Evolution question.

[scruffy]

This is the general idea of the modern competitor to the information theoretic approach.

Path probability selection in nature and path integral - Scientific Reports

Understanding of any biological evolutions, such as speciation, adaptation behavior and biodiversity pattern, is based on a fundamental concept of fitness, in which natural selection implies the improvement and progress of fitness in either direct/indirect benefit or genetic transmission to the...

www.nature.com

Path integrals are a lot like Feynman diagrams in physics, they seek to describe ensemble probabilities using "the sum of all possible paths".

In this approach there is also no direct quantitative bridge between what is predicted and what is observed - and in biology as in physics, the concept of "all" possible pathways is ridiculous to begin with, but in biology as in physics, the actuals seem to line up pretty well with the observables after 2 or 3 "renormalizations".

 

[scruffy]

And here is a thorough if somewhat wordy introduction to evolutionary dynamics.

Bioattractors: dynamical systems theory and the evolution of regulatory processes - PMC

In this paper, we illustrate how dynamical systems theory can provide a unifying conceptual framework for evolution of biological regulatory systems. Our argument is that the genotype–phenotype map can be characterized by the phase portrait of the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Note especially Figure 5.

"Self organizing" means, we don't know in advance exactly how it's going to look. The outcome is a path that avoids disallowed trajectories. (Just like in physics).

For instance - here is a famous example of self organization in 2 dimensions, the BZ reaction. The shape is an "evolution".

 

[zaangalewa]

And here is a thorough if somewhat wordy introduction to evolutionary dynamics.

Bioattractors: dynamical systems theory and the evolution of regulatory processes - PMC

In this paper, we illustrate how dynamical systems theory can provide a unifying conceptual framework for evolution of biological regulatory systems. Our argument is that the genotype–phenotype map can be characterized by the phase portrait of the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Note especially Figure 5.

"Self organizing" means, we don't know in advance exactly how it's going to look. The outcome is a path that avoids disallowed trajectories. (Just like in physics).

For instance - here is a famous example of self organization in 2 dimensions, the BZ reaction. The shape is an "evolution".

View attachment 871745

The self-organisation of matter into an evolution which produces everywhere necessarily life is by the way really a very strange construct. Mainstream in our universe is the growing of entropy and not the growing of a dynamic complexity. But first of all: What do we see here before to imagine the whole universe is full of life? How much matter in our solar system is really alive? All tons of living matter on Earth have about the same weight as this what we have builded in concrete. For us on our own is this impressing. But compared with the mass of our own double planet system Earth & Moon this is nearly nothing.

This self organisation - whatever it is - has to be a very weak principle when we calculate the mass which is transformed into life and/or only used from living entities. I guess living matter is the most valueable form of matter at all in the whole universe because it is most seldom. It is easily possible that life exists only on our own planet and nowhere else. Because we do not know this makes such a thought not wrong. And I personally hate it very much when natural science degrades itselve to an ideology. We know what we know and we do not know what we do not know. Perhaps is everywhere life - perhaps nowhere. No one knows. But for sure has not all and every matter an inherent tendence to become part of a living biological entity. The sandcake which my sandbox girlfriend offered me to eat was very clear in this context: Uneatable! I lied when I said "delicious".

 

[zaangalewa]

... For instance - here is a famous example of self organization in 2 dimensions, the BZ reaction. The shape is an "evolution".

View attachment 871745

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then take the selection of the Darwinist Nazis in Auschwitz-Birkenau and many other places as an example

No. That is also not selection by physical laws.

 

[zaangalewa]

No. That is also not selection by physical laws.

To say "selection by physical laws" is nonsense. The normal expression is "survival of the fittest". A blind human being has for example a higher risk to die - but this means nothing for a concrete situation.

 

[scruffy]

No. That is also not selection by physical laws.

I find it less than useful to argue with ignorants.

Ink in water is diffusion, not reaction.

BZ is => stable <=.

Do homework before opening mouth.

This entire set of topics was already covered. Evolutionary DYNAMICS takes years to understand, it's not something one can learn from Wiki.

You have a head start, the other fellow not so much.

