h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

ohhhh and i forgot! yes, Wally, you ARE making sense!

You cannot change your postings here, you can though, edit A26761610, changing the formatting first and then, perhaps, some of the content, as we continue to discuss it here. (You'll see a big "Edit Entry" button on the page.) Also, wherever it belongs, it shouldn't be in PeerReview, so we might ask you to remove it from there: the people at F48874?thread=4568216 will tell you how.

Note that Gnomon, one of our most experienced writers, found good things to say about the Entry. You're new here, so you're not to know, but let me tell you that praise from Gnomon is precious. He knows whereof he speaks. <./>MA151503</.>

Perhaps, some day, a version of this may go back into Peer Review and on into the Edited Guide. For now, though, let's debate the contents and the arguments.

SoRB's critique too may be useful.

(I still haven't managed to read your piece yet, I must admit.)

TRiG.

This could perhaps go into SEx, but not as it now stands. You're right, that does usually just answer short questions. If Wally edits the Entry slightly, to make it more readable, and tightens up some of the grammar and stuff, he could then later post at SEx: not the whole text in a posting: just a posting with a link to the Entry, and a request for comments. But there are enough sciency-minded people around here too, so let's keep it here for now, eh? Forumites are good at tearing apart arguments and examining logic, scientific or political.

(And there are many of the same people here and at SEx anyway.)

TRiG.

A4108330

If someone will tell me how to move this to somewhere more appropriate I would be happy to do so.
Wally

My opinion: it's fine where it is, for now. Do some tidying up at of the Entry (you'll find a big "Edit Entry" button on it somewhere), and I'll read it it. Others have already read it. We'll chat about it a bit and suggest further improvements if we can think of any. And then perhaps it can go somewhere else.

That's my opinion. But this is The Forum, so someone somewhere is bound to disagree.

TRiG.

Thank you. I have gone through the paper and cleaned up the problems you mentionrd, and of course found a few more. Hopefully with a bit more feedback I will find more things to clean up.
wallyn4bz

A handy link to the revised entry: A26761610

regarding post 39, wally:

Amino acids are not alive.

You state that the statement "the major engine of evolution is natural selection" is not logically true. Could you provide a logical argument or logical proof supporting this?

You claim there are more varieties of life on the planet this evening than there were this morning. Could you give as precise a definition as possible to a "variety of life", and offer some evidence or argument as to why there are more tonight than there were this morning?

Lastly, you imply that the current theory of evolution ignores the "creation of variety". I believe this is patently, 100%, incorrect. The engines of variation and mutation are extensively included in the theory of evolution...

You state that the statement "the major engine of evolution is natural selection" is not logically true. Could you provide a logical argument or logical proof supporting this?

What I said was that many scientists explaining evolution state,not always, but oftern, overtly that natural selection is the engine of evolution. This is a misleading statement that is not logically correct since the life began on earth as a few varieties of single-celled beings and has been increasing in variety ever since. That does not reduce the importance of natural selection. Tou are correct, of course, that amino acids are not living things, but their appearance in the world did lead directly to the development of life.

You claim there are more varieties of life on the planet this evening than there were this morning. Could you give as precise a definition as possible to a "variety of life", and offer some evidence or argument as to why there are more tonight than there were this morning?

You are right that I cannot produce proof that that statement is correct. I would have to dig up the reference where I got it and I am not sure I could find it. In fact I just read in The New Republic magazine this morning that the effect of human habitation is causing the disapearance of over 30,000 species every year. However, it is not necessary to be strictly true for the point I am trying to make, and that is that the major thrust of the evolutionary process is to increase the variety of existing thigs on the planet Earth. This becomes even more important if I can make the point that evolution began not with the beginning of life but with the beginning of the universe.

Lastly, you imply that the current theory of evolution ignores the "creation of variety". I believe this is patently, 100%, incorrect. The engines of variation and mutation are extensively included in the theory of evolution

My point is not that the theory of evolution ignores the "creation of variety," only that it places the importance of natural selection above the importance of the "creation of variety."

Trying to explain evolution without natural selection would be like trying to explain the development of inorganic entities without entropy.

From the beginning of the Universe the variety of existing entities has been growing. What I am trying to do is to expand the role of evolution to everything that has devloped or will develop in the universe. However, evolution does not work alone. Some things persist and others do not. This thinning process is accomplished priamarily by entropy in inotganic entities, by natural selection in living things. Finally I am trying to make the point that evolution above the level of man is accomplished through the role of choice and cretivity in man and is regulated by responsibility. In other words responsibility plays the same part in evolution above ther role of man as natural selection plays in living things and entropy plays in inorganic entities.

I am a social pholosopher and the thrust of my life work has been understanding the role of man as a social being in the universe. In the minds of too many people the role of responsibility has been replace by the role of power.

Thank you for your comments, they point out weaknesses in my paper that need to be addressed

Surely the creation of variety & natural selection are interdependent processes of evolution?

