Hi there,

After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).

Do we see animals returning to old territory? Certainly they mark their territory out - but for this purpose?

What exactly triggers a return to old territory, is unknown - but perhaps there is a way to tell precisely *when* the boundary between old and new is crossed?

Perhaps there is a balance that can be struck, between old and new territory - to reduce the cognitive load that Evolution on its own can't balance?

I hope this has been some food for thought: I wonder if you could comment specifically on the notion that this snapback is faster - that to me, sounds logical but I admit I have only trusted it on faith (I have not conducted an experiment that shows old environments establish known solutions to selection pressure faster).

Thanks for your time.

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 04:11:13 UTC+3, Chris Lowland wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).
>
What does "adaptation that colludes with the environment" even mean?

collude /kəˈl(j)uːd/ verb verb: collude; 3rd person present: colludes; past tense: colluded; past participle: colluded; gerund or present participle: colluding
"cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others."

On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:11:13 PM UTC-4, Chris Lowland wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).
>
> Do we see animals returning to old territory? Certainly they mark their territory out - but for this purpose?
>
> What exactly triggers a return to old territory, is unknown - but perhaps there is a way to tell precisely *when* the boundary between old and new is crossed?
>
> Perhaps there is a balance that can be struck, between old and new territory - to reduce the cognitive load that Evolution on its own can't balance?
>
> I hope this has been some food for thought: I wonder if you could comment specifically on the notion that this snapback is faster - that to me, sounds logical but I admit I have only trusted it on faith (I have not conducted an experiment that shows old environments establish known solutions to selection pressure faster).
>
> Thanks for your time.

It's far from clear what you are getting at but I'll take a guess.
I think your suggestion is that a species of rabbit whose ancestors once lived and adapted
to snowy winters, but in more recent times adapted to climes where it rarely snows, is better
able to subsequently migrate to higher altitudes above the winter snow line..

A rationale for this might be that it's likely they have a suite of genes which formerly served
them well for surviving snowy winters. Even if those genes have produced variant alleles
which have become fixed during that species times in sunny grasslands, one might suppose
that whatever point mutations altered the prior alleles to adapt to snowless winters, well
they are primed and ready for a back mutation to revert to the ancestral alleles that make
for better fitness in snowy winters.

Possibly. But it's a "just so story" that presses an optimally convenient scheme.

On the other hand, if you invoke that deep in our past our ancestors were fish so we as a
species ought to be able to spawn a descendent species that is fully aquatic, you've
gone too far. Perhaps you can think a bit more about your hypothesis and try to frame
it more robustly.

> What does "adaptation that colludes with the environment" even mean?
>
> collude /kəˈl(j)uːd/ verb verb: collude;
> "cooperate in a [...]way in order to[...] gain an advantage[...]."

I just mean overlap (in a Venn diagram kind of way). Collusion meaning the coming together of the shared overlap.

[...]
>
> Possibly. But it's a "just so story" that presses an optimally convenient scheme.
>
> On the other hand, if you invoke that deep in our past our ancestors were fish so we as a
> species ought to be able to spawn a descendent species that is fully aquatic, you've
> gone too far. Perhaps you can think a bit more about your hypothesis and try to frame
> it more robustly.

Yes Daggett you have it exactly. I was hoping you would further clarify. I suppose what you've hit upon is that genes unlikely to help with further evolution are weeded out. Doing more with less helps in this regard.

What vexes me, is that it seems to me that subsequent return to past environments should accelerate those past adaptations, as they are recalled. Assuming the pressure that created them is constant. If the pressure is gone, it makes only a limited difference (an undifferentiated resort to past configuration).

Understanding the speed of change resulting from pressure, would be something of a constant for a particular species, but not across all species - unless it was some thing to do with relative DNA effectiveness (counter pressure?)

Thanks for your reply!

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:21:13 PM UTC+11, Chris Lowland wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Possibly. But it's a "just so story" that presses an optimally convenient scheme.
> >
> > On the other hand, if you invoke that deep in our past our ancestors were fish so we as a
> > species ought to be able to spawn a descendent species that is fully aquatic, you've
> > gone too far. Perhaps you can think a bit more about your hypothesis and try to frame
> > it more robustly.
> Yes Daggett you have it exactly.

