Guy Hoelzer  wrote in message
news:...
> [snip]
> 
> in article b72rk6$2i9u$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Jim McGinn at
> jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com wrote on 4/9/03 9:23 PM:
> 
> >> However, I still maintain that drift and other stochastic
processes can have
> >> real existence. You used the word "subjective",
which is entirely appropriate
> >> IMHO.  Every system has a subjective way of interacting with
the external
> >> universe.  My view is that this subjectivity is sensitive (or
more accurately
> >> perceptive) to a relatively small number of sources of
perturbation.  The
> >> combined effects of all other sources of perturbation are perceived and
> >> responded to as if it were a single source,
> > 
> > I don't see why you make this stipulation.  Are they responded
> > to as a single source or not?  If not then what does the phrase,
> > " . . . as if it were a single source, . . ." mean?
> 
> It means that the set of sources is not actually a single source, but that
> the set is actually responded to as a single source.

Example?

> 
> > In other words, I think you'd have a hard time if were were to ask you to
> > substantiate this stipulation.  (Is it testable/measurable?)
> 
> There is a very rigorous body of theory in population genetics that makes
> essentially the same point, although I have tried to extend the results to
> the nature of all physical systems.  The theory I refer to is called
"Nearly
> Neutral Theory" and it was developed by Kimura's right hand woman, Tomoko
> Ohta.  Because this has been developed as a quantitative model, it is indeed
> testable and the predicted effects are measurable.

Not the issue.  The issue is whether or not part of NS.

  Nearly neutral theory
> does not deal with the shape of the source/effect (information) distribution
> discussed below, and assumes a continuum of fitness effects in a way that is
> more consistent with your position than is represented by my position.  Ohta
> nevertheless comes to the conclusion that the set of causes with small
> effects (the size of the effect threshold depends on Ne) would be responded
> to by a population as a single category of stochastic causation.

Which IMO, as I explained above, is meaningless.  (Also 
there is no such thing as stochastic causation.)

> 
> >> which we call environmental stochasticity.
> >> Thus I see drift as a real and coherent process from the
point of view of
> >> any particular system, which exhibits reliable statistical
patterns that
> >> emerge from the combination of effects (note the central
limit theorem).
> > 
> > I agree that the phenomena that neoDarwinists have labelled GD
> > is real  In fact, I'm not aware of any phenomena that is unreal. :)
> 
> Right.  The only unreal phenomena are imaginary ones we name, but which
> don't actually exist.
> 
> > I just don't see any rationale for the assertion that this
> > phenomena that has been labelled GD is not part of NS.
> 
> If you really want a comprehensive and rigorous defense of this view, try
> reading some of Ohta's work on nearly neutral theory.

It's worthless because Ohta (and Kimura) failed to 
properly objectify their initial assumptions.  

> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> Consider a graph of the amount of information a population might have
> >> regarding particular sources of causation in which ALL
potential sources are
> >> ranked along the x-axis from least information to most.  I
think there are an
> >> enormous (effectively infinite, I think) number of causes
about which natural
> >> populations have no particular information,
> > 
> > I would say that their morphology *is* information about what
> > survived in past environments.
> 
> Would you agree that it does not retain information about every kind of
> causation in the past?  And/or that a given structure is not responsive, let
> alone equally responsive, to all future potential sources of causation at
> all scales of phenomena.
> 
> >> so there would be a long flat start to the graph.
> >> Then their is a break point where sources of causation begin to trigger
> >> informed effect in the population,
> > 
> > Informed.  There's an interesting word.  An "informed effect"
> > would be an effect that is the result of causation that came
> > from an informed entity.
> 
> That is not the way I meant it.  I would define an informed effect as an
> adaptation.  In other words, the nature of the effect at the population
> level is to change structure (e.g. organismal morphology) in a way that
> makes the population more robust to this kind of perturbation in the future.

But this is the case with all effects, so what's the 
point in distinguishing between informed and uniformed.

> 
> > To me this brings to mind the following
> > question:  Where exactly does the *information* exist?
> > (Information must have physical existence or else it would not
> > exist as information or anything at all.)
> 
> I agree that all information has physical manifestation.  I used information
> to refer to the structural form of the population.  By "informed
effect," I
> meant a change in that structure which results in better complimentarity
> between the structure of a population and the forms and frequencies of
> perturbations it experiences from its external environment.

I can't think of any effects on the biota that cannot 
be so described.

> 
> > Actually I already answered this question in the above paragragh: their
> > (lifeform's) morphology *is* the information (specifically it is
information
> > about what survived in past habitats).  The reason I mention all of this is
> > that it provides us a basis for addressing an issue that you might not be
> > aware you were anticipating: how do we distinguish between informed effects
> > and uninformed effects?
> > 
> > How about this:
> > 
> > Informed effects are effects that are the result of the actions
> > of informed entities (lifeforms).  Uninformed effects are
> > everything else.  A meteor, therefore, would be an uninformed
> > effect.  A tiger eating a lion would be an informed effect in
> > that the entity(s) creating the causation, lifeforms, are
> > informed (they *are* information).
> 
> This distinction does not begin to capture my point,

Well, you got me confused.  I honestly don't know if 
you have a point.

 although I appreciate
> the distinction between adaptation to abiotic conditions from coevolution.
> I think this is an important distinction because coevolution involves
> coordinated evolutionary rates, as well as feedbacks that link different
> systems into single evolutionary units at a higher scale of organization.
> Very different mechanisms and rates of evolution in biotic and abiotic
> systems limit the pace and effectiveness of coevolution in a way that is
> distinct from biotic coevolution.
> 
> >> so the slope would change from a constant
> >> 0 to an increasing positive number.  The change in the nature of this
> >> relationship is the distinction between drift and selection.
> > 
> > It seems to me (my reasons for which I hope are apparent in the
> > three paragraphs I wrote above) that the only thing you (we)
> > can be said to have established is that, IYO, NS involves
> > effects that are the result of causation produced by the actions
> > of lifeforms while drift involves effects that are the result
> > causation produced by inert matter.
> 
> This is not my position.  First, I don't think there is any such thing as
> inert matter.

?

  Second, I would not say that NS only applies to
> coevolutionary adaptation,

?

 although I think that biotic sources of NS
> account for by far most of the NS experienced by biological populations.
> 
> > I disagree with this in that I consider natural selection to be a
process that
> > involves both the effects of lifeforms and the effects of inert matter.
> 
> Me too, if you remove the word "inert."
> 

?

Best,

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 4/12/03 8:35:30 PM