"Stephen Harris"  wrote 

>  Jim McGinn wrote:
> > It seems we are, finally, in agreement.  So now I can
> > assume that you don't dispute my contention that the
> > phenomena that has been labelled genetic drift is nothing
> > more than a part of natural selection that is difficult
> > or impossible to measure/predict.  Right?  So now when
> > other people tell you that genetic drift represents a
> > form of causation distinct from natural selection you
> > are going to tell them they are full of crap.  Right?
> > Because, like myself, you now realize that, like I just
> > stated, "genetic drift" is nothing more than a part of
> > natural selection that is difficult or impossible to
> > measure/predict.  Right?
> >
> 
> We agreed, that chance is often used descriptively.
> Your conclusion does not follow.

I think I see where some of the conceptual confusion 
may lay.  I looked back at the your post that preceded 
my last post and found therein two different 
interpretations of the word "chance."  (I wish I'd 
seen this the first time I read it.  This shows how 
confusing this subject is.)  

These are your words:
1) . . . the adjective that describes the lack of 
pattern . . .
2) "The unknown and unpredictable element in 
happenings . . ."

Note that these two interpretations involve two 
very different meanings.  The first, 1), involves 
phenomena that lack order (order being symmetry 
[pattern] over time and/or space).  The second 
involves lack of knowledge.  Now here's the thing.  
Very often something that lacks order will be 
unpredictable.  And very often something that is 
unpredictable will be lacking in order.  But this 
is not necessarily the case, certainly not always.  
We can have phenomena that is ordered and not have 
knowledge of it.  Likewise we can have phenomena 
that lacks order but we can have knowledge of its 
arrangement.  Whatever the case, we can't employ 
these different interpretations interchangeably.  
As I'll further explicate below, this is a main 
source of the confusion with genetic drift.  (You 
may have noticed that in what you quoted of me below 
that I went to great lengths to avoid this confusion 
by way of employing the word, "chaotic," to 
differentiate it from, "chance."  I did that for 
this very reason.)

> In my last post I mentioned origin a couple of times.
> 
> > Natural selection acts in response to environmental 
> > pressures. How does this cover random processes 
> > that happen within the cell, the source or origin 
> > of genetic drift genes?
>  
> > I don't see how your reasoning proceeds without 
> > resorting to some unfounded assumption(s) about 
> > origins. I looked at some of your past posts and 
> > don't find your defintion of natural selection which 
> > you think would include genetic drift. To me, they 
> > seem to nearly opposite mechanisms
> 
> SH: Well, I looked further and found your explanation 
> in 1998:

Good find.

> 
> "I guess the best way to frame my position on this 
> point is with the following rhetorical question: why 
> would we refer to the so mentioned molecular level 
> changes as not being part of the process of natural
> selection?  My answer to this question is that there 
> is no reason to not consider these as an expected 
> and even predictable part of the process of natural 
> selection.  My rationale for this opinion is as follows:
> 
> One of the tenets of natural selection is variablity: 
> selection can only achieve "improvements" if there 
> is some variablity from which it can select from.  
> Organisms, being comprised of ordered matter cannot, 
> in and of themselves produce variability.  Therefore 
> they would have to have the ability to tap into some 
> source of chaotic causation.

Note that I employ the phrase, "chaotic causation," 
here, which involves the supposition of phenomen 
lacking in symmetry [pattern] over space and/or time.  
I intentionally avoided using the phrase, "chance 
causation," because I didn't want it to invoke the 
notion of lack of knowledge or lack of ability to 
measure.  I'm hoping that you can now distinguish between 
these two interpretations and, more importantly, that you 
now recognize the value of maintaining this distinction.  
Are you with me?


> Consequently we should expect organisms to have 
> evolved the ability to tap into and capture chaotic 
> causation (causation that is lacking in order over 
> space in time) from their surrounding environment.  
> In other words we would expect organisms to have 
> evolved the ability to take advantage of chaotic 
> phenomena in their environment (at a molecular 
> level but maybe not only at a molecular level) 
> to create "mutations" (a somewhat loaded word) so 
> that they have the chance of achieving 
> "improvements" through selection.
> 
> To put it in a nutshell, I have no argument with 
> the facts of what you are saying.  What I do have 
> argument with is the notion that "genetic drift" 
> should somehow be considered some new addition to 
> our understanding of how life evolves.  As 
> explained above, my rationale for this position is 
> based on the stipulation that the phenomena that 
> is purported to have lead to the "discovery" of 
> genetic drift can be (or can potentially be) 
> deduced from the concept of natural selection.  
> In other words, to me it would have been pretty 
> surprising if we did *not* find that, on a 
> molecular level (as well as other levels), that 
> organisms have the ability to tap into sources of
> chaotic phenomena to, thereby, induce their own 
> genetic variability.

