Darwin's "Theory"

Darwin's  "Theory"

There are 2 definitions of theory

Unfortunately they mean opposite things

Theory
As Fact Not Fantasy

The disingenuous take advantage of confusion, so after over 150 years, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still very misunderstood by the public.

One thing that seems to trip up people's thinking is the meaning of the word "theory". As in "It's only a theory.". So let's start by making this point clear.

Let's get this straight Definitions Theory (thee-uh-ree, theer-ee) noun, plural the·o·ries 1. A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. 2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.  Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution The definition number 1 kind! Natural Selection is a law of nature The Theory of Evolution in 2 minutes

Theory in Use In technical or scientific use, Theory, principle, and law represent established, evidence-based explanations accounting for currently known facts or phenomena or for historically verified experience: the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the law of supply and demand, the principle of conservation of energy. Often the word law is used in reference to scientific facts that can be reduced to a mathematical formula: Newton's laws of motion. In these contexts the terms theory and law often appear in well-established, fixed phrases and are not interchangeable. In both technical and nontechnical contexts, theory can also be synonymous with hypothesis, a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, serving as a basis for thoughtful discussion and subsequent collection of data or engagement in scientific experimentation in order to rule out alternative explanations and reach the truth. In these contexts of early speculation, the words theory and hypothesis are often substitutes for one another: Remember, this idea is only a theory/hypothesis; Pasteur's experiments helped prove the theory/hypothesis that germs cause disease. Obviously, certain theories that start out as hypothetical eventually receive enough supportive data and scientific findings to become established, verified explanations. Although they retain the term theory in their names, they have evolved from mere conjecture to scientifically accepted fact. (Dictionary.com)

The Facts Of Evolution

On the Origin of Species What Defines a Species? A tricky question and controversial, it would take an entire blog post just to address this question. I will give a quick and dirty definition here but a future post will examine species in more detail. In general biologists have used a rule of thumb as a way to determine what is a species. When individuals are so different, either physically or genetically, as to be unable to reproduce viable off-spring together (and again this can be for a host of reasons), they are defined as distinct and separate species. In biological science, the form of an organism is called a phenotype. Phenotype being the sum of observable physical and behavioral characteristics manifested by an organism. The phenotype comes mainly from chemically coded instructions known as genes. This is the molecular coding known as DNA. The DNA genome, the full set of chromosomes, is called a genotype. The genotype is the genetic constitution (number of chromosomes, etc.) present in every organism of that population or species, It is all the alleles for structure, metabolism, development as well as the regulatory genes in that type of organism. Epigenetics Genes don't do everything It is of note, that it is possible for organisms to have the same genotype but different phenotypes. This is where epigenetics comes in. The same DNA can be regulated differently due to epigenetic markers associated with environmental or developmental influences. Now, the reverse is also true. Different genotypes can develop a similar phenotype simply by convergent evolution. This can happen when the different organisms' share an environment or the ecologies are similar enough to have the same types of selection pressures. There is a great deal of simultaneous continuity and change in nature. Over the course of natural history, both the living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) most ancestral forms have changed, while in others, aspects have changed very little, if at all, over eons. The biotic and abiotic also interact and influence each other in significant ways. All this, over geological time, can be seen to have contributed to the diversity of life forms and the diversity of environments on Earth.

