Darwin re-visited

[freeztar]

T-bird,

 

Why not answer the questions I, and others, have asked you first. You complain that people misrepresent your views, but you do not explain why they are misrepresented.

 

So I ask again, what *exactly* are your views on evolution?

I think we all understand that you believe evolution "strives" for complexity and we realize the importance you put on systems theories, but put 2 and 2 together and give us a concrete "TB's Theory of Evolution".

 

If you can't articulate this, then I can assure you that no one will want to play with your toy. :(

[Thunderbird]

Are we getting to the pre-existing principles?

 

-modest

 

Maybe.... maybe not, randomness and chaos is where I start.... creativity and order is your part.

 

You want everything ordered and predicable up front you will only find out what all ready know about life.

[Thunderbird]

but put 2 and 2 together and give us a concrete "TB's Theory of Evolution".

 

If you can't articulate this, then I can assure you that no one will want to play with your toy. :(

 

Can you articulate the evolution of life in concrete way, no one can. This is the point. Life is not condensable in this way.

 

Life is not like concrete.

 

This is about how life evolves. The same way ideas form, from the balance of two principles chaos and order. When they overlap you can observe a balancing act between the two. The best way to examine this process is to participate in the process.

 

Which you are. :shrug:

[Buffy]

Can you tell me why you insist on believing that "chemical and biological" are the only views being applied to Evolutionary theory? I would assume that in your studies you've come across mathematical principles being used to study chemistry? Perhaps even physics? You've honestly encountered no application of Complexity in any of these fields? Worse, open hostility? Really?

 

I'm just trying to understand why you want so badly for the application of complexity theory to be revolutionary to the point of making the other elements irrelevant. Why do you work so hard to belittle the fairly clear application of your favorite field of mathematics to all of these other sciences?

Far from "defending" Darwin, what I have said here is more about being incredulous that you think that Darwin has no relevance! That it somehow needs a completely different "third theory" because its "only about pure chance."

Your completely misrepresenting my position...

Great!

 

But if you'd read my post a little further, you'd have seen that I grant your understanding of these relationships: that's not the issue I wanted you to think about.

 

What is at issue is the fact that not only I, but most of the other folks in this thread are getting just a little bit weary of your seeming attitude of superiority, put downs, misrepresentations of the state of Evolutionary science, and coy game playing dressed up as a sort of Socratic Method. Both your implications and direct statements seem to indicate that you think that we are all idiots because we do not appreciate the beauty of Complexity as much as you do.

 

To make this a little bit easier, I took the time to put together a few examples from this thread, although there are probably quite a few I could pull from other threads as well:

Your description of life has no value to me what's so ever.. You measure life like a butcher measures out a portion....meat...

Your two assumuptions in this statement are off track. one is that Pyrotex are yourself have something to teach me about the process of evolution which has been a passion of mine for 30+ years, and the other is that there is only two camps on the issue.... There is much more to the order of life than mere chance.

I’m attempting to highlight something about not only the evolutionary process, but also the knee jerk reaction people have when attempting to present an expanded view point on life that is not chemical or strictly biological.

 

People get a little nuts and presumptuous around here on the subject...

 

Life in all its sophistication deserves more respect than, “its just all chance”...

 

Its pretty amazing really anytime someone talks about advancing Darwinian Models into the 21 century by utilizing models that do not focus on the materiel components, but rather the dynamical system aspect people get uncomfortable. Why is this I wonder?

 

Do you guys just like the idea of life is part or partials first and foremost, rather than unsubstantiated cycles, pulses, waves, basins of attraction, or autocatalytic loops, are these of no importance?

 

These descriptions or better… so my toys are better, but know body wants to play....

Then life is only a product of random chance ? A series of accidents, from stardust to starfish with no pre-existing principals. That's it..... nothing else to consider scientifically ?

You want everything ordered and predicable up front you will only find out what all ready know about life.

Now it may not be obvious to you, but these statements can easily be taken as you calling the rest of us all idiots and misrepresenting positions other than your own as relying solely on "random chance." Now I realize that you're claiming you're getting that sort of treatment from me, and I'll apologize, but you might want to consider what it means to become indignant about getting the same treatment that you seem to think is a good idea to give to others.

 

So if you say,

It seems I spend way to much time on damage control made by this type of tactics...

I'm somewhat forced to respond that that's your own fault: if you'd consider trying to be a bit less condescending you'd find people--yes, even me--want to play!

 

So, in the spirit of letting you set all the rules here (although quite frankly, you're busily hijacking Michael's thread), I'll be happy to jump in with some responses to your questions:

What would be the best description of a tornado, or a flame?

Both of these are examples of complex systems that are made complex by the confluence of highly random inputs (macroscopic quantum effects, Brownian motion) bounded by complex sets of equations whose form is driven by the nature of the structures--both microscopic and macroscopic--that describe their physical form. Thus they are highly random and highly ordered at the same time. They lend themselves to extreme unpredictability as initial conditions and inputs vary, and can show both convergent and divergent qualities based on those inputs (e.g. a flame lacking fuel or motive forces can converge to extinguishment, or given more interesting inputs, gigantic conflagrations).