I'm interested in the aspect of human involvement in evolution. We are actively affecting evolution, but is that not a natural process in itself as a result of our evolved capabilities?

Surely the creation of variety & natural selection are interdependent processes of evolution?

Absolutly. Just as complex organization and entropy are for inorganic entities and creativity and responsibility are for men.

I'm interested in the aspect of human involvement in evolution. We are actively affecting evolution, but is that not a natural process in itself as a result of our evolved capabilities?

The difference for men is the element of choice. This is not a problem that lower forms have to deal with. Keep in mind that men do not have the option of not choosing and whatever they choose they are responsible for.

The important point which is really beyond this psper but must be dealt with eventually is that what I (and the scientists who developed the concept of complex organization where I got the idea) call hierarchical constraint are the constraints that hold the ingrediants of anything together such that they act as a thing in itself rather than a collection of its ingrediants. In natural systems the result of hierarchical constrain is an increase in possible variety. Replacing this type of constraint with power reults in a decrease in possible variety.

This is taken from a paper I published in 1989 concerning the ideas developed by Niklas Luhmann on the sciology of law.

The substitution of power for congruency communications results In two conflicting mechanisms, both attempting to develop the same normative structures. The problem is that each of these mechanisms Interacts with a different part of the environment and has different goals. As a criterion for normative choice, power communications acts by reducing the alternatives of those subject to the power in order to achieve the goals of the power holder. This reduction of choice results In the elimination of possibilities that might be required for the goals of the subject. It is a major cause of emotional trauma occurring between the legal system and the citizen because the elimination of needed opportunities enhances the effect of simple incongruence. Lack of congruence, on the other hand, means only that the members of the society hold a variety of views concerning the system. For public opinion to become roused against a legal system there must be a congruency of opinions on the incongruency of legal norms. There must be, In other words, a catastrophic change in the pattern of consensus to one which rails against the system. It is a case where the patterns of incongruency become the dominant force, possibly by being twisted out of proportion by the stress of power communications. This is why in non-democratic systems where the primary communication is power rather than congruency great disparities In congruency develop. In other words, more democratic systems change their laws more often but less dramatically than less democratic systems.

If you are interested you will find this paper on my web site at http://www.n4bz.org/law/lulaw0.htm

"What I said was that many scientists explaining evolution state,not always, but oftern, overtly that natural selection is the engine of evolution."

Actually, what you said was "the major engine of evolution is natural selection" which is why I put it in quotes. Anyway, now we're arguing about what scientists say about evolution. You say one thing, I say another. Until one of us provides some evidence we'll just run in circles. Since you're making the controversial claim, I believe the onus is on you.


"[amino acids] appearance in the world did lead directly to the development of life."

That hasn't been established very well yet.


"human habitation is causing the disapearance of over 30,000 species every year. However, it is not necessary to be strictly true for the point"

Umm, how is that *logically* consistent. You're saying evolution occurs, and that we need to talk more about the creation of variety - then you point out that variety is decreasing. I'm sorry, maybe I'm just slow, but I don't follow the logic.


"My point is not that the theory of evolution ignores the "creation of variety," only that it places the importance of natural selection above the importance of the "creation of variety.""

Could you provide examples of where a scientist did this?

"Trying to explain evolution without natural selection would be like trying to explain the development of inorganic entities without entropy."

Could you provide an example of this?


Your whole argument is predicated on the claim that "scientists" aren't explaining evolution correctly. Could you provide examples of these incorrect explanations?


"From the beginning of the Universe the variety of existing entities has been growing."

Yes, when you start at zero, you have only one place to go.


"However, evolution does not work alone. Some things persist and others do not. This thinning process is accomplished priamarily by entropy in inotganic entities, by natural selection in living things. Finally I am trying to make the point that evolution above the level of man is accomplished through the role of choice and cretivity in man and is regulated by responsibility. In other words responsibility plays the same part in evolution above ther role of man as natural selection plays in living things and entropy plays in inorganic entities."

What? You've already stated evolution includes natural selection and mutation. What are you claiming it is missing? Earlier you were just claiming it didn't stress mutation enough.

I don't see how the "thinning process" of inorganic entities is related to anything you've stated so far. You also haven't provided any information or proof of this thinning process, or why entropy causes it. What is "evolution above the level of man"?

That opens up another line of debate. Do we really have free will? Are we just ruled by chemistry - the way our brains function is determined by neurological connections established during our development & through experiences.

Evolution is still 'natural selection' but the criteria have shifted. The characteristics that enable one organism to survive are not the same for another.

I'd say the more aware we as individuals become of the impact of our nature/nurture, and the more capable we are of adjusting our behaviour away from it (either by learning something uncharacteristic, or stopping something predictable) defines the extent - or absence - of our free will. Leaping into a burning building to save someone is pretty deterministic behaviour for any reasonable human being. If I could quit drinking so much and get through Brief History Of Time, that would be something.

Thank you for your tough questions. I takes a bit longer to answer criticisms that reflect on real weaknesses in your arguments.