Note, again, that I'm very careful to employ the 
word, "chaotic," not, "chance."  If I had employed 
the word chance then I might have inadvertently 
opened up this explanation to the interpretation 
that I was inferring phenomena that was unknown or 
unknowable, which is not even at issue here.

> 
> Jim McGinn"
> 
> SH: So here you address origins and in particular:
> 
> "In other words we would expect organisms to have 
> evolved the ability to take advantage of chaotic 
> phenomena in their environment (at a molecular level 
> but maybe not only at a molecular level) to create 
> "mutations" (a somewhat loaded word) so that they 
> have the chance of achieving "improvements" through 
> selection."
> 
> SH: Evolving ability that takes advantage of 
> chaotic phenomena in their environment which allows 
> "improvements" through selection follows from and 
> after the existence chaotic causation. So that
> "genetic drift can be (or can potentially be) 
> deduced from the concept of natural selection." is 
> reasonable because natural selection originally 
> acted upon the "chaotic causation".

I can't follow this.  (Nor can I tell if you are 
disputing me or agreeing with me.)  But if I can further 
clarify my point: AFAIC, at no time did anybody envision 
NS as being devoid of chaotic causation.  In fact as far 
as I'm concerned Darwin made this perfectly clear in 
that he explicitly included, environmental "randomness," 
as the cause of variation and mutation.

> The history of the evolution of life has proceeded 
> from the simple and less organized to the complexity 
> of today through the mechanism of natural selection. 
> It is true that "genetic drift" as analogous to
> chaotic causation is a new idea than natural selection.

This is the crux of the issue.  You say chaotic causation 
is a new idea.  I say it's not:
Genetic Drift was tacked-on to the concept of evolution.  
And, IMO, It was tacked-on for no other reason but that 
those that did so failed to distinguish between the two 
interpretations of chance indicated above, chance 
(unpredictability) and randomness (chaotic causation) as 
described in 1 and 2 above.  Then--by way of the 
gambler's fallacy--they jumped to the conclusion that 
"chance," indicated a form of causation that was 
categorically distinct from Darwin's "randomness" which 
simply isn't true.  
  
If you first get the distinction between chance 
(unpredictability) and randomness (chaotic causation) clear 
in your head, and, secondly, if you maintain the realization 
that randomness (chaotic causation) is already included in 
NS, as described by Darwin, the epistemological necessity 
of "genetic drift" disappears.  (And evolutionary theory 
achieves a higher degree of parsimony.) And the observation 
of the phenomena "genetic drift," reveals itself as being 
nothing more than a consequence of our limited ability 
to measure/predict NS.

> We had classical Newtonian physics. Relativity theory 
> superceded classical physics and now Newtonian physics 
> is a subset of Relativity physics. Relativity theory is 
> not relegated to lesser importance because Newtonian 
> physics was thought of first.  It is quite logical to 
> assert that the mechanism of genetic drift which can be 
> called chaotic causation happened first but was
> discovered later.

AFAIC it wasn't discovered later.  It was explicitly included 
in Darwin's description of NS.  He never ignored randomness, 
variation, mutation etc.  So I don't know where you are 
getting this.

> How could the mechanism of natural selection
> take action without chaotic causation?

I agree, it couldn't.  (As Darwin described.)

> It is reasonable to conclude that genetic drift is the 
> logical parent of natural selection. And that the idea 
> that chaotic confusion as a concept should be subsumed
> under the natural selection concept because natural 
> selection was postulated first is as unreasonable

It seems that you are making my argument for me here.  
Except that you are employing the phrase "genetic drift," 
to indicate chaotic causation, which will only cause 
confusion.)  It seems the only discrepancy we have is 
that IMO it (chaotic causation) was never not a part of 
NS.  I don't see how Darwin could have been clearer on 
this point.