 

Their physical structures, while highly random, are generally characterizable within a well defined range given enough understanding of their initial conditions and inputs, and this results in the ability to formulate fractal descriptions of their structure and behavior.

Is a turtle more like a rock, or a beam of light?

Yes and no.

• Turtles and rocks have mass components, whereas light has no mass.
  
• Rocks may have an electromagnetic component as do turtles and light beams
  
• Absent outside forces or radioactive states, the energy of a rock is entirely potential, while even turtles in their tortley torpor exhibit constant production of kinetic energy while light is of course, pure energy.
  
• Light, while being as dumb as a rock, can, as rocks do, represent vast quantities of information.
  
• Some would argue that all three are equal in a total lack of self-awareness, while others would argue that at least turtles if not all three are quite self-aware.
  
• The complex system represented by the turtle includes mechanism that allow for consumption of energy, and channeling of that energy to cause other events to occur according to a very large sequence of intervening automata, whereas light and rocks for the most part affect their environment based on much simpler Newtonian Optics, Mechanics, or electrochemical models.
  
• While I owned a Pet Rock, and do not have much fondness for reptiles, I think the turtle would be more fun to have around.
  

Can you articulate the evolution of life in concrete way, no one can. This is the point. Life is not condensable in this way....Life is not like concrete.

I would have to agree strongly that life is a bit more complex than concrete. There are a lot more functions involved, and it interacts with the environment in much more interesting ways (which makes your question about the turtle so relevant).

 

Conversely, while all of the exact mechanisms of life are not fully understood, there does not appear to be much in the way of evidence that the *evolution* of life does not obey the fairly straightforward general principles of the complex interaction of a system of definitional equations and automata, random inputs, feedback loops, which can be better understood by applying the mathematics of complex systems.

 

So when you say:

This is about how life evolves....from the balance of two principles chaos and order.

I quite agree. I do know some folks who have some trouble with the notion of chaos--although usually they are Philosophers who insist on pure Determinism--for physicists its a fairly simple task to show that it exists, its source is quite well understood (i.e. there's really no mystery to it: its not proof of God), and has widespread and easily observed effects. This chaos provides the input to every system in existence and the more complex the system, the more interesting its effects.

 

And to bring this back to the flame and tornado, the most fascinating thing to me is the existence of *chaotic order* in these complex systems: they are unpredictable, but their fractal patterns can be *easily* characterized.

 

I just think that its totally shocking that that's exactly the point that Carl Linnaeus was trying to make 200 years before Benoît Mandelbrot...

 

...and that brings us to a guy named Descartes, on whom I blame everything, :(

Buffy

[freeztar]

This is about how life evolves. The same way ideas form, from the balance of two principles chaos and order. When they overlap you can observe a balancing act between the two. The best way to examine this process is to participate in the process.

I agree with this. :(

Yet, this is philosophical. It does not address the science that I believe we've all been inquiring upon.

[Thunderbird]

I agree with this. :(

Yet, this is philosophical. It does not address the science that I believe we've all been inquiring upon.

Its about information, chaos and order, A systems veiw which allows one to see that evolution is much more than the sum of its biological parts.

 

Do you think that mans inherint need to create could be related to an inherint property of biological evolution? or do you belive that questions like this are to philosophical for science?

[Thunderbird]

Great!

 

But if you'd read my post a little further, you'd have seen that I grant your understanding of these relationships: that's not the issue I wanted you to think about.

 

What is at issue is the fact that not only I, but most of the other folks in this thread are getting just a little bit weary of your seeming attitude of superiority, put downs, misrepresentations of the state of Evolutionary science, and coy game playing dressed up as a sort of Socratic Method. Both your implications and direct statements seem to indicate that you think that we are all idiots because we do not appreciate the beauty of Complexity as much as you do.

 

To make this a little bit easier, I took the time to put together a few examples from this thread, although there are probably quite a few I could pull from other threads as well:

 

Now it may not be obvious to you, but these statements can easily be taken as you calling the rest of us all idiots and misrepresenting positions other than your own as relying solely on "random chance." Now I realize that you're claiming you're getting that sort of treatment from me, and I'll apologize, but you might want to consider what it means to become indignant about getting the same treatment that you seem to think is a good idea to give to others.

 

So if you say,

I'm somewhat forced to respond that that's your own fault: if you'd consider trying to be a bit less condescending you'd find people--yes, even me--want to play!