Darwin examined individuals and populations Studying modification over time In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. Do individuals change within a lifetimes as Lamarck had said or do only populations change over time? What is operating in the natural world that determines the populations' change? On what time scale does speciation occur? Does it happen suddenly or only gradually, over many generations? So many questions. Darwin had some insightful ideas about all of this during a long voyage on the HMS Beagle.  Darwin observed that for all phenotypes, existence has requirements for and consequences on, the reproduction of their genotype. These lead to changes in the number of certain phenotypes (kinds of individuals) and their genotypes (kinds of blueprints) being born and surviving in a population over the generations. He saw that when populations are reproductively isolated from others, these populations can eventually become more than just variations within a type. When they are only able to reproduce with their own kind, they are recognized as a true species. What is not always immediately observable or understood is how the changes in off-spring may occur. In an age before the science of genetics, Darwin didn't know about genes exactly, or how they do what they do. But was right about one thing and awfully close to another. He speculated there were gemules that came from each parent with their traits and that in reproduction the traits are inherited by the offspring. Darwin's theory wasn't really exceptional in the observation that life forms change and appear different. Many before him had noticed this. It was exceptional in that he saw a way how living "types" or species have come about and are continually changing into new stuff all the time. Beginning with the observation that in the process of life and reproduction there is modification accompanying inherited traits, some of which are adaptive, and that extinction follows insufficient reproduction. Over time, even small differences could accumulate to result in a radial change. He saw one important way the origin of species could come about based on this and the fact that not all succeed to reproduce. Darwin's expression of the process was, natural selection. These words are familiar but to many, they are understood in different ways. Many, including some biologists refer to natural selection as a mechanism. I am of the opinion that better insight comes from the view that this is pertaining to an organic process, and a mechanical metaphor is inappropriate. Selection Naturally In order to illustrate this process a mechanical process will do. Darwin mentions the selection of characteristics or traits that human domestic breeders make. There exists a variety of traits in the individuals of a population. He tries to illustrate how those individuals which have traits selected ( chosen by the breeder ), are the ones allowed reproduce and have the offspring, who in turn, carrying these traits flourish. Those without the favored traits are not preserved as breeding stock, and are therefore their traits are eliminated from any substantial contribution to the future generations. By the intervention of the breeder/selector those individuals with these traits are the ones which increase in the population. Many of their offspring strongly exhibiting the favored traits are advantaged in that, again they are the ones selected to reproduce more of their kind. This leaves even more individuals with those traits in the population. Consequently, over several generations, this has an influence on the composition of the population. The differential in their reproduction relative to others in the population results in more individuals with these traits existing in the population. Eventually the entire population can be exclusively composed of only individuals of these traits. Thus the breeders, by what traits they favor and the individuals they select to breed, can change the entire variety of traits from that present in the original population. The result can be radical divergence of type, like nothing before. The analogy used incorporates intent on the part of the breeder as selector. This is used to show what happens when certain individuals contribute more of their inherited traits to the composition of the population. Superimposing the intentional, or artificial method of selection, onto the natural shows why it is an analogy. They are not the same in every respect, only in the resulting effects in the population. Nature, as the selector of preserved traits, is not a person. Not even as abstract person and does not have intention, only consequences. The criteria are not determined by will or forethought. The nature referred to is another way of saying all the concrete consequences of real circumstance in nature, and that includes random chance. Everything that interacts with whatever exists in the context of the natural world, nature itself, will experience the consequences of that interaction. The criterion for natural selection is contributing to posterity. Individuals not surviving long enough to reproduce in the circumstances pretty much eliminates the chance to do this. Determined solely by circumstances, any and all traits which provide fulfillment of this criterion tend to be preserved. Any quality which, directly or indirectly, permits or assists this to occur is a trait considered adaptive. Any quality which accommodates, suits the circumstances. Meeting this natural criteria permits reproducing and the perpetuation of lineage concretely and traits not accommodating the natural context have the consequence of not contributing to posterity in sufficient numbers to keep that line going. Since some inherited traits will be at an advantage in this, they are likely to have a greater contribution to posterity. Neither nature, nor individuals and their offspring, have to have intent for this to occur. It is simply the consequence of the way things are. This is in spite of some effects of nature which appear to be what a conscience selection would make. That's us projecting and anthropomorphizing nature. Nature does not stand apart from the entities within it and choose which individual of what trait lives, which will die. The nature here, is the context where elimination and preservation are occurring. Even through the word selection may lead us to project our own perception of selection as a conscience process, nature, when not personified is another word for the circumstances. The process of selection, is really the consequence of circumstance. And that's always changing. Darwin did not mean to imply some plan or intent on the part of nature. A variety of traits in a population exist, a variety of circumstances determines the rate by which individuals of certain traits reproduce. Inherited traits are passed on to descendants, and if those traits do not get in the way or assist, even in the slightest, in differential reproduction, the resulting increase in numbers as they successfully reproduce in numbers going into the future, will influence the characteristics of the population. Natural selection, to many people, directly translates as the now famous survival of the fittest. This expression was coined not by Darwin but by a man named Herbert Spencer. Those that are fit survive and those that are surviving are those that are fit. Now, very different interpretations of what survival is and what being fit means are possible. If this expression is taken literally, the real meaning is confused. One may even conclude that it is not scientific since the form is one of repeating the same thing, a tautology. For one thing, this is an "expression", it was coined for effect or display. It is not a formal scientific statement and was never intended to be so. The expression does not detail the theory behind the rhetoric. Survival does not mean only that it is the individual that survives. Is that the success that is meant? Logically, then this makes it so none are, nor can ever be. No individual, survives forever. Fit by survival alone? Not how it is Taking the phrase too literally is absurd or if one were to be more cynical, downright deceitful. Regardless of why, some scientists themselves have missed the point. Individuals existing, surviving, long enough to reproduce offspring that are viable and