Thesis #2: Evolution is the result of diversity.
by Jason GodeskyThe concept of progress is actually rather new. Most prehistoric and ancient peoples saw history as a constantly repeating cycle, incompatible with any notion of advancement or degradation. The first conceptions of linear time are found only in the historical era. Confuscius, the Greeks and the Jews all believed that the world was, in fact, becoming worse. In this, they did concieve of history as linear, but as the opposite of progress. The Greeks held that the first, “Golden Age” had been the best era, with each succeeding age diminished from its predecessor’s glory. In Judaism, the “Fall of Man” in Genesis paints humanity in a fallen, exiled state. Later Jewish prophets outlined a messianic and eschatological timeline which extended this into an on-going societal free-fall that would end only by divine intervention with the Messianic Age. This final hope of the Messianic Age sowed the first seeds of the idea of progress.
In many ways, we can thank Christianity for the concept. In reconciling their belief in Jesus as the messiah, and the very obviously unfulfilled predictions of the Eschaton and the Messianic Age, Christians began to develop a more progressive concept of history. Their Christology immediately separates history into “before Christ” and “after Christ.” They mark the passage of years as Anno Domini-the “Year of Our Lord.” Since the New Covenant is, in the Christian mind, immediately superior to the Old–as Paul argues in his Letter to the Galatians–we already have fitted all of history into a broad sweep of progress. The condition of mankind was improved by the life of Christ. History has progressed.
The concept proved adaptable to changing memetic environments. The Enlightenment was a response to the superstitious worldview that preceded it, and like so many philosophical responses, was prone to attempts to counter-balance its opponents by going equally far in the opposite direction. The Enlightenment defined humanity as unique for its faculty of Reason, and celebrated that Reason as the seat of mankind’s “redemption” from its state of ignorance and savagery. The Enlightenment promised an optimistic future, where humanity triumphed over every obstacle in its way thanks to the unstoppable power of Reason. As E.O. Wilson described it in Consilience:
Inevitable progress is an idea that has survived Condorcet and the Enlightenment. It has exerted, at different times and variously for good and evil, a powerful influence to the present day. In the final chapter of the Sketch [for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind], “The Tenth Stage: The Future Progress of the Human Mind,” Condorcet becomes giddily optimistic about its prospect. He assures the reader that the glorious process is underway: All will be well. His vision for human progress makes little concession to the stubbornly negative qualities of human nature. When all humanity has attained a higher level of civilization, we are told, nations will be equal, and within each nation citizens will also be equal. Science will flourish and lead the way. Art will be freed to grow in power and beauty. Crime, poverty, racism and sexual discrimination will decline. The human lifespan, through scientifically based medicine, will lengthen indefinitely.
Though the Enlightenment placed its faith in Science, rather than in deities, this belief in progress remains no less a leap of faith for it. The idea of progress–particularly of humanity’s constant self-improvement through the application of Reason–became as fundamental a belief for the secular humanists as the redeeming power of Christ was for the Christians they proceeded. The beliefs fulfilled similar needs, as well, by promising similar outcomes–even if brought about by entirely different processes. Both comforted their believers with the promise that the current misery was only temporary, and that a new, better day was waiting on the horizon for those who soldiered on.
Little wonder, then, that when Darwin challenged the conceit of our species’ superiority by suggesting we were mere animals, those that did not reject the evidence entirely instead comforted themselves with the myth of progress. In the popular mind, the word “evolution” became nearly a synonym for “progress,” the process by which species “improve” themselves. In fact, evolution has nothing to do with “progress” at all.
Evolution, technically defined, is merely a change in allele frequency in a population over time. In one generation, 15% have a given gene; in the next, it is only 14.8%. Iterated over generations, this may lead to the complete extinction of the allele. The idea of evolution predates Darwin, as such change is immediately observable and undeniable. Darwin made two contributions to this; the first was defining the first mechanism for evolution in the process of natural selection, the second his contention that such evolution satisfactorily explains the origin of species.
Since the Neolithic, herders have practiced artificial selection with their livestock. If a given cow produces more milk than the others, or is more docile and easy to control, then you simply give that cow more time with the bulls, so that she will have more children. The next generation of the herd will have more docile cows that produce more milk. The herder has artificially selected for traits he desires. Over enough generations, this could lead to the entire herd being docile and producing more milk.
Darwin’s concept of natural selection merely suggests that this can also happen without the conscious guidance of a herder. A giraffe with a slightly longer neck may be able to reach foliage in trees more easily. He will be better and more easily fed, giving him more time to dally with the ladies and concieve young, who are also more likely to have slightly longer necks. Over enough generations, this could easily explain the modern state of the giraffe, the same as artificial selection sufficiently explains the state of the modern cow herd. The difference being, no single entity was consciously guiding the giraffes to that end.
The seeds of these thoughts were planted during Darwin’s time aboard the Beagle. During this time, he visited the Galapagos Islands, and noted both the similarities and differences of birds on those islands to birds on the mainland. He noted the similarities suggesting they had once been a single species, and the differences specifically adapted to the Galapagos’ unqiue ecology. Darwin allowed the implications of his natural selection to play out. If two populations of a given species are separated, each will continue changing with each generation, but now separated, their changes will diverge. Over sufficient generations, the two groups will become too divergent to interbreed any longer. Two new species will have formed.