 

So, in the spirit of letting you set all the rules here (although quite frankly, you're busily hijacking Michael's thread), I'll be happy to jump in with some responses to your questions:

Both of these are examples of complex systems that are made complex by the confluence of highly random inputs (macroscopic quantum effects, Brownian motion) bounded by complex sets of equations whose form is driven by the nature of the structures--both microscopic and macroscopic--that describe their physical form. Thus they are highly random and highly ordered at the same time. They lend themselves to extreme unpredictability as initial conditions and inputs vary, and can show both convergent and divergent qualities based on those inputs (e.g. a flame lacking fuel or motive forces can converge to extinguishment, or given more interesting inputs, gigantic conflagrations).

 

Their physical structures, while highly random, are generally characterizable within a well defined range given enough understanding of their initial conditions and inputs, and this results in the ability to formulate fractal descriptions of their structure and behavior.

Yes and no.

• Turtles and rocks have mass components, whereas light has no mass.
  
• Rocks may have an electromagnetic component as do turtles and light beams
  
• Absent outside forces or radioactive states, the energy of a rock is entirely potential, while even turtles in their tortley torpor exhibit constant production of kinetic energy while light is of course, pure energy.
  
• Light, while being as dumb as a rock, can, as rocks do, represent vast quantities of information.
  
• Some would argue that all three are equal in a total lack of self-awareness, while others would argue that at least turtles if not all three are quite self-aware.
  
• The complex system represented by the turtle includes mechanism that allow for consumption of energy, and channeling of that energy to cause other events to occur according to a very large sequence of intervening automata, whereas light and rocks for the most part affect their environment based on much simpler Newtonian Optics, Mechanics, or electrochemical models.
  
• While I owned a Pet Rock, and do not have much fondness for reptiles, I think the turtle would be more fun to have around.
  

I would have to agree strongly that life is a bit more complex than concrete. There are a lot more functions involved, and it interacts with the environment in much more interesting ways (which makes your question about the turtle so relevant).

 

Conversely, while all of the exact mechanisms of life are not fully understood, there does not appear to be much in the way of evidence that the *evolution* of life does not obey the fairly straightforward general principles of the complex interaction of a system of definitional equations and automata, random inputs, feedback loops, which can be better understood by applying the mathematics of complex systems.

 

So when you say:

I quite agree. I do know some folks who have some trouble with the notion of chaos--although usually they are Philosophers who insist on pure Determinism--for physicists its a fairly simple task to show that it exists, its source is quite well understood (i.e. there's really no mystery to it: its not proof of God), and has widespread and easily observed effects. This chaos provides the input to every system in existence and the more complex the system, the more interesting its effects.

 

And to bring this back to the flame and tornado, the most fascinating thing to me is the existence of *chaotic order* in these complex systems: they are unpredictable, but their fractal patterns can be *easily* characterized.

 

I just think that its totally shocking that that's exactly the point that Carl Linnaeus was trying to make 200 years before Benoît Mandelbrot...

 

...and that brings us to a guy named Descartes, on whom I blame everything, :phones:

Buffy

Yea, the ghost of Descartes haunts me still.

 

Anyway thank you for playing along your discriptions are very apropose to the subjects of tutles flames and tornados. Seeing how at one time in evolutionary history there was only the Light, flame, {energy}tornado {Chaotic attractor} rocks {elements} how did these elements form into a turtle.

[Moontanman]

Yea, the ghost of Descartes haunts me still.

 

Anyway thank you for playing along your discriptions are very apropose to the subjects of tutles flames and tornados. Seeing how at one time in evolutionary history there was only the Light, flame, {energy}tornado {Chaotic attractor} rocks {elements} how did these elements form into a turtle.

 

I've been trying to follow this thread with some difficulty, mainly because everyone seems to be trying to draw a curve from one point. We have one example of life, one example of the evolution of that life and not a really clear understanding of the how's and why's or even the possibilities. We don't know if all suitable environments for any type of life is destined to produce complex life nor do we know if we are the only example of complex life forms in the universe. Whether or not life has an over all awareness of it's self, a purpose or even if it's a complete accident is unknowable at this time. So many huge questions being answered as though there is a knowable answer! All we can do is collect the available data and hope that one day we will have at least one more point to add to the curve. Until we find other life in the solar system or we manage to invent realistic star travel (or maybe hear from another civilization) no one can really say if any of this stuff is true false or somewhere in between. So far I think we can say with some conviction that the earth as a complete unit does seem to act as thought it is one organism to some extent. Various feed back mechanisms seem to be controlling or at least influencing the climate and some who would say influencing even more basic elements of the entire biosphere. But I have seen no evidence so far that life is in anyway knowingly controlling it's own existence or evolution. But more data may come in at some point that will make it obvious it is or it isn't or it may remain ambiguous forever. I don't really see how you can make a really convincing argument either way. At this point anything is possible or impossible depending on your view. Blind accident, possibly, positive feedback, to some extent probably. I don't see anyway to prove anything much beyond that level of understanding. Philosophy never proved anything other than nothing is provable by thinking about it. Some time some where some one is going to have to get their hands dirty and dig up some evidence. If not we'll be no better than the people who were so sure the earth was flat and the sun and moon were simply lights in the sky and the stars were holes in the heavens.

