Comments on: The Red Queen Principle http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-red-queen-principle grep understanding Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:44:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Carl M http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-red-queen-principle/comment-page-1#comment-1533 Carl M Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:36:48 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/544#comment-1533 <p>I didn't see it as being along the lines of intelligent design. Perhaps my complaint there was more with the word "continuously." In fact, improvements (when they occur) are by their very nature discrete (as opposed to continuous).</p> <p>But my bigger issue is with the "success here" means "failure there" viewpoint. In addition to the preditor-prey example I gave, let me give an example that brings to light the implied assumption that the "resources available to all" is some FIXED amount of resources. That's simply not true. If a plant evolves a more efficient method of extracting energy from sunlight and uses it to store extra energy reserves for an uncertain future, that could GREATLY benefit those who feed on the plant. And, it may or may not cause harm to other species. One could certainly envision a situation in which no harm came to other species.</p> <p>The assumption that every competitive situation is a zero-sum game is a common one. However, it is a false one.</p> I didn’t see it as being along the lines of intelligent design. Perhaps my complaint there was more with the word “continuously.” In fact, improvements (when they occur) are by their very nature discrete (as opposed to continuous).

But my bigger issue is with the “success here” means “failure there” viewpoint. In addition to the preditor-prey example I gave, let me give an example that brings to light the implied assumption that the “resources available to all” is some FIXED amount of resources. That’s simply not true. If a plant evolves a more efficient method of extracting energy from sunlight and uses it to store extra energy reserves for an uncertain future, that could GREATLY benefit those who feed on the plant. And, it may or may not cause harm to other species. One could certainly envision a situation in which no harm came to other species.

The assumption that every competitive situation is a zero-sum game is a common one. However, it is a false one.

]]> By: Carl M http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-red-queen-principle/comment-page-1#comment-245591 Carl M Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:36:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/544#comment-245591 <p>I didn't see it as being along the lines of intelligent design. Perhaps my complaint there was more with the word "continuously." In fact, improvements (when they occur) are by their very nature discrete (as opposed to continuous).</p> <p>But my bigger issue is with the "success here" means "failure there" viewpoint. In addition to the preditor-prey example I gave, let me give an example that brings to light the implied assumption that the "resources available to all" is some FIXED amount of resources. That's simply not true. If a plant evolves a more efficient method of extracting energy from sunlight and uses it to store extra energy reserves for an uncertain future, that could GREATLY benefit those who feed on the plant. And, it may or may not cause harm to other species. One could certainly envision a situation in which no harm came to other species.</p> <p>The assumption that every competitive situation is a zero-sum game is a common one. However, it is a false one.</p> I didn’t see it as being along the lines of intelligent design. Perhaps my complaint there was more with the word “continuously.” In fact, improvements (when they occur) are by their very nature discrete (as opposed to continuous).

But my bigger issue is with the “success here” means “failure there” viewpoint. In addition to the preditor-prey example I gave, let me give an example that brings to light the implied assumption that the “resources available to all” is some FIXED amount of resources. That’s simply not true. If a plant evolves a more efficient method of extracting energy from sunlight and uses it to store extra energy reserves for an uncertain future, that could GREATLY benefit those who feed on the plant. And, it may or may not cause harm to other species. One could certainly envision a situation in which no harm came to other species.

The assumption that every competitive situation is a zero-sum game is a common one. However, it is a false one.

]]> By: Daniel http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-red-queen-principle/comment-page-1#comment-1531 Daniel Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:52:56 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/544#comment-1531 <p>While each individual mutation <em>is</em> random, and doesn't necessarily lead to anything that improves a given species, on a large scale, over time, mutation does (indirectly) tend to improve species.</p> <p>The reason for this is that changes take place and nature selects those that are succssful. The mutation itself didn't know this was going to happen; it just happened. And depending on environment, the current competitors, and a whole myriad of other factors, the changes either help the species or hurt it. Well, if they hurt it, then those with that set of traits gets phased out due to competition. If it helps, they become one of the new standards.</p> <p>I think that's all that's being said here -- not something else along the lines of intelligent design.</p> While each individual mutation is random, and doesn’t necessarily lead to anything that improves a given species, on a large scale, over time, mutation does (indirectly) tend to improve species.

The reason for this is that changes take place and nature selects those that are succssful. The mutation itself didn’t know this was going to happen; it just happened. And depending on environment, the current competitors, and a whole myriad of other factors, the changes either help the species or hurt it. Well, if they hurt it, then those with that set of traits gets phased out due to competition. If it helps, they become one of the new standards.

I think that’s all that’s being said here — not something else along the lines of intelligent design.

]]> By: Daniel http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-red-queen-principle/comment-page-1#comment-245590 Daniel Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:52:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/544#comment-245590 <p>While each individual mutation <em>is</em> random, and doesn't necessarily lead to anything that improves a given species, on a large scale, over time, mutation does (indirectly) tend to improve species.</p> <p>The reason for this is that changes take place and nature selects those that are succssful. The mutation itself didn't know this was going to happen; it just happened. And depending on environment, the current competitors, and a whole myriad of other factors, the changes either help the species or hurt it. Well, if they hurt it, then those with that set of traits gets phased out due to competition. If it helps, they become one of the new standards.</p> <p>I think that's all that's being said here -- not something else along the lines of intelligent design.</p> While each individual mutation is random, and doesn’t necessarily lead to anything that improves a given species, on a large scale, over time, mutation does (indirectly) tend to improve species.