In its truest essence, then, evolution is nearly irrefutable. “Survival of the fittest,” is a true shorthand, if we understand “fittest” to refer to the ability to produce young, as well as being severely restricted to a given locale. In this case, it becomes a tautology; if a creature possesses some trait that will make it more likely to have young, then it is more likely to have young. The controversy comes from the implication of this statement. If true (and how could it not be?), then all the diversity of life can be accounted for in a natural fashion. Gods can still be invoked if one insists; evolution could be seen as G-d’s paintbrush, or Genesis as a poetic account of evolution, as all but the most hardline, fundamentalist Christians believe, but they are not necessary. The existence of life itself is no longer a proof for the existence of G-d.
Evolution, then, is simply a consequence of diversity. All organisms are subject to “dumb luck,” and untold heritages of the world were pre-emptively snuffed out by rocks falling at the most inopportune moments. Yet, the diversity of populations of organisms played with the probability of that dumb luck. Falling stones did not kill the swift and the slow in equal measure. Trees with flame-retardant seeds inherited the earth after enough forest fires had gone through. Evolution happens, as the inevitable consequence of a diverse world. As Dawkins abstracted it in The Selfish Gene, the diversity of possible chemical reactions meant that, eventually, a reaction would occur that reproduced itself. Such a reaction would have a higher probability of occuring again, as it was no longer relying on pure chance to do so. Anything that reproduces itself–even ideas–are subject to natural selection and evolution.
What, then, is the “goal” of evolution, if we can speak of such a thing? The marriage of evolution and progress has left many with the notion that evolution is driving towards some endpoint, that we are progressing ever closer to some perfect state. Usually, this is formulated as evolution’s drive towards greater complexity. Such a “drive” towards complexity, however, is ultimately a mirage, an illusion created by the unique myopia of our scale.
There is a certain baseline of simplicity for all things. No atom can be simpler than hydrogen, for example. There is a baseline for DNA where, if it were any simpler, it would not be able to reproduce itself, and thus would no longer be DNA. There is a baseline, somewhere around the complexity of the virus–whether above or below is a matter of some debate–where any more simplicity would yield something no longer alive. From this baseline, there is nowhere to go but up. Diversity spreads out in all possible directions. There is infinite diversity in the space that is equally simple, hugging close to the baseline. Diversity also moves up, towards more complex. If we were to graph such dispersion, it would not look like an arrow shooting up into the stratosphere of complexity; it would be a hemisphere against a solid floor, with its radius constantly growing.
The evidence for this view is clear and intuitive. If evolution drives ever greater complexity, rather than simply diversity, why then is the vast majority of life on earth single celled? Instead, this distribution of life–with almost all of it existing at lower orders of complexity, and the numbers of species diminishing as we climb into greater levels of complexity–is exactly the hemisphere of diversity. Nowhere do we see the straight line of “progress,” unless we track only our own, specific evolutionary path, and ignore everything else. If we stare at the radius pointing straight up and ignore the rest of the hemisphere, then, and only then, can we convince ourselves that evolution is about “progress.”
Consider the case of the Neandertal. Larger, stronger and faster than normal humans, our success (and their failure) was once attributed to their inferior intellect. In fact, their brains were noticeably larger than our own. While this may simply be a matter of ennervating muscle tissue, it means their physical faculties were at least the equal of our own, if not superior. Culturally, the only evidence of adaptation to changing stimulus we have in the Paleolithic is the Châtelperronian toolset, an ingenious integration of Acheulean and Mousterian technology. It is not found associated with “modern” humans, however, but with Neandertals. With their intellectual abilities in greater doubt, many turned to Bergman’s Rule to explain their demise: Neandertals were cold-adapted, and could not survive in the changing climate of the end of the Pleistocene. However, Neandertals have been found throughout the Middle East in areas which, while once colder than they are now, were never so cold as to justify the idea that Neandertals were doomed by their cold adaptation.
There is yet no angle to the Neandertals’ extinction besides sheer, dumb luck that does not present a host of problems. It seems, regardless of which attribute we value most, Neandertals were at least our equals, and perhaps even our betters. Their extinction, and our success, may be a case of evolution picking the worse candidate; it may simply be randomly choosing between two equally qualified candidates. What it seems very strongly to not represent is a case of “progress.” Instead, it is simply change.
This highlights one of the last important traits of evolution: its ambivalence. A friend of Darwin’s once tried to develop a system of ethics based on the conviction that, while evolution is inevitable, it is also a monstrous process, and that which helps it along is itself immoral. I argue that evolution can, indeed, be monstrous, but is not always so. Like everything else, good and evil are matters of proximity. Evolution sometimes makes things better; sometimes, it makes them worse. Evolution is driven by diversity, and in general creates even more diversity, but it is also blind and unconscious. It operates on immediate results, leaving long-term errors to be resolved by time. It is a process of continual trial and error, as it allows long-term mistakes to correct themselves with self-destruction. Thus, at any given point, we must be careful to declare anything an evolutionary “success” by its current survival–as it may just as easily be a terrible mistake in the midst of eliminating itself.
Special thanks here to Mark Meritt, whose master’s thesis, “The Unsustainability and Origins of Socioeconomic Increase” was fundamental to my understanding of the relationship between evolution, diversity, complexity and the myth of progress.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 July 2005 @ 7:56 PM
How do you get diversity without evolution?
