http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece


Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert.
Fathers over the age of 35 are more likely to pass on mutations, according to Professor Steve Jones, of University College London.


Speaking today at a UCL lecture entitled “Human evolution is over” Professor Jones will argue that there were three components to evolution – natural selection, mutation and random change. “Quite unexpectedly, we have dropped the human mutation rate because of a change in reproductive patterns,” Professor Jones told The Times.


“Human social change often changes our genetic future,” he said, citing marriage patterns and contraception as examples. Although chemicals and radioactive pollution could alter genetics, one of the most important mutation triggers is advanced age in men.



This is because cell divisions in males increase with age. “Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error,” he said. “For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on – each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.
“For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation.”


Professor Jones added: “In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children.” He cites the fecund Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is reputed to have fathered 888 children. To achieve this feat, Ismail is thought to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years.
Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. “In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21.”


Decreasing randomness is another contributing factor. “Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now – about the size of the population of Glasgow.


“Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a glo-bal mass, and the future is brown.”


This guy isnt some kook with a blog this is one of the biggest geneticists in the world. I would make a consideration that he may be on to something.

Our physical evolution slowed when we started using our brains to survive. Is this not so?

If nothing else, it's interesting.

Environment changes which has an impact on evolution, our environment is unarguably changing so who knows if we will adapt or no. Is cybernetic adaptation evolution? We are starting to place computer chips in living animals and people. We can control mechanical objects through thought and give vision to the blind by attaching computer chips to our nervous systems, it's been done already but still in experimental stages.

Perhaps the population will split between those who have natural adaptations versus those who become reliant on implants. This kind of diversity might actually ensure our survival.

I was watching a show about dinosaur extinction, the latest theory is that it wasn't any one catastrophe that killed them off but a series of events and circumstances that was a recipe for extinction. One of the ingredients was a reduction in the diversity of the surviving species. The more diverse a species, the more likely it can cope with various threats.

It is a little spooky seeing the economic crisis right now as an example as to how lack of diversity can impact survival. We've been promoting global markets for years but by doing so, we are becoming very reliant on each other. So one country doesn't get hit, ALL countries get hit by any large crisis.

If we were all genetically more similar, one disease could devastate the entire population. Look at the American Indians for example, diseases which Europeans had a naturally immunity to almost wiped them out completely when they started to settle in North America. Their bodies still behave differently in reaction to things like sugar, alcohol etc.

Perhaps the population will split between those who have natural adaptations versus those who become reliant on implants. This kind of diversity might actually ensure our survival.

Ghost in the shell and various William Gibson books touched on this. In GITS the poor are generally all natural minus neural implants thus limiting their life span and making them more susceptible to disease. This of course creates a great divide between classes and a large anti modification movement. The cartoon its self mostly focuses on a small group of military grade cyborgs and most of the plots are philosophical in basis and shows the cultural impact of technology on evolution.

Im not into the whole japanese cartoon thing but that show always had a good indepth take on cyberpunk futurism like some of william gibson's novels.

I saw this report today on a web news source...something about the "mutating gene is passed on by men..cell reproduction is higher in older men...and stats show there is a decline in the population of older men..is that correct?

Every new idea was patented back in 1800 as well.

Humans are on the verge of controlling their own genetic destiny. We have started inserting gene's from animals into tomato plants to combat plant disease. Its simply a matter of time before we start cleaning out genetic diseases from our own genome.

Gattaca (the movie) was based on technology we could do today. A couple makes about 100 embryo's. Run a bunch of tests to screen out all the defective humans. Pick the best ones to implant. Morally this sounds pretty questionable, but it is possible.

BobC

Interesting comment made by Steve Jones (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece) the other day about evolution and the fact that the human species is doomed for non-evolution. Or rather evolution for humans is over.


Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert.
Fathers over the age of 35 are more likely to pass on mutations, according to Professor Steve Jones, of University College London.

I sort of both agree and disagree with this statement, (from an evolutionary mindset). There was a less older population historically, and therefore less chance of genetic mutations to occur.
Additionally genetic mutations don't always occur with age and can be driven by environment. That and the fact that modern medicine is sort circuiting the natural selection process.



However, from Mr. Jones point of view genetics isn't the cause of ADD. (Mind you, I'm not sure if this is the same "Mr. Jones" who is an avid proponent of hypnosis for curing ADD.

~s ource (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/jones.html)~
Biology is not like physics

Steve Jones is a biologist; Professor of Genetics at the Galton Laboratory of University College LondonAll science is either physics or stamp collecting.

The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Database
Email: nome @ galton.ucl.ac.uk
The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) aims to give every human gene a name.

woohoo !

All science is either physics or isn't science and is stamp collecting.

To be fair Steven Jones wasn't in charge of ensuring that all genes had names -
though all I know the Galton for (as of recently) is the HGNC and Steven Jones -

Steven Jones
- one of our small suite of medico-bio-geneticists who've made the transition from academic position into television documentary -
- presumably a tendency towards making unsupported statements which gain media coverage will ensure that television producers will have him in mind when next they decide to make a fla$hy documentary on pseudo-science.

pay$ better with the BBC -
- and would a funding body ever reject a request from 'media wh0re' ?
- just think of the negative publicity -
- and not of the potentially stupid science which he may choose to perform
- which of course does not matter.

-*-

There really is only physics (model,mechanism) -
it's difficult to listen to anybody who offers such an incorrect perspective on biology
in the first line
of the first google hit
which greets us on searching on his name (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/jones.html).

- presumably a tendency towards making unsupported statements which gain media coverage will ensure that television producers will have him in mind when next they decide to make a fla$hy documentary on pseudo-science.

Just what I thought.

We shall see what happens once society collapses under the weight of greenhouse induced famines! All bets will be off then.

On another point I have heard that teenage pregnancies and larger families are commoner in ADHD than in "normals". A survival advantage to our side would you not say. I dont know how it will bode for the rest of the species though.An ADHD president with the finger on the nuclear button- be very afraid.

sorry
- double post

1000 years ago-A child born in 1000 AD, on average, had a life
expectancy of 24 years.

100 years ago-A male child born in 1903 had a life expectancy of 49
years, while a female had a life expectancy of 51 years.but but but
- it's only relatively recently (it seems) - that we've managed to evolve up to
managing > 35 years of life on the planet -

- after successfully evolving this far without satisfying the Jones criterion
(because there were no older fathers to have children)

- how likely is it that our evolution will arrest now.

Forgetting all of the very many problems with his logic -

is he a > 35 year old man with an attraction for younger women
- would be my first question here ?

