Evolution Research - Personal Posts

Saturday is always a busy day and after breakfast (having decided to take a day or two off from writing about specific aspects of the proposed mechanism) I scanned the news headlines to see if there was anything about evolution in general that could be briefly commented upon in tonight's post.

"A matter of give and take" by Tom Stoppard in The Guardian (UK) caught my eye:

Tom Stoppard argues that free speech is not an inalienable human right

The idea that being human and having rights are equivalent - that rights are inherent - is unintelligible in a Darwinian world. It is easily and often overlooked that when Thomas Jefferson asserted that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were inalienable human rights, he did so on the ground that they had been endowed by God, our Creator.

That is how Jefferson deemed "these truths to be self evident". Yet, we do not find that insistence on human rights is the preserve of believers. Still less do we find the right of free expression being derived from God's endowment. Is the right of free expression self-evident?

That was all I had time to read so I printed a copy out and took it with me.

At lunchtime I read the whole article and was quite appalled. I felt that commenting at all would require commenting for hours (mainly about the role cultural conditioning plays in the forming of perceptions such as the world is "Darwinian") and so I decided to think of something else to write about.

On the way home, however, I felt curious about the context in which Jefferson had written "these truths to be self evident". As an Anglo-German living in the UK I have never read the Declaration of Independence, it begins:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Words are only a reflection of the person who wrote them rather than a definition and in that sense, I would suggest, are not to be take too 'literally'. Furthermore, their precise sequences can be affected by anything from the 'mood of the moment' to the 'attitude of a lifetime'. Quite obviously Jefferson hadn't finished with the continuing importance he attributed to the "Laws of Nature" simply because he had finished the first paragraph and the words do not appear in the second!

However, the main point I wish to make, from the perspective of an internal evolutionary mechanism, is that life is individual and no excuse or justification is necessary for the existence of that life.

On the specific question of "Free Speech": when a person reacts negatively to the words of another it may be to the listener's ultimate benefit to ask themselves whether their response is innate or acquired - but also to ask the same question about the behaviour of the speaker!

John Latter

technorati tags: evolution, news, darwinian, jefferson, declaration, independence, free+speech

Click to read A matter of give and take

Waddington's "The evolution of adaptations" gives a logical explanation of how ostrich callosities may have become hereditary but specifically refers only to those found "fore and aft" on the underside of the body.

On page 37 of "The Great Evolution Mystery" Gordon Rattray Taylor goes on to say:

Curiously, it [the ostrich] also has calluses on its ankles which are of no use to it, as it turns its foot sideways when sitting. They may, however, have been functional long ago when the ostrich had three toes and probably did not turn its feet over.

Yesterday's post, Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (2), describes how the callosities could have become hereditary from the perspective of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism (the end result of the process being restoration of the 'localized area of equilibrium' to its initial state).

There is, of course, no "Law of Use and Disuse". But if, for example, consideration is given to the degeneration of the eye and loss of pigmentation in cavefish, then why have the ankle calluses of ostriches 'persisted' if they were "functional long ago"?

The answer is simple: When the ankle calluses became hereditary in the three-toed ostrich then contact between those areas and the ground would no longer have affected the 'localized area of equilibrium at the apex of the homeostatic hierarchy'.

During the transition from the three-toed to the two-toed ostrich the ankle calluses would still have had no affect upon the localized 'area of equilibrium'. Consequently, they are still there.

Eye degeneration and loss of pigmentation in cavefish, on the other hand, are examples of 'negative equilibrium' affecting the localized area and will be discussed in a future post.

John Latter

This is the third of three posts on Waddington's "The evolution of adaptations". The other two are at:

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (1)
Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (2)

The title link of all three posts goes to the Main Blog entry for Waddington's paper and this link goes to the paper itself.

technorati tags: waddington, evolution, mystery, ostrich, ankle, eye, cavefish, john+latter

Preamble (for the benefit of new/future visitors): The concept of an internal evolutionary mechanism originates from the 'anomalies' referred to in " A Model of an Internal Evolutionary Mechanism and reflects a known single state.