The reason for this is that changes take place and nature selects those that are succssful. The mutation itself didn’t know this was going to happen; it just happened. And depending on environment, the current competitors, and a whole myriad of other factors, the changes either help the species or hurt it. Well, if they hurt it, then those with that set of traits gets phased out due to competition. If it helps, they become one of the new standards.

I think that’s all that’s being said here — not something else along the lines of intelligent design.

]]> By: Carl M http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-red-queen-principle/comment-page-1#comment-1527 Carl M Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:58:03 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/544#comment-1527 <p>There are some logical flaws in that principle (or at least in that statement of it). "Improvement" in a species does not LEAD to selective advantage ... it is DEFINED as selective advantage ... or rather is defined as improving the ability to reproduce successfully. In this way, the "improvements" are "selected" for. It certainly does not follow that "variation" normally continuously leads to increases in fitness. Variation by random mutation is random. Sometimes it leads to increases in fitness, sometimes not (probably USUALLY not). It is true that species have evolved simultaneously (in a geologic sort of time frame), but it does not follow that improvement in one species necessarily implies a disadvantage in others. Life in Earth's biosphere is NOT a zero-sum game. The fact that one species gains does NOT mean that another species must lose. Interactions among species do not really boil down to the simplistic notion of two species competing for the same resources. It is more complicated than that. Even in cases of preditor-prey relationships between species where one might expect the prey species to benefit from the destruction of the preditor species, things can get complicated. In some cases, destruction of the preditor species would cause the prey species to temporarily flourish (in a population explosion) ... only to find that they have exhausted their own food resources. This can have devastating results on the prey species (including potentially leading to their extinction).</p> There are some logical flaws in that principle (or at least in that statement of it). “Improvement” in a species does not LEAD to selective advantage … it is DEFINED as selective advantage … or rather is defined as improving the ability to reproduce successfully. In this way, the “improvements” are “selected” for. It certainly does not follow that “variation” normally continuously leads to increases in fitness. Variation by random mutation is random. Sometimes it leads to increases in fitness, sometimes not (probably USUALLY not). It is true that species have evolved simultaneously (in a geologic sort of time frame), but it does not follow that improvement in one species necessarily implies a disadvantage in others. Life in Earth’s biosphere is NOT a zero-sum game. The fact that one species gains does NOT mean that another species must lose. Interactions among species do not really boil down to the simplistic notion of two species competing for the same resources. It is more complicated than that. Even in cases of preditor-prey relationships between species where one might expect the prey species to benefit from the destruction of the preditor species, things can get complicated. In some cases, destruction of the preditor species would cause the prey species to temporarily flourish (in a population explosion) … only to find that they have exhausted their own food resources. This can have devastating results on the prey species (including potentially leading to their extinction).

]]> By: Carl M http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-red-queen-principle/comment-page-1#comment-245589 Carl M Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:58:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/544#comment-245589 <p>There are some logical flaws in that principle (or at least in that statement of it). "Improvement" in a species does not LEAD to selective advantage ... it is DEFINED as selective advantage ... or rather is defined as improving the ability to reproduce successfully. In this way, the "improvements" are "selected" for. It certainly does not follow that "variation" normally continuously leads to increases in fitness. Variation by random mutation is random. Sometimes it leads to increases in fitness, sometimes not (probably USUALLY not). It is true that species have evolved simultaneously (in a geologic sort of time frame), but it does not follow that improvement in one species necessarily implies a disadvantage in others. Life in Earth's biosphere is NOT a zero-sum game. The fact that one species gains does NOT mean that another species must lose. Interactions among species do not really boil down to the simplistic notion of two species competing for the same resources. It is more complicated than that. Even in cases of preditor-prey relationships between species where one might expect the prey species to benefit from the destruction of the preditor species, things can get complicated. In some cases, destruction of the preditor species would cause the prey species to temporarily flourish (in a population explosion) ... only to find that they have exhausted their own food resources. This can have devastating results on the prey species (including potentially leading to their extinction).</p> There are some logical flaws in that principle (or at least in that statement of it). “Improvement” in a species does not LEAD to selective advantage … it is DEFINED as selective advantage … or rather is defined as improving the ability to reproduce successfully. In this way, the “improvements” are “selected” for. It certainly does not follow that “variation” normally continuously leads to increases in fitness. Variation by random mutation is random. Sometimes it leads to increases in fitness, sometimes not (probably USUALLY not). It is true that species have evolved simultaneously (in a geologic sort of time frame), but it does not follow that improvement in one species necessarily implies a disadvantage in others. Life in Earth’s biosphere is NOT a zero-sum game. The fact that one species gains does NOT mean that another species must lose. Interactions among species do not really boil down to the simplistic notion of two species competing for the same resources. It is more complicated than that. Even in cases of preditor-prey relationships between species where one might expect the prey species to benefit from the destruction of the preditor species, things can get complicated. In some cases, destruction of the preditor species would cause the prey species to temporarily flourish (in a population explosion) … only to find that they have exhausted their own food resources. This can have devastating results on the prey species (including potentially leading to their extinction).

]]>