[Buffy]

Seeing how at one time in evolutionary history there was only the Light, flame, {energy}tornado {Chaotic attractor} rocks {elements} how did these elements form into a turtle.

Well obviously, it takes a long time and a lot of intervening steps to get to turtles!

 

But look at what you start with. Lets try something simple. Water. Ever seen a water molecule? Its an isosceles triangle:

 

Source: Wikipedia: Water

 

From that simple shape you can get amazing things.

 

Ibid.

 

Fractal things!

 

Now if I can get all those amazing shapes out of three atoms with some specific properties, just think about what I can get when I start combining it with other systems...

 

It doesn't have to be all the way down, but a few turtles piled on a few more turtles and pretty soon you're talking about sentient beings!

 

(Recent Hypo-returnee Biochemist argues this additive effect is a leap of faith, but lets not get side-tracked here, there are plenty of old threads to scrounge through for that discussion...)

 

I'm assuming you're staying in Socratic mode and are not surprised by this. I know some people are though....

 

Cogito Cogito Ergo Cogito Sum, :phones:

Buffy

[Thunderbird]

Well obviously, it takes a long time and a lot of intervening steps to get to turtles!

 

But look at what you start with. Lets try something simple. Water. Ever seen a water molecule? Its an isosceles triangle:

 

 

From that simple shape you can get amazing things.

 

 

 

Fractal things!

 

Now if I can get all those amazing shapes out of three atoms with some specific properties, just think about what I can get when I start combining it with other systems...

 

It doesn't have to be all the way down, but a few turtles piled on a few more turtles and pretty soon you're talking about sentient beings!

 

(Recent Hypo-returnee Biochemist argues this additive effect is a leap of faith, but lets not get side-tracked here, there are plenty of old threads to scrounge through for that discussion...)

 

I'm assuming you're staying in and are not surprised by this. I know some people are though....

 

Cogito Cogito Ergo Cogito Sum, :phones:

Buffy

Buffy your creating a wonderful line of logic here. Yes on the atomic scale there exist a natural emergent complexity. Water is pure potential, from its dipole liquid state to its infinite crystal state.

 

Now keeping with Socratic mode. Question, Given the fact that elements contain this natural emergent geometry. As minerals are also assigned geometric symbols. What would be the geometric symbol for the element for life Li*

[Thunderbird]

I've been trying to follow this thread with some difficulty, mainly because everyone seems to be trying to draw a curve from one point. We have one example of life, one example of the evolution of that life and not a really clear understanding of the how's and why's or even the possibilities. We don't know if all suitable environments for any type of life is destined to produce complex life nor do we know if we are the only example of complex life forms in the universe. Whether or not life has an over all awareness of it's self, a purpose or even if it's a complete accident is unknowable at this time. .

You can look for the universal, water, the periodic table of elements, physics,mathimatics,terastrial conditions. These are convergent conditions that create assemblage points. We do not need to find another planet to study any of these we have all we need to work with right here.

 

 

So many huge questions being answered as though there is a knowable answer! All we can do is collect the available data and hope that one day we will have at least one more point to add to the curve. Until we find other life in the solar system or we manage to invent realistic star travel (or maybe hear from another civilization) no one can really say if any of this stuff is true false or somewhere in between. So far I think we can say with some conviction that the earth as a complete unit does seem to act as thought it is one organism to some extent. Various feed back mechanisms seem to be controlling or at least influencing the climate and some who would say influencing even more basic elements of the entire biosphere. But I have seen no evidence so far that life is in anyway knowingly controlling it's own existence or evolution.

We control or own evolution, if you trace back in our own evolution, you may find these elements of this awarness are just an assemblage of physical laws that prexsisted as scatterd elemental properties. These elements with physical laws create an attraction for one another, bond and create a reaction, but I am getting ahead of the thread here.

 

 

But more data may come in at some point that will make it obvious it is or it isn't or it may remain ambiguous forever. I don't really see how you can make a really convincing argument either way. At this point anything is possible or impossible depending on your view. Blind accident, possibly, positive feedback, to some extent probably. I don't see anyway to prove anything much beyond that level of understanding. Philosophy never proved anything other than nothing is provable by thinking about it. Some time some where some one is going to have to get their hands dirty and dig up some evidence. If not we'll be no better than the people who were so sure the earth was flat and the sun and moon were simply lights in the sky and the stars were holes in the heavens.

Having things proven is a major part of science, I can take advantage of this and do not have to remeasure every detail, but just use it in my own personal explorations. So you need not be as encumbered by wating for a concensses. I can set my own rigorous standards for what I want to explore, then set out to create models. What I'm trying to say is utilize the data compiled to seek your own answers. There's plenty for everyone.:phones:

[Pyrotex]

Great...What would be the best description of a tornado, or a flame?

Is a turtle more like a rock, or a beam of light?...