I suppose what you have is a choice: do you eliminate genes and roam more wildly from what you were originally adapted to, or do you hold out hope, that selection pressures as they were will be more favourable in future?

Interestingly, mutation does nothing to make this choice easier, indeed a lot of mutations would only make it harder.

On 19/10/2023 02:07, Chris Lowland wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).
>
> Do we see animals returning to old territory? Certainly they mark their territory out - but for this purpose?
>
> What exactly triggers a return to old territory, is unknown - but perhaps there is a way to tell precisely *when* the boundary between old and new is crossed?
>
> Perhaps there is a balance that can be struck, between old and new territory - to reduce the cognitive load that Evolution on its own can't balance?
>
> I hope this has been some food for thought: I wonder if you could comment specifically on the notion that this snapback is faster - that to me, sounds logical but I admit I have only trusted it on faith (I have not conducted an experiment that shows old environments establish known solutions to selection pressure faster).
>
> Thanks for your time.
>

In light of comments elsethread (you've developed your own terminology,
which makes things unclear to others) you seem to have adopted a
position contrary to Dollo's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility

In the short term much evolution involves selection among standing
variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it
seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state
could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable,
reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the
past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo's
Law apply.

--
alias Ernest Major

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:15:43 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/10/2023 02:07, Chris Lowland wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).
>>
>> Do we see animals returning to old territory? Certainly they mark their territory out - but for this purpose?
>>
>> What exactly triggers a return to old territory, is unknown - but perhaps there is a way to tell precisely *when* the boundary between old and new is crossed?
>>
>> Perhaps there is a balance that can be struck, between old and new territory - to reduce the cognitive load that Evolution on its own can't balance?
>>
>> I hope this has been some food for thought: I wonder if you could comment specifically on the notion that this snapback is faster - that to me, sounds logical but I admit I have only trusted it on faith (I have not conducted an experiment that shows old environments establish known solutions to selection pressure faster).
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>
>In light of comments elsethread (you've developed your own terminology,
>which makes things unclear to others) you seem to have adopted a
>position contrary to Dollo's Law.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility
>
>In the short term much evolution involves selection among standing
>variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it
>seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state
>could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable,
>reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the
>past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo's
>Law apply.

A generalized, philosophical version of Dollo's Law is Heraclitus
comment about stepping in the same river. This is not to say Lowland
doesn't grasp a kernel of truth. There are artificial-selection
projects which attempt to re-evolve extinct species from related
species, ex. quagga, but their results are approximations at best.
Results from natural selection is necessarily contingent.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

> [...]
> >In the short term much evolution involves selection among standing
> >variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it
> >seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state
> >could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable,
> >reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the
> >past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo's
> >Law apply.
> A generalized, philosophical version of Dollo's Law is Heraclitus
> comment about stepping in the same river. This is not to say Lowland
> doesn't grasp a kernel of truth.
> [...]

While I appreciate circumstances may change, even with familiar selection pressures and environments, it doesn't appear to me that just saying the river changes is enough (you are after all, suggesting that the notion of river will not evolve, because the pressure to adapt to it is always changing).

If I repeatedly return to the river, I am aware that it is wet, but I am much more likely to appreciate that the current takes you somewhere at a certain speed (and further to that, at different levels in different seasons).

The notion is simply that it is much more advantageous to remember your circumstances in relation to Evolution, than it is to assume that Evolution will take care of it (when the time is right).

Can you detach circumstance from instance (of Evolution), is what I am asking? I believe that would make generalised adaptation more virile?

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
<gottservant@gmail.com> wrote:

>> [...]
>> >In the short term much evolution involves selection among standing
>> >variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it
>> >seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state
>> >could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable,
>> >reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the
>> >past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo's
>> >Law apply.
>>A generalized, philosophical version of Dollo's Law is Heraclitus
>>comment about stepping in the same river. This is not to say Lowland
>>doesn't grasp a kernel of truth. There are artificial-selection
>>projects which attempt to re-evolve extinct species from related
>>species, ex. quagga, but their results are approximations at best.
>>Results from natural selection are necessarily contingent.
>
>While I appreciate circumstances may change, even with familiar selection pressures and environments, it doesn't appear to me that just saying the river changes is enough (you are after all, suggesting that the notion of river will not evolve, because the pressure to adapt to it is always changing).
>
>If I repeatedly return to the river, I am aware that it is wet, but I am much more likely to appreciate that the current takes you somewhere at a certain speed (and further to that, at different levels in different seasons).
>
>The notion is simply that it is much more advantageous to remember your circumstances in relation to Evolution, than it is to assume that Evolution will take care of it (when the time is right).
>
>Can you detach circumstance from instance (of Evolution), is what I am asking? I believe that would make generalised adaptation more virile?