thus are participating in the population's composition is the necessary survival. It would be more sensible and perhaps honest to take this as surviving by descendants and legacy. Those surviving to accomplish this are doing the very minimum in nature. These individuals are also " survived by " relations, and the more relations the better the chances to contribute inherited traits to posterity. Furthermore, generally the longer one lives the more opportunity for this to occur. Quite simply, the odds on their side if they successfully reproduce more offspring over many years. A component of this type of survival is the perpetuation of the genes for those traits in the descendants. The genes are the biological coding, the means to manifest traits in individuals. If those genes are not present in future generations ... it's called extinction. Darwin, living in a time when genetics was yet to be developed, referred to it as the passing on or inheritance of some particle or material which determined the characteristics which are contributed by the individual into future generations. Darwin was not quite able to nail down the most accurate process of inheritance. although it seems pretty clear that without the benefit of genetics he did appear to have a ballpark notion of the modification process of the descendants. The combination of both parents contribution of encoding material generates the variety of phenotypes manifest in populations. This variety of individuals is the essential quality that natural selection acts upon. The selection occurring may be because of a trait, but it is the individual (and descendants) that is selected. The result of this selection process eventually becomes manifest in the population. Long winded? Maybe but still on the money. That, is the whole point. The types of change of life forms over time that we have come to know as evolution occurs within the lineage not the individual. Any means by which individuals can accomplish breeding, is valid. If this way does succeed in passing on the individual's genes then the requirement for survival, the legacy of that lineage's genes and associated traits, is fulfilled. Still, variation in what is present in descendants is part of the legacy the raw material of and for further evolutionary change. Environments do not remain the same indefinitely, the variations in very generation is what provides the chance for some of the different individuals to have more opportunity and reproductive success. The changes in the environment and the descendants may occur at different speeds. Environments are always dynamic but so are the changes in the individual as well as their descendants. The is an interaction between the genome and the environment of the individual. Science is learning more about epigenetics in this regard. Methylation of DNA plays a role in gene regulation and expression. The DNA in the individual remains the exact same code but the gene functions are changed. So, exact same genome... yet a very different phenotype. Not all of the variation in a population is a change which would be harmonious with the environmental changes. The deliterious ones would be selected out by nature. However, there is the remaining chance that some of the variations is adapted to the new conditions in a way that is better than remaining completely unchanged (and therefore having little or no chance at all in the new environment). You could say that over the long run, nature, time and chance have and continue to favor hedged bets. These changes in conditions are found to occur in many ways, One obviously vital one is genetically. In non sexually reproducing organisms as well as sexually reproducing ones. Sometimes the genetic changes occur very randomly and other times not so randomly. The advantage of variation is, though not always immediate, it can produce a means of covering if not the all bets, at least more of them. A quality that can provide better opportunity in the survival of individuals with variations. The variation can result in preserving or enhancing a suitability of the individual but it must fulfill the "survival requirement" mentioned earlier. One must be careful here, to not jump to the conclusion that there is always a progress or increasing complexity in the adapted variations. Suitability of a trait can also be the reversal of past trends. traits of the descendants don't have to be "modern", progressive or even of perfect design. There is only one criterion for Nature. It just has to work. Or at the least not get in the way for the purposes of survival. In fact so long as traits service the purpose, traits can even be very flexible.Traits can serve in one function and serve another function in different situations. Traits can serve multiple functions as well. Now as to fitness What is fit? Although an individual in good physical shape will likely have the qualities to manage better in the task of survival, i.e. dealing with the environment, competition for mates, disease, predators, or finding and obtaining food, this may not always be the only conditions leading to successful reproduction. Fit does not necessarily mean only the physical condition of the individual. We use fit in everyday language in more than only this way. If a particular shirt does not " fit " we are apt to mean that either it is not harmonious in some way with the rest of the ensemble or that it is the wrong size. Either way fit is taken to mean that it is suitable to the context, whatever that may turn out to be. Suitable to the context, is the same as saying fit the criteria. What this fitness really comes down is the qualities possessed by the individual which perhaps in varying degrees allows the individual to accommodate the circumstances in which it is in and accomplish reproduction in a way that continues the line. Another word for this suitability is "adapted". If an individual lacks sufficient suitability it almost certainly it will lead to fewer offspring and if the lack of suitability is also in the remaining offspring ...well. Taking this to the level of the population, is what extinction is. There is no conscience selection, the consequence is that those who have a greater contribution through descendants will eventually be what's around in the future. In case this still isn't clear, as an example, a rabbit, even in the best of shape, healthy, muscles all toned, bright and alert, still is not fit to live in the ocean. It's traits are not suitable to that context. The act of reproduction and its completion to a successful result would to put it mildly be hindered and any opportunities for the future of its lineage drastically limited. One need only look at the ubiquitous and dramatic natural changes such as floods or droughts to see that conditions do not remain the same forever. This example does even begin to take into consideration the infinitesimal small and gradual changes which are also occurring all the time. And, hey, physical environment is only one aspect of the total context of nature. Keeping this in mind isn't such a bad idea. It is not only one factor that can determine fitness, the whole is the context and even the slightest difference or change can have an important influence, especially if it is a trend which lasts over a long time. Survival is the successful differential reproduction of individuals inheritance into the future through descendants. Fit is the suitability and harmony of the individuals traits within the context or environment in which it exists that permits or in particular provides an advantage for this survival to occur. Overall the effects of these things on individuals are manifest in the population. Changes in life forms in populations are mediated by the individuals that compose the population. Changes in the individuals can lead to changes in reproduction between them. Major changes in the composition of the population is the how Speciation is recognized. The main determinant for a species is viable reproduction, any inherited modification blocking, or eventually blocking reproduction between individuals will likely lead to different species. This process of change is a factor in the origin of species. It is by keeping these definitions in mind that I hope you will have a different perspective of what descent with modification is all about and realize that...