There is a hesitation in extrapolating beyond this 'start condition', partially because the current mathematical model can only represent a single trajectory (see An Internal Evolutionary Mechanism and 'Direction in Evolution': Preliminary Notes) irrespective of how it is applied, but also because further development requires insight and research as much as 'logic'. For this reason the proposed mechanism will continue to be described as a 'localized area of equilibrium at the apex of an homeostatic hierarchy' (rather than, for example, any assignation along the lines of 'organs, tissues, and cells' to progressively lower levels within the hierarchy).

Main Content:

Today's extract from "The evolution of adaptations" is slightly shorter than yesterday's: the emphasis this time is on Waddington's description of the process whereby the callosities of ostriches become hereditary (rather than the intellectual strategy whereby the 'incredible' was reduced to the 'credible').

Having said that, however, I wonder if Waddington said "This may have seemed too long a train of argument to be very convincing" because of his own lingering doubts as much as any likely to arise in a reader.

After all, reducing the incredible to the credible was done within the framework of the 'modern view' of his day and its continuing dependency upon the discontinuity contained within setting up a "cybernetic developmental mechanism... rather like a gun set to go off when the trigger is pulled" and then subsequently waiting for the fortuitous arrival of a mutation sufficient to "pull the trigger". The human mind may be able to jump such gaps but perhaps the natural world is unable to.

...the ostrich squats down in such a way that the under surface of the body comes into contact with the ground at its two ends, fore and aft. In just these places a considerable callosity develops in the skin (figure 2), and Duerden [8] showed that these thickenings make their appearance in the embryo before hatching.

...It certainly seems very far-fetched to attempt to explain such phenomena without bringing in the fact that the environment might be expected to produce similar effects. Let us consider, therefore, what might happen to an ostrich in which the appropriate callosities were not hereditarily determined. Presumably its skin, like that of most other animals, would react directly to external pressure and rubbing by becoming thicker. Now the point which seems to have been overlooked in previous discussions of the matter is that this capacity to react must itself be dependent on genes. Since populations of animals are never quite uniform in any character, we must expect that the ostrich ancestors varied in their capacity to produce the most suitable callosities; and there could he effective natural selection for those which performed the most satisfactory exogenous adaptation. A race would evolve in which the stresses set up by squatting in a particular way would call forth the development of appropriate adaptive thickenings of the skin.

At this stage, the thickenings would still not be hereditary and independent of the pressure and rubbing; they would still be acquired characters in the conventional sense. We can find a hypothesis of how they might come to be hereditarily fixed if we turn to consider another aspect of the matter. The callosities are the results of developmental processes. Now, one of the main characteristics of animal development is that it tends to be canalized or buffered, so that the optimum end result is produced even if there are minor variations from the normal conditions while the process is going on [11]. Natural selection, in fact, does not merely ensure that only those animals survive which have something near the optimum characteristics, but favours those genotypes which tend to produce such animals under any conditions. It gradually builds up efficient cybernetic mechanisms, to use a fashionable phrase. Thus we may expect to reach a stage in which our ostriches nearly always develop callosities of just the right size and position, even in those individuals which, to put it crudely, sit down very seldom or those which loll about the whole time.

Once such a cybernetic developmental mechanism has been built up, it will be rather like a gun set to go off when the trigger is pulled. The development of the callosities will proceed quite autonomously, once the process can be started. The initial stimulus, which may be a greater or lesser amount of external pressure, has become a relatively minor factor in the whole situation. It may then not be too difficult for a gene mutation to occur which will modify some other nearby region of the embryo in such a way that it takes over the function of the external pressure, interacting with the skin so as to 'pull the trigger' and set off the development of the callosities [12].