You missed the analogy. Both the river/environment and the
man/species constantly change, and those changes necessarily,
contingently, iteratively, alter successive changes, while leaving in
their wake evidence of past changes.

A good example is the terror birds which evolved during the Cenozoic.
They occupied the apex predator niche. They became too large to fly,
so their wings were useless for that function. A superficial
understanding might suppose their wings could have devolved back into
the forelimbs of their maniraptoran theropod ancestors. But a correct
understanding is, even if that was possible, the evolution would
necessarily have started from their existing wing morphology, and not
from the lobed fins of ancestral tetrapods.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 05:46:16 UTC+1, Chris Lowland wrote:
> > [...]
> > >In the short term much evolution involves selection among standing
> > >variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it
> > >seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state
> > >could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable,
> > >reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the
> > >past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo's
> > >Law apply.
> > A generalized, philosophical version of Dollo's Law is Heraclitus
> > comment about stepping in the same river. This is not to say Lowland
> > doesn't grasp a kernel of truth.
> > [...]
>
> While I appreciate circumstances may change, even with familiar selection pressures and environments, it doesn't appear to me that just saying the river changes is enough (you are after all, suggesting that the notion of river will not evolve, because the pressure to adapt to it is always changing).
>
> If I repeatedly return to the river, I am aware that it is wet, but I am much more likely to appreciate that the current takes you somewhere at a certain speed (and further to that, at different levels in different seasons)..
>
> The notion is simply that it is much more advantageous to remember your circumstances in relation to Evolution, than it is to assume that Evolution will take care of it (when the time is right).
>
> Can you detach circumstance from instance (of Evolution), is what I am asking? I believe that would make generalised adaptation more virile?

Can we agree that we're not talking about
wildlife in an actual river (particularly)?
Unless I'm confused too.

Anyway, a disputed and allegedly vindicated example
of what I think you have in mind is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution>

This is the one with lighter moths and darker moths.
When birds can easily see and eat the darker moths,
lighter moths from not-eaten parents become the
majority. When birds can more easily see the lighter
moths, darker moths become the majority.

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:21:14 AM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
> wrote:
>[...]
> You missed the analogy. Both the river/environment and the
> man/species constantly change, and those changes necessarily,
> contingently, iteratively, alter successive changes, while leaving in
> their wake evidence of past changes.

Yes (I understand Evolution has to start somewhere) but your insistence that changes emerge from contact with the environment doesn't make sense. They may emerge from contact with a certain environment, but that doesn't mean are only stored with reference to the contact. I breathe in and out, but if I stop there, I don't need to breathe out first, before I start breathing in again. If I plant a tree in a garden, then uproot it and plant it somewhere else, then uproot it again to plant it back where it was, the plant doesn't need me to chop its roots off, before it can grow as it used to - there is something innate to the Evolution, that amplifies the role of instinct and subsequent nuance, that can't be achieved by attempting more and more change that way.

>
> A good example is the terror birds which evolved during the Cenozoic.
> They occupied the apex predator niche. They became too large to fly,
> so their wings were useless for that function. A superficial
> understanding might suppose their wings could have devolved back into
> the forelimbs of their maniraptoran theropod ancestors. But a correct
> understanding is, even if that was possible, the evolution would
> necessarily have started from their existing wing morphology, and not
> from the lobed fins of ancestral tetrapods.
> --

As I said, it is a choice, whether you miminize adaptations where you are and move out of the area, or you hold out hope that future selection pressures will advance you where you are and you keep what you have. The reference point is the instinct that guides the adaptations, the outcrop is the ability to identify which adaptations are needed for which selection pressures. You saying that Evolution is just something you tack on to whatever is the species of the moment, denies that the marks of previous selection pressures, tell their tale - regardless of how developed the Evolution has blindly become.

> Can we agree that we're not talking about
> wildlife in an actual river (particularly)?
> Unless I'm confused too.
>
The River is the environment, do you adapt to it or move on? What is your instinct?