Perhaps he cites his new theory as key reference on first contact with a young female
in a nightclub as preamble towards (or so he'd state)
'making a far greater than average contribution to the future of our species'.

just you and me
... babe

His argument is convenient -
because like a good wine -
as he ages
- so would his Theory become more powerful
waggled
as incentive for younger woman to entertain his ever withering decrepit advances.

- on Steven Jones struggling with mid-life crisis.

>35 year old man looking for as many 18 year old girls as possible to turn back this grandfather clock.

His ticker'll give out
or come off
or sumptin'

if he's not careful.

:-)

hey Mj -

-> to DB's thread

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58317

D'oh! Forgot to check to see if someone else had already created a thread on this subject. I've merged the thread.

As you were...... :)

but but but
- it's only relatively recently (it seems) - that we've managed to evolve up to
managing > 35 years of life on the planet -

- after successfully evolving this far without satisfying the Jones criterion
(because there were no older fathers to have children)

- how likely is it that our evolution will arrest now.

Forgetting all of the very many problems with his logic -

is he a > 35 year old man with an attraction for younger women
- would be my first question here ?

Perhaps he cites his new theory as key reference on first contact with a young female
in a nightclub as preamble towards (or so he'd state)



His argument is convenient -
because like a good wine -
as he ages
- so would his Theory become more powerful
waggled
as incentive for younger woman to entertain his ever withering decrepit advances.

There is some evidence supporting the idea that old blokes sperm just doesnt make as healthy a baby- don't ask me where - but it seemed well referenced at the time. I think it related to schzophrenia. Just another idea to throw into the mix.

When humans evolve and mix throughout the world, what we get is a more and more 'average' human being. The most average human being is the most 'perfect' human being. That's what Da Vinci was getting around to with that famous drawing of the man with his arms outstretched. Not only from him, but scientifically men who are more symetrical in features are more likely to give a woman an orgasm, which means that his traits will be more successfully passed on. And how do we get symetrical features? By averaging people together, by mating the offspring become more and more symetrical. So as long as people are mating, we are evolving more and more 'symetrical' or 'perfect' traits. While overpopulation may be a sign that humans have reached a peak of evolutionary state, if the population isn't perfect and immune to everything, it doesn't fit with every other theory(and by the way: People are indeed evolving to be immune to diseases and such. For example, I'm immune to poison ivy. Also, people who have ancestors who were in Europe during the time of the black plague are proving to be immune to AIDS. Isn't that interesting?).

PS. I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm probably wrong on my theories, but I figure that if I never present them I'll get stuck with wrong ones. Teach me if I'm wrong.

great post

symmetry of features and attraction

- though I think it may be most asymmetric and not symmetric

the man who is male
and
woman who is female

- symmetry
- associates with something new
(eg the first amino acid - glycine
- which is not chimaeric)

- where -

that force of attraction increases with asymmetry

Imagine the North and South pole of a couple of magnets -
North ->->->- -<-<-<- South
attraction between North and South pole will increase as the North and South poles become reciprocally of greater strength -
though poles apart

Weaker magnets (greater symmetry) -
will exhibit lower attraction for one another
North ->- -<- South

(I think)

overpopulation
will exhibit lower attraction for one another and correct any problems of overpopulation ??
- thinking that we can superimpose a growth curve on our population growth (Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens) -
predict a crash (or dramatic change) in our species
- based on shape

and superimpose another (a subsequent species) (Homo neosapiens subsp. sapienses) curve over the top of the precursor population (Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens) (at beyond the exponential stage in the image below)


species 1 http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ksDtQ3eCwN7J3M:http://www.fungionline.org.uk/images/5kinetics/graph1.gif
Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens
species 2 ....................|
species 2 ....................|
species 2 ....................|
species 2 .................http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ksDtQ3eCwN7J3M:http://www.fungionline.org.uk/images/5kinetics/graph1.gif
Homo neosapiens subsp. sapienses

at lag phase
- phases legible in a larger version of the images above - here (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fungionline.org.uk/images/5kinetics/graph1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.fungionline.org.uk/5kinetics/2batch.html&h=468&w=468&sz=6&hl=en&start=5&sig2=OGQDp3qApidBsseuFxHIKw&um=1&usg=__UV7Oj1v-CZKgJVssCtoGqyxbhRA=&tbnid=ksDtQ3eCwN7J3M:&tbnh=128&tbnw=128&ei=jisbSeecIIqUxAGa57zODg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgrowth%2Bcurve%2Blag%2Bexponential%26 um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN) -

When humans evolve and mix throughout the world, what we get is a more and more 'average' human being. The most average human being is the most 'perfect' human being. That's what Da Vinci was getting around to with that famous drawing of the man with his arms outstretched. Not only from him, but scientifically men who are more symetrical in features are more likely to give a woman an orgasm, which means that his traits will be more successfully passed on. And how do we get symetrical features? By averaging people together, by mating the offspring become more and more symetrical. So as long as people are mating, we are evolving more and more 'symetrical' or 'perfect' traits. While overpopulation may be a sign that humans have reached a peak of evolutionary state, if the population isn't perfect and immune to everything, it doesn't fit with every other theory(and by the way: People are indeed evolving to be immune to diseases and such. For example, I'm immune to poison ivy. Also, people who have ancestors who were in Europe during the time of the black plague are proving to be immune to AIDS. Isn't that interesting?).

PS. I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm probably wrong on my theories, but I figure that if I never present them I'll get stuck with wrong ones. Teach me if I'm wrong.

But that's in magnets and not in humans. Maybe symetrical magnets have weaker attraction, but magnets don't need to procreate. In humans, asymmetry is a sign of disease, poor development, and poor ways coping with environmental stresses. These things would make for a poor mate.

As I'm doing more research on this, I'm finding studies that show that symmetry is not strongly coorelated with attractiveness, but that it is with health. Like this one: http://cogprints.org/4349/1/Zaidel2005.pdf

I don't think that evolution will stop untill humans stop mating. Evolution occurs when mutations create an advantage so the mutation gets passed on. So evolution will only stop occuring in humans when we are perfectly suited to our environment. Which we aren't yet, if we are still dying from diseases and environmental factors. We may be slowing the process by altering our environment to suit our needs with technology, but as long as humans mate, there will be mutations, and therefore evolution.

