Evolution and complexity

This *is* a very interesing question.

quote:

---

Why are not fish intelligent (like human inteligence I mean)? This is probably a dumb question but I'd really like to know the answer

---

I am not quite certain that "the answer" is an
'argument' against evolution. But then I am not quite sure what you have denoted with the word "evolution" here.One of the defining features of behavior that has enabled me to focus on reptiles and amphibians OTHER THAN -- fish, or birds or mammals, and thus become open to a thought about form-making and translation in space, taught as evolution in the schools, has been the relation of dumb and dumber of herps and fish relative to the warm-blooded types.Fish seem unblievable less smart("intelligent") than reptiles or even frogs and all of these a couple of SATs short of birds when not mammals under test.While displaying snakes in public, the misperception of this often came *up* to me, in comments made by on lookers who would say, "How cute!" or whom could be found reaching out to pet the cold-blooded creature. These are things I would find more proper and existing for hamsters and cats or ferrets, not toads nor turtles nor heaven forbid, fish.This can be more objectively observed by watching the eyes and body motion of creatures as an artifical environment, man-made, is rotated in the creatures visual fields or worse yet by poking the eyes of the creatures. Reptile eyes will often move with the environmental changes and even frogs will reposition their whole bodies often to such changes. Fish seem much more 'defensive'/reactive to the same stimulii and tend to move their whole body away from such man-made alterations. If a fish eye is touched however it does not seem to turn in the opposite direction. It almost seems like fish have "out of body experiences" to say it like an "on-looker".I have never found any use of emotions and feelings when dealing with cold-bloods, sure, lots of practical things and utilitarian directions but not empathy etc which many mammal lovers proclaim.For me, this kind of behavior observability (you should note that making observation of salamanders poping their heads to produce sounds etc simply went as little but the moving of leaves in the air when I reported WHAT I SAW to my family) in an increasing vernacular scale of complexity specifies THE direction that slow and accumulative taught evolution has traditionally claimed to go in, at least historically along with "great chain of being" subsequently criticized.So I DO see these as "degrees" of complexity because there are seemingly 'quatum differences' of this and invertebrate behavior. And as soon as one talks about uni-cells and the even yet again (possible) different order of magnitude of viruses vs bacteria if you wanted the argument to go against large changes rather than small I still do not see that "the answer" is against evolution necessarily. Arguing across gaps is a lot harder both ways.

quote:

---

Picture a population as a bell curve with the horizontal axis representing the genome and the vertical axis the number of individuals possessing that genome.