> Anyway, a disputed and allegedly vindicated example
> of what I think you have in mind is:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution>
>
> This is the one with lighter moths and darker moths.
> When birds can easily see and eat the darker moths,
> lighter moths from not-eaten parents become the
> majority. When birds can more easily see the lighter
> moths, darker moths become the majority.

Yes ok (good input). What I am asking is, if this lighter/darker dynamic continues, does Evolution do anything to improve it?

Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
<gottservant@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Can we agree that we're not talking about
>> wildlife in an actual river (particularly)?
>> Unless I'm confused too.
>>
>The River is the environment, do you adapt to it or move on? What is your instinct?

Once again, both river/environment *and* wildlife continually change.

>> Anyway, a disputed and allegedly vindicated example
>> of what I think you have in mind is:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution>
>>
>> This is the one with lighter moths and darker moths.
>> When birds can easily see and eat the darker moths,
>> lighter moths from not-eaten parents become the
>> majority. When birds can more easily see the lighter
>> moths, darker moths become the majority.
>
>Yes ok (good input). What I am asking is, if this lighter/darker dynamic continues, does Evolution do anything to improve it?
>
>Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?

Are you asking if there's something which allows moths to predict when
to become lighter/darker? That's a "no".

Are you asking if there's something which allows moths to more rapidly
follow environmental changes? That's a "yes".

It's called regulatory genes. Few peppered moths are completely white
or completely black. Instead, regulatory genes alter the degree of
lighter/darker; a biological dimmer.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Chris Lowland wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:21:14 AM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > You missed the analogy. Both the river/environment and the
> > man/species constantly change, and those changes necessarily,
> > contingently, iteratively, alter successive changes, while leaving in
> > their wake evidence of past changes.
>
> Yes (I understand Evolution has to start somewhere) but your insistence that
> changes emerge from contact with the environment doesn't make sense. They may
> emerge from contact with a certain environment, but that doesn't mean are
> only stored with reference to the contact. I breathe in and out, but if I
> stop there, I don't need to breathe out first, before I start breathing in
> again. If I plant a tree in a garden, then uproot it and plant it somewhere
> else, then uproot it again to plant it back where it was, the plant doesn't
> need me to chop its roots off, before it can grow as it used to - there is
> something innate to the Evolution, that amplifies the role of instinct and
> subsequent nuance, that can't be achieved by attempting more and more change
> that way.
>
>
> >
> > A good example is the terror birds which evolved during the Cenozoic.
> > They occupied the apex predator niche. They became too large to fly,
> > so their wings were useless for that function. A superficial
> > understanding might suppose their wings could have devolved back into
> > the forelimbs of their maniraptoran theropod ancestors. But a correct
> > understanding is, even if that was possible, the evolution would
> > necessarily have started from their existing wing morphology, and not
> > from the lobed fins of ancestral tetrapods.
> > --
>
> As I said, it is a choice, whether you miminize adaptations where you are and
> move out of the area, or you hold out hope that future selection pressures
> will advance you where you are and you keep what you have. The reference
> point is the instinct that guides the adaptations, the outcrop is the ability
> to identify which adaptations are needed for which selection pressures. You
> saying that Evolution is just something you tack on to whatever is the
> species of the moment, denies that the marks of previous selection pressures,
> tell their tale - regardless of how developed the Evolution has blindly
> become.
-------------------------------------

You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.
Populations evolve. Your transplanted tree has is part of a population
already adapted to its environment. Moving it does not change its
morphology except to the extent that its new environment effects its
ability to survive to produce offspring, some of which manage to survive
to procreate in that new environment. Moving it back to its original
site is an option if it fares poorly in the new site. But it's still the same
individual organism.

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:31:15 AM UTC-4, Chris Lowland wrote:
> > Can we agree that we're not talking about
> > wildlife in an actual river (particularly)?
> > Unless I'm confused too.
> >
> The River is the environment, do you adapt to it or move on? What is your instinct?
> > Anyway, a disputed and allegedly vindicated example
> > of what I think you have in mind is:
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution>
> >
> > This is the one with lighter moths and darker moths.
> > When birds can easily see and eat the darker moths,
> > lighter moths from not-eaten parents become the
> > majority. When birds can more easily see the lighter
> > moths, darker moths become the majority.
> Yes ok (good input). What I am asking is, if this lighter/darker dynamic continues, does Evolution do anything to improve it?
>
> Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?
It's hard for me to be sure, but I think you may be asking about environmentally determined epigenetic changes. Here's a review of the subject...
"Epigenetics and the environment: emerging patterns and implications"
https://faculty.fiu.edu/~noriegaf/Papers%20Proteomics/Epigenetics/Paper01.pdf

The section on plants and vernalization may be the sort of thing you are asking about.

