Re: ecological complexity

John J. Kineman (jjk@NGDC.NOAA.GOV)
Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:56:43 -0600


Thanks Alexei, this is very helpful!! And I think, although my descriptions
are less precise, there are considerable overlaps with what I'm also trying
to say. These statements of yours seem very clear. Do you also consider the
possibility of introduction of variability as "innovation" at the
phenotypic level, and to what extent are the hierarchical levels also
mechanical? I think they are both and would specifically name free-will as
an independent factor.

At 11:04 AM 9/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Mario Vaneechoutte wrote:
>>Well, this puts thing on their heads! The population does not probe
anything,
>> I'd
>>say.When you have variation on a theme, then none, one, some or all of the
>>variations will be able to exist in a certain environment (which contains
the
>> other
>>variations as well of course). Whether we call this a seive or not, it is
what
>>selection is about in general (natural or not). I find it truly confusing
and
>> even
>>erroneous to say that there is a population which probes the environment and
>> which
>>selects. Selection is something which is the result of having certain
>> environmental
>>conditions and variations on a theme with possibly different 'viability' in
>that
>>environment.
>>There is no 'which SHOULD reproduce or not'. Those that could reproduce are
>> still
>>here, that's all.
>
>Darwin suggested considering heredity, variation, and selection as
>3 seperate processes that together end up in biological evolution.
>For didactical purposes it may be convenient to separate these
>3 processes but in fact they are 3 different views on the same process.
>You cannot define fitness without considering heredity. If an elephant
>gives birth to a fish, there is no fitness and no natural selection.
>All what you said is a good simplification which is nice for teaching
>evolution at college. But it does not capture deeper layers. If you
>define fitness as the mean number of offsprings per parent you will
>soon discover that this fitness is not always maximized in evolution.
>People try to handle it by inventing various patches because they
>cannot leave the familiar dogma that heredity and selection are
>separated processes.
>
>Death is not defined by physical conditions because there are
>various ways to live. In a way, death is optional. An organism
>dies only if it could not find a good option of how to live.
>
>>Possible, all kind of books have been written. But this is not the standard
>view
>> of
>>biology and there are good reasons. (See Evolution by M. Ridley as cited
in the
>>language article (see below): Group selection can occur, but is limited and
>> mostly
>>to weak to overwhelm natural selection.
>
>Standard view is not always the best one... Most of the critique
>of group selection is based on misunderstanding. Models of
>Maynard Smith consider temporary groups that are only partially
>isolated. It is obvious that group selection is not very effective
>if groups are not well isolated. However, species are very well
>isolated and group selection at the level of species is a normal
>thing.
>
>Also, there is a false idea that any adaptation should be
>either an individual adaptation or a group adaptation. Most biological
>processes have their effect on multiple hierarchical levels. Thus,
>they have meaning at several levels. Dawkins says that if we can
>"explain" some adaptation by individual selection there is no sense
>to look at group selection. This is stupid, because any individual
>adaptation may have additional effects on higher hierarchical levels
>and at longer time scales.
>
>>I would be the first to say that natural selection has limited
applicability.
>> E.g.
>>I' d say that the origin of life cannot be explained by NS, while the
standard
>> view
>>is that of the RNA-world whereby 'self replicating' molecules undergo
natural
>>selection, because of differential reproduction rate (which by the way is
not
>> the
>>same as differential survival rate: survival is unimportant in biology,
>> reproduction
>>is). Also selection comes only after variation has been 'created', through
>> mutation
>>and recombination (through symbiosis, sexual (bilinear) recombination or
>> cultural
>>(multilinear) recombination). A lot of evolution can be explained through
the
>>absence of selective constraints, e.g. when a new building plan comes into
>being
>>like was the case for animal multicellularity: at that moment any variation
>goes
>>because there is nothing like it and the niche is empty. This empty niche,
>> always
>>open for more complex organisms may explain why evolution almost inevitably
>> leads to
>>more complexity: there is always room for more complex organisation.
Evolution
>> is
>>open ended towards more complexity, (more complex organisms initially
have no
>>competitors).
>
>This sounds close to what I think.
>When we found that some theory does not work reliably in all
>areas we have 2 options: (1) delimit the area where the theory
>seems to work more-or-less satisfactory, and invent patches for
>those areas where it does not work, or (2) modify the theory so
>that it will work well in a much wider range of situations.
>Traditional Darwinism (including Dawkins and Gould) use the first
>option. Some people including me use the second one.
>
>>I'd hesitate to call mutation freedom, since it is deterministic, but still
>then
>>this has a different connotation than free will.
>
>Why mutation is deterministic?
>
>-Alexei
>-------------------------------------------------
>Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
>Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
>Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
>Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html
>
>
----------------------------------------------
Appreciatively,

John J. Kineman
Bear Mountain Institute
1101 Bison Dr.
Boulder, CO 80302
BMI@bayside.net
http://www.bayside.net/NPO/BMI