[FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution

Wed Jun 9 14:23:37 EDT 2021

My causal reasoning colleagues make a distinction between statistical
causation (smoking causes cancer) and token causation (pulling this trigger
causes this gun to fire).

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 9:09 AM <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/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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/20210609/2dba96e0/attachment.html>