Comment by brandon — 25 July 2005 @ 12:51 PM
Before evolution can begin, you first have random chemical reactions. Gravity makes hydrogen atoms clump together, and ignite in nuclear reactions that fuse them into other, heavier elements. Diversity is not only a property of life; it is just as much a property of inert matter, chemical reactions, atomic relationships, molecules, and everything else in the universe.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 July 2005 @ 1:36 PM
*sigh*
Comment by Anonymous — 26 July 2005 @ 11:29 AM
You have something to say, anonymous?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 July 2005 @ 11:35 AM
Hey man, sometimes a guy just feels like sighing…and letting the whole internet know that he’s sighing.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 26 July 2005 @ 4:05 PM
It was a question. Far be it from me to infringe an anonymous guest’s sighing rights, but in most cases, it indicates some kind of problem. I hate to leave such problems unaddressed, though. So I was inviting her to elaborate. If there is no elaboration and our nameless friend was simply exercising his right to exhale in a most public and dramatic manner, then she may simply respond, “No, not really.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 July 2005 @ 4:28 PM
Something to say…no not really, but a quote comes to mind:
“The first-cause and prime-mover argument, brilliantly proffered by St. Thomas Aquinas in the fourteenth century (and brilliantly refuted by David Hume in the eighteenth century), is easily turned aside with just one more question: Who or what caused and moved God?”
Michael Shermer
As the quote may hint, I would simply ask the same question again. You should be aware that evolution, like diversity, is not only a property of life. It can be applied to memes, languages, cultures, civilizations, and even the universe. You say that evolution was a product of diversity because a diversity of random chemical reactions and such spawned the evolution of life. Much like Hume asking where God came from, I ask you where did the diversity that spawned the evolution of life come from if not from the evolution of the universe and all in it? The universe started as a nothing, then bang it was something, then more somethings, and more somethings, and even more somethings. It went from nothing, to a diversity of somethings that spawned life on our little blue and green dot. Where did the diversity you allude to come from?
Comment by Anonymous — 28 July 2005 @ 12:15 PM
The universe is not a species (so far as we know) and therefore, does not evolve.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 28 July 2005 @ 12:30 PM
Hey –
Mike that’s a cop out!
Evolutionary principles can certainly be applied to physics, at least when you are talking about something as complex as a star, a galaxy or the university as a whole.
However, back to the original question…. why does there have to be ANY first cause? Jason is not suggesting that evolution was Caused(capital “C”) by diversity, he is merely saying that evolution depends upon diversity.
I’ve always found the strongest argumnet about the whole ‘first cause’ argument (in any field or application) to be this… even if there is a ’cause’ to point to, that cause does not need to be anything significant. DesCartes included the assumption the the cause must be greater than that which it created.(I don’t know off hand if Thomas did) Demonstrably false. Case in point. Forest fire and cigarette butt…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 July 2005 @ 1:52 PM
Oh-ho, now this is interesting!
My understanding is that there is some doubt about the Big Bang theory these days, but my physics is not strong enough to really understand the nuance of those arguments. So for the sake of argument, let’s assume the Big Bang theory, as usually concieved, is true.
We start with a single point (having no width, height or depth) of infinite density. “Something” triggers a Big Bang, so that this point expands in all directions, now encompassing all dimensions within it. Density is no longer infinite, because space now exists. All matter–at this point nothing more than the simplest of all atoms, the hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron–goes flying out in all directions. It is not uniformly distributed. The instability of hydrogen and the clustered dispersion of matter allows gravity to snowball, creating stars. Nuclear fusion begins, creating all the other elements. Supernovas spew those elements out into the cosmos. These processes continue, creating other stars which now draw not only hydrogen atoms, but other elements into an accretion disk, creating planets, asteroids, comets, etc.
Evolution can happen on any self-replicating process. If the probability of any random chemical reaction occuring by chance is p, then the probability of the same, random reaction occuring twice is p2. However, the probability of any random, self-propogating reaction occuring twice is just p–once it happens once, it’s guaranteed, by the very nature of self-propogation, to happen again. This is why self-propogating phenomena are so prolifigate. Self-propogating phenomena–including life, memes, languages, cultures, and civilizations–are all subject to the principles of natural selection. Thus, evolution is not just a synonym for diversity. It is a process that arises in any sufficiently diverse system, that “runs on” diversity, to create still more diversity.
