as a kind of map of the world of the sciences.
7*. In determining one’s own horizon, to examine carefully for what branch of knowledge one has the most ability and inclincation; what is more or less necessary in reference to certain duties, what is not compatible with necessary duties.
Lastly, 8*. To try always rather to enlarge our horizon than to narrow it.

Does supramolecular information restrain vicariant form-making as an evolutionary constraint?

4.4 Vicariant Form- making and Evolutionary Constraints (Grehan, Craw and Heads)

“Vicariant patterns of spatial differentiation impose biogeographical constraints on the process of evolution. One implication o the reality of vicariant form-making to understanding evolution is that we must consider the possibility of processes that will allow an ancestor to change form over a wide geographic range and not at some specific point or center of origin. These processes will be more than an external influence such as natural selection because the evolutionary differeentiationa dn diversification has proceeded in the face of many different environements. Characters and taxa are not randomly distributed, but comprise main massingss of characters for individual taxa and spatial relationships shared by unrelated taxa in the form of standard or generalizaed tracks. These patterns suggest that biological significance of biogeographic constraints is not limited to the effects of local ecology on the fitness of individual populations. Biogeographic constraints imply a more general process of biological evolution involving mechanisms that are a consequence of biological processes that have been variously identified in evolutionary biology as morphological, biological, developmental , or phylogenetic constraints.”

Does the quantification of macrothermodynmaics qualify to aggregate main massings of characters via downward causation from higher levels?? What is this system that unites these processes into a mechanism. Is it substance stability??

Gould has revealed in one sentence a potential prejudice in the organon of his own instruction. Page 884-5

“In summary, then, the assertion of predominant stasis in the geological history of most paleospecies - one of th two primary claims of punctuated equilibrium - has provoked an interesting debate in evolutionary theory, with implications for some of the most basic concepts and perspectives in our science. First, and if only as a comment about the contemporary sociology of science, the recognition of stasis as a norm of controlling relative frequency at the level of punctuated equilibrium (at least for conventional sexual species of Metzoa), has spurred general interest in phenomena of stability and non-change throughout other levels of evolutionary inquiry (see, for example Maynard Smith, 1983). We do not yet know ( see fuller discussion on pp.928 - 931) whether or rather how much, stasis across all scales might be attributed to structural similarity in nature’s materials and processes - thus rendering this common pattern as an interesting parallelism (to use our evolutionary jargon) with genuinely homologous causal elements across scales, rather than a fortuitous convergence of similar overt patterns for disparate and merely analogous reasons. But we stand at the threshold of such an inquiry.

Second, and even more generally, the validation of predominant stasis as a norm would impel us to recast the basic problematic of evolution itself. If, following our conventional assumptions from Darwin to now, change represents the norm for a population through time, then our task, as evolutionary biologists, lies in specifying how this expected and universal phenomenon operates. But if, as punctuated equilibrium suggests, stasis represents the norm for most populations at most times; and if, moreover, stasis emerges as an active norm, not merely a passive consequence (as modeling of Jackons and Cheetham, 1995, strongly suggests in documenting stasis at too high a relative frequency for models based on neutralism, directional selection, or any set of assumptions that do not include some active force promoting stasis directly) - then evolutionary change itself must be reconceptualized as the infrequent breaking of a conventional and expected state, rather than as an inherent and continually operating property of biological materials, ecologies and populations.”

Gould’s linguistics does not seem to phenomenalize the case that evolutionary change itself can be both a relatively infrequent breaking of a conventionally expected state and a continually operating property of biological reality because he uses the notion of parallel or orthogonal biological jargon at the place that proximate space consists of differences in association, commutativity, and distribution instead.

Well back in the 70s, Georgi Gladyshev began publishing his polymer chemistry analogy as a model for evolutionary change in general. Since then the idea has become significantly qualified. In 2004, Dr. Gladyshev wrote,’The substantiation of the thermodynamic model of biological evolution (phylogenesis) and aging (ontogenesis) becomes possible due to the discovery of the law of temporary hierarchies and due to the development of basic ideas of the hierarchic thermodynamics. The selection (identification) of the quasi-closed thermodynamic and kinetic systems I the living world^4 allows one to study the biological evolution (on all hierarchic levels) and organisms againg which take into account the principle of minimization of the specific value of Gibbs(Helmholtz) function.”

He gave a the description of his proposal quite extensive intensional detail, with (2004 p11) “The processes in the examined system resemble (model) the phenomenon of metabolism in the living system. This system (as a non-stationary one) is gradually transformed, becoming enriched with thermodynamically stable supramolecular structures. The latter are formed with predominant participation of chemically energy - intensive substances delivered to the system or formed in it ( as a result of a number of thermodynamically advantageous chemical reactions). The energy - intensive substances that accumulate in the system can, in principle, include various nucleotides, complex peptides and sugars, lipids, and some others. The chemical equilibrium constants of the formation of such compounds (e.g. from lower molecular substances reaching the system from solution) are usually quite small. However, this is not an obstacle to the accumulation of these substances in the system: sorbtion processes remove them from the “reaction zone” causing a shift of chemical equilibrium towards the formation of these compounds. Thus, “removing” the formed (as a result of chemical transformations) components from the reaction zone, thermodynamics of supramolecular interactions promotes a shift of non-advantageous chemical processes towards the formation of the reaction products mentioned above. When individual supramolecular structures are isolated, chromatin-type structures may , in principle, be formed due to the emergence of primitive membranes and other, complex supramolecular formations. These structures should remain in the system for a long enough period due to the high supramolecular stability.