The THEORY of EVOLUTION Proven by evidence, EVOLUTION is a FACT!

In order to keep this post short I have published a summary of  natural selection separately:
"Natural Selection: In A Nut Shell"

Science and Rigor

Have fun, play safe

MU-Peter Science

© 2016 MU - Peter Shimon

Natural Selection: In A Nut Shell

Natural Selection In A Nutshell

"Natural Selection"
(cough, preservation, cough)

I do find some people have misunderstandings of Darwin's theory due the term "Natural Selection". Darwin chose this from an analogy to "Artificial Selection" as seen in farming which everyone at the time understood and could relate to. The "Natural" part is fine. It's "Selection" that is misleading. It really isn't a selection at all. Selection connotes or implies a conscious, observing, selector with intent. However, in nature, as Darwin was describing it is more a kin to "preservation by circumstance" rather than an active selection process. And contingency plays a big role.

Ok. I'm done with my rant now,
on to...

THE 5 CONDITIONS IN WHICH NATURAL SELECTION TAKES PLACE	1. Life is not easy. No matter the means to survive, you have to hustle to live. Clearly, all the resources for living are not of infinite availability or supply. This creates a condition that Darwin called a struggle for existence. One must struggle in varying degrees with the conditions of the environment, such as heat, cold and the weather, as well as in varying degrees there are situations where one struggles in competition with other beings. However, there can be advantages in cooperating as well. You must put forth some effort in order to live, eat and reproduce.
2. Bad Stuff happens.  In order to maintain continuity of the lineage there must be an excess of offspring produced to offset natural and unexpected loss. Life is a struggle and not everybody survives this struggle with enough offspring to continue their line. Death, it happens. Predators, competition, old age and illness are vulnerabilities that could be more immediately fatal to the mal-adapted. And death comes not only to the ones unsuitable to the conditions. Sometimes it happens through no fault or defect or deficiency. Natural disasters like volcanoes, don't always seem to be so fussy who's in the way. There are no guarantees that even those in harmony or suitable to the living conditions are going to avoid failure to reproduce into the future due to stochastic events. Asteroids and dinosaurs. Therefore, those that reproduce in greater number than needed solely to replace the individuals will likely have better chances of having offspring surviving into the future. Life is not a sure thing but death is. No one survives forever.	3. Variation happens. Whether reproduction is asexual or sexual, variation inevitably exists in the population. The offspring from reproduction have a constitution and appearance that is similar but not identical in every way to the parent. Variation in asexual organisms that produce clones and sexual organisms can