So what was the “first cause”? Whatever that “something” was that set off the Big Bang, and whatever that infinite point came from in the first place. Space and time are properties internal to our universe; I am unsure if humans are capable of understanding anything without those sure reference points. When we discuss such an ultimate “first cause,” these reference points fail us. This is why we have traditionally turned to the gods at this point. That may be the case, or it may not. I am agnostic concerning our ability to know such things. All that we know is confined to inside of space and time. Indeed, the very concept of causality requires space and time; trying to find causes beyond the confines of time is a meaningless and illogical pursuit.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 July 2005 @ 2:16 PM
Hey –
The Big Bang is actually in fine shape. There have been big deals made about various discoveries over the years… but the cosmologists have never considered any of them to be a problem. So your quick and dirty description works (although I would point out that protons, nuetrons and electrons did not even exist initially… and the ‘bumpyness’ of the universe came even later)
As to how it started in the first place… we will never know, but IMO the most likely ‘first cause’ was a simple quantum fluctuation. These happen all of the time, everywhere, with partiles spontaneously popping into and then out of existance… occasionally one of them ’survives’. I’m betting that something like that caused the initial ‘bang’.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 July 2005 @ 2:33 PM
The first chapter of Jeff Vail’s book take it even further:
Interesting–but again, my physics is too weak to speak to its accuracy. But interesting, nonetheless.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 July 2005 @ 2:48 PM
Anonymous: I am SO glad you didn’t stop at just sighing! (And I think everybody else is, too.) -_^
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 28 July 2005 @ 3:22 PM
Sorry Jason, but I disagree. The way I see it, diversity is a product of evolution—not dependant on it. If you follow any system from the “end� to the beginning, you go from diversity to nothing. If you follow life on this planet back to the beginning, you slowly trickle down from the myriads of species we see today, to the single spark of life that started it all. To get those myriads from a single spark of life you have to evolve. This, of course, is where you defaulted to the diversity of chemical reactions and the like, but if you continue to follow those back you still come to the same point and the same question: How do you get diversity without first evolving?
Comment by Anonymous — 29 July 2005 @ 11:59 AM
But evolution works because there is a diversity of entities with differing survival rates. Because of their diversity of various traits, some live longer than others. That’s the very essence of evolution. I’d turn the quandary on its head: how can there be evolution without diversity?
There are, of course, plenty of ways to get diversity other than evolution. If we have a bunch of perfectly identical stone balls, and I smash two of them against each other, we have introduced diversity: we have many identical stone balls, and now, several stone shards. This is essentially how diversity in atoms was first introduced, except by fusion rather than, err, fission, as this may be. Yet to call this “evolution” is quite a stretch.
Evolution is just one of many ways to introduce more diversity, but it is one that is itself dependent on other diversity already existing. As such, it is a process that comes into play later on.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 August 2005 @ 10:00 AM
If you can call a bunch of stone shards diversity, then I can certainly call the change evolution. If you can defer to the diversity of the universe that brought forth life on this planet and its subsequent evolution and diversity, then I can defer to the evolution of the universe that brought forth the diversity responsible for life on this planet.
Life on this planet was certainly dependent on the diversity of molecules and such that were floating around, but that diversity came from the evolution of a larger system.
Comment by Anonymous — 1 August 2005 @ 11:38 AM
OK, then you seem to be using a very unique definition of “evolution.” The technical meaning is a change in allele frequency over time. Only organisms have alleles, so obviously under this definition, even memetics is not a case of evolution. The broader usage refers to a change in the traits of any population of any self-propogating entities through differential rates of survival and/or propogation opportunities. Thus, atoms can diversify through such processes as fusion, but they cannot evolve, since they do not propogate themselves. Differential propogation is a crucial concept in evolution. Otherwise, everything is evolution, and the term becomes useless.
To return to my previous example, 500 identical stone balls have very little diversity. If I smash two together, I have 498 identical stone balls, and a great number of very diverse stone shards. It is unlikely that any two of these shards are quite alike. Diversity is increased. Yet, you are the first person I’ve ever heard refer to this as “evolution,” as it has nothing to do with differential survival or propogation opportunity, and is unrelated to the original, biological concept–”a difference of allele frequency over time”–even in the broadest general outline. You certainly can call it “evolution,” but only in the same sense that I can call a dog “cat.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 August 2005 @ 11:49 AM
Wow that was fun!
Let’s not forget that we’re using laguage to communicate and the argument here is: Which is the cause and which the effect, or is there no causal relationship between evolution and diversity?
So, first the lingual analysis: Diversity is the quality of being divergent. Divergent from what? From a pattern. What pattern? The pattern of self-replication. I think the concept of diversity is a tree-ish thing. You have a trunk (let’s just ignore the roots since they’ll simply mess up the analogy) where there’s only one path - but it goes upwards which is like self-replication. So we have an initial self-propagating chemical reaction (SPCR) (catalytic reciprocity?). As that propagation goes on, some randomness occurs and the outcome is a second SPCR. Now you have diversity because the pattern of continuing production of whatever SPCR 1 was making has split into two processes creating two different products. It branched. The quality of having branched is called diversity.
Evolution, technically, is about alleles. But people say language evolves, so let’s use the non-technical meaning. e- (from) volution (turning). From a cycle, I guess. That’s referring back to the pattern. But what is it that is from a cycle? Change, I guess, progress, some might like to say. I think of it as replication with errors. When errors are avoided for the most part, the cycle goes on making the same thing over and over. If there are enough errors, then the result is different, perhaps more capable of self-replication, in which case I suppose we’d say it has evolved.
I can create evolution by inventing a self-replicating system in which the replica is not an exact copy of the original. I can create diversity by smashing similar rocks together. It seems obvious which would lead to the other, doesn’t it? Once I create that self-replicating system, as long as it’s possible for copying-errors to occur, diversity will be the result. Not so with the rocks. I guess you could say that the possiblity of copying errors is what you’d call “diversity.” I would not. I’d just call it noise.
I don’t think you need any diversity for evolution. But I don’t think you need any evolution to get diversity either. It seems that if you have evolution, though, you won’t be able to avoid diversity. But it’s easy to have diversity and not get any evolution. I have to reject Thesis #2.
Comment by Dave Scotese — 2 August 2005 @ 1:44 AM
Oh, this is fun! Hmmm … okay. Let’s try this….
