[FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution

Wed Jun 9 13:56:44 EDT 2021

Nick,

There are so many points in your post that I want to comment on, but I
always like to make my messages clear and to do that I prefer to comment,
for now, only on your "*  Are you perhaps caught in a tautology, here?  If
genetic changes are DEFINED as those that occur slowly, then the statement
that genetic changes occur slowly has no empirical force.  Such tautologies
have been the life-blood of my work"*

I plead guilty, I've been using short-cuts and assumed others can read my
mind between the words. Let me explain, hopefully better, what I tried
to say.

*Prairie dogs having venom resistance*From my understanding of biology and
evolution, genetic evolution offers a very good explanation of why
prairie dogs' physiology develop venom resistance against snake bites. In
simple terms, if there is a genetic mutation that makes an individual
prairie dog somewhat resistant, that individuals' genes have more chance to
replicate, simply because more of the other dogs die and their genes are
removed from the gene pool.If you repeat this many times then Bob's your
uncle. But, you need time for all the prairie dogs to become immune, it
simply cannot happen in less than say 5 generations, I don't say how many
generations you require, maybe a thousand?

If you challenge me on this one, I'll be able to code an ABM simulation
demonstrating this and I don't even think it will take that much effort
and/or time. (I very much enjoy challenges like this, I have many things on
my plate but I have an open spot between 2 and 3 am every morning to work
on this).

In my opinion this offers a very good explanation why, over time, all the
prairie dogs get to be resistant against snake bites. Surely this is
Darwinian Evolution 101?

This, as everything in science is fallible. I certainly do not claim that
the above explanation is water proof and can explain every little detail.
But IMO overall the explanation is good. If someone offers some other
conjecture about why the prairie dogs have resistance, let them explain why
they assert that. Until you, or someone comes up with a conjecture with a
better explanation, I'll accept the biological Darwinian evolution theory.
Science develops one step at a time, for now accept the assertion with the
best explanation. For example, Einstein gave a better explanation than
Newton about gravitation, but Newton's gravitational laws, although proven
wrong by Einstein, are still very useful.

"All models are wrong, some are useful" - Gerorge Box.

Now to check my argument. Is it tautology? I don't see it. I did not define
genetic changes as those that occur slowly. There could very well be other
traits that change slowly because of many other reasons. Just random
mutations with genetic drift could possibly explain many other traits that
occur slowly. But in this case we are talking about a specific trait with a
good explanation. Nowhere in my explanation do I define genetic changes as
those that occur slowly, I referred to one and one example only.

I'll obviously respond to comments, but if there are none, I'll continue in
a subsequent post to some other points you made.