And besides, there are so many factors that can influence the extinction of a species, comparing the size of a population with the rate at which they are mating doesn't even cover the tip of the iceburg. There are environmental factors, diseases that wipe out populations, natural disasters, social and political influences, &c.

by definition evolution cannot cease to exist until we stop producing offspring PERIOD. <=hee redundant ok done being amused

evolution is just how genetics change over a very long period of time (unless there is some form of huge disaster such as horrific epidemic, or nuclear winter etc.). the environment that we evolve in includes sociatal standards so the fact that older men like younger girls affects how we evolve but not the fact that evolution occurs. the guy who wrote that article is a moron.

on the symmetry thing.
generally humans are attracted to healthy people with a complimentary immune system. this is generally determined via pheromones and symmetry def contributes to the healthy thing. therefore more symmetry = more healthy = more attractive.

they dude who wrote the article had a better argument of the doom of the species when we started wearing perfume since it masks pheromones thereby producing less healthy offspring in the long run (probably...least i think so). he could have also gone off a rant on birth control since that affects who women are attracted to.

evolution is simply a changing of genes. this change can be for the better of mankind or for the worse. evolution does not require a species to become "better" or "worse" or "average" it just allows a random and spontaneous mutation to become more prominent in a species over a time frame that is unobservable by any single human...unless you were frozen via fry in futurama or we discover a way to thwart aging.

I agree with most of what you said, Mooch, except the last part.

Mutations that are not beneficial to humans remain mutations. Although I try to avoid wikipedia, they have a good example. A butterfly has several offspring with different mutations. The ones with lighter colors are more easily seen by predators, and are there for killed before their mutation can pass on. The ones that are darker colored survive to pass on their mutation. In humans, Down Syndrome is not often passed along. So that mutation remains a mutation. But walking upright was beneficial, so it was passed on.

i fully agree with you.

from that perspective it was a "bad" mutation. however what if say that mutation somehow integrated itself into the butterfly genome overall and it was later found in a world run by light colored butterflys that that exact gene for lighter colors was linked to say larger brain size?

if we look at humans at the moment we are destroying ourselves because we are very selfish due to a dog eat dog world. global warming is occurring due to high co2 in the atmosphere that we caused which also has the potential to throw us into an ice age once the co2 gets high enough. nuclear war is always a possibility etc. these are all caused by characteristics (probably short sightedness, selfishness, the fact that in apes the hierarchy determines who procreated more) that have evolved over a very long period of time could very well destroy us. so the question is are the mutations that caused those characteristics good or bad?

i think the initial response most people would say is that they were once good but are now bad. on the other side though, there's nothing that says we wouldn't have evolved into such a prominent species without those mutations but completely different ones that maybe wouldn't have stuck us in such an awkward situation. it all has to do with luck and probability mutations just are. if the light colored butterfly mutation happened when some disaster occurred that severely reduced the population of it's predators to go down or become extinct than the light colored butterfly could have flourished.

But then that means that being a light colored butterfly is a beneficial mutation. In the case of the extinction of it's predators it means it's a non-consequential mutation, like some humans having 6 fingers.

Now it becomes sort of a 'nature vs nurture' argument. If it's our genes that make our personality then there's nothing stopping us from destroying the world. In that case it would be a detrimental mutation. That's an interesting point though, because if humans were never selfish in the whole history of evolution, we wouldn't have survived. That selfishness that nomads used to get food and stay healthy would have been an advantage in evolution. That is sort of proof of a 'selfish gene'. And if there is a greedy gene, then it would be working against us now. In which case, those without the greedy gene aren't evolving fast enough to stop the selfish ones from destroying the planet before it's too late. But if it's nurture that controls self-ishness/lessness, then we still are on our way to destroying ourselves. Either way, humans will go extinct before we stop evolving.

added in red/blue

...
But that's in magnets and not in humans.
there's only EM in our world of structure
Maybe symetrical magnets have weaker attraction, but magnets don't need to procreate.
post big-bang
magnets 'grew' also (from nothing)
magnets magnetically attract and magnetize
In humans, asymmetry is a sign of disease, poor development, and poor ways coping with environmental stresses. These things would make for a poor mate.
or a couple of real desperate dudes -
- desperate to run away together
(escape from the nonsense of 'you really *must* ...blah...blah...bleughhh! '

As I'm doing more research on this, I'm finding studies that show that symmetry is not strongly coorelated with attractiveness, but that it is with health. Like this one: http://cogprints.org/4349/1/Zaidel2005.pdf
---A---
asymmetry indicating greater sexual attraction
man ->- -<- woman
---B---
symmetry with 'classical' beauty

---A--- and ---B--- are real different -

---A--- ==
jump on top of
---B--- ==
go droopy in the presence of

sadly though the word 'attraction' is often used in both senses
- to describe both of these possible interactions between man and woman

'both senses' (from above)
->-
we are observing
(from elsewhere here)
- the issue of words miscommunicating
- confusing abstraction layers by words being used to indicate one 'thing' by one person and being understood by another in a seemingly perfect (though inappropriate) context -

- the same word with two different contexts

What can we be certain of ?

We evolved

species 1 ->- species 2 ->- species 3 ->- etc ->- us

The last event (mind) was a little special (though only a little)

species 1 ->- species 2 ->- species 3 ->- etc ->- modern man ->- something new
[/COLOR]

species 1 ->- species 2 ->- species 3 ->- etc ->-
- involved changes which expressed themselves through alterations in our physical structure

modern man ->- something new
- involves change in mind

All we need do is see that we're (the human life cycle) a progression from
nature (physical) -> nurture (mental)

and it all kinda' makes sense.

What is evolution?
Shift to complexity

What is the brain ->- mind?
A shift from real complex to really very complex structure
within our intranogginal :-) space -

- increased complexity of structure runs alongside our notion of reality -
- with time one would expect our species' grasp on reality to grow to greater understanding/granularity
(which is exactly what has happened) -

As we've understood more
- we have been able to process more information
- where information is energy and where processing information relates to the extent to which we may achieve coherence on the afferent stream of nervous impulses which transduce external reality into our mortal coil -

- with time one would expect our species' grasp on reality to grow to greater understanding/granularity
(which is exactly what has happened) -
and we'll observe
that
- as this happens -
that
there will be flux in the 'real estate' which sensory systems occupy within our CNS

The sensory systems which 'float our boat' -
will change -
based around how effectively 'boat-floating' they are to us
(context - electrical)

- and neuroplasticity provides the mechanism whereby this very flux will change our 'under the cover' (and hence experiential perspective of reality)
- accordingly.