Before embarking upon a description of how callosities can become hereditary from the perspective of an internal evolutionary mechanism, it may be worth making the the following points:

1) Commentaries such as this one are not being offered as 'convincing arguments' in themselves. The primary purpose, in this instance for example, is not to argue that Waddington was somehow 'wrong' in his interpretation. The proposed mechanism is testable: these notes are more intended to show how natural phenomena can be looked at in a way that augments the argument for such testing to be done.

2) The ensuing references to "existing thresholds being exceeded" can not be more specific unless - for any organism - one or more instances of such an occurrence are already known. See Info wanted on two intriguing 'Lamarckian' experiments for possible examples of this.

3) Anyone who actually reads this post may reach the end and say "Thanks very much, but I'll stick with what I know!". There will be a third post in this mini-series (appearing either tomorrow or Saturday) addressing an interesting aspect which Waddington doesn't mention:

Curiously, it [the ostrich] also has calluses on its ankles which are of no use to it, as it turns its foot sideways when sitting [More]

As an additional 'enticement', commenting on the above will allow the proposed mechanism's relationship with the "Law of Use and Disuse" to be put into context.

How callosities may become hereditary

It is lunchtime and I am sitting in a Social Club busily scribbling away on the back of unwanted print-outs. From experience I know that if I continue this activity long enough today then the skin on the outside of my little finger will start to feel sore. Persevering for several days will eventually cause a callus with form.

The fact I consciously experience distress from the affected area indicates there will be a corresponding effect on the 'localized area of equilibrium at the apex of an homeostatic hierarchy' located within the 'older' (in evolutionary terms) structures of the brain.

Providing I do nothing further to aggravate the constant pressure on the outside of my little finger then formation of the callus will have three effects:

1) Tissue damage ceases at the site of the callus
2) Pain is no longer felt
3) The 'localized area of equilibrium', although 'offset' by the presence of the callus, is no longer affected by transient 'inputs' from the affected area - a state of equilibrium has been re-established.

If I persisted with the activity of writing for long enough within my own lifetime, and my (and other people's) descendants did so in theirs, then eventually the existing thresholds of the localized area of equilibrium would be exceded. Conceptually, this would trigger 'top-down' changes within the homeostatic hierarchy of the genome until the initial state of equilibrium has been restored (ie the 'offset' mentioned above would be gone). This would take 'n' generations, initially 'fast' but then tapering off, and it wouldn't matter if every pencil in the world disappeared once the process began. The 'size and shape' of the callus (as much as location and any other characteristic) would reflect the point at which equilibrium was restored relative to when no callus existed.

As usual I've finished far later than anticipated and any editing will have to wait until tomorrow (usually I see flaws the following day but move on regardless - after all the proposal is still 'under construction'!).

John Latter

This is the second of three posts on Waddington's "The evolution of adaptations". The other two are at:

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (1)
Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (3)

The title link of all three posts goes to the Main Blog entry for Waddington's paper and this link goes to the paper itself.

technorati tags: internal+evolutionary+mechanism, evolution, callus, adaptations, ostrich, waddington, lamarckian, john+latter

Evolutionary Theory, The White Rabbit, and Genetic Assimilation

In "The evolution of adaptations", Waddington states:

The reigning modern view is that, in nature, the direction of mutational change is entirely at random, and that adaptation results solely from the natural selection of mutations which happen to give rise to individuals with suitable characteristics. I want to argue that this theory is an extremist one

and then briefly categorizes three types of adaptations: exogenous, pseudo-exogenous, and endogenous.

The next extract from the paper is necessarily extensive. Sections which are particularly relevant to the following comments have been 'colour-coded':

...It is the remaining category of adaptations, the pseudo-exogenous, which has provoked the most discussion. We are confronted here by phenomena for which an explanation could so easily be found in a direct effect of some environmental factor, were it not that further study demonstrates unequivocally that the structure concerned is determined by the heredity of the organism, and is relatively independent of the environment. The question arises whether we can bring ourselves to believe that the part which the environment can play in mimicking the condition is really irrelevant, and that the evolution of this particular adaptation has resulted from the selection of chance mutations which might have appeared and produced the phenotypes even if the environmental effects had never existed.