It is evident that the more stable a supramolecular structure, the longer it can survive in a system where metabolism takes place. Indeed nucleic acids (chromatin) form the most stale supramolecular structures in living organisms. This makes it possible to retain the genetic information accumulated in the course of evolution for a long time, passing it on through inheritance.”

In extension GG said,
And in PRKM p 167 . (This example may help the reader believe in the effectiveness of the thermodynamic theory when ascertaining the direction of the evolution and development of living organisms)These products add”young chemical matter” to the biotissues, “building material” that corresponds to the xomposition of a young organism. In thermodynamic terms (and in thelight of known facts) , this rejuvenates the organism’s tissues. This is easy to see having analyzed the approximate equation - an analogue of Gibbs -Helmholtz .

On the whole Macrothermodynamics (supply quote from into to PRKM”The existence of different time scales in the world of biological matter prompts ome conclusions on the interdependent . The prefix macro - in the term “Macrothermodynamics . ) results in an expected state of a relative slowing down of evolutionary change as a continually operating propery of biomaterials. If the aggregation process implicated conforms to panbiogeographic main massings within the width of standard track whatever the time scale then phenomenological thermodynamics (provide def from PRKM etc) can supply the discipline that synthesizes a hierarchic homology of translation in space and form making as both a mechanism of vicariance and explanation of stasis “as data”. As Zaraguata and and Cao code, the extraction of hierarchic homology where Gould asks of parallels is possible in geography delimiting the time frames that Gladyshev law operates. This (extra to be programmed row) was drawn by me here, in a prior time.

Macrokinetics (Gladyshev) provides a framework to explore the full analysis of Z Z and C’s homologue symbol at Gould’s narration of orthogoncal and parallel no matter other data matrices””used in the work. The homologues become subject to massings of energy intensity aggregated. If the patterns of aggregations match biogeographic divisions vicariance, stasis, and the hierachic expansion of evolutionary theory may all survive with the same effect of the 1st 2nd laws of thermo and Gladyshev’s law. The difference of the symbol and homologue then needs its own atomic logic while Gould’s logic is shown to be overly divisive by using a partition wrongly instead of quantum mechanics.

===================Partition=======================
After discussing order for free Gould writes,p1214 “ A Darwinian can argue that flexibility linked to future capacity for change arises exaptlively as a lucky consequence of features actively evolved for immediate organismic advantage. But such capacities can also evolve by direct selection, at a higher level, for species- individuals who win differential reproductive success by their propensity for living though external cries that consign closely related species-individuals to extinction.

But his two sentences here which were one in an earlier part of the book may reflect less an ability to relate Neitche to components (quote p 1217 “The whole history of a “thing”, an organ, a tradition can to this extent be a continuous chain of signs, continually reveaing new interpretations and adaptations, the causes of which need not be connected even amonst themselves, but rather sometimes just follow and replace one another at random. The “development” of a thing, a tradition, an organ is therefore certainly not a progressus towards a goal, still less is it a logical progressus , taking the shortest route with least expenditure of energy and cost, . ) but more the failure to have any available computer presentation of homologues as parts of individuals. The MST (via higher order vertex structure) may indeed help to create algorithms and encodings that find semophrant phsysiology in hierarchic order Gould only attributed to the difference of aptation, exaptation and adaptation (in two senses). Thus by stressing logic where causality was Gould may have missordinated the notion of “relative frequency” plausibly.

Show that this if fully compatible with Wright’s shifting balance and that Gould misused Mayr’s notion of speciation while Mayr insisted that bean bag genetics could not help out natural history. This would be thus wrong. There seems to be nothing at odds with Huxkly’s saying of “going into new areas and new substances” . ”The major processes in evolution thus consist essentially in a greater extension of life’s activities into new areas and into new substances; in a greater intensity of exploitation; and in a progressive increase of life’s control over and independence of the environment. Superimposed upon these processes, and having little or no bearing upon them, are the processes of species-formation we have just described which are the comsequences of accidents in the environment or in the genetic machinery of life. Much of the minor systematic diversity to be observed in nature is irrelevant to the main course of evolution, a mere frill of variety superimposed upon its broad pattern. We may thus say that, while it is inevitable that life should be divided up into species, and that the borad proceeses of evolution should operate with species as units of organization, the number which thus necessitated is far less than the number which actually exist. Species-formation constitutes one aspect of evolution; but a large fraction of it is in a sense an accident, a biological luxury, without bearing upon the major and continuing trends of the evolutionary process.’(page 389 the modern evolutionary synthesis

Grehan, Heads and Craw wrote page 100, “Evoltutionary biologists refer regularly to taxa at all levels as having descended from asingle, common progenitor and to allied species and genera as descending from the same parent or parent form. Thus, species and other natural taxa are regarded a the descendants of initially uniform, undifferentiated, and local populations, entities, or even single individuals. A classic example is Darwin’s (1859) proposal that the ancestor a s species endemic to isolated islands was either a fertile individual or a viable seed. Mayr’s (1942) concept of speciation begins explicity with uniform species that differentiate into subspecies, with subsequent differentiation of each of these into new species,and this idea is still current in biology(Heads 1985).

