Evolution Simplified

How do you know that the (thermodynamic -entropic) environment ITSELF (thermostat etc evcref by BSM) has not changed?You said,

quote:

---

that have happened to the original message have meant that the body that is built is better at competing within the environment it finds itself in than the first replicators

---

(italics added). Is not whatever anyone can ever guess what a "replicator" environment is or was was or is, is it not "thermodynamic"?Why would not Gladyshev's thermostat, apply as the non-extra factor here? macrothermodynamics make it possible to elucidate the causes of ... system under study) because it is located in the thermostat of a higher hierarchic level ...
see also
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/hierar/hierar.htm
Error 404 | University of Toronto Libraries
http://www.endeav.org/persons/gladysh.htm

I do not think that these are independent. I think
Gould’s p505(”Structure of Evolutionary Theory’), “I prefer to view the history of the Synthesis under a different rubric and terminology developed by historian of science Will Provine and by myself - namely, (1) restriction followed by (2) hardening, with the first process viewed as largely admirable, the second as mostly dubious” continues a simple independence of events, I hold are not.It is my thesis to proof that this view is illegit. The cause of this expansion of Will’s notion of “constriction” conceptually resulted from a faulty notion of the causality among levels of organization and levels of selection in the late 20th century infusion of philosophy into biology, generally accrued to Gould that the relations ARE NOT one of potential. Instead Gould feltp 680 “Each hierarchical level differs from all others in substantial and interesting ways, both in the style and frequency of patterns of change and causal modes”The advance of Wolfram’s new science experimentally is directed in a way against this notion of allometric factorability (of Gould) as there can be rule base choices with fractal structures across units of extrapolation (over many orders of magnitude). It is the thesis that this approach of experminetal philosophy of Wolfram can uncover an underlying continuity across levels that IS one of potential but has been missed because the physics of this kind of continula motion in a discontinuous space is not well worked out. Furthermore I will show that theoretical population genetics has failed to expand in to the sturucture that Gould calls for renaming to which a new population approach based on fusing the continuity of hieratrichal thermodynamic differential equations through econometric approaches to Wright’s path analysis (Shipley) in the temporal regions of Croizat’s hierarchically adaptable method of Panbiogeography (via graphs and higher order vertice sets) accounted for in Cantor’s series of real number groupings provides a potential function in the sense of Lebesuque’s collections which falsifies the conceptual advance Gould propounded by continued deductive application of the four-figure subtility WITHIN a given bioloigically causal hierarchy. This will forwarn against Wolfram’s programme in biology and provide a deductive basis for determining if genetic life originated in one or more places. Othogonality is captured in algebra where geometry was only formely marshelled. The possibility of a rich “tapestry” of cross level individuations remains but is bound to a definite topology that catastrophe theory describes. The full failure to appreciate this has been the failure to return Wittgenstien back to Mach and answer Faraday’s question without restricting it to a field theory or some thought of Helmhotlz.Thus I do find that contrary Gould one might purse an orbital evolutionary theory. I don’t mind going down in history following this direction. What will be quite spectacular is if I am correct and there is a general failure of rear-guard evolutionism recognized as well by creationists and a tragic one that prevented me from gainig a hearing in the normal way. Gould said,

quote:

---

Bateson presents an even more striking contrast in later passages of the same book, when he develops an image of a great , if undoable, thought experiment - the perfectly controlled account of evolution under uniform conditions, unbuffeted by any of the Darwianian externalities that make real results so untidy and unpredicatable; “No one disputes that the adaptation of organisms to their surroundings is one of the greatest problems of nature, but it is not the primary problem of descent. Moreover, until the normal and undisturbed course of descent under uniform conditions is ascertained with some exactness, it is useless to attempt a survey of the consequences of external interference” (1913, p187).

​

I am somehow stunned by this structuralist audacity in branding the functionalist panoply as mere “external interference” - and of imagining a a formalist internal order so set and predictable as planetary orbits, if only we could remove all these pesky environmental influences. The impetus and sine qua non of change for Darwin becomes , for Bateson, a mere disturbance that sullies an otherwise lovely experiment.

---

Here are my raw notes on the unique theoretical aspects that need work for the work to go forward

Yep, confusing indeed. It gets just as confusing when one reads non-EVC literature too. Ya know, I found this particularly frustrating but after I found out what people in New Zealand were writing about biology, and it was all in English, I just dismissed most of these confusion comaparisons as academic. Maybe that is why I never got on at Cornell not that I was psychologically disposed to do so. Anyway..This difference you were able to get a good sequence of discussion on, shows how important it is to think about a single "generation" when discussing the relation of form-making and translation in space to "mutations" of any polyvocal crack er,, at it...Before the force of Crick's DNA was around, Weismann, thinking through selection selectively on more than one level had thought that any form changes had to come "molecularly" from without, outside the organism. It has always been an academic point with me why molecular biologists (not organacists) have not since WWII tried to group mutations acros one or a determinate number of generations into physically caused classes that in effect might be statistically tested for seperability in... Maybe a particular lineage or monophyla has a group of mutations caused by photons in divided phases, another a group by subatomic particles, another by human electricity, another by a comination of macro-physical troque combined with circular chemcial rxn networks, another by a quantum mechanical difference in the energy levels of the ad hoc chemicals in the larger clade the monophyla is in. These particulars are not mutually exclusive.Instead because of the differnt affects on thoughts about levels of selection and levels of organization one can find (in Science vol 312 May 5, 2006 on sexual selection) an example which makes your point.J Stewart responding to Roughgarden et. al said,

quote:

---

"Choices could also be made by females in this manner: for example, a chemical push evolved in female lions that causes them to prefer male lions with darker manes. Whether this push results in better genetics for lions is irrelevant. Once females mate and have a litter, another set of chemical signals takes over that pushes her to take care of her offspring rather than abandon them. In other species, there is no chemcial push, so femalses abandon their offspring and survive on their own."

---

Here Stewart DID seperate mutations in prior generations ("whether this push results in better genetics for lions is irrelevant") from the divided push chemcial system that manifests itself AFTER some mutation (push better manes, push parental care) but Stewart and no one I know of then tries to say if this chemical push category itself cannot itself have a biophysical reduction of a group of physical "agents" that cause just this push not the "pull" in any other spieces with a better genetics or not!! Roughgarden et. al. point out the problem in general with Stewart was that Stewart thought that Roughgarden et al were talking about SPECIES not individuals but then if we raise the discussion to a "third" level of species selection and individuality the whole discussion gets so very complicated.That is why I find it incumbent on biologists to be as redutionist as possible but this is in material reality not theoretical biology only.