 

[Robert W]

If the cornerstone of evolution is the extinction of species with 'undesirable traits' why do we go out of our way to save people who have these traits? Kinda makes the ToE irrelevant doesn't it? Don't we need the "Darwin Effect" to improve our species?

My (science/ToE oriented) dentist wanted to pull my wisdom teeth, which no doubt took evolution some time to 'select for'. He said it would prevent any dental problems later on. I was 45 at the time and had never had any problems with my wisdom teeth. I'm now 83 and except for having one crowned have never had a problem with them. Why would a strong believer in evolution want to thwart one of its successful accomplishments?

I did not know about this thread until 12/12/23. Glad you said IF as your first word. Honestly I have no idea why you said any of that. I am 85 and attempting to get inside your mind to see what is ticking. I believe you are blessed that you have engaged in proper care of your teeth. I tend to think you are why you did very well.

 

[Woodznutz]

I did not know about this thread until 12/12/23. Glad you said IF as your first word. Honestly I have no idea why you said any of that. I am 85 and attempting to get inside your mind to see what is ticking. I believe you are blessed that you have engaged in proper care of your teeth. I tend to think you are why you did very well.

Much of the conversations around the ToE involves hyberbole especially from deniers like me.

Truth is that I haven't always taken care of my teeth. I've got a mouthful of crowns and bridges. Growing up every adult family member put their teeth in a glass of water for the night. Both my parents expected us kids to follow suit so dental care wasn't a thing in my upbringing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To say "selection by physical laws" is nonsense.

*to you, but you should pause to consider that is because of lack of understanding on your part

This came up because of talk about how molecules that are precursors to life came to be.

But even wth natural selection, there are just physical forces at work. High temperatures. Humidity. Effects of starvation. Etc.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I find it less than useful to argue with ignorants.

Ink in water is diffusion, not reaction.

BZ is => stable <=.

Do homework before opening mouth.

This entire set of topics was already covered. Evolutionary DYNAMICS takes years to understand, it's not something one can learn from Wiki.

You have a head start, the other fellow not so much.

The dynamics stuff is fascinating. Thanks for posting it. I am still trying to absorb it.

When I say selection is "not random", I am referring to the selective pressures themselves.

Water molecules do not come in random shapes, at 25degC and 1 atm. Because the selective pressures are not random. They are physical laws that are the same across the universe.

 

[Robert W]

Much of the conversations around the ToE involves hyberbole especially from deniers like me.

Truth is that I haven't always taken care of my teeth. I've got a mouthful of crowns and bridges. Growing up every adult family member put their teeth in a glass of water for the night. Both my parents expected us kids to follow suit so dental care wasn't a thing in my upbringing.

I have been there done that. I have a sister who I think may still have excellent teeth and she swore on using Listerine mouthwash 3 times per day.
I like to torment the Darwinists by changing it from evolution to abiogenesis. If one has Darwin's book, as I have mine, I can discuss his claims. But the real problem is creation and that is covered by abiogenesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have been there done that. I have a sister who I think may still have excellent teeth and she swore on using Listerine mouthwash 3 times per day.
I like to torment the Darwinists by changing it from evolution to abiogenesis. If one has Darwin's book, as I have mine, I can discuss his claims. But the real problem is creation and that is covered by abiogenesis.

The universe was around for almost 10 billion years before abiogenesis occured on earth.

Abiogenesis does not cover creation. It also doesn't cover creation of al life in the universe. It is just how the life as we know it formed on this planet.

 

[scruffy]

The next step after simple dynamics, is coupled oscillators. I'll use a simple model to describe the relevance. We are specifically interested in "criticality" - for a reason, which I will explain.

First - coupled oscillators. You can put two pendulums next to each other, and they will couple. You can also connect two springs to the same mass. Here are the basics:

8.4: Coupled Oscillators and Normal Modes

phys.libretexts.org

More generally, if we have many oscillators, there will be phase coupling between them, both neighbor to neighbor and longer range. Phase coupling in a population is described by the Kuramoto model. It translates pairwise influences to a global dynamic.

Here is an example of an outcome:

Look familiar?

(It should, see BZ reaction).

The difference between this and BZ is the phase map shows regions of criticality. Critical regions generally undergo lots and lots of catastrophes very quickly. For this reason they behave differently from ordinary equilibria.