I believe that we're tending towards losing the senses of
smell and taste for food
and
mouth for voice

to be replaced by contemplative silence within famiy unit
(mind)

- supplying as this new context will -
all that we require

(neural stimulation)

- for the neuronal pact with the devil

'wanna' have some fun -
then go have fun -
---ps---
or else!'

In our terribly dull world of banker enforced debt backed by force-wielding lawyer -
'the devil's bargain' for failingor else!' to deliver on fun

==

mental disorder -
- and lots of it.

While the guy mentioned in that article might have some interesting points, the title of the article is unscientific and widely misleading.

Mooch is right; evolution is defined as change in the gene pool. While the nature of natural selection imposed upon us may be changing, even to the point of reducing the amount of new mutations that have a chance to be subjected to selection, this does not mean at all that we will not continue to evolve.

Processes that govern the "pressure" exerted by natural selection are less important to evolution today, as we now know that at least half of evolution is explained by random genetic drift (something very different from natural selection).

I actually disagree with the big bang theory. I also disagree with the religous, god-created-everything theory. Why? In physics, there is no such thing as nothingness, it is known as a vacuum, and even then it isn't completely void of anything(or something). There's still the cosmic radiation background. But I should stop myself before I get too far into that; it's a conversation for another day or thread.

You are using small examples in random parts of history or science to cover evolution. To compare the attraction between magnets with the attraction between humans is comparing apples to oranges.

In biology, symmetry is quite important. Studies show that animals that are more symmetrical live longer, healthier and produce more offspring than animals that aren't. The book A Natural History of Rape discusses, with citations from scholarly articles, symmetry and how it influences reproduction. Here's another article that supports the symmetry thing: http://cogprints.org/4349/

i just hate classifying things in binary since we use binary systems to classify things that are anything but binary

i gots beef with binary

Symmetry is an important concept in biology, being related to mate selection strategies, health, and survival of species. In human faces, the relevance of left-right symmetry to attractiveness and health is not well understood. We compared the appearance of facial attractiveness, health, and symmetry in three separate experiments. Participants inspected front views of faces on the computer screen and judged them on a 5-point scale according to their attractiveness in Experiment 1, health in Experiment 2, and symmetry in Experiment 3. We found that symmetry and attractiveness were not strongly related in faces of women or men while health and symmetry were related. There was a significant difference between attractiveness and symmetry judgments but not between health and symmetry judgments. Moreover, there was a significant difference between attractiveness and health. Facial symmetry may be critical for the appearance of health but it does not seem to be critical for the appearance of attractiveness, not surprisingly perhaps because human faces together with the human brain have been shaped by adaptive evolution to be naturally asymmetrical.

Here's another article that supports the symmetry thing: http://cogprints.org/4349/

Absolutely - yes -

here're my points (they're all in your paragraph (all bar the connection from nature ->- asymmetry ->- attractiveness (sexual)) which stops short
- at
nature ->- asymmetry

-*-

symmetry ->- health ->- attractiveness (beauty)
symmetry ->- X attractiveness (sexual)
nature ->- asymmetry ->- attractiveness (sexual)

-*-

And now in order

---start---

nature
->-
male-female asymmetry
->-
male-female attractiveness I (sexual)
->-
... ... (several rounds of mating) ... ...
->-
male-female asymmetry increases to a theoretical max
->-
male-female attractiveness I (sexual)(libido) hits a max similarly
->-
speciation event
->-
male-female symmetry (see glycine previously)
->-
male-female health
->-
male-female attractiveness II (beauty)
->-
... ... (a couple of rounds of mating) ... ...
->-
and then back to the ---start---
albeit for the newly emerged species.

- real importantly -
health isn't as great as it sounds -
- the inert gas would be considered real healthy because it's stable
- however -
it ain't goin' no place

->- stability for an unacceptable price
eg the nautilus

- we're going some place and so have to live with the rolling circle model of

instability ->- stability

- on balance -
I'd take the lows if highs need otherwise be sacrificed.

Studies show that animals that are more symmetrical live longer, healthier and produce more offspring than animals that aren't.

live longer -
not
'live a little' -

'better

lion
for
day

---than---

sheep for a lifetime'

-- Sister Elizabeth Kenny

based on sheer physics.. yes..

symmetirical structures last longer
pyramids----
diamonds----
turtles--

nature evolution also supports the mid-SIZED organisms to survive and ..
---like monkeys
--not dinosaurs

insects seem rather symmetrical
*prolly why machine design takes inspiration

common sense

the most extreme asymmetry in parents will produce a balanced duality in merger -
- the balanced structure will have children
- where since child product is instantiated from balanced parental unity -

- so child will exhibit symmetry.

Symmetry represents either the start of something new -
- or the beginning of a 'live happily ever after' stage for the species.

i just hate classifying things in binary since we use binary systems to classify things that are anything but binary

i gots beef with binary

binary beef steers sharp ternary

So I tried to use the proper quoting of posts technique, but it was just getting confusing. So the credit for the quotes go to: SB_UK.

"- real importantly -
health isn't as great as it sounds -
- the inert gas would be considered real healthy because it's stable
- however -
it ain't goin' no place "

In biology health is the most important thing. Animals mate by instinct, and chose their mates carefully based on the healthiest. It's natural selection.

The rest is difficult to explain, because it's a difficult subject. I'm looking at this from a purely scientific way. I'm looking at the science behind evolution. The morals behind natural selection in todays society, while important and relevant, I'm sure we all agree: everybody deserves to love and be love, no matter their situation, be it healthy, mentally challenged, or having a congenital disorder. That may be something else to discuss in the 'end' or 'slowing' of evolution.

That said, I'm going to look at this from a scientific standpoint.

An example would be if one of the first humans was born with one leg shorter than the other: 1)they wouldn't survive if a predator attacks because they can't run as fast, 2)the first humans were hunter-gatherers, so one with a shorter leg would be malnourished by either not getting food or having their food stolen by another human with stronger, symmetrical legs.

So any other human wouldn't chose to mate with the human with one short leg because: 1)they might have died before they could pass on their genes or 2)their offspring might carry the same genetic defect or 3)they did not react well to their environment.

In our environment we don't need to escape from predators or literally fight for our food. This is a less severe example, but asymmetry can be a sign of Bardet-Biedl syndrome, Cri du chat, Cornelia de Lange syndrome, Goldenhar syndrome, Hemifacial microsomia, Neurofibromatosis (Schwannomatosis), Noonan Syndrome, Sturge-Weber syndrome, Patau syndrome, &c.


"->- stability for an unacceptable price"
"- we're going some place and so have to live with the rolling circle model of
instability ->- stability"
"- on balance -
I'd take the lows if highs need otherwise be sacrificed."