A tornado and a flame are "dissipative structures".

 

It's a principal of natural universal law. Everything of any interest in the universe is a 'process.' All processes depend upon a flow of energy. The process converts the energy in the flow to some more basic form. For example, the energy of electrons flowing through a conductor is transformed into heat, which is itself transformed into infrared radiation. You can think of the process as a conduit through which energy flows and is confined and transformed.

 

But if you attempt to push more energy through a process than it can handle, the process becomes chaotic, unstable, unpredictable. For example, the conductor begins to melt. That is called the period of critical perturbation. If the flow is increased even further, then the process actually collapses. That is the point of bifurcation.

 

One of two things may happen, which is why it's called bifurcation. The process may collapse catastrophically, dissipating the energy over the environment and terminating the flow. That's a relapse. Or the increased flow of energy might actually trigger a new kind of process, one that can handle the intensity. Often the new process is destructive of the former environment and transforms it. An entirely new environment is created. That's a saltatory leap.

 

An excellent example of a saltatory leap is the flow of energy in the form of heat and gas in our atmosphere. The heat causes the gases to move and their heat energy is soon dissipated. However, if enough energy begins to flow in an atmosphere, more than the moving gases can dissipate, a vortex will appear. The vortex can be a thin, vertical column of gas spinning at half the speed of sound, a tornado.

 

This is called a dissipative structure. When energy flowing through a system achieves a saltatory leap, it triggers the creation of such dissipative structures.

 

The "energy" in a process can take many forms. The energy might be mediated by matter, radiation or information, or some combination of all three. For example, consider a human being, our friend Turtle, or an animal turtle, or a rose bush. We are extremely unstable non-equilibrium collections of molecules. What keeps us together and maintains our identity? We are dissipative structures. We are conduits for energy to flow through, be confined, and be transformed into other more primitive forms. The process of being a conduit not only transforms the energy, but enables the energy to maintain the conduit. So, we have that dissipative structures involve a strong element of self-reference.

 

So, Turtle is more like a tornado than he is like a rock.

 

The entire subject of "how did life begin" can probably only be addressed by considering the origin of life as bio-chemical saltatory leaps.

[Thunderbird]

Ok since you guys have been so good to play along..... here it is, keep in mind you ask for it. This is a rough re-write of a paper I submitted a while back under another name.

Hit me with all you got.:doh:

 

 

 

 

Chaos and Complexity

 

One of the themes straddling both biological and physical sciences is the quest for a mathematical model of phenomena of emergence (spontaneous creation of order), and in particular adaptation, and a physical justification of their dynamics (which seems to violate physical laws).

 

The physicist Sadi Carnot, one of the founding fathers of Thermodynamics, realized that the statistical behavior of a complex system can be predicted if its parts were all identical and their interactions weak. At the beginning of the century, another French physicist, Henri Poincare`, realizing that the behavior of a complex system can become unpredictable if it consists of few parts that interact strongly, invented "chaos" theory. A system is said to exhibit the property of chaos if a slight change in the initial conditions results in large-scale differences in the result. Later, Bernard Derrida will show that a system goes through a transition from order to chaos if the strength of the interactions among its parts is gradually increased. But then very "disordered" systems spontaneously "crystallize" into a higher degree of order.

First of all, the subject is "complexity", because a system must be complex enough for any property to "emerge" out of it. Complexity can be formally defined as nonlinearity.

 

The world is mostly nonlinear. The science of nonlinear dynamics was originally christened "chaos theory" because from nonlinear equations unpredictable solutions emerge.

 

A very useful abstraction to describe the evolution of a system in time is that of a "phase space". Our ordinary space has only three dimensions (width, height, depth) but in theory we can think of spaces with any number of dimensions. A useful abstraction is that of a space with six dimensions, three of which are the usual spatial dimensions. The other three are the components of velocity along those spatial dimensions. In ordinary 3-dimensional space, a "point" can only represent the position of a system. In 6-dimensional phase space, a point represents both the position and the motion of the system. The evolution of a system is represented by some sort of shape in phase space.

 

The shapes that chaotic systems produce in phase space are called "strange attractors" because the system will tend towards the kinds of state described by the points in the phase space that lie within them.

 

The program then becomes that of applying the theory of nonlinear dynamic systems to Biology.

 

Inevitably, this implies that the processes that govern human development are the same that act on the simplest organisms (and even some nonliving systems). They are processes of emergent order and complexity, of how structure arises from the interaction of many independent units. The same processes recurr at every level, from morphology to behavior.

 

Darwin's vision of natural selection as a creator of order is probably not sufficient to explain all the spontaneous order exhibited by both living and dead matter. At every level of science (including the brain and life) the spontaneous emergence of order, or self-organization of complex systems, is a common theme.

 

Koestler and Salthe have shown how complexity entails hierarchical organization. Von Bertalanffi's general systems theory, Haken's synergetics, and Prigogine's non-equilibrium Thermodynamics belong to the class of mathematical disciplines that are trying to extend Physics to dynamic systems.

