genes as bookkeeping

hmmm, your out of my league there rosborne. I am so into the applied that Id be out there looking for the pattern of light that reaches us v the time each arrival represents in the differentiation of the cosmos.
If we ever get out and re start space exploration we would be able to collect specimens of detritus from the beginnings of the solar system.
Right now, everything is inference. Even those samples that were supposed to show microbial life, could be interpreted as nothing more than a kind of volcanic derived carbonate rock.
Science reported by the popular press is always under suspicion (now with the Blair scandal even the Tuesday NYT Science news has to be QAd much better)

Gould was refering specifically to the history of life on earth, mostly because , this was his opus terminii, he wrote this while he knew he was dying of cancer.

patio- MArgulis has taken some major hits for her Gaia based work, but she has contributed mightily to our understandings of genetic mechanisms. Gould has ignored her, and Ive always found that to be strange because many of his pet theories have been tossed away as we learn more from field data

...the summer reading list gets longer and longer...

Hi Farmerman, I'm probably out of my own league with my own question

It's good that there are people around with your devotion to detail and hard data, otherwise *real* science might not get done.

I read recently that the Universe experienced an expansion change sometime around 7billion years ago. Apparently before that time, it was actually slowing down due to gravitational forces, but around that time, the dark energy (whatever that is) took over and actually started to accelerate the expansion of the Universe (as we see it today). This is being revealed by more detailed study of constant candles (supernovae) at great distances.

Back on the home front, I always felt a bit bad for Steven (Gould) because he had to spend so much time debunking the challenges to evolution coming from religion and from people who didn't understand the basics of the underlying theory of evolution. It was nice that he took the time to undertake such discussions, but I'm sure it slowed him down a bit from furthering his own study.

Hi Patio, here's more summer reading for you ... Have you ever read Loren Eiseley, now *there* was a man with a beautiful vision for the natural world, and a wonderful presentation style. I recommend _The Immense Journey_ for a start.

Best Regards,

rosborne,

Regarding:



The first part of your two part question implies determinism. If so, perhaps some hidden cosmological algorithm working towards complexity. If we were infinitely intelligent "Demons" we might figure out the Universe's Rules, this would allow us to predict future happenings (given a known given starting point). By the same token, if these rules have remained constant since the Big Bang this would enable us to read our Universe's history thus recorded (Really intelligent Demons would not be bothered by "black holes", of course).

This would only hold true, of course, until the algorithm produces something with true "Free Will" (Second part of your question: the universe then becomes libertarian). Free will throws a monkey wrench into the "record reading" because it implies a chance bifurcation in the "road Traveled". This hopelessly obscures the road before the decision. It's then impossible to see exactly where the entity was, cosmologically, and even the point of decision is lost (as are all previous decisions) as is the original path before the decision. If we afford ourselves with true free will, we must forgo the hope of performing a cosmological audit.

Conversely, if it turns out we can read the cosmological ledgers we must conclude there is no such thing as "Free Will" and our destinies are totally "determined" by the universe's algorithmic rules. This might seem a boon to Defense attorneys allowing a "The Universe made me do it" defense for their clients but the D.A. can make his case using the same reasoning.

JM

Hi James,

Always nice to hear from you.

The core of my question relates to complexity and information accumulation. You may recognize these as areas of interst which I've posted for debate before on Abuzz.

However, I don't see "determinism" in my comments above. We know that Genes do not determine the outcome of an individual partly from recent experience with cloned pigs and cats (another post on abuzz). Genes are just a guidemap for individual development which still allows for phenotypical differentiation and differential interaction with environment (which in turn, feed back into the selection process).

The question about the Universe was a bit more speculative. I've always assumed that the "evolution of atoms", as I tend to think of it, was something with very little potential for variation. From the early moments after the Big Bang, after symmetry was broken, the result we see around us may have largely been determined. However, given the example of biological evolution and its display of feedback into itself, I began to wonder if the Universe was feeding back more on itself than we have realized.

Then given the recent evidence indicating dark energy acceleration only 7billion years ago, it makes you wonder just how much of the Universe we see today was inevitable, and how much might be the result of some large scale "chance" event.

We may never know these things, not being infinitely intelligent demons, but it's worth wondering about

Regards,

This is a good quote. I rather like Richard Dawkins' idea of the "selfish gene". I lent my book to someone so I can't find the exact quote, but the main concept is like this. The gene is selfish and will use all it can do (including evolutionary mechanisms) to be passed on to the next generations.

It occurs to me that a lot of traits associated with sexual selection but with no apparent relation to survival (think peacock feathers) might be traceable to genes sitting right next to a good allele for something really important (since being close together on a chromosome means two genes will rarely get swapped out during -- crap, what's the word for crossing over? -- anyway, during meiosis). Mayhaps I should read some Dawkins one of these days.