Some concrete examples will make the problem clearer. One of the most familiar is that of the thickened skin on the soles of our feet. This thickening is obviously an adaptation to the stresses which this region of the body has to bear; but, as Darwin pointed out, and as Semon [7] discussed in a full-length paper, the thickening already appears in the embryo, before the foot has ever borne any weight. The structure therefore cannot be a direct response to external pressure, but must be produced by the hereditary constitution independently of the specific external influence to which it is an adaptation. The situation is even more striking when similar thickenings are found on less conventional parts of the body. For instance, the ostrich squats down in such a way that the under surface of the body comes into contact with the ground at its two ends, fore and aft. In just these places a considerable callosity develops in the skin (figure 2), and Duerden [8] showed that these thickenings make their appearance in the embryo before hatching.

...It certainly seems very far-fetched to attempt to explain such phenomena without bringing in the fact that the environment might be expected to produce similar effects. Let us consider, therefore, what might happen to an ostrich in which the appropriate callosities were not hereditarily determined. Presumably its skin, like that of most other animals, would react directly to external pressure and rubbing by becoming thicker. Now the point which seems to have been overlooked in previous discussions of the matter is that this capacity to react must itself be dependent on genes. Since populations of animals are never quite uniform in any character, we must expect that the ostrich ancestors varied in their capacity to produce the most suitable callosities; and there could he effective natural selection for those which performed the most satisfactory exogenous adaptation. A race would evolve in which the stresses set up by squatting in a particular way would call forth the development of appropriate adaptive thickenings of the skin.

At this stage, the thickenings would still not be hereditary and independent of the pressure and rubbing; they would still be acquired characters in the conventional sense. We can find a hypothesis of how they might come to be hereditarily fixed if we turn to consider another aspect of the matter. The callosities are the results of developmental processes. Now, one of the main characteristics of animal development is that it tends to be canalized or buffered, so that the optimum end result is produced even if there are minor variations from the normal conditions while the process is going on [11]. Natural selection, in fact, does not merely ensure that only those animals survive which have something near the optimum characteristics, but favours those genotypes which tend to produce such animals under any conditions. It gradually builds up efficient cybernetic mechanisms, to use a fashionable phrase. Thus we may expect to reach a stage in which our ostriches nearly always develop callosities of just the right size and position, even in those individuals which, to put it crudely, sit down very seldom or those which loll about the whole time.

Once such a cybernetic developmental mechanism has been built up, it will be rather like a gun set to go off when the trigger is pulled. The development of the callosities will proceed quite autonomously, once the process can be started. The initial stimulus, which may be a greater or lesser amount of external pressure, has become a relatively minor factor in the whole situation. It may then not be too difficult for a gene mutation to occur which will modify some other nearby region of the embryo in such a way that it takes over the function of the external pressure, interacting with the skin so as to 'pull the trigger' and set off the development of the callosities [12].

This may have seemed too long a train of argument to be very convincing, but a good deal of experimental evidence can now be produced to support it

Unlike the White Queen, who apparently could believe up to six impossible things before breakfast, Waddington's position where he writes:

"The question arises whether we can bring ourselves to believe that the part which the environment can play in mimicking the condition is really irrelevant."

could be described as one where he finds such a belief to be 'incredible'.

The subsequent description of the process given in the "too long a train of thought", however, eventually enables the stage to be reached where he can say:

It may then not be too difficult for a gene mutation to occur which will modify some other nearby region of the embryo.

Waddington's explanation is very readable and it certainly does reduce the gap between the 'incredible' and the credible. But, it is suggested, only from an intellectual point of view!