 

These theories have in common the fact that they deal with self-organization (how collections of parts can produce structures) and attempt at providing a unifying view of the universe at different levels of organization (from living organisms to physical systems to societies).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Second Ring of Life; By Thunderbird

 

The fossil record shows a variety of complex body plans appearing suddenly in the early Cambrian.

It is difficult to deduce how the individual eukaryote could build these structures within the 10-15 million years of the initial spark of the Cambrian explosion. They did not carry within themselves a blue print for an overall body plan prior to their appearance. The time frame does not allow for a slow linear advance of trial and error.

 

What I will propose with the following is a possible non-liner event.

Science today is attempting to answer these same questions via genomic constraints and further fossil discoveries.

Recently discovered fossil evidence has led this author to develop a new evolutionary model that suggest the following; The missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function acting on a microbial community bound within a geometric substrate of oolitic spheres .

This geometric agglomeration acting as a dissipative structure crystallizing into a second higher stage autopoeitic system, the first complex multi-cellular life in a non-liner event, initiating the Cambrian explosion. The big bang of animal life on earth.

 

 

Autopoiesis

From Wikipedia,

Autopoiesis literally means "auto (self)-creation" (from the Greek: auto - αυτό for self- and poiesis - ποίησις for creation or production) and expresses a fundamental complementarity between structure and function. The term was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana in 1973

 

The Mystery of the Cambrian

 

Just prior to the Cambrian explosion, the sea contained a few multi-celled organisms, worms, sponges, and an assortment of single celled protozoan, but mostly filaments of blue green algae called cyan bacteria. Suddenly, 530 million years ago, something triggered an explosion of complex life. These original basic forms are the first and largest classification of animals called the phyla. Phyla include fish, snails, trilobites, crustaceans, etc. Two things that they have in common is they are very complex and they appeared at approximately the same time in the fossil record, seemingly without a history of development. This fact has puzzled evolutionary biologists since Darwin. This great scientist was aware of the problem, but assumed further fossil discoveries would fill in the gaps. However, to this day, no step by step precursors to these archetypal creatures can be found, in fact, recently discovered fossil beds in China have pushed back the emergence of highly evolved fish to the first spark of the explosion.

 

"Autopoieses " developed by (Mantarana; Varela,) States that an organism can be defined as a cycle of relationships unified into a circle of self creation, that contains component parts, which make parts, that in turn make those parts, in a recursive cycle of self-making. This unified system can simply be visualized as a ring.

In the pre-Cambrian Sea, these "rings", cells floated about dividing, some formed symbiotic bonds with other cells, and eventually merged into cells of more complexity. These cells we call eukaryote. They are the cells that make up the complex animals that are about to suddenly and mysteriously appear in the Cambrian.

So now we can ask, how did these eukaryote form into these multi-cellular complex autopoeitic systems so suddenly? What was the unifying force that brought the separate rings together into one? "One ring to rule them all."

The answer came to me in the form of a Rosetta stone of the Cambrian era. This artifact told the story of how many came together as one, and in so doing, emerged into the macrocosm. This stone is roughly egg shaped, with bilateral right-left apertures. Patterns and original chemical components in the structure indicate the geometry and dynamics of a dissipative structure.

 

 

Another model from the top systems biologist of our time (Kauffman)( Origins of order) states that once a system reaches a threshold of complexity it can, under the right conditions, spontaneously form into a higher organizational state. He calls this "Order for free." The following process will attempt to show how multi-cellular life forms can emerge all at once, into rings of higher order, from an assemblage point of spontaneous organization.

This point being a dissipative structure that starts by recapitulating pre-existing organizational phases of its environment, These points of instabilities begin as layers of oolitic spheres bound in a chemical cellular community matrix along an X-axis as a microbial mat. This mat begins to form protuberances upward into the water column, in doing so begins to be reformed within the cycles of the shallow sea. As these protuberance grow, the waves and tides act as a construction mechanism. These cycles build a concentric wheel or bagel configuration that contains an enfolded pattern that represents the ebb and flow of waves and tides. This embryonic form emerging as a self-constructed, self-contained micro-environment. A central aperture connects the internal environment with external dynamics (cyclical flow of waves and tides) This scenario represents a encapsulation of prior stages of complexity events that represent ecosystem of that time. The mineral kingdom; oolitic spheres preparing the environment for the simple photosynthetic cell;cyanobacteria, that intern prepares the environment for the more complex animal cell. If these phases are completed successfully, a unification results between the microbial community and the macrocosmic cycles, resulting in a bounded communal respiratory system. This dynamic linkage emerging as a multi-cellular autopoitic biological system.

