| Author |
Message |
Lanarcam
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Lanarcam wrote:
[...]
A knife with ten blades offers more
possibilities than a knife with only nine.
Not if all ten functions work less well as a result
|
This is true, and that's why only a very small proportion of
mutations are preserved across generations.
| Quote: | -- and they will.
Most of the time, indeed. But it happens obvioulsly that |
in rare occasions one added or modified function will give
the host a better fitness.
An other explanation is that genes go by pairs and mutations
occur only in one of the genes not in both. So the result of
a mutation will be two functions, one modified, and
one preserved.
| Quote: | The magnifying-glass and the corkscrew on my biggest and silliest
Swiss knife are crap;
That Swiss knives are silly is not disputable, but even a |
crap corkscrew can make the difference in some circumstances.
| Quote: | the tweezers are good only in an emergency;
etc, etc. A single-bladed knife is the norm in any kitchen I've ever
seen, and that's because it's best. Sharks don't, as far as research
has so far discovered, write. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Lanarcam wrote:
[...]
A knife with ten blades offers more
possibilities than a knife with only nine.
Not if all ten functions work less well as a result -- and they will.
The magnifying-glass and the corkscrew on my biggest and silliest
Swiss knife are crap; the tweezers are good only in an emergency;
etc, etc. A single-bladed knife is the norm in any kitchen I've ever
seen, and that's because it's best. Sharks don't, as far as research
has so far discovered, write.
|
Right, and if you want a folding knife in the kitchen for some reason
it is an Opinel you want,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bollard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:11 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
On 7 Oct 2005 16:34:40 -0700, "Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which complexity
arises in nature. I am describing the idea that, given that whatever
hinders a population without ending it only makes it apter, and that
this process cannot restart in order to achieve a simplified means of
being functional, that complexity arises from the inability of
functional development to backtrack, and so a machine-building
mechanism is set in motion, always finding a roundabout means of
surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you cannot rub
out with an eraser, or start from scratch. Imagine a designer who can
only ever modify what he has, like an organised mess, to deal with the
latest circumstances, and simply has to make the most of previous
developments in conjunction with his new ones.
Any ideas?
Another way of looking at it is that mutations are random and if they |
don't hinder anyone, they have a chance of being passed on through the
generations. Why are our ear lobes different shapes? Because it
doesn't matter.
Not all changes have anything to do with improvement or functionality.
They just happen.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Richard Bollard wrote:
| Quote: | On 7 Oct 2005 16:34:40 -0700, "Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which complexity
arises in nature. I am describing the idea that, given that whatever
hinders a population without ending it only makes it apter, and that
this process cannot restart in order to achieve a simplified means of
being functional, that complexity arises from the inability of
functional development to backtrack, and so a machine-building
mechanism is set in motion, always finding a roundabout means of
surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you cannot rub
out with an eraser, or start from scratch. Imagine a designer who can
only ever modify what he has, like an organised mess, to deal with the
latest circumstances, and simply has to make the most of previous
developments in conjunction with his new ones.
Any ideas?
Another way of looking at it is that mutations are random and if they
don't hinder anyone, they have a chance of being passed on through the
generations. Why are our ear lobes different shapes? Because it
doesn't matter.
Not all changes have anything to do with improvement or functionality.
They just happen.
|
Ear lobe shapes oscillate through the generations but they will not
evolve(accumulate change) unless it does matter.
Only functional change is cumulative.
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2005 00:34:09 -0700, "Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Richard Bollard wrote:
Another way of looking at it is that mutations are random and if they
don't hinder anyone, they have a chance of being passed on through the
generations. Why are our ear lobes different shapes? Because it
doesn't matter.
Not all changes have anything to do with improvement or functionality.
They just happen.
Ear lobe shapes oscillate through the generations but they will not
evolve(accumulate change) unless it does matter.
|
As intriguing as the thought of oscillating ear lobes is, a practical
consideration is the relationship between ear size and intelligence. I
claim you'll never meet a particularly intelligent man or woman who is
equipped with significantly small ears. While significantly large ears
are not a sure indication of intelligence, all intelligent people
have, at a minimum, average-sized ears.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bollard
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2005 00:34:09 -0700, "Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Richard Bollard wrote:
On 7 Oct 2005 16:34:40 -0700, "Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which complexity
arises in nature. I am describing the idea that, given that whatever
hinders a population without ending it only makes it apter, and that
this process cannot restart in order to achieve a simplified means of
being functional, that complexity arises from the inability of
functional development to backtrack, and so a machine-building
mechanism is set in motion, always finding a roundabout means of
surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you cannot rub
out with an eraser, or start from scratch. Imagine a designer who can
only ever modify what he has, like an organised mess, to deal with the
latest circumstances, and simply has to make the most of previous
developments in conjunction with his new ones.
Any ideas?
Another way of looking at it is that mutations are random and if they
don't hinder anyone, they have a chance of being passed on through the
generations. Why are our ear lobes different shapes? Because it
doesn't matter.
Not all changes have anything to do with improvement or functionality.
They just happen.
Ear lobe shapes oscillate through the generations but they will not
evolve(accumulate change) unless it does matter.
Only functional change is cumulative.
Ear lobes were just an example. I don't know where science is nowadays |
but I was thinking mathematically. If a mutation doesn't matter *and*
the population is increasing, surely the mutation would become more
common (numerically, at least).
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in