How can there be evolution, without diversity? Consider any set of identical, propogating entities A. All entities in A propogate with differences–their children are not the same as they are. This leaves us with two possibilities: either (1) the differences are determinative, so that in each generation all entities across the set are identical, even though elements from two different generations may vary (A1), or (2) the differences are random (A2).
In A1, each generation may, on one level, be considered a different, homogenous set. However, since these differences are determinative, we may also consider that each set is simply the same, identical entities in different stages, as with different, identical automatons, each in differing parts of their pre-determined dance. In this case, it is difficult to call what we are talking about “evolution,” since there is really no change to speak of. Butterflies emerge from caterpillars, but this is not an example of evolution. The propogation of set A1 is in an analogous situation, except that butterfly to caterpillar to butterfly again is played out iteratively across generations, rather than within generations. They are, in essence, the same, unchanging species, with distinct phenotypes at set iterative intervals.
In A2, even though the original set is homogenous, their children are not. The first set is incapable of evolution, but their children are. Most of these diverse traits will impact their probability of propogation in some way. Some are more likely to survive; some less. Some are more likely to breed; some less. This results in evolution. Diversity leads to differing probabilities of propogation; differing probabilities of propogation leads to evolution. Thus, we can say that this diversity results in evolution.
Is it possible for evolution to arise without diversity? If we accept your definition of “copying with errors,” which is a reasonable definition, then we should consider some system X that copies itself, but introduces random errors occasionally. There can be no diversity in a set of 1, which X is, but can we refer to “evolution” with only one generation of reproduction? Possibly.
Hmmm … I think you caught me.
Yup, you definitely caught me.
Congratulations, Dave, you win the thread! Be proud: you are one of the few, the proud, the people who’ve crossed wits with me and won.
OK, then, thesis #2 needs to be changed to: “Evolution yields diversity.” Evolutions is the result of diversity only in the real world; it is not necessarily so in a logical sense. I believe we can all agree on the new, reformed second thesis, no?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 August 2005 @ 10:03 AM
I must have missed the part that says diversity always results in evolution.
Where did the random errors come from if there is no diversity?
Yup, you definitely caught me.
I don’t know, man. We’re using some extremely liberal definitions of “evolution” to refute this point. It’s like making the argument,
Nobody is perfect.
X is a nobody.
Therefore, X is perfect.
That’s not logic. That’s a word game.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 2 August 2005 @ 1:17 PM
Hey –
I’m with Mike on this one….
Diversity refers to everything whereas evolution only refers to those things which are self replicating. Generally organic life, but I won’t dismiss non-organics or other unknown possibilities.
So if we are talking about chicken and the egg, which came first, blah blah blah… let me ask this…
Could anything have developed the ability to be ’self replicating with errors’ if it was limited by wokring within a single element, with a single possible configuration?
I don’t like chiacken and egg discussions, because I find that in most cases, it is a question that cannot be answered without falling back on a cyclical, mutually reinforcing, systemic answer. But in this case, if the universe consisted of nothing but hydrogen molecules, I don’t think that you can really make any case for evolutionary behavior coming to exist.
Janene
ps Jason, when you gonna let us have bb codes? I have to go and redo all of emphasis codes everytime a write a response
Comment by Janene — 2 August 2005 @ 2:24 PM
Well, any sufficiently diverse set will lead to evolution. For any set which does not include any propogating elements, its diversity can be increased by adding a propogating element. Diversity is further increased if these entities propogate with difference.
It’s a logical argument, not a practical argument. The system is designed to introduce errors. Like an HP Epson printer. One HP Epson printer has no diversity, since it’s only one printer. If it prints off 500 sheets of paper, it introduces diversity, because each of those 500 sheets will be screwed up in some new and unique way.
Not a practical element at all, since it requires our propogating system to pop into existence formed whole. But it’s logically possible, and that’s the important point.
“Copying with errors” is not a liberal definition of evolution at all. It’s actually quite tame. Though I think closer to the point would be the much more verbose, “emergence of diversity in a set of propogating entities due to differential propogation opportunities.”
Oh, this discussion stopped having anything to do with reality a long time ago. But, if some wholly formed system just popped into existence somehow and began propogating itself, but never quite right … well, you’d have evolution there without any diversity.
It’s impossible in reality, but when did logic ever have a good relationship with reality?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 August 2005 @ 4:05 PM
To quote Boos…
This is just too silly!
Janene
Comment by Janene — 2 August 2005 @ 5:58 PM
[i]I give you…[/i] [b]BBCode[/b].
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 August 2005 @ 12:00 PM
I’m going to put this here so I remember to include it in the book version:
— Lee Frank, “History, Progress, and Technology“
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 November 2005 @ 5:00 PM
Is evolution the result of diversity or is the opposite true?
