Re: Announcing A New Unifying Principle of the Evolutionary Sciences
- From: "Tom Hendricks" <tomhendricks474@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 01:19:21 -0500 (EST)
..
> >>
> >> Q:
> >> When the biota 'calculates the design... etc." why does it do it for
> >> the good of the biota and not the bad? What process makes the biota
> >> changes favorable instead of unfavorable to life?
> >>
> >> A #1:
> >> Natural selection.
OK let's look at that - see below. Perhaps there is a type of selection
on environments or symbiotic or interconnected systems that are more
fit than others.
Maybe the biota does not do good for all organisms. Instead it does
good for most of the life most of the time. Now what parts of the biota
would
have an advantage over other parts of the biota? (See below)
> >>
> >> A #2:
> >> A full and accurate accounting of the causal implications of the design
> >> and distribution of life and it's environment.
> >>
> >> Actually these are both the same answer. A full accounting will reveal
> >> NS and vice versa. We are at the conceptual limits in that there is no
> >> other 'why' questions that can be asked from this point on that will
> >> provide us any insight. All we can say is that the current design and
> >> distribution of the biota is what it is because this design and
> >> distribution is what the biota has calcuated, over billions of years of
> >> taking in information from its environment, is the design and
> >> distribution that will maximize the probability that life will survive
> >> into eternity. IOW, to anticipate where you might go with this beyond
> >> here, there really is no answer to why the biota does what it does that
> >> does not involve direct reference to the situational factors on this
> >> planet over billions of years.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> >
> > I've been thinking about this and perhaps I can carry it further.
> > Jim consider this.
> >
> > What if GAIA adjusts because of the "Greater Good" idea.
>
> Way too vague and subjective.
>
> > This idea or principle of mine would bump up evolution a step.
>
> Bump up evolution?
>
> > On a planet wide basis we would have some
> > symbiotic systems stronger than others - thus GAIA would
> > support the 'Greater Good". And those less symbiotic, or
> > less powerful, or less 'fit', life systems would not prevail.
>
> I'm not following. Gaia doesn't, IMO, carry any particular preference for
> symbiosis. Gaia is the supermacro scale view of biological phenomena.
> Symbiosis is one of many strategies. Its usefulness, like that of all
> strategies, depends upon situational factors.
No now consider this carefully. there are some life systems that
are so successful that they have virtually conquered the planet.
Ex. 1 - bacteria and plants. The bacteria supplies the nitrogen.
Ex. 2. plants and animals - one gives off O2, the other uses it ,
on gives off CO2 the other uses it.
Now for a less successful symbiotic or connected life -
Ex. 3.- methanogens cover a very narrow aspect of life on earth.
Which group - the very successful ex. 1 and 2,
or the ex. 3 has more impact on the planet GAIA system?
Which would be more likely to impact GAIA?
If GAIA changed through NS as you suggested above,
would it be more toward ex. 1 and 2, or to the betterment
of ex. 3? And if 1 and 2, why?
Thus GAIA would more likely respond to the more dominant, larger,
interconnected groups.
Lovelock used the daisyworld idea.
Let's say his planet also had a small niche of methanogens.
Wouldn't daisies more likely change the planet then the
small group of marginal methangens?
Wouldn't the changes of GAIA be more in accord or more
from that of the daisies impact than the methanogens?
Another example is the build up of O2. That favored a more
fit intereconnected type of life then the one that was based
on a reducing atmosphere. Which group did GAIA
adjust for - those evolved to live in the reducing evnironment or those
evolved to live and expand and leave more offspring in the
O2 filled environment.
Do you see my point? We perhaps can take the idea
of why GAIA responds in the way it does - a little further.
It responds, in a slightly more favorable way,
to the biggest gorilla in the life system -
it responds more to the largest and most successful
interconnected group of life organisms. Because that
group has more impact on that environment.
How about others reading this?
Comment? I think it is a very intruiging idea.
Tom
>
> >
> > Thus Gaia would adjust to the stronger symbiotic system among
> > many symbiotic systems.
> > And what life was left would either
> > 1. adjust to the greater good
> > 2. be destroyed
> > 3. live an existence apart from it that in no way interferes with it.
> >
> > Thus I asked how would Gaia regulate for the good instead of the
> > bad. It would for the greater good over the lesser good - thus
> > it would be natural selection but on symbiotic systems not just
> > species - it would bump up evolution a step.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Partial Occupation of a Planet
- Next by Date: Re: Heritability of fitness
- Previous by thread: Re: Partial Occupation of a Planet
- Next by thread: Re: Announcing A New Unifying Principle of the Evolutionary Sciences
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