On 10/22/23 10:11 AM, Dexter wrote:
> > [...]
> You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.
> Populations evolve.

I shudder to think of what influence Pokemon will have on the biological
sciences.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Sunday, 22 October 2023 at 18:16:16 UTC+1, Dexter wrote:
> Chris Lowland wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:21:14 AM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
> > > wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > You missed the analogy. Both the river/environment and the
> > > man/species constantly change, and those changes necessarily,
> > > contingently, iteratively, alter successive changes, while leaving in
> > > their wake evidence of past changes.
> >
> > Yes (I understand Evolution has to start somewhere) but your insistence that
> > changes emerge from contact with the environment doesn't make sense. They may
> > emerge from contact with a certain environment, but that doesn't mean are
> > only stored with reference to the contact. I breathe in and out, but if I
> > stop there, I don't need to breathe out first, before I start breathing in
> > again. If I plant a tree in a garden, then uproot it and plant it somewhere
> > else, then uproot it again to plant it back where it was, the plant doesn't
> > need me to chop its roots off, before it can grow as it used to - there is
> > something innate to the Evolution, that amplifies the role of instinct and
> > subsequent nuance, that can't be achieved by attempting more and more change
> > that way.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > A good example is the terror birds which evolved during the Cenozoic.
> > > They occupied the apex predator niche. They became too large to fly,
> > > so their wings were useless for that function. A superficial
> > > understanding might suppose their wings could have devolved back into
> > > the forelimbs of their maniraptoran theropod ancestors. But a correct
> > > understanding is, even if that was possible, the evolution would
> > > necessarily have started from their existing wing morphology, and not
> > > from the lobed fins of ancestral tetrapods.
> > > --
> >
> > As I said, it is a choice, whether you miminize adaptations where you are and
> > move out of the area, or you hold out hope that future selection pressures
> > will advance you where you are and you keep what you have. The reference
> > point is the instinct that guides the adaptations, the outcrop is the ability
> > to identify which adaptations are needed for which selection pressures. You
> > saying that Evolution is just something you tack on to whatever is the
> > species of the moment, denies that the marks of previous selection pressures,
> > tell their tale - regardless of how developed the Evolution has blindly
> > become.
> -------------------------------------
>
> You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.
> Populations evolve. Your transplanted tree has is part of a population
> already adapted to its environment. Moving it does not change its
> morphology except to the extent that its new environment effects its
> ability to survive to produce offspring, some of which manage to survive
> to procreate in that new environment. Moving it back to its original
> site is an option if it fares poorly in the new site. But it's still the same
> individual organism.

"Choice" isn't a good choice of word, also.

On 10/19/23 01:15, Chris Lowland wrote:
>
>> What does "adaptation that colludes with the environment" even mean?
>>
>> collude /kəˈl(j)uːd/ verb verb: collude;
>> "cooperate in a [...]way in order to[...] gain an advantage[...]."
>
> I just mean overlap (in a Venn diagram kind of way). Collusion meaning the coming together of the shared overlap.
>

Collusion involves entities cooperating to achieve a shared
purpose. Who are the entities and what is the purpose?

--
David Canzi

"In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the
last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened
but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first."
Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:41:16 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/22/23 10:11 AM, Dexter wrote:
> > > [...]
> > You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.
> > Populations evolve.
..
> I shudder to think of what influence Pokemon will have on the biological
> sciences.
..
I understand but hold out some hope. I recall my 4 year old grandson trying
to explain to me about the 'evolutions' of Pokemon characters. He had
mastered so many "facts". Being more pedestrian, I used his and his older
brother's enthusiasm in more treacherous ways, buying a few hundred cards
and then finding matching pairs.