I think this might be clarified with a Buddhist principle, the impermanence of all phenomena. When you think about it, it’s obvious that although there are degrees of stability, nothing is absolutely so. Everything, sentient or not, in our universe must change. It was this universal principle that made the big bang necessary. We could say that this requirement to change causes diversity, complexity and evolution. If we are going to extend the definition of evolution to include non-life, this principle of change could be called evolution.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 11 November 2005 @ 10:21 AM
So…did change cause the big bang or did the big bang cause change?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 12 November 2005 @ 1:53 AM
Both…
Of course, we can’t prove the former, only the latter… but I don’t care. Its still ‘both’
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 November 2005 @ 9:37 AM
Benjamin and Janene: I don’t think we can know or prove this scientifically at this time. The concept of a first cause is not necessary in Buddhism as time and space are seen as infinite. Creation and decomposition are a continuing natural process, which doesn’t require a deity. Obviously this is not consistent with Einstein’s theory.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 12 November 2005 @ 10:41 AM
Hey Bob –
Oh, I’m not talking first cause… I’m talking quantum physics. We will never be able to prove what occured to start off this whole thing, but quantum physics principals lead me to believe that the big bang started with a very basic quantum fluctuation. It makes sense. But is, totally unprovable, unless we find some way of leaving this universe, assuming that there are, in fact, others… interesting thought experiments, but no more.
On diversity and evolution… it is also both. Random Mutation creates diversity… natural selection reduces and codifies diversity. Both sides of the equation are built into the theory of evoltion. If you break it down to its most fundamental level, however, you CAN say that evolution is the result of diversity, simply because mutations have to happen before natural selection can play a role. Likewise, you could say that if DNA (or the primitive replicators that preceeded DNA) were perfect copying machines, then they would still be here and look the same as they first did (or, more fundamentally, that life itself would not exist if those replicators were perfect copiers)
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 November 2005 @ 10:57 AM
Janene: This really is a chicken and egg discussion. I don’t have your knowledge on evolutionary theory. As a matter of fact I’m in the process of learning a bit from your site. Obviously diversity was necessary and did exist when biological life began. If however we go back to the big bang or the point where our known universe was born there was nothing to be diverse. Speaking of perfect copying machines I don’t think that is ever possible physically. It seems that in a sense out universe is absolutely divers. Although its possible in software, that’s not true of the medium that contains it.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 12 November 2005 @ 11:34 AM
Hey Bob –
Yeah, this discussion hits on my two of my biggest ’scholarly’ passions: Evolutionary Theory and Cosmology/Quantum Physics (the other being Ancient History). Its all about Origins, you see
For a good primer on Evolution, check out Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker as an intro and The Selfish Gene for a really thorough examination. Then if you want more, look for Stephan Gould — he and Dawkins represent the two competing theories (really just subtle differences) of speciation. I find them compatible, but they fought like cats and dogs
Now as to ‘replicators’ — this is a term that Dawkins presented (not certain he was first, but he is the one I heard it from) to describe pre-life organic molecules. They replicated themselves through the simple expedient that DNA continues to use today: they had ‘open’ electrons that allowed them to bond with mirror image molecules, which then separated and combined with a second mirror image creating an ‘exact’ copy of the original. (exact except for errors). These things really are just simple molecuels in a chemical soup. Over time, different versions of these molecules formed symbiotic relationships until eventaully, the nucleus was born and so forth. This is a very simplified description, but you should get the idea.
On the Big Bang and diversity — this is where quantum mechanics comes in. According to Theory, quanta spontaneously ‘pop’ into being, in pairs (matter-antimatter). In most cases, these pairs almost instantaneously collide and destroy themselves once more. However, in rare instances, one or the other particle (at the end of the day, always the ‘matter’ particle — I’m not going to try and explain that, just trust me, or read Brian Green, Stephan Hawking, et al) survive and become ‘real’. I suspect that some variation on this is exactly what caused the big bang. Don’t ask me to explain that, though, because its something that my gut tells me, and I haven’t yet figured out the ‘how’ just yet….
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 November 2005 @ 12:51 PM
Janene: Thanks for the information, I am intrigued but not well informed on both subjects. Although in ignorance, I tend to agree with your gut feeling. I also have a gut feeling that “the big bang� was not the first or the last but is part of a continuing process.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 12 November 2005 @ 1:35 PM
Hey Bob –
Yeah, my gut second’s yours on the whole cyclical thang…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 November 2005 @ 3:24 PM
This some GOOD stuff! Are you going to put it all in a book?
I just found this site, chasing an idea that came to me a couple of days ago. Evolution leads to diversity - what struck me was that that is at odds with the conventional interpretation of the words ’survival of the fittest’, which are taken to mean that imperfection will be mercilessly eliminated. The history of life clearly demonstrates that this isn’t so! Diversity has increased under the engine of evolution. How best to phrase this in a sound-bite? Survival of the slightly-different?
I ponder chicken-and-egg from time to time. Nature has a knack for producing things in parallel like that. It seems very hard for our brains to appreciate. Which came first, diversity or evolution? I wager they pulled each other out of the primordial soup by their bootstraps.
Comment by speedbird — 15 February 2006 @ 10:43 AM
Yup.
Diversity. Specifically, the diversity of the dispersion of hydrogen atoms in the newborn universe, such that gravity could pull them together and ignite stars. Fusion then created a greater diversity of elements, which were scattered about when they went nova, so that the second generation of stars could form planets with things like hydrogen, and metals, and oxygen and whatnot. That allowed for a diversity of chemcial reaction with that new diversity of atomic elements, which eventually led to a self-replicating protein. At that point, diversity had yielded the first thing capable of evolution, and evolution began creating still more diversity.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 10:50 AM
You’re assuming that the universe is not a self-replicating entity. If it is,the answer to the question is that diversity and evolution have both always existed.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 11:32 AM
Only if the universe replicates with differences and is subject to some kind of natural selection. Even then, the evolution of universes would arise from the fact that there was a diversity among the universes to begn with, not due to evolution, but simply due to the process of universal reproduction.