The only argument you could make, IMO, is that modern 
understanding of genetics gives us a clearer picture 
of the mechanism by which Darwin's randomness effects 
variation and mutation.  But this is a rather arrogant 
argument.  Its like saying that since we now have a 
better understanding of the nature of combustion that 
we now have a better understanding of the internal 
combustion engine than, let's say, Henry Ford.  
Darwin didn't know about genes.  But he certainly 
knew about the importance of chaotic causation.  

> as postulating that relativity theory
> should be subsumed under classical theory because it 
> was discovered first. It isn't. The idea of 
> self-organization arising from chaos meaning that 
> self-organization should be considered the parent 
> concept of chaos doesn't make sense to me. That our 
> understanding should reflect our best knowledge of 
> reality rather than be prioritized by the order of 
> discovery seems a better criteria.

Well, I'd be cautious to employ the parent child 
analogy: it seems we might risk over-analogizing in 
this instance.  But I still think the main point here 
is that at no time was chaotic causation not part and 
parcel to NS.  I don't see how anybody can say that 
Darwin wasn't perfectly aware of it.  Like I said 
above, he was very explicit about including randomness 
and variation in his arguments.  IMO, it's ludicrous 
(and even arrogant) to suggest that since he didn't 
know about genes that he, therefore, didn't know about 
the importance of chaotic causation (which he called 
randomness) as a source of variability/mutation.  
Again, given the limitations of his lack of knowledge 
of genetics, I don't see how he could have been much 
clearer on this point.  You don't need to know about 
genes to realize the importance of chaotic causation.

> The idea that natural selection causes or is 
> responsible for the existence of chaotic causation 
> (randomness/chance) will likely find little support,
> nor will the idea that history should dictate the 
> classification.

I doesn't need to find support.  It already has it.  
It always has.  More to the point, I don't see how you 
can maintain that it was ever not included in NS.

> I think recognizing that the universe did not start 
> out as a predictable phenomenon but became organized 
> as it evolved establishes seperate principles. Chaos 
> and pattern can coexist in the universe just as 
> genetic drift and natural selection can coexist as 
> part of a larger concept, evolution.
> 
> Jim McGinn writes:
> 
> > Because, like myself, you now realize that, like I just
> > stated, "genetic drift" is nothing more than a part of
> > natural selection that is difficult or impossible to
> > measure/predict.  Right?
> 
> Wrong. I see both genetic drift and natural selection as
> complementary parts of a larger whole and both important.

Okay then, let me ask you a few more questions.  Do you 
now agree that the cause of genetic drift is not, "chance 
causation," (unpredictability) but, "chaotic causation," 
(phenomena lacking in symmetry [pattern] over space and 
time?"  (I think it's fair to assume that, now, you'll 
answer yes to this question.)  Did Darwin ever maintain 
that the environmental causation that effected biological 
organisms (in many different ways) was perfectly symmetrical 
(non-chaotic)?  (I think it's fair to say that you can only 
answer no to this question.)  And since Darwin never made 
any such stipulation and since he always maintained that 
randomness and variability were causal on lifeforms, is it 
not reasonable to conclude that he explicitly or implicitly 
maintained the influence of chaotic effects on lifeforms?  
If so, do you now understand why I consider genetic drift 
to be much ado about nothing at all, nothing but the 
mistaken tendency of modern scientists to view genes as 
conceptually distinct from biolgical organisms and their 
environment (ie. the gambler's fallacy) when in actuality 
no such distinctions exist?  

Moreover, do you now see why I consider Genetic Drift to 
be nothing more than a more complex and therefore 
intractable version of the gambler's fallacy?  Remember 
now, "chance," (unpredictability) is not causal.  The 
environment is causal.  ("Chance doesn't hit home runs, 
baseball players do.)  And the causation that comes from 
the environment is, in many ways, chaotic (random).  I 
don't see how Darwin could be said to have been anything 
but explicit in stipulating the influence of environmental 
randomness (chaotic causation) in achieving 
variation/mutation.  Now, maybe, you can understand why I 
maintain that those that try to measure NS using statistics 
and who then come to the conclusion that their inability to 
perfectly predict/measure NS indicates a form of 
evolutionary causation distinct from NS are talking out 
their . . . well, you know.

Regards,

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/2/03 6:31:53 AM