Not true. Nature pursues equilibrium. All parts of nature: chemicals, gasses, animals, plants, &c. Nature has reached a balance of oxygen expelled by plants and carbon dioxide expelled by humans. Humans who maintain a balance of diet and exercise are healthier. If a population becomes too large for it's environment, the population decreases and equilibrium returns. Gravity of the earth and the gravity of the sun/moon/planets are balanced so they don't collide.

Hey, I just found this: "The Hardy - Weinberg principle states that for a population to remain in genetic equilibrium natural selection must not occur. Stabilizing selection is a type of natural selection in which individuals with the average form of a trait have an advantage in terms of survival and reproduction." Five things must occur at the same time for gentic equilibrium to be reached:
1. no gene mutations
2. large population size
3. limited-to-no immigration or emegration
4. Gene of interest has no effect on survival or reproduction
5. Mating is random

Humans definately haven't reached all five yet.

http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/browse/geneticdisruption/index.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/genetic-equilibrium

but at the same time instability is a huge advantage if living in a dynamic unstable environment else pop would become extinct ;)

whee i like creating circles

Pop music or pop soda?

I feel like that's a very obvious reference, and would be witty if my brain wasn't fried. But... it's fried. :o

but at the same time instability is a huge advantage if living in a dynamic unstable environment else pop would become extinct ;)
yes
whee i like creating circles[/QUOTE]
absolutely - yes - Dear MooMoo

wee! wee!

But our environment is stable. If it becomes unstable, the population becomes unstable, which makes the environment return to equilibrium.

environment is ever changing. today the barometric pressure changed as did the temperature and humidity, location of earth in the universe, speed, if you changed altitude by a tiny bit you've technically changed how much you weigh.

the fact is society likes to view everything as static because it makes them comfortable to think that they are in control. it's where the love of binary comes from. in actuality nothing is static and (almost) everything is changing. the almost is a question like is the ball in the cup or is it not in the cup...if you dont consider the fact that we could be living in a matrixesque place and that indigo children can bend spoons. else nothing is static. even the mass of a stone from one second to the next changes, we just do not have the tools to perceive it as of yet.

this is why in general i find everything in life hilarious :-p

Added text (below) is in colour/bold/italics -


"quoting"
...below...
- ps -
the quote function isn't great -
quoting a message which quotes causes the original 'quote' to be lost
and
disjoints the noses of carefully :-) formatted lazy ASCII people

health isn't as great as it sounds -
In biology health is the most important thing.

to an animal there is a 'will to live' -
however biology is simply 'subjective physics'
- the objectivity which we can offer to dissecting physics - we find difficult within domain of life -
the general idea of 'anthropomorphism' comes to light
~where~
the classical example would be the anthropomorphic 'God' which children describe
and
adults with immature minds - his will - do fight - his wont -

Animals mate by instinct,
yes
and choose their mates carefully based on the healthiest.
yes
--- if ---
'choose' - defines a choice which is not consciously made (conscious awareness dows not make this choice - it's a choice which from individual-to-individual *will* be made differently - albeit using the same mechanism)
--- & ---
'healthiest' - can be defined by shifting one's focus away from the individual animal and into the species as a whole
- the 'local' animal is feeding his or her progeny's evolutionary benefits back into {group/social/community-wide} benefit.

no man is an island - Systems define any component of our reality which has structure

So the scheme would be:

---I---
species ->- {is composed of} ->- (male,female)n

---II---
male + female -> {produce} ->- children

---III---
species >- evolves
when children reach a certain stage of development
- within a environment which is exerting a selection pressure to fuel natural selection

male -> attracted to -> <- ot detcartta <- female

It's natural selection.
yes

...{text omitted}... everybody deserves to love ...{text omitted}...
yes - love is the name which we attribute to a force which binds any component of 'reality'
- any structure which evolves to greater geometric complexity needs to have each of its component parts at each level bound into a structure by a locally derived definition of 'love' -
'locally' - because it changes from level to level
(- the reason why love has proven difficult for us to define until now)
'level to level'
- where (using only the most intuitively appealing (most obvious) examples) an ordered list of these 'different' levels might be sequentially arrayed as follows

{{{pre wave (religion ->- maths) }}}
->-
{{{wave (physics) }}}
->-
{{{fundamental particle (physics) }}}
->-
{{{element (chemistry) }}}
->-
{{{life (biology) }}}
->-
{{{mind (man) (psychology ->- philosophy ->- maths ->- religion) }}}

...{text omitted}... the 'end' or 'slowing' of evolution.
A rolling circle model travelling to sinusoidal wave form (constant angular, changing linear velocity)
the standing wave eg (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/waves/u10l4c.html) ~s~node - maximal rate of change
antinode - no change
~paraphrase~ would give the illusion of
'slowing to a halt' -
whereas
'slowing to all toot toot! change'
- would be more accurate characterization of available data.

An example would be if one of the first humans was born with one leg shorter than the other: 1)they wouldn't survive if a predator attacks because they can't run as fast, 2)the first humans were hunter-gatherers, so one with a shorter leg would be malnourished by either not getting food or having their food stolen by another human with stronger, symmetrical legs.
asymmetry will be in the vicinity of an inch (for leg length) -
not a couple of feet
- if it were - then absolutely - yes

So any other human wouldn't chose to mate with the human with one short leg because: 1)they might have died before they could pass on their genes or 2)their offspring might carry the same genetic defect or 3)they did not
react well to their environment.
asymmetry will be in the vicinity of an inch (for leg length) -
and is unlikely to approach 6 feet in total
- if it did, then absolutely
- yes -
- I would love to see a photograph

In our environment we don't need to escape from predators or literally fight for our food. This is a less severe example, but asymmetry can be a sign of Bardet-Biedl syndrome, Cri du chat, Cornelia de Lange syndrome, Goldenhar syndrome, Hemifacial microsomia, Neurofibromatosis (Schwannomatosis), Noonan Syndrome, Sturge-Weber syndrome, Patau syndrome, &c.
I don't know all of these diseases -
- and so without reading up -
the pattern is of

->- asymmetry -> symmetry -> asymmetry -> symmetry -> ...etc... ->-
(from above)
- a 'rolling circle' model in which there are a certain number of revolutions which are required before the cycle completes -
- and so absolutely yes -
arrested development might result in an observation of asymmetry -
- however the asymmetry is a sign of premature arrest in a defined series of processes
- which must occur -
one after the other
(rolling circle cycles 1 -> n (in order) pretty much covers this idea)
The rolling circle process can be observed in natural systems
(biology for instance)
in the process of self-assembly / self-organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#Self-organization_in_biology)

"->- stability for an unacceptable price"
"- we're going some place and so have to live with the rolling circle model of
instability ->- stability"
"- on balance -
I'd take the lows if highs need otherwise be sacrificed."