Waddington's solution still doesn't address the important 'discontinuity' supposed to exist in the natural world between the setting up of a "cybernetic developmental mechanism... rather like a gun set to go off when the trigger is pulled" and the fortuitous arrival of a mutation sufficient to "pull the trigger".

No such discontinuity exists when the phenomena of ostrich callosities is looked at from the perspective of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism but further comments will have to wait until tomorrow or Friday.

John Latter

This is the first of three posts on Waddington's "The evolution of adaptations". The other two are at:

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (2)
Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (3)

The title link of all three posts goes to the Main Blog entry for Waddington's paper and this link goes to the paper itself.

technorati tags: natural+selection, genetic+assimilation, evolution, white+rabbit, waddington, environment, darwin, embryo, ostrich, callosities

"The Evolution of Adaptations", a paper by C H Waddington published in 1953, is today's contribution to the Main Blog.

It is an interesting paper for several reasons but in particular for the ability to illustrate two important aspects of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism. I won't be any more specific at the moment because the notes I made at lunchtime (while away from home) have been mislaid. Rather than go over the same ground again - especially as I have little free time this evening - I'll defer posting until tomorrow or thursday. If you're interested, then please come back!

With a few minutes to spare, I've just browsed through today's General Evolution News entries and not unexpectedly there's another item concerning the ongoing 'Cultural War':

Intelligent design and educational stupidity

"After the verdict went against the teaching of intelligent design in schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, you could be forgiven for thinking that the argument for teaching creationism was on the decline (1). However, in the UK the educational establishment seems hell-bent on introducing those very same ideas into all state schools.

As reported in The Times (London) on Friday, the OCR examination board has included a comparative study of creationist views on evolution alongside those of Darwin (2). But should we be surprised to see ideas promoted by the religious right in the USA dished up to schoolkids in Britain?

Even a cursory look at the new science GCSE is enough to give anyone pause for thought. "

The article is written by David Perks (a Head of Physics at a London school who has written for the Times Educational Supplement) and as usual I feel a familiar impulse to 'put pen to paper'. I must, however, try and maintain my status as a spectator of the 'Cultural War' rather than become a combatant - its a lot more fun!

As a UK resident, I've included the item on this occasion simply to reflect my surprise that the OCR (Oxford, Cambridge, and RSA) examination board "has included a comparative study of creationist views on evolution alongside those of Darwin"!

John Latter

technorati tags: intelligent+design, evolution, waddington, dover, darwin, science, news, gcse, london, blog

The stated aim of this blog is to reflect the stumbling around that appears to be necessary before arriving at a cohesive and coherent proposal arguing that an internal evolutionary mechanism should be tested for.

If opportunities arose to become involved in such testing, of if others were already engaged upon such an activity, then there would probably be little point in answering "If an internal evolutionary mechanism exists, then why hasn't it been found before?".

At this moment in time, however, I feel the question does need addressing - if only as a personal contribution (no matter how inconsequential!) towards identifying those factors which currently affect serious consideration being given to the proposal

In earlier posts I've spoken of an interest in the evolutionary origins of psychological trauma and why, as a consequence, I'm reluctant to pay much attention to 'cultural evolution' (as far as this blog is concerned). While recognizing trauma can unknowingly and inadvertently be passed from generation to generation owing to 'cultural factors', it follows that I am even less inclined to comment upon the evolutionary effects that such a persistence of transmission may be responsible for. It would only 'muddy the waters', so to speak.

On the other hand, the following BBC News Report is relevant and worth commenting upon:

Scientific brain linked to autism

Highly analytical couples, such as scientists, may be more likely to produce children with autism, an expert has argued.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, of the University of Cambridge, said the phenomenon might help explain the recent rise in diagnoses.

He believes the genes which make some analytical may also impair their social and communication skills.

A weakness in these areas is the key characteristic of autism...