 

 

These structures form as connecting points between two converging evolutionary arcs that overlap and spiral together to complete a circuit. These points constructing a contained biological system, to the chemical cycles below with the fluid cycles above, and could possibly account for the multi-cellular bilateral body plans that emerged during the Cambrian. Morphological disparity can be simply be traced to variances in perturbations in the separately emerging structures.

These basins of attractions curled up into assemblage points where energetic thresholds and dynamics are reached, or more precisely focuses pre-existing principals of order at large into a nexus.

These constructions are not simply a spiral that spins in the same direction, but are formed by turning back on itself in a cycle of recursion. This recursive structures having been patterned after the ebb and flow of tide and wave pulses. This cycle recorded in concentric layers of enfolded oolitic spheres connected by filaments of cyanobacteria providing a micro-environment for more complex eukaryote cell that had attained a critical amount of genetic variables adapted over billions of years in a Varity of conditions, environments and symbiotic relationships. They are in essence the stem cells for animals that are about to form nonlinearly. Once the form reaches a critical mass it becomes stationary and is reformed into an egg shaped vessel. The wave pulse then becomes internalized bringing the inner clockwork pattern into a dynamic synchronicity with the macro-environment at large. These layers form a symmetrical pattern of embedded concentric channels that unite at a central basin. Seawater is directed into right and left apertures that have opened into logarithmic spirals. This energetic form being shaped by the balance between internal structure and external flow. This recursive logarithmic structure appears to be key initiating an internal autopoitic system. In essence an over all structural pattern emerges as a fractal of the cellular level components as the chemically based cellular community conforms to the internal fluid cycles.

 

 

Another key in the self-making ability of the embryonic material that forms these structures is in it's ability to shape-shift around the tendency of a fluid to seek an ordered path though and around a medium. This medium having a fine balance of cohesion and plasticity.

The next key is in the mineral content of the spheres. Aragonite, this form of calcium carbonate has properties that promote microbial growth and acts as a mineral substrate for initiating an autopoetic biochemical cycle. This mineral has been discovered to be a fundamental element in maintaining an autopoetic system in coral reefs and closed artificial systems such as salt water aquariums.

Another important roll of the oolites is in their ability to act as a dynamic scaffolding. As the aragonite spheres dissolve though chemical and mechanical forces, a synergy unfolds throughout the emerging structure, As the oolites shrink they become point attractors among the eukaryote cells, that have now adopted the fluid energetic pattern left by the cyanobacteria filaments. As the oolites lose mass they induce the production of new filaments that emerge from the outer cellular membranes of the eukaryotes. Anchoring proteins extend through the plasma membrane to link to the emerging cytoskeleton structure. Simply put, as the temporary oolitic scaffolding deconstructs, it constructs it's permanent replacement. These Anchoring-type junctions not only hold cells together but provide tissues with structural cohesion. These junctions are produced more abundantly in tissues that are subject to higher mechanical stress such as the outer skin and heart. Connective tissues begin forming flexible geodesic scaffolding by drawing in and connecting to points in space where the oolites have now vacated. These connecting points form the extracellular matrix, meanwhile the bilateral apertures acts as a cycle attractor spiraling inward keeping a central tension as the embryo loses mass and takes shape, simultaneously providing a flow of renewing sea water though the recursive system as it pulses in time with wave cycles. The central apertures begins to coil in slack in the form of a layered network of connected cells. This dense mass of wound together cells will form heart tissue. This tension that connects eukaryote cells in a medium of cohesion is called (tensegrity). Tensegrity results in a crystallization of connections in the architecture of the emerging organism, enabling the individual cell though it's own intracellular matrix to respond to a potential fitness space. This crystallization of the recursive dynamic structure might well result in an "algorithmic self-assembly" of genetic probabilities.

Developing layers of the body plan are connected from heart, shell, exo-skeleton or notochord, down to the strands of DNA in the cells nucleus by this network of filaments, thus tuning the cells information bank to circuits of communication though the internal structure, then out to the universe at large. A current of information begins to flow between the now bound and contained micro-cellular universe internally to a cognitive landscape of the macro-universe externally. "Cogito ergo sum"

 

 

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory".

 

Darwin, C. (1859)

The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition)

Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p.292 292

 

"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."

 

Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N., 1988

"Species selection: its range and power"

Scientific correspondence in Nature, Vol. 334, p. 19

Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.

 

Eldredge, N., 1989

Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22

 

The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families. This is not to say that each higher taxon originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.

 

Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. (1988)

"A Comparative Study of Diversification Events"

Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183

 

Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations.

 

Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N., 1988

"Species selection: its range and power"

Scientific correspondence in Nature, Vol. 334, p. 19

Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. (1988)

"A Comparative Study of Diversification Events"

Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183

[HydrogenBond]

One of the ironies of evolution, is that we assume we know how it evolved without knowing what life is. We can point out life. But what is there about life that makes it different than a rock? The DNA alone is just another long chemical. An analogy to life and evolution is not knowing what the moon is, except philosophically, and then being certain we know how it evolved. That is the nature of the evolutionary defensiveness. The correlation works, but it is not entirely rational, due to the philosophical divide.