I would like to attempt a different approach to making the point that a description of evolution that includes the primacy of the development of variety will lead to a better undestanding of the process.

Most descriptions of the process of evoltution assume the existence of life. Of cource this would appear to be a realistic beginning since life is the subject of their discussion. Certainly Darwwin did, Even De Chardin who, in his discussion of "The Phenomonon of Man" began with the development of inorganic entoities called this part of evolution "complexification" to keep it separate from biological evolution.

H. H. Pattee opened the thread that would link biologocal evolution to the development of inorganic entities when in "The Origin of Hierarchical Control" he stated, "The origin of those control constraints that free living matter to evolve along innumerable pathways that non-living matter, following the same detailed laws of motion cannot follow, in other words, although we recognize structural hierarchies in both living and non-living matter, it is the control hierarchy that is the distinguishing characteristic of life:"

The "rule of Evolution" that I proposed says simply that a system far from equilibrium with an excess of energy will move toward the creation of greater varieties of increasing complexity. This is accomplished through the mechanism of complex hierarchical organization. This is not a drive to create variety any more than entropy is a drive to cool off the universe. It is simply an observation statement concerning what we find when we examine the history of the universe.

Keep in mind that the second law of thermodynamics refers to any closed system. That means it applies to the club that falls apart because it does not attract members with new ideas and to the bridge that falls into the river because it has not received the proper maintenance. The advantage of understanding evolution as a force that is the result of the dissipation of excess energy in a system that is far from equilibrium is that it forces us to understand the structure of those things that do not fall apart.

For that we can return to Pattee again who said "What are the central prúoblems about hierarchical systems? First there is the apparent paradox that hierarchical controls both limit and give more freedom at the same time. The constrúaints of the genetic code on ordinary chemistry make possible the diversity of living forms. At the next level, the additional constraints of genetic repressors make possible the integrated development of functional organs and multicellular individuals, At the highest levels of control we know that legal constraints are necessary to establish a free society, and constraints of spelling and syntax are prerequisites for free expression of thought."

Well, that didn't really answer any of the orginal questions. But anyway...

"The "rule of Evolution" that I proposed says simply that a system far from equilibrium with an excess of energy will move toward the creation of greater varieties of increasing complexity. This is accomplished through the mechanism of complex hierarchical organization. This is not a drive to create variety any more than entropy is a drive to cool off the universe. It is simply an observation statement concerning what we find when we examine the history of the universe."

Since this is an observation, can you share the observations supporting it? What systems have you (or others) observed, "far from equilibrium with an excess of energy", which then underwent "the creation of greater varieties of increasing complexity"?


"Keep in mind that the second law of thermodynamics refers to any closed system. That means it applies to the club that falls apart because it does not attract members with new ideas and to the bridge that falls into the river because it has not received the proper maintenance."

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is based on statistical ensembles, and it is a "law" at macroscopic dimensions b/c the variation of those statistics is extremely small when you've collected together Avogadro's number of atoms/molecules. When you have extremely small numbers of atoms/molecules, the "law" is routinely violated in the course of statistical fluxuations. Therefore, in the analogy to the club or bridge, since the numbers are so small, statistical violations would be routinely expected. Can you point to the data/observations which claim to observe the 2nd law applying to small groups of people, and explain how they got around the fluctuation problem?


At the molecular level, many of the evolutionary processes take place quite close to equilibrium - this is, after all, the most energetically efficient place to operate, and evolution has produced some amazingly efficient systems. That would appear to be a prima facie contradiction of your requirement of "excess energy" and a state far from equilibrium. How do you reconcile this?

Evolution wins (again) ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/dna/h2g2/U1540982/ext/_auto/-/http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=237

Morning Fluffykerffuffle.

I hope our first poster wasn't too distressed by his reception.

I have had a few good ( I thought ) 'thread starters' hi-jacked as you described, and even complained about it to those I thought responsible.

A fat lot of good that did me! It was some time before I worked out that the Forum is more like a public bar, than a uni debating chamber, so conversations do drift off topic.

Except certain topics of course, which have a habit of getting derailed only to jump back on track very soon, until we all get bored with it.

I would suggest that the quality of threads seems to have declined over the last 3 yrs or so. It seems that there are less regular contributers and perhaps more bystanders who do not participate, and that leans towards a 'clubby' atmosphere of predictable opinions.

Take the deep and serious stuff to somewhere where the effort will be appreciated.

Novo

I think also that a greater percentage of the newer members are more interested in frivolous chat than previously. This has had the knock-on effect of some of the earlier members leaving. Other factors are at play of course.
Sometimes I come across interesting convos, but on someone's PS rather than in a general or subject specific forum. It's as though sometimes you have to know the right people to talk to rather than use the more public areas.

Novo, I gave it a deep. thorough treatement, and the author "rewarded" me by not responding. His post after my first attempt didn't address any of my questions, and my subsequent response has gone un-answered.

So maybe the problem wasn't entirely with the Forum?