Vladimyr Do you mean "exaptation"? And if so, why would that (also) not be a mechanism of evolution?I am intentionally trying to avoid the typical negative connotation to "Corruption" as I also avoid the positive connotation placed on "Evolution", others tried that in 1930's.My use of the word corruption is focused on a complex system and its component machinery being usurped to fulfill a role or function not seen in earlier manifestations. You seem to be referring to *very* complex, evolved systems then... say like "life" for example?When ever a complex system is transformed I suspect evolution and corruption without prejudice. It is pretty easy to decide if a transformation is corruption since the system being transformed is usually equipped with a rudimentary protection system intended to defeat such subversions. I hear you implying that qualitative deviation of a (also complex) subsystem from it's former function is Corruption? I'm fighting the negative/positive connotation problem here. In my vocabulary, Exaptation would be the "fortuitous" Corruption where the benefit of the overall system is *served* in some way by the "Corruption"? Such general/absolute value statements seem to collapse into the vacuum when studied carefully. The value system seems to be relative to the system attempting to remain coherent and interdict the transfiguring agency?So if the transfiguring agency escaped interdiction that is good enough reason to call it "Corruption" It sounds like you are referring to the larger system as a ecosystem (or subsystem of an ecosystem) and the "corruption" happening when a species evolves in a way that changes it's relations qualitatively to the other members of the system?It gets very tricky when we nudge close to symbiosis but usually there is a remnant of corruption detectable but the agents managed a negotiated truce of some kind. THese are so rare they are barely able to be enumerated. A typical test for which is the case is to see what happens when one or the other party is removed. Normally one species performs about the same, the other is not as stable on its own. Tapeworms may produce some vitamins but overall they don't do well on their own but Icelanders rarely notice a difference. I understand this example and see how one would want to use the term "corruption"... but maybe I'm seeking the moment of differentiation and trying to find the label to be used there. It seems that before the virus was present in the (Wasp?), it's eggs inserted into the host had only a miniscule chance of survival due to the host immune system. In this case, I'm not sure how "corruption" is a dual of "evolution"? It seems like an environmental factor? Or perhaps the "evolution" that could be corruption, is that the Wasp host to the virus which "tolerates" this specific virus is advantaged in it's reproduction by the virus's effect on the unwilling host to it's eggs/offspring? I'm still open to your introduction of the term "corruption" but I'm not quite getting it yet. What I see above is the evolution of an ecosystem? Which of the shifts in the subsystems would you label "corruption" vs "evolution"? Especially if you don't use some value-system to distinguish them? They seem like one in the same otherwise. Although I concede that the value system (and therefore the designation of corruption?) is somehow relative.This example is complex upon complex. It involved three species. But it is not the only such case described. There was if I recall an example of two ground squirrel species in US held in ecological balance because the weaker species carried an endemic virus ( Colorado Tick Fever Virus, I think) exceptionally deadly to the more aggressive species, that makes it at least a 4 species system. White tailed deer are not native to Western Canada but when given the opportuity to move along man made open fields, it could expand its range, the white tailed deer carried a innocous helminth I think Brain Worm, the worm laid its eggs into the digestive tract and was dispersed upon ground cover. When the eggs were ingested by Moose and Mule deer it destroyed the brains of those species allowing the white tailed deer to drive out competition from superior species, that is at least 5 species if you count man made artifacts. What protected the moose was the dense coniferous Boreal forest, now that is six species, the mule deer retreated into the Arid mountanous western prairie. The lack of moose and mule deer seems to have pushed the Grey wolf back and allowed the coyote to dominate. The white tailed deer really has no effective predator but the automobile, since the long gun regulations took effect and discouraged hunters. Severe winter cold used to control their spread but now the suburban sprawl gave them support from local nature lovers. So now we apparently live with Lyme disease right in our backyards and Chronic Wasting disease is showing up all over North America. The white tailed or Virginia deer is a study in complexity. I honestly have no idea how many species it manages to influence. I suspect it is superior to the common rat In that regard. It just prefers the suburbs to the downtown districts. I don't think it is a lack in NetLogo that limits these examples, I think it is a lack in the individuals' imagination that limits them. Have you tried your hand at NetLogo? I can see no reason within NetLogo that an arbitrary number of species cannot be modeled. The definition and the "tuning" of the species might be a challenge. A Systems Dynamics model might be more appropriate to start with than the Agent approach...If you think this cute Bambi is computable, then maybe so is Man. Hey guys get me a beer and I could go on all night about weird interrelated ecological diseases and human history. NetLogo does not appear to have been used for any such typical examples please correct me if I am wrong. It looks to me that a simple complex system of three or four species is a tough slog for the time being. We may very well. Does the CDC actually model things at these levels of complexity? I can imagine that some of the research they funds does, but CDC proper is probably working at a more brutally blunt level? I imagine Doug might have some insight into that?Wish we had some CDC lurkers in the crowd. Thanks for the injection of new perspectives into the list... The $64,000 question is "are You a corruptive or evolutionary element in the FRIAM group?" To understand the term, should we ask if you are somehow usurping an intrinsic feature (component system) of the group to fulfill a heretofore unseen role or function? On the surface, I would suggest that you might be "corruptive" by your definition in that you might be adjusting our landscape from the handful of comfortable basins of attraction we wander in
I expect your comments to also encourage the likes of Doug and I (others prone to this as well!) to postulate some kind of strange coupling between peletons of bicycle riders, the various body fluids and viral/bacterial/reproductive-cell loads that they shed and share (we heard rumors of sweat and snot but semen was specifically ruled out, despite how excited some of the bicycle riders here seem to get about their spandex suits) while riding and some of the interesting emergent behaviour one might imagine in this milieu, especially when riding through the complex terrain of Tehachipi pass while the winds are high and the ensemble (fixed peloton-like configurations) of windmills are running. Welcome again, some more! - Steve PS. I'm leaving town (and e-mail) for 3 days, so this is sort of a hit and run... I'll be interested to see how many take all the bait I've chummed the waters with here when I get back! |
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