I'd use sets of pairs to play The Memory Game, we used to call it Concentration
and play it with a deck of playing cards. Mix up a set of pair, lay them out face
down on a grid and you take turns turning over two cards to see if you can
turn over a pair. If you make a pair, you remove them and get another turn.
Otherwise, you flip them back to face down and the turn moves on. The point
is to remember what is where from other people's failed turns. My belief is that
memory is skill to be trained. (I also used it to introduce multiplication concepts,
we have 24 pairs, or 48 cards, how do we lay out the grid?) Grandkids loved it,
used it as a reward when they finished other tasks when homeschooling them
during the first year of covid.

But then the game "evolved". They allowed matches to characters in the "evolution"
sequence for a Pokemon character, but 3 points for an exact match and only 1
point for an evolution sequence match. I could no longer play with them as I didn't
understand the Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard type sequences. But they knew
them all.

Anyway, my point is that perhaps developing those memory skills are more
important than having to unlearn the Pokemon meaning of 'evolution' when it's
time to think about biology. They'll have their Stamp Collection mastered and
available for when they get around to organizing it according to actual scientific
principles. So much of education is about constructively unlearning some things
anyway, but the basic skills of having a good memory is more of a practiced thing.

> "Choice" isn't a good choice of word, also.

If I stay or go, that is a choice.

If I always try to go, when I have the choice to go, that is a choice.

You can either commit to choose or commit to go, but that is still a choice.

> > Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?
> It's hard for me to be sure, but I think you may be asking about environmentally determined epigenetic changes. Here's a review of the subject...
> "Epigenetics and the environment: emerging patterns and implications"
> https://faculty.fiu.edu/~noriegaf/Papers%20Proteomics/Epigenetics/Paper01..pdf
>
> The section on plants and vernalization may be the sort of thing you are asking about.

The Link you gave said "genome-wide patterns of DNA and chromatin modifications (‘epigenomes’) do not persist throughout life,
but undergo precise, coordinated changes at defined stages of development, particularly in mammals. These transitions contribute to the lineage- and tissue-specific expression of genes"

That's basically what I am asking, as far as change is concerned - now all we need to answer is "does this speed up, if you switch between common environments at different stages of transition?"

If there is an epigenomic shift in life, that shift can be accelerated?

> Are you asking if there's something which allows moths to predict when
> to become lighter/darker? That's a "no".

But they may have an instinct, that one environment is better for them than another?
>
> Are you asking if there's something which allows moths to more rapidly
> follow environmental changes? That's a "yes".
>
I take your point, that there is something that helps - but I am asking "does that help itself, speed up?"

> It's called regulatory genes. Few peppered moths are completely white
> or completely black. Instead, regulatory genes alter the degree of
> lighter/darker; a biological dimmer.
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

> You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.

Organisms attenuate to selection pressures in ways that advantage their young. Subsequent generations express that evolution, while attenuating to selection pressures that *their* young will express.

> Populations evolve.
Populations with inherited instinct, have a greater chance at survival if nuance (of heritable attenuation) is at least partially personal. In other words, the way that the population relates to future Evolution, determines that Evolution for that population.

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:06:17 PM UTC-4, Chris Lowland wrote:
> > > Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?
> > It's hard for me to be sure, but I think you may be asking about environmentally determined epigenetic changes. Here's a review of the subject...
> > "Epigenetics and the environment: emerging patterns and implications"
> > https://faculty.fiu.edu/~noriegaf/Papers%20Proteomics/Epigenetics/Paper01.pdf
> >
> > The section on plants and vernalization may be the sort of thing you are asking about.
> The Link you gave said "genome-wide patterns of DNA and chromatin modifications (‘epigenomes’) do not persist throughout life,
> but undergo precise, coordinated changes at defined stages of development, particularly in mammals. These transitions contribute to the lineage- and tissue-specific expression of genes"
>
> That's basically what I am asking, as far as change is concerned - now all we need to answer is "does this speed up, if you switch between common environments at different stages of transition?"

It's less clear in mammals, but it seems quite possible in plants that epigenetic effects allow quick transitions between heat resistance and cold resistance in response to environmental change, as a result of transgenerational persistence of epigenetic changes in, for example, methylation patterns. I don't know much about this, and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are asking, since your language seems a bit idiosyncratic. I get the feeling you are asking about things that have already been studied, but I'm not sure.
>
> If there is an epigenomic shift in life, that shift can be accelerated?