 

Hypothetically, say it was determined that a new electron state was only found in life. This total bull, but for the sake of argument, follow the logic. Knowing that, we now have a solid lead as to what makes life unique and therefore what it is basis, i.e., making this new electron state. Based on that we can begin to logically connect this to the workings of the cell. As the order appears then we are able to correlate that to evolution. Evolution would become now the story of how this new state of an electron evolves in a rational way. Instead of millions of genes, this one electron state allows simplicity for rationality. But without a tangible something for life, we argue philosophy, with the best correlation seen as a scientific truth, even though we can't agree what life is.

[Thunderbird]

One of the ironies of evolution, is that we assume we know how it evolved without knowing what life is. We can point out life. But what is there about life that makes it different than a rock? The DNA alone is just another long chemical. An analogy to life and evolution is not knowing what the moon is, except philosophically, and then being certain we know how it evolved. That is the nature of the evolutionary defensiveness. The correlation works, but it is not entirely rational, due to the philosophical divide.

 

Hypothetically, say it was determined that a new electron state was only found in life. This total bull, but for the sake of argument, follow the logic. Knowing that, we now have a solid lead as to what makes life unique and therefore what it is basis, i.e., making this new electron state. Based on that we can begin to logically connect this to the workings of the cell. As the order appears then we are able to correlate that to evolution. Evolution would become now the story of how this new state of an electron evolves in a rational way. Instead of millions of genes, this one electron state allows simplicity for rationality. But without a tangible something for life, we argue philosophy, with the best correlation seen as a scientific truth, even though we can't agree what life is.

 

 

Your just looking at the components and missing the cyclical dynamics. Is a turtle like a rock or a beam of light? its both, elements caught up in a cyclical pulse. propagating just as waves propagate. Two waves merge coming together as a heterodyning function resonating together reproducing, yet more complex waves. life is both particle and pulse, the heart beats and you breath. They are merely pre-existing cycles that picked up the right elements

[Moontanman]

Buffy your creating a wonderful line of logic here. Yes on the atomic scale there exist a natural emergent complexity. Water is pure potential, from its dipole liquid state to its infinite crystal state.

 

Now keeping with Socratic mode. Question, Given the fact that elements contain this natural emergent geometry. As minerals are also assigned geometric symbols. What would be the geometric symbol for the element for life Li*

 

No, Li is for Lithum, there is no element of life nor is there a mysterious life force. Why do you insist on being so non science about something is just a chemical reaction? The only element that seems to be almost certianly nesesarry for life is C carbon but even that is questionable to a small extent.

[Moontanman]

Your just looking at the components and missing the cyclical dynamics. Is a turtle like a rock or a beam of light? its both, elements caught up in a cyclical pulse. propagating just as waves propagate. Two waves merge coming together as a heterodyning function resonating together reproducing, yet more complex waves. life is both particle and pulse, the heart beats and you breath. They are merely pre-existing cycles that picked up the right elements

 

No you are missing the point, life is not some sort of mysterious process that cannot be quantified. No matter how hard you try to wrap it in mystery life is nothing more than a chemical reaction that produce copies of it's self. Probably started out as catalysts that produced more than one copy of the catalyst when the reaction was through. The more complex the reaction the more of the catalysts could be found at the end. This reaction fed on it's self and eventually produced more and more complex systems. These systems "fed" on the chemical energy produced inside the earth and possibly from other sources. No doubt this happened over and over again before a process that was self sustaining was produced. As for the so called Cambrian explosion that has pretty much been explained by the seas and atmosphere finally becoming saturated with enough oxygen to oxidize fuel efficiently enough to support complex organisms. No doubt this was delayed from time to time by large impact events that became less and less common as the solar system evolved.

you are trying to work back from complexity instead of working from the simple to the complex. In other words you are looking through the wrong end of the binoculars. There was no life force waiting to spring out of the nonliving. Complex systems can evolve from the simple in many things. A good example is the way a hurricane evolves from scattered thunder storms at sea. When conditions are right the simple scattered storm clouds formed from updrafts are organized into a complex system called a hurricane. Nothing mysterious about it but when you watch a hurricane coming at you from land it seems to be a very complex almost impossible almost living thing. but only because you are looking at the end result, not seeing the beginning, it's just complexity feeding off surplus energy. Hurricanes have limits on their complexity and do not reproduce but the first chemical reactions fired by catalysts didn't reproduce either but they also didn't have any limits on their complexity. But as the excess chemical energy was used by these systems, systems that ended with more catalysts than others were more common and eventually feed off the simpler systems to produce copies of themselves. That is very close to life and a very small step from the simplest real chemical reactions we would call proto life at the very least. It's still a far cry from the first cells but it's a start on the right path. No mysterious life force, no guiding hand, just complexity feeding off excess chemical energy, the more efficient the process became the closer it became to being life.