...In a paper published in the journal Archives of Disease of Childhood, Professor Baron-Cohen labels people such as scientists, mathematicians and engineers as "systemizers".

They are skilled at analysing systems - whether it be a vehicle, or a maths equation - to figure out how they work.

But they also tend to be less interested in the social side of life, and can exhibit behaviour such as an obsession with detail - classic traits associated with autism.

Body of evidence

Professor Baron-Cohen argues that systemizers are often attracted to each other - and thus more likely to pass "autism" genes to their offspring.

Meet a person for the first time and you meet both the person and any psychological history they may have acquired: I agree with Baron-Cohen that systemizers are often attracted to one another but not that they are more likely to pass on 'autism genes' to their offspring in the sense implied.

I would argue that systemizers may seek out analytical/scientific careers to compensate for having had their "social and communication skills" impaired by their upbringing (see 'hands-off' trauma below) and that any genetic component would be the result of the persistence of such people meeting in succeeding generations - and it would only take one systemizer in a relationship to impair the "social and communication skills" in any progeny.

What better compensation could there be for the offspring of systemizers than to take refuge in the land of logic and analysis? The popular figure of the "Absent-minded Professor" springs to mind - someone who may be brilliant at scientific research but who, in everyday parlance, is often described as 'lacking common-sense'.

The problem, however, is greater than that: Truby King, as an example, once suggested that infants should be subjected to a fixed-feeding routine in order that they quickly become accustomed to the demands of Society. A logical way to treat infants?:

If an infant's next feed is due at 4 pm, but the infant unaccountably wakes up hungry at 3 pm, then the conditions for inflicting a 'hands-off' psychological trauma are all in place: the infant exists entirely in the 'present moment', has no awareness of the past, or that there will be a future (in which it might be fed). Cries of hunger will eventually turn to anger and should that anger reach an unsustainable peak then trauma may result. Systemizer parents would not even be aware that it had happened - the logic of "the next feed is not due until 4 pm" being unassailable.

The relevance of the above to evolution is that people who do not have an integrated experience of life may not be best placed to pay anything other than lip service to Gould & Lewontin's argument that "organisms should be analyzed as integrated wholes" - researching the possibility of an internal evolutionary mechanism requires that the nature of life is taken into account: organisms are integrated.

I suspect that reductionism holds an immense appeal for systemizers and that finding and holding on to an intellectually satisfying explanation/theory may hold a greater attraction than indulging in any risk-taking required to explore beyond the theory's intellectual boundaries: "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Einstein again).

It is interesting to note the following:

Brilliant minds linked to autism

Historical figures including Socrates, Charles Darwin, and Andy Warhol probably had a form of autism, says a leading specialist.

Professor Michael Fitzgerald, of Dublin's Trinity College believes they showed signs of Asperger's syndrome.

Scientific geniuses Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have also been previously linked to the condition.

Asperger's is associated with poor social skills, and obsessions with complex topics such as music.

Perhaps this is why Darwin came up with the concept of "Natural Selection" by way of explanation with the result that people today say "Natural Selection does this.." or "Natural Selection does that.." as if it were a natural entity.

The first five returns from putting "natural selection does" into Google gives:

1) natural selection does not act on individuals

2) Under some circumstances natural selection does play a role

3) Natural Selection does not only root out

4) natural selection does not say

5) natural selection does not go across

[My emphasis]

To what degree can Darwin be considered an "Absent-minded Professor"?

John Latter

technorati tags: natural+selection, trauma, blog, darwin, bbc, autism, news, traits, society, theory

A TalkOrigins archive page entitled "Evolution and Philosophy: Is There Progress and Direction in Evolution?" begins:

One of the more common misconceptions, with a history long before Darwin, is that evolution is progressive; that things get more complex and perfect in some way. In fact, this view is attributed more to social and religious attitudes of 18th and 19th century European culture than to any evidence. It was a given that things are getting better and better, every way, every day. This persisted until long after Darwinism, until the middle of this century (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin). Even Darwin was ambiguous about it, talking on occasion about 'perfection' as a result of selection.