An alternative notion of ancestors was proposed by Rosa (1918), who maintained the species label but postulated that differentiation, as visible phenotypic differences, had already occurred before the appearance of descendent taxa.”

Mendel wrote, “systematics of peas . .”Their systematic classification is difficult and uncertain. If we adopt the strictest definition of a species, according to which only those individuals belong to a species which under precisely the same circumstances display precisely similar characters, no two of these varities could be referred to one species. According to the opinion of experts however, the majority belong to the species Pisum sativum; while the rest are regarded and classed, some as sub-species of P. sativum, and some as independent species, such as P. quadratum, P. Saccharatum, and P. umbellatum. The positions however, which may be assigned to them in a classificatory system are quite immaterial for the purposes of the experiments in question, It has so far been found to be just as impossible to draw a sharp line between hybrids of species and varities as between species and varities themselvels.”p3-4 “Plant- Hybridisation.

Accordingly we are reaching the time in the extension of evolutionary thought where the taxanomic considerations (naming) ARE NOT independent of the new material of the experiments and theory. The extent to which Gould’s structure of evolutionary theory bounds this limitation of observational vs theoretical biology(note this division of pure and applied biology is different than what happens in physics where one has experimental(observational) and theoretical physics instead) is how Mayr could both object to my numeration(1987 personal observation) and Gould’s lack of population study for higher level considerations.

This is revealed in Gould’s distancing his own contribution away from Lerner’s concept of Genetic Homeostasis. Lerner had said,(Lerner (1950) applied the term genetic homeostasis to the tendency of a population to maintain a genetic composition leading to an optiumum balance, a definition which appears to be equivalent to the genetic inertia . conceptually visualized

Gladshev on Mendel

What is required is to show how species move into the new area of Panbiogeography and the new substance of macrothermodyanmics and how this is not in any contradication to Wright’s position on a shifting balance. We find that lack of advance in theortical biology of taxogeny despite the continued employmtent of taxomy is a consequence of a failure to teach Wright’s conscription and simply visualize the difference of adaptive landscapes built from gene combinations in individuals vs gene frequency in populations. This was due to theoretical difficulty of working out linearly continuous motion in a discontinuous space and explains why Lewontin’s desire to see theortical biology explode since the 60s failed. Physics did not need this development because it simply tries to work with non-linearity directly but this can not help obviously the need to separate population thinking of the dominant relative frequency and gene combinations geometrically visuzlized in a organism that Huxley demoted to of limited potential progress. Nietche does not help here either again. Wittegenstein’s influence on Russell is enough to recognize that Gould will not even in death enable the differenceof “progressus toward a goal and logical progresuus” as said by Neithche at the biomechanical efficency gains of Huxley to any of HIS progress modified because with thermodynamics we are considering electrolytics (post-electrotonics), eletrodybnamics, causes of point mutations and mechanics (quantum or relativistic or Newtonian) as well in Russell entire thought on matter dividing Neitche’s contingency with every difference in variation found by natural philosophy experients after Morganites style no matter the taste of the day .

Logical in-circuit development results( use Russell atomic logic in Panbiogeography to the divisions of circiuit of spontaneous energy of Gladyshev in Croizat’s method . Nietchse did not distinguish Gladyshv’s law from 1st and 2nd laws of thermo thus he lumped organ with tradition no matter the sign vehicle of Woodger’s functor of Russell’s development of logic. He probably simply used lazzie fair ideas. We need a new use of economics in biology and the use of evolutionary knowledge to inform ecosystem engineering to avoid the building before thematierals are available in the plurivaocal wrongess of theowords so far.

+++++++++++++++++++++end partiion+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The trick is to find away to disagree with Bertrand Russell while he thinks that Frege showed logically that Kant was wrong about 7+5 =12 *BEING* synthetic but agree with him to a logic of contradiction that Cantor shewed Kant’s “antinomies of infinity” to be disposed of. This has to do with traits being either semophorants, holomorphs or OTUs(operational taxanomic units)WHILE WE STILL DO NOT HAVE computer programs able to extract synthetic hierarchic information on evolutionary individuals in a post-NE0-Darwinian biology. Philosophers at Cornell simply say that the synthetic a priori does not exist. They charge this interpretation against transcendental idealism they experience differently.

3 online now:	LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0