Not true. Nature pursues equilibrium.
:confused:
from above instability ->- stability

... so a bit confused - I'm not too sure how to reply to an individual stating disagreement whilst in clear agreement.

Nature pursues equilibrium.
==
instability ->- stability

All parts of nature: chemicals, gasses, animals, plants, &c. Nature has reached a balance of oxygen expelled by plants and carbon dioxide expelled by humans. Humans who maintain a balance of diet and exercise are healthier. If a population becomes too large for it's environment, the population decreases and equilibrium returns. Gravity of the earth and the gravity of the sun/moon/planets are balanced so they don't collide.

I can't work out why you think that your idea is any different to -
instability -> stability where stability is sufficiently 'fragile' to permit stability to be broken under aegis of needs

- reactive to needs for reasons of environmental change (stressor)
&
pursuit of 'better'
(I can define 'better' if you object to this term)

Hey, I just found this: "The Hardy - Weinberg (HWE) ple states that for a population to remain in genetic equilibrium natural selection must not occur. Stabilizing selection is a type of natural selection in which individuals with the average form of a trait have an advantage in terms of survival and reproduction." Five things must occur at the same time for gentic equilibrium to be reached:
1. no gene mutations
2. large population size
3. limited-to-no immigration or emegration
4. Gene of interest has no effect on survival or reproduction
5. Mating is random
Humans definately haven't reached all five yet.
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/browse/geneticdisruption/index.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/genetic-equilibrium

- we're pretty much there
- we're no longer evolving by genetic mechanism
HWE is 'genetic speak' for regression to the mean (which is 'math speak' for pursuit of maximal/optimal variability)
Pursuit of maximal/optimal variability is described by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers in the line
mix it up until there are no pedigrees
<- this is the stage at which we are now -
we're in pursuit of genomic level HWE at all loci -

we've moved on from
evolution by genetic mechanism
->-
evolution by mental mechanism

Evolution by genetic mechanism relates to evolution in our physical structure - money is a physical currency -
With completion of the 'genetic' level in our evolutionary trajectory -
we MUST ensure equality in physical resources to all members of our species (money,land - predominantly) -
- to share everything
- such that we can leave the physical layer behind us and move on up
(continue to evolve)

physical ->- mental ->- spiritual
physical ->- X ->- mental ->- spiritual
physical ->- X ->- mental ->- X ->- spiritual

binary beef steers tastes good

and I thought you were a vegetarian:D

Added text (below) is in colour/bold/italics -



health isn't as great as it sounds -
In biology health is the most important thing.

to an animal there is a 'will to live' -
however biology is simply 'subjective physics'
- the objectivity which we can offer to dissecting physics - we find difficult within domain of life -
the general idea of 'anthropomorphism' comes to light
~where~
the classical example would be the anthropomorphic 'God' which children describe
and
adults with immature minds - his will - do fight - his wont -

Animals mate by instinct,
yes
and choose their mates carefully based on the healthiest.
yes
--- if ---
'choose' - defines a choice which is not consciously made (conscious awareness dows not make this choice - it's a choice which from individual-to-individual *will* be made differently - albeit using the same mechanism)
--- & ---
'healthiest' - can be defined by shifting one's focus away from the individual animal and into the species as a whole
- the 'local' animal is feeding his or her progeny's evolutionary benefits back into {group/social/community-wide} benefit.



So the scheme would be:

---I---
species ->- {is composed of} ->- (male,female)n

---II---
male + female -> {produce} ->- children

---III---
species >- evolves
when children reach a certain stage of development
- within a environment which is exerting a selection pressure to fuel natural selection

male -> attracted to -> <- ot detcartta <- female

It's natural selection.
yes

...{text omitted}... everybody deserves to love ...{text omitted}...
yes - love is the name which we attribute to a force which binds any component of 'reality'
- any structure which evolves to greater geometric complexity needs to have each of its component parts at each level bound into a structure by a locally derived definition of 'love' -
'locally' - because it changes from level to level
(- the reason why love has proven difficult for us to define until now)
'level to level'
- where (using only the most intuitively appealing (most obvious) examples) an ordered list of these 'different' levels might be sequentially arrayed as follows

{{{pre wave (religion ->- maths) }}}
->-
{{{wave (physics) }}}
->-
{{{fundamental particle (physics) }}}
->-
{{{element (chemistry) }}}
->-
{{{life (biology) }}}
->-
{{{mind (man) (psychology ->- philosophy ->- maths ->- religion) }}}

...{text omitted}... the 'end' or 'slowing' of evolution.
A rolling circle model travelling to sinusoidal wave form (constant angular, changing linear velocity)
would give the illusion of
'slowing to a halt' -
whereas
'slowing to all change'
- would be more accurate characterization of available data.

An example would be if one of the first humans was born with one leg shorter than the other: 1)they wouldn't survive if a predator attacks because they can't run as fast, 2)the first humans were hunter-gatherers, so one with a shorter leg would be malnourished by either not getting food or having their food stolen by another human with stronger, symmetrical legs.
asymmetry will be in the vicinity of an inch (for leg length) -
not a couple of feet
- if it were - then absolutely - yes

So any other human wouldn't chose to mate with the human with one short leg because: 1)they might have died before they could pass on their genes or 2)their offspring might carry the same genetic defect or 3)they did not
react well to their environment.
asymmetry will be in the vicinity of an inch (for leg length) -
and is unlikely to approach 6 feet in total
- if it did, then absolutely
- yes -
- I would love to see a photograph

In our environment we don't need to escape from predators or literally fight for our food. This is a less severe example, but asymmetry can be a sign of Bardet-Biedl syndrome, Cri du chat, Cornelia de Lange syndrome, Goldenhar syndrome, Hemifacial microsomia, Neurofibromatosis (Schwannomatosis), Noonan Syndrome, Sturge-Weber syndrome, Patau syndrome, &c.
I don't know all of these diseases -
- and so without reading up -
the pattern is of

->- asymmetry -> symmetry -> asymmetry -> symmetry -> ...etc... ->-
(from above)
- a 'rolling circle' model in which there are a certain number of revolutions which are required before the cycle completes -
- and so absolutely yes -
arrested development might result in an observation of asymmetry -
- however the asymmetry is a sign of premature arrest in a defined series of processes
- which must occur -
one after the other
(rolling circle cycles 1 -> n (in order) pretty much covers this idea)
The rolling circle process can be observed in natural systems
(biology for instance)
in the process of self-assembly / self-organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#Self-organization_in_biology)

"->- stability for an unacceptable price"
"- we're going some place and so have to live with the rolling circle model of
instability ->- stability"
"- on balance -
I'd take the lows if highs need otherwise be sacrificed."