---

As soon as one does this,(and I responded to Parasominum on this on EVC earlier)and this is something Gould approves of, one is permitted to use just like IQ can not be captured by a single NUMBER, to use the notion of 'number' any way one can in bio-theory. I think Mayr's failure to notice that not every use of number is typological or or essentialistic depends on whether one takes Fisher's large population number size as depending on population of birds or not. Most Reptiles/amphibians do not have large randomish breeding populations like ornithologists observe but rather can format guilds fairly locally.At stake is Skipper’s opinion(The Persistence of the R.A. Fisher-Sewall-Wright Controversy
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/...1/skipper_controversy.pdf
), “Generalizing Williams’
principle of parsimony here results in something like the following: If the evolution of
populations can be explained adequately via a theory that postulates a small economy of entities
and processes, then there is no need to invoke a theory with a larger economy of entities and
processes. In Williams’ case, group selection and groups themselves are additional evolutionary
processes and entities that are not needed to explain the evolution of traits.
”
(We can take up the case of using Williams' opinion as canonical in this thread if you would like:http://EvC Forum: Does the Intelligent Deisgner Favour Genes Over 'Individuals'? -->EvC Forum: Does the Intelligent Deisgner Favour Genes Over 'Individuals'?)
Gould contends that logically the larger “economy” exists but there have been no attempts to make a finite list of the entities and processes themselves.This continues the thought I began to "skectch" here:http://EvC Forum: Criticizing neo-Darwinism -->EvC Forum: Criticizing neo-DarwinismWhile Coyne said(see Skipper page 9), "adaptations whose fixation requires some genetic drift are often prevented from spreading by barriers to gene flow" fails to incorporate Croizat's notion of character recombination. Also reverse information flow macrothermodynamically can theoretically enable one to assemble complex adaptations whose constituent parts arise via peak shifts in different demes. Quote Gladyshev. This information if it exists could be acquired via Panbiogeographic vertex analysis.The difficulty of establishing motion through valleys by drift depends on separating ++ from >> 1-D symmetry. Phenomenological thermodynamics seems to be the only discipline able to delineate the entities that can be categorized into these symmetry classes.Provine’s recent claims that SBT does not exist in nature is simply failure to develop the necessary bio-math and thermodynamics for the “phase transition” thought.Fisher’s theory which permits the lumping of epistatic interaction with a nonheritbale environmental variable can not always capture the reverse info flow under Gladsyhev’s law. If this reverse info flow around barriers during speciation also informs Gould’s “logic” of hierarchy then SBT may be “the general” theory of translation in space and form-making against Coyne’s attitude and NOT simply one of relative frequency of occurrence. This would be because genes and atoms would be thinkable together rather than apart. The population genetics domain would become homogenous to the heterogeneity of atomism not a heterogenous theortical structure of relative frequencies of existence figured by the current heterodox infusion of philosophy into biology.“Complex epistasis and the statistical importance of epistatic terms” of Conyne depend on three item analysis of the hierarchy Two-locus epistasis is a partition instead. There exists “adaptive oversight” when existing adaptions are argued against origins of adaptive novelty” This is why Gould had two kinds of adaptiaton in a supposed larger logic . Here enumeration of processes vs entities is necessary. Only macrothermo provides a means to separate this visually. They become projected into Wright’s adaptive landscape as gene combinations per individual are related to gene frequencies per population given the SAME thermostats. This shows that unless Fishers ideas IS related directly to thermodynamics rather than in analogy atomism will trump geneism.Fisher’s position on average genic effects seems to be against the minimization effect of Gladyshev’s law which CHANGES this average overtime. Fisher would be wrong when gladsyev law changes phylogeny through ontogeny via smaller population sizes and strong selection of particular thermostat parameters. Thus there is little PHYSICAL reason to hold Fisher’s opinion in particular atomic aggregates. The non-heritable environmental component BECOMES heritable and the extension of entropy properly to niche construction (not with Maxwell’s demon and information entropy) shows this to be a case.Williams (Adaptation and Natural Selection) does not seem to have deterministically conceived that that life before his ideas of modifiers and DNA could occur himself. He simply says no one has related it to plasticity as a biotic adaptation and discuss organic vs biotic expression where NEO-Darwinism phases the conversation. Either Gould’s “logic” is a mere subtly adding nothing more than titles or Williams is mistaken when generalized. Both Goud’s position and creationism make up to a larger set of entities and process, not less. That was just a problem of forcing all to attain to the same horizon without determining it individually.This is how I determine my horizon. The next step is to demonstrate hierarchical extraction of ”trees’ that Cantor’s continuous motion being a catastrophe set in Cantor’s discontinuous space where the whole set of catastrophes becomes such that multiple locomotions across adaptive landscapes are possible in the higher ordered representations where through the hierarchical structures are derived. Derive them . Well, with probably days of thought on Gould’s work, I am coming to the suspicion that Gould has made an unwarranted conclusion about “stasis”, particularly in his claims about non-fractality of allometry. I am becoming more confident that by a proper and long continued thought about the differential effects of “homeostasis” and “epistasis” one can reconstruct Gould’s conception of the what is simply added onto old brains to imagine an evolved one, without necessitating any thought about cladogenic stasis (the proper geological realm of Gould’s supposed contribution).If that is a true conclusion, then Gould’s query about “invalidation” vs “exception” under what was already “consistent” with genetics narrates the response to what can *ever* be made out of a comparison of entropy and fitness.I will edit back in Gould's comparision of Fisher's statments about fitness and entropy (possibly updating what I said here
EvC Forum: Evolution or Devolution?
http://EvC Forum: Evolution or Devolution? -->EvC Forum: Evolution or Devolution?
http://EvC Forum: Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05) -->EvC Forum: Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
). It appears that Coyne used the word "phase" in a sense not compatible with mine.The only requirement seems to be to be "consistent" with Genetics. What I am developing in my own time
htttp://http://www.axiompanbiog.com
is the writing of fitness as within an entropic plenum, thus turning Fisher's question to Wright (about what has become the shifting balance theory) if he, Fisher, might have missed some "adaptive oversight" from an analogy between physics and biology INTO a homology, biogeographically. This IS NOT evolution as entropy mind you. It should all be doable linearly.The only way to get a an actual diagram of genetic diversity successionally seems to have an energy converter mechanism that displays the gene combinations both among individuals and diversely among the genes populationally not only up and down and single "adaptive peak" but simultaneously among peaks. This seems to be what Williams had in mind when discussing the "origin" of life in his book on Adapations in the 60s. The reality is that this is as hard to visualize as 4-D space/time was for Rucker. I think and think I sometimes do but not ver often.I think the information is available to do all of this. I am not sure that "more pressure" MUST always move the demescape tangentially however. This much I have not visualized. That starts to depend on what homeostasis, epistasis may support sans punctuated equilibrium stasis, also not necessarily with the red queen.The result of this analysis, is that the word "synthesis" has not been continued as Kant depended on, and that "core" Darwinism does not survive the theory that will explain multiple deme peaks in one physical reality. Thus one could consult the first link in this post and the diagram at the end of that article

Click for full size imageto the affect that a "mirror" refraction was misportrayed by the words of the text where your issue of tagential vs vertical plurivocaldeme motion was "colored" by a computer.As I said,

quote:

---

Now fitness of any stripe depends on SURVIVAL of a form IN space not existence as in a mathematical proof.

---

http://EvC Forum: Fitness: Hueristic or Fundamental to Biology? -->EvC Forum: Fitness: Hueristic or Fundamental to Biology?We need the instrument for this. An airconditioner this is not.Edited by Brad McFall, : corrected linkEdited by Brad McFall, : added link picture corrected for figure and ground