Critical synchronization dynamics of the Kuramoto model on connectome and small world graphs - Scientific Reports

The hypothesis, that cortical dynamics operates near criticality also suggests, that it exhibits universal critical exponents which marks the Kuramoto equation, a fundamental model for synchronization, as a prime candidate for an underlying universal model. Here, we determined the...

www.nature.com

Critical regions are associated with increased computational ability and increased memory. And, like BZ, Kuramoto patterns can be made stable. Which makes them functionally equivalent to the "hot spots" in neural networks.

The idea is (for example) a hot spot will have 400 catastrophes per second, while a cold spot will only have 4. The probabilistic computations are carried out during the system transitions. Therefore, in the hot spots during critical dynamics, evolution proceeds 100x as fast as it does otherwise.

 

[zaangalewa]

*to you

it makes no sense to say so. Whatelse than physics (more exact: physis) would be able to change genes?

but you should pause to consider that is because of lack of understanding on your part ...

Okay - it's enough now. Speak with yourselve if you like to speak with a "specialized" idiot as you like to be.

This came up because of talk about how molecules that are precursors to life came to be.

But even wth natural selection, there are just physical forces at work. High temperatures. Humidity. Effects of starvation. Etc.

When you know this - why for heavens sake do you make totally wrong abstractions? The structure of "causes create effects" (~evolution) is carried from an energy transmission. How are you able to say you know everything about such transmissions and the reasons why they exist? Everything what is exsiting today was born in the big bang once and is an effect of such energy transmissions over billions of years. But on the other side are lots of things thinkable and plausible which we are not able to know. For example alternating universes with another history - or even with other natural laws. What we are for example not able to imagine or to think is a universe without any natural laws. This is able to give us a vage notion about that indeed nothing is existing what is without "logos", without god.

 

[zaangalewa]

,,, When I say selection is "not random", I am referring to the selective pressures themselves. ...

Again: People die on totally stupid reasons which have nothing to do with anything except with nonsense. Specially everyone is able to die in such situations. And some people which die in such a way will not have children. So they are negativelly "selected". What for heaven sake could be the "selective pressure" you speak about? The pressure is "not to die" - that's all, isn't it? But who for heavens sake fights with his breakfast every morning a fight for "the survival of the fittest"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again: People die on totally stupid reasons which have nothing to do with anything except with nonsense.

Yes i know. But I was talking about selection in general. It's doesn't just apply to individuals. It applies to molecules.

For example, selection is the driving principle of abiogenesis.

 

[zaangalewa]

Yes i know. But I was talking about selection in general. It's doesn't just apply to individuals. It applies to molecules.

For example, selection is the driving principle of abiogenesis.

Which abiogenesis? Which selection? That we are dust is much more easy to see after the death of a living structure. But if butterflies would not exist we could not imagine such creatures.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which abiogenesis? Which selection?

Any abiogenesis, anywhere.

Selection by physical forces.

 

[Libby von H]

If the cornerstone of evolution is the extinction of species with 'undesirable traits' why do we go out of our way to save people who have these traits? Kinda makes the ToE irrelevant doesn't it? Don't we need the "Darwin Effect" to improve our species?

My (science/ToE oriented) dentist wanted to pull my wisdom teeth, which no doubt took evolution some time to 'select for'. He said it would prevent any dental problems later on. I was 45 at the time and had never had any problems with my wisdom teeth. I'm now 83 and except for having one crowned have never had a problem with them. Why would a strong believer in evolution want to thwart one of its successful accomplishments?

I will stop at the 5 errors in what you say, gleaned over the years
1)Why would you assume that the one calling something 'undesirable" has to be right?
2)Why does being undesirable mean --- even were it not tautological -- you should die
3) Improving the species is not something with a referent , you treat it likek the 'common good'but it is used to kill particular people inthe name of faceless, anonymous, nowhere-to-be-found general public
4)maybe saving the most unwanted is the HIGHEST value of a people !! Gotcha there
5) Nowhere is said that one can tie a trait to a gene, you make that up , showing you are a scientific moron.

I can name 10 horrible human traits that are inherently not tieable to a gene,eg Anti-semitism