Not true. Nature pursues equilibrium.
:confused:
from above instability ->- stability

... so a bit confused - I'm not too sure how to reply to an individual stating disagreement whilst in clear agreement.

Nature pursues equilibrium.
==
instability ->- stability

All parts of nature: chemicals, gasses, animals, plants, &c. Nature has reached a balance of oxygen expelled by plants and carbon dioxide expelled by humans. Humans who maintain a balance of diet and exercise are healthier. If a population becomes too large for it's environment, the population decreases and equilibrium returns. Gravity of the earth and the gravity of the sun/moon/planets are balanced so they don't collide.

I can't work out why you think that your idea is any different to -
instability -> stability where stability is sufficiently 'fragile' to permit stability to be broken under aegis of needs

- reactive to needs for reasons of environmental change (stressor)
&
pursuit of 'better'
(I can define 'better' if you object to this term)

Hey, I just found this: "The Hardy - Weinberg (HWE) ple states that for a population to remain in genetic equilibrium natural selection must not occur. Stabilizing selection is a type of natural selection in which individuals with the average form of a trait have an advantage in terms of survival and reproduction." Five things must occur at the same time for gentic equilibrium to be reached:
1. no gene mutations
2. large population size
3. limited-to-no immigration or emegration
4. Gene of interest has no effect on survival or reproduction
5. Mating is random
Humans definately haven't reached all five yet.
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/browse/geneticdisruption/index.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/genetic-equilibrium

- we're pretty much there
- we're no longer evolving by genetic mechanism
HWE is 'genetic speak' for regression to the mean (which is 'math speak' for pursuit of maximal/optimal variability)
Pursuit of maximal/optimal variability is described by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers in the line

<- this is the stage at which we are now -
we're in pursuit of genomic level HWE at all loci -

we've moved on from
evolution by genetic mechanism
->-
evolution by mental mechanism

Evolution by genetic mechanism relates to evolution in our physical structure - money is a physical currency -
With completion of the 'genetic' level in our evolutionary trajectory -
we MUST ensure equality in physical resources to all members of our species (money,land - predominantly) -
- to share everything
- such that we can leave the physical layer behind us and move on up
(continue to evolve)

physical ->- mental ->- spiritual
physical ->- X ->- mental ->- spiritual
physical ->- X ->- mental ->- X ->- spiritual

Crikey, I hate it when you take the words RIGHT OUT of my MOUTH:D

and you make them all pink and lovely:p:p

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/waves/h4.gif

I was just about to say that:p AGAIN

(I just forgot I said it in the first place)

and I thought you were a vegetarian:D

I only ever suck their horns -
- they're a bit bemused during, but are back to their free range best just a few minutes after.

I like to think better

"'hard' to say" - not,not bull?

--- ps ---

'erm... happy 10,000th'

your "ticker" and "quote" functions have gone renegade -
would you like access to my perky cock and bull trackers?

(you know)

to localize the perp?

or

'erm... happy 10,000th'

have you grown an'nabituation ?

Crikey, I hate it when you take the words RIGHT OUT of my MOUTH:D

and you make them all pink and lovely:p:p

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/waves/h4.gif

I was just about to say that:p AGAIN

(I just forgot I said it in the first place)


hot sugar daddy
skipping rope in school
pi thread

Are you there ?

koppa ? koppa thi + pi ?
mi' dearie dear


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:nqEg1Ma-gJ35VM:http://www.everafterstore.com/media/princess_tea_set.jpg

I only ever suck their horns -
- they're a bit bemused during, but are back to their free range best just a few minutes after.

I like to think better

"'hard' to say" - not,not bull?

--- ps ---



your "ticker" and "quote" functions have gone renegade -
would you like access to my perky cock and bull trackers?

(you know)

to localize the perp?

or



have you grown an'nabituation ?
LOL...too late..it's tomorrow..and that was yesterday, and today is no good to play such games...
Tonight ...possible...:D:D

Honestly, I'm confused by all of the arrows, quoting, and different colors. An arrow can mean 'therefore', 'leads to', 'means', &c. The quoting thing is messed up, and I'm not sure what the different colors are being used to emphasize. So I've been responding to the other things in your posts,

When something is unstable, it becomes stable. That does not make instability stable. The two are not equal. That's what I'm understanding from your posts, and I don't think that is true.

Those aren't 'diseases', they are congenital disorders. Asymmetry is a symptom of these syndromes. And if these syndromes were passed on in a population, the population wouldn't survive. Evolution has prevented a population from being entirely affected by Cornelia de Lange syndrome, which causes limb differences, developmental delay, seizures, and heart defects. I know someone who has one leg that is two inches shorter than the other. She never took part in gym class and was not a healthy individual, very lovable, but not healthy.

I'm using the term 'choose' in reference to cavemen and nomads and the beginning of evolution. We still have all of those same intincts left over from those days.

What is the size of the population we are looking at? If we are looking at the entire population of humans, then we have one of the five: large population size. To shrink this down, we'll use a smaller example. 50 people create their own community to become 'perfect' or some other reason. They would be considered to have stopped evolving if:
1.they all had perfect genes and no genetic disorders
2.the population size was large in comparison to the amount of land they were on
3.no other humans were allowed in or out
4.if every one was capable of surviving and reproducing
5.mating was random.

As of this moment: there are millions of genetic disorders, the earth is still supporting us(this is debateable. Africa is in rough shape right now, but governments could help/solve this problem[I'm keeping optomistic- don't burst my bubble]), humans are constantly moving into different areas of the world, not everyone is capable of surviving/reproducing, and mating in many countries of the world is not random(think arranged marriages/racial prejudices).

I was discussing the genetic aspect. To be honest, I'm not religious, I don't believe that spirituality and evolution mix. I admit that there are things that I don't understand in regard to spoon bending and such, but I'm not going to let these rare occurances define everything else.

Are you trying to suggest that a species may be considered to have stop evolving if ?