At the time of the 'modern synthesis' [note 9] in the 1940s, the notion of progress was quietly dropped, with a few exceptions like Dobzhansky and Huxley within the synthesis, and Schindewolf and Goldschmidt outside it. Of course, heterodox writers (usually not biologists) like Teilhard and Koestler remained progressionists long after this. But by the 1970s, progress had been abandoned by working biologists.

Recently, the issue has resurfaced, shorn of the mysticism of earlier debates. Biologist J.T. Bonner argued that there was a rise in complexity of organisms over the long term [1988], and others were arguing for a form of local progress under the terms 'arms race' [Dawkins and Krebs 1979] and 'escalation' [Vermeij 1987]. Gould [1989] felt so strongly about it he was moved to deny that, at least since the Cambrian explosion, there has been any progress at

It is implicit in proposing an internal evolutionary mechanism based on homeostasis that it must 'operate' in the same way at either end of the current evolutionary spectrum. The purpose of the following notes is to briefly demonstrate why the proposed mechanism is not 'directional' and/or imbued with a 'progressive' intent.

The Main Blog post The Internal Evolutionary Mechanism: Basic Concept describes a localized 'area of natural equilibrium' (AONE) at the apex/center of an homeostatic hierarchy along with the following flowchart producing the fibonacci series:

To recap: The fibonacci series begins "0, 1, 1, 2 ,3, 5" and each subsequent number can be formed by adding the two preceeding numbers together, eg 2 + 3 = 5, 3 + 5 = 8, 5 + 8 = 13 (etc.). If the larger of two sucessive fibonacci numbers is divided by the smaller then a number is obtained which increasingly approximates to the 'golden ratio' or 'golden number': 1.6180339887498948482.... The flowchart opposite will generate the fibonacci series endlessly. For simplicity it ignores the first zero, and rather than 'seeding' the program and adding succesive fibonacci numbers together, it generates the numbers via testing the ratio of 'x over y' against phi (where phi equals the golden number/ratio). 'y' is the fibonacci number produced, 'x' the incremental count. 'F' is required to test whether the 'x over y' ratio is closer to the golden ratio when x/y is above or below it. NB I hope the maths are correct - please email any comments (and I would like help/advice in developing this further).

Consider an organism 'y' whose AONE is at equilibrium, ie x = 1. Without specifying why or how at this point (except to say the existing thresholds of the AONE have to be exceeded) x begins to increase - although it's not a runaway process: for the sake of argument assume x increases by '1' in this generation, another '1' in that, etc., etc.. During this period there is no discernable change in the Output "y" box.

When x/y exceeds phi then integration begins over 'n' generations (initially fast but then tapering off - although not apparent in this very basic model!) which may produce changes in the Output "y" box.

When integration is complete there is a new "y" ("y2") whose localized area of equilbrium has been restored to the initial state (ie x = 1).

If the new thresholds of y2 are exceeded then the process may begin again (and may stop at any point, even 'lose' - through the same modus operandi - any increments of x).

The flowchart produces the fibonacci series 1, 1, 2, 3 ,5... ...55, 89, 144 (etc.)

From an external viewpoint we are able to see the pattern and can predict what the next fibonacci number generated will be. Internally, however, the algorithm works the same way in every instance.

Equating the above fibonacci numbers to organisms: the transition from organism 2 to organism 3 simply reflects the internal 'resetting' of the AONE to its initial state - there's no intention/direction/progression towards ultimately 'producing' organisms 144, 233, etc..

Hope the above makes sense, it's rather late and I bet I groan when I read it through in the morning (if I do then I'll amend this accordingly so do come back!).

John Latter

technorati tags: modern+synthesis, talkorigins, evolution, philosophy, darwin, AONE, dawkins, homeostasis, fibonacci