But at this point, we’ve entered the realm of ideas so speculative that it makes little sense even discussing them.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 11:54 AM
The question of which was first assumes a beginning. This is speculating that time is finite and had a beginning. The question itself whether diversity or evolution was first is senseless. If by beginning we mean the big bang that caused the present universe then the answer does depend on whether or not this was the evolution of a universe. The answer would still depend on how we divine evolution. Because we agree this is senseless we can’t answer Speedbird’s question.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 12:51 PM
Oops typo! I meant “how we define evolution”
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 12:53 PM
There are many kinds of infinities. Start counting from 1; you can count forever. It’s infinite, but it has a beginning. Space and time may well be infinite, but they are physical properties of our universe. They do not exist before the universe; “before the universe” doesn’t even make sense. Time may be infinite (or it may not be), but it had a beginning.
The definition of evolution is simple, and discussed above: evolution is descent with change, or a change in allele frequency over time.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 1:18 PM
It seemed obvious that I meant infinite in the sense of no beginning and no end. There are cosmologists who do think, “before the universe� or before the big bang makes sense. How do you know that time had a beginning?
In your article and in the discussion that follows several meanings of evolution are used. (Meanings also evolve) Of course if we use change in allele frequency, there was diversity before DNA. If we talk about cosmic evolution as in Jeff’s book we don’t have an answer.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 1:50 PM
The meaning of “infinity” is never obvious. Some infinities are bigger than others, some have beginnings, some don’t … it’s a very confusing concept.
But we know that time had a beginning because time is part of our universe, just like space. Cosmologists refer to “before the Big Bang,” but they’re also fully well aware that they’re talking about “before time”–and since “before” is a property of “time,” that’s nonsense, the same way that you can’t talk about how big everything beyond space is. If time and space are all a single thing, then it has to have a beginning. So, for time not to have a beginning would up-end all of Einsteinian physics.
Even if we drop allele frequency, a key component of evolution is descent with modification. One entity does not “evolve,” evolution is a property of a linear succession. This was discussed in the original article. Evolution is not a mere synonym for “change.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 2:37 PM
As usual we are complicating this discussion with linguistics. If, as is often done, you define the universe and time as that which can be known by Einsteinian physics, then you are linguistically correct. However the Einsteinian universe does not describe all of reality. Recent discoveries and new theories in physics make it quite reasonable to consider both time and space to be infinite without ends or boundaries. So we can’t know whether evolution preceded diversity or if the opposite is true since we can’t even know whether the question is ridiculous or not.
I was not speaking of one entity evolving, but a succession of self-propagating universes.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 7:28 PM
That is what the Einsteinian universe claims to be. If you can prove that assertion, you should publish it–you’ll revolutionize physics, introduce a whole paradigm shift, and be celebrated as one of the greatest physicists to ever live.
But not without origins–unless you also have evidence to similarly revolutionize our understanding of cosmology?
So I presumed, but while this might be possible, it remains extremely speculative in itself. Speculating based on that is then so far removed from any touchstone of known fact as to barely warrant the effort.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 7:45 PM
I think we can safely restrict diversity vs evolution discussion just to life on this planet without undermining the fundamental question of which came first. Do we have enough facts to answer whether evolution of life on earth was driven by diversity of original components, or whether diversity of these components was produced by evolutionary mechanisms?
Comment by _Gi — 15 February 2006 @ 9:05 PM
In terms of this planet, no, evolutionary began from the diversity of elements and chemical reactions on this planet. No evolution led to that. If any evolution is involved in that process, it’s of the cosmological variety.
If universes replicate, and if they reproduce with differences, and if this is a younger generation universe, then our universe might, itself, be a product of a kind of “evolution,” then we might be able to call the universe itself a product of evolution.
If we restrict the scope just to our planet, there’s no question. Diversity comes first, evolution follows from that.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 10:12 PM
And evolution increases diversity (paradoxically, by mercilessly eliminating less-fit solutions).
*
What do you think is the minimum diversity required for evolution?
*
I have a lot of time for the theory (I read it in Fritjof Capra) that evolution began when the first bubble of liquid became separated from the surrounding medium by some sort of membrane. This almost defines the ‘diversity’ required for evolution as a separation of something from its environment (and its fellows). From here flows the concept of homeostasis - things that maintain that separation - and even ideas like individual identity and the mind. I’m comfortable with arguing that evolution and *this* form of ‘diversity’ appeared together.
Comment by speedbird — 16 February 2006 @ 11:32 AM
“That is what the Einsteinian universe claims to be. If you can prove that assertion, you should publish it–you’ll revolutionize physics, introduce a whole paradigm shift, and be celebrated as one of the greatest physicists to ever live.â€?
I don’t think so Jason. Physicists need too much math and I had trouble with freshman calculus. Anyway I’d be too late. The paradigm shift happened just before the fall of the Soviet Union. Although originally theorized by the Russian physicist Alexei Starobinsky, and a little later in 1981 independently by Alan Guth, then at MIT, what is now known as inflation theory was not known or accepted by most cosmologists until Andrei Linde convinced Stephen Hawking of it’s feasibility at a conference in Moscow in October 1981. Since that time several new theories that incorporate inflation have been proposed. The Cyclic Model presented by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Princeton and Cambridge respectively in 2004 is based on compression before instead of inflation immediately after the bang. There is now a range of theories of the origin of this universe that postulate a larger reality and, unlike the original Big Bang theory, are fairly compatible both with quantum theory and relativity. At this time Physics cannot offer us proof in this matter any more than Anthropology can prove that ancient hunter-gatherer tribes were egalitarian.
Big Bang theory as you explained it above (A singularity that exploded 13.7 years ago and includes all of reality) has not been considered likely by cosmologists since the acceptance of inflation. In order to differentiate between this universe, that may have begun with the Big Bang, and the total of reality, cosmologists now use terms like Universe as opposed to universe, or Multiverse, or Total Universe.
“But not without origins–unless you also have evidence to similarly revolutionize our understanding of cosmology?â€?
“In the ekpyrotic view of reality, everything that astronomers have ever observed is just a speck within the higher dimensions, and all of history since the Big Bang is but an instant in the infinity of time.”
David Spergel, a Princeton astrophysicist commenting on Steinhard and Turok ‘s work in Before the Big Bang Discover Feb 2004.
Time is an even more confusing term than infinity. Although we can define time as beginning with the Big Bang, we can only speculate about whether or not the total reality has a beginning. As you can see from the above quote it is not more speculative to say there is no beginning. Occam’s razor favors my position as then it’s not necessary to find a first cause which must come from a time and place that doesn’t exist. However, Jason, if you can prove that there must be a beginning, YOU could win a prize in physics.
Speaking of speculative, the premise of this Thesis (evolution is the result of diversity) is not only speculative but also specious. I don’t see why you feel the need to glorify diversity. Calling it the primary good as you do in Thesis 1 is ridiculous.
Just as hot and cold are opposites that describe temperature, diversity and uniformity are opposites that describe homogeneity. For carbon life to form and be sustained does require a particular range of homogeneity. If there were too much uniformity or too much diversity in this universe carbon based life as we know it could not have evolved. This is also true in the present. If there were not occasional diversity in genes evolution would cease. It would also cease if there were not enough uniformity in alleles and chromosomes. Just as certain ranges of hot and cold are necessary for certain purposes, so are different ranges of diversity and uniformity of value for different purposes.
“Evolution, then, is simply a consequence of diversity. … Evolution happens, as the inevitable consequence of a diverse world.�
Although a definite range of homogeneity was necessary for evolution to begin and for it to continue, there are many other necessities required. These include the correct amount of gravity to provide an atmosphere. Both the correct gravity and temperature to provide water in a liquid form. Life also requires the proper amount of the proper type of radiation from the sun for photosynthesis. There are many other necessary qualities required for the beginning and continuation of evolution and carbon based life.
A fire requires a source of oxygen, fuel, and a temperature high enough for combustion. If any one of these is missing, the fire cannot start or continue. Fire is not the inevitable consequence of any one of these properties, but requires all in the proper degree and proportion. I would say the same is true for evolution.
“There is infinite diversity in the space that is equally simple, hugging close to the baseline. Diversity also moves up, towards more complex. If we were to graph such dispersion, it would not look like an arrow shooting up into the stratosphere of complexity; it would be a hemisphere against a solid floor, with its radius constantly growing.�
I don’t understand this. Diversity and complexity of what? Infinite diversity of what? If you are just speaking of diversity and complexity in general, then the shape of your graph will only depend on the units you choose. If by diversity you mean the number of different species they can’t be infinite.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 20 February 2006 @ 7:49 PM
Hey –
hmmm… Compression Before the Big Bang? I haven’t seen that, yet, but I do have that Discover issue around here somewhere, so I’ll have to check it out, see what they are trying to explain with thier model.
I’m not quite sure of what you are trying to say, here, Bob.
Inflation is not contrary to the Big Bang… it merely modifies the history of the universe since the big bang. It explains how (and more recently, why) the universe is not homgeneous, why there are pockets of relative high and low density and why the cosmic background radiation is not uniform.
Likewise, the big Bang is still the only viable theory in Cosomology, even today. Interesting things are happening with M-Theory, that will expand our understanding of how the universe functions, but it does not change the basic outline of the formation of the universe (even if there are 13 dimensions, or seven, or nine…)
But it is important to note that this says absolutely NOTHING about what else may exist. If it is not in our universe there is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion. In somewhat the same way as ‘Black Holes have no hair.’
The quote you were asking about directly relates to Steven Gould’s Full House. At any given time in our history, 99.9% of the diversity of life on this planet has been single celled organisms. If you plotted out one point for each species on a graph, it would fluctuate between being entirely flat and representing a half circle. If you gave the graph three dimesions, then it would be a sphere.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 February 2006 @ 9:26 PM
“I don’t like chicken and egg discussions, because I find that in most cases, it is a question that cannot be answered without falling back on a cyclical, mutually reinforcing, systemic answer.” I hate this expression. Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens came to be. Thus eggs came first. End of discussion. No cyclical thinking needed. The original egg layer was not a chicken, but chickens did almost certainly descend from them via evolution.
“but they fought like cats and dogs” and while I’m at it, this one bugs me too. I have a dog and two cats and the cats fight with one another far more than either of them fight with the dog or she with them.
I know this has noth