They would be considered to have stopped evolving if:

1.they all had perfect genes and no genetic disorders
2.the population size was large in comparison to the amount of land they were on
3.no other humans were allowed in or out
4.if every one was capable of surviving and reproducing
5.mating was random.

---but--- that we're still evolving because of

humans are constantly moving into different areas of the world-*-

I believe that we have hit the list of 5 points -
and that evolution forwards by genetic mutation has ended.

Evolution, however, has not ended -
- the argument which I'm offering cannot continue unless there is a willingness to consider the possibility that evolution by classical genetic mechanism is simply one of many 'real' processes which may be considered under the heading of a more general definition for evolution.

Here's a simplified argument
(for reasons of avoiding use of too many words)

--- 1. ---
Mutation and then exchange in genetic material represents the context for evolution in its classical biological sense (from Mendel onwards)

--- 2. ---
Exchange is a synonym for 'communication'

--- 3. ---
Heightened capacity for communication of information occurs between our species (courtesy of mind)

--- 4. ---
The genome is often considered to contain genetic information.

--- 5. ---
The process of learning involves communication and mutation of ideas, such that in analogy with evolution by genetic mutation -
we begin with a simple structure (bacteria/mind at birth) and evolve to a complex structure (the physical structure of man/mental structure of wise man at death)

--- 6. ---
So - exchange,mutation in information leads to evolution of the physical and mental structures of man

bacteria -> the physical structure of man
mind at birth -> mental structure of wise man at death

--- 7. ---
The key terms of communication,information and a specific unidirectional journey (as in point 6. above) -
- are defining characteristics of general process of evolution
- and naturally these defining characteristics are expressed within the paradigm of 'evolution by mutation in domain of life'
because (and once again) -
this paradigm is simply child process to more general rule.

-*-

Sorry but I think we may not be communicating here if you believe that I'm stating that 'instabilty is stability'
That does not make instability stable.It's quite likely that going any deeper is going to lead to more confusion
- and so I'll leave this thread alone if you still cannot see what I'm trying to explain.

These are relatively difficult subjects to discuss -
because we have disease and disorder on both physical and mental levels -

thanks for correcting me on my usage of the term 'disease'
- though similarly - I may need to ask for clarification on the exact nature of
physical and mental
diseases and disorders
- whether they're physiological or pathological in nature
acclimatization (epigenetic), consequence of exaptative re-use (or exaptation), or selective adaptation
->- from ->-
source wikiP/Adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation)
source wikiP/Exaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sentence in DarkRed (above)
- examples (below) to help explain intended meaning

- is the 'disease' (meaning seeming discomfort here)
due to the re-use of a mechanism which has retained its original function ?
(though now in vestigial form) - if the mechanism is successful in its newly evolved function -
presumably there will be increased likelihood of predecessor potentially disrupting our new 'norm'.

- is the 'disease' (meaning seeming discomfort here)
occurring as a physiological warning sign to 'stop' ?
- imagine if we had a mission critical mechanism which was re-used exaptatively (choose any ligand - receptor system with multiple receptor isotypes eg 5HT//) -
source wikiP/5-HT_receptor_classification
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT_receptor#Classification) - over-use would be limited by the entire train of physiological effects leading to highest usage being disrupted by non-optimal practice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that we'll find that adaptation applies a filter to exaptative re-use -
- and that exaptative re-usage applies physiological stress on the system until optimal set-point is reached.

This is the mechanism whereby

instability ->- LEADS TO ->- stability ->- LEADS TO ->- instability
where
stability must be allowed to ->- LEAD TO ->- instability
- because if it doesn't we cannot evolve (go anywhere).

Stability (maximal) is not an absolute state -
it is (instead) - a very specific point - alongside Instability (maximal)
- which may be considered the antinode and node of the sine wave

sinusoidal motion in evolution -
familiar to us under the 'rolling circle' model (an example drawn from the general paradigm)
'rolling circle' model
the basic mechanism of genomic replication at most fundamental level
(interface between virus and life)
- at most fundamental level in evolutionary biology
->- more information available from ->-
source wikiP/Rolling_circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_circle)

Evolution~~~
who knows what it is

is Evolution just a way of environmental change on a given planet..

does the Universe, too Evolve??? or does it adjust to its own actions? or what?

homo-sapiens is the result of apes using tools.. so the way of evolutions has to do w/the way of external alchemy-effecting the wat internal alchemies---

Equilibrium can only really be sustained in a controlled way..

oxygen===controls/modifies bacterial growth..in a way organisms are in relative equilibrium w/an ever changing environment

I am apt to believe that mutations WILL always occur when dealing w/genetic replication and reproductions

If we have a mechanism which permits a nerve to

--- ->-bifurcate->- ---<
........................\
.........................- communicate
......................../
--- ->-bifurcate->- ---<

->-

--- ->-bifurcate->- ---<
........................\
.........................- communicate --< bifurcate
......................../.................\
--- ->-bifurcate->- ---<...................\
............................................---< ... then that's all we need (structure) - to evolve (geometry) ...
.........................................../
------------------------------------------<

genetics gives us a mechanism -
an internal structure -
the genome encodes the neuronal capacity for neuroplastic remodelling

- an 'external structure'
reality

- then takes over - with the nerve chasing reality -
a logical structure (mind) of 'external reality'

as the basis for evolution of mind (evolution of ever more complex structures)

- the mind itself is being driven to form structures which run in parallel with 'reality'
- mind playing catch up with the structure of reality -

mind (at about this point in our history) -
reaching a point where we understand all aspects of our reality up until this point

- man reaches a point at which the complexity of structure of the mind is of greater complexity than the Universe
within which we are housed -
- we become capable of an 'internal' characterization of the Universe -

of the model from which the Universe was built -
the laws to which it subscribes -

- the class model - to the Universe as instantiated object -
the class model is at a higher level to Universe -

the model doesn't stipulate the 'colour' of the instantiated (our) Universe -
only that the Universe has attribute(colour).

The class model is the generalized architecture -
the class model instantiating the Universe is the
metamodel web

- man reaches a point at which the complexity of structure of the mind is of greater complexity than the Universe
within which we are housed -

the mind runs at an order of complexity greater than the complexity of the Universe (or at least the hunk of data which we have accrued and placed into a filing cabinet labelled
all available data
(on our Universe)

:-)
(one of those really big filing cabinets with drawers and stuff
(you see 'em on the history channel in companies which don't do tech, dig stuff out of the ground and kill anything which gets in their way))

Maybe they know why -
though I'm pretty sure they don't.