Pieter

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 17:09, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Pieter,
>
>
>
> Are you perhaps caught in a tautology, here?  If genetic changes are
> DEFINED as those that occur slowly, then the statement that genetic changes
> occur slowly has no empirical force.  Such tautologies have been the
> life-blood of my work.
>
>
>
> Gardening makes me skeptical.  Why didn’t my peas come up this year, when
> the beans right next to them leapt from the soil.  I dunno.  I can have
> hunches, and I do have hunches, and having hunches makes my world seem a
> safer place.  When I garden, I easily get lost in what Philosophers would
> probably call a Humean Swamp.  It’s the same as having IBD which 30 percent
> of the American population does.  Every day’s different; every day’s the
> same in being different; and no doctor has a clue.  One can do experiments,
> and experiments are suggest that changes in the population of some events
> will lead to changes in the population of some other events.  But to speak
> of causality in a single instance, as we all so confidently do, is just
> nonsense.
>
>
>
> Out here amongst the humus the world returns to its natural state, a
> blooming buzzing confusion.  I get to wondering how ANY Darwinian process
> can occur, anatomical, physiological, OR behavioral: i.e., natural
> selection OR learning.  For something to be selected in any way, it has to
> be isolated from all other consequences except the desired one.  In a
> garden (as in a gut) things just seem just too ENTANGLED for selection to
> be possible.
>
>
>
> Now back to our conversation about rate of change.  It seems to me that
> the rate of change is determined in part by the degree of entanglement of
> the trait of interest.  Highly entangled traits change slowly, whether by
> learning or by natural selection; free standing traits change quickly.  THE
> BEAK OF THE FINCH has a wonderful example of the bill shapes of one of
> Darwin’s finches changing in cycles according to El Nino.  (Geez!  I hope I
> remember that right!)  One can suppose that learned traits are easier to
> disentangle than “genetic” ones, but I don’t know any rule that makes that
> so.
>
>
>
> I think the puzzle of evolution and the puzzle of learning are the same.
> In whose interest is the platform, the level playing field, the
> disentanglement, that makes selection possible.  Is it possible that
> Darwinian mechanisms are self -disentangling?
>
>
>
> Pieter, I have taken the liberty of forwarding this to the list, so I can
> resume being dope-slapped by the Erics and Glencus.  It’s time to drain my
> Humean swamp.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:13 AM
> *To:* thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution
>
>
>
> Nick, please enjoy your gardening, I really don't mind if you ignore this
> email.
>
> You say the physiological resistance changes rapidly. How rapidly? If it's
> in let's say two or three generations, then it's obviously not genetic. In
> this case I don't have a clue how that happens. If it's say 100 generations
> or more, genetic evolution could well explain that and I can't think of a
> better explanation. If you offer a better explanation then I'll accept it.
> In the absence of a better explanation I'll accept that the best
> explanation given for physiological resistance is genetic evolution.
>
> It makes perfect sense that the speed of genetic evolution on
> physiological resistance is much faster than the genetic evolution on
> behaviour change. The venom kills the animal and that very quickly removes
> the genes from the gene pool. To evolve to change the genes to change the
> behaviour back to before the prairy dog got in contact with snakes has a
> much weaker influence and will obviously take much longer. The prairy dogs
> that still have the genes causing defensive behaviour are not removed from
> the gene pool, or if then very slowly.
>
> If the behaviour was learned and not caused by the genes, the behaviour
> change will obviously be much faster. The slow change in behaviour hints at
> genes causing the behaviour.
>
> You obviously don't like it, but I find it difficult to express the
> relationship between genes and traits without using the word "cause".
> Do you understand what I mean if I say "genes cause traits"?
> Are you offended by me using it like that?
> How would you say it? Maybe "genes determine traits"? Or maybe writing the
> whole story, explaining all the mechanisms and relationships?
>
> Bottom line, if you understand what I mean by using "genes causing traits"
> and you are not offended by it, then I prefer to carry on using it like
> that. I think it conveys the meaning perfectly well. There are many
> instances where intelligent people confuse correlation with causation. I
> have a sort of bee in my bonnet about this. That's why I generally tend to
> emphasize the cause, to distinguish it from the correlation. There are
> certain genes that correlate with certain traits, in this case it's not
> just an arbitrary correlation, there is also causation.
>
>
>
> But if you don't understand it or are offended by it, then I'll gladly
> change my wording in future.
>
>
> Pieter
>
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 21:47, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, then, why does the physiological resistance to the snake venom,
> which presumably is a genetic thing, change rapidly.
>
>
>
> Also, while I am quibbling,  I am never sure that a gene is the sort of
> “thing” that can cause anything.  How can things, which are extended in
> time, be the cause of things.  Don’t causes need to be events?  Shouln’t we
> talking about the events necessary of sufficient for an the increase or
> decrease in the relative frequency of an observation event?  Any way, I am
> still on leave from FRIAM and should keep my mouth shut. The garden is
> starting to look like something.  Whenever my instructions weren’t clear,
> my planter put in lettuce sets.  So now I have roughly 40 perfect heads of
> multicolored lettuce.  Need human rabbits to partake.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:51 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Cc:* thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution
>
>
>
> Nick, I'm not sure I follow your logic. It seems you imply behaviour
> cannot be caused by genes? Help me if I understand you wrong. The way I see
> it is that the behaviour of the prairie dogs is caused mainly by their
> genes, that's why it changes very slowly.
>
> Human behaviour on the other hand is caused to a much larger extent, but
> certainly not exclusively, we are not born blank slates, by culture that's
> why it changes much faster.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 17:36, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dispatch from the bog.  Assumption that behavioral adaptation is necessary
> quicker than genetic gratuitous  STOP in region of west where there have
> been no rattle snakes for a zillion years, prairie dogs still have
> behavioral defenses long after their venom resistance has faded STOP yes I
> can think of other explanations STOP there are always other explanations
> STOP  Also, genes are relations not things  STOP
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:40 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution
>
>
>
> The paper makes intuitive sense for me. Human traits are a complex
> function of genes and culture. Genetic evolution has stopped, or is very
> weak, and culture is evolving very fast. The changes in future human traits
> will therefore almost exclusively be determined by cultural evolution.
>
> But, this is assuming humans are not going to modify their genes, or the
> genes of their children. With current technology it's probably very risky
> to do that, but what will the future hold?
>
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 04:25, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> I have been trying to make the point about culture - not only for
> evolution, but for cognition as well. Had many an argument with Nick on
> this topic at Mother Church.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 2:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> > Researchers: Culture drives human evolution more than genetics
> > https://phys.org/news/2021-06-culture-human-evolution-genetics.html
> >
> > Paywalled Paper:
> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.0538
> >
> > Accessible version:
> >
> https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=eco_facpub
> >
> > --
> > ☤>$ uǝlƃ
> >
> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> >
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210609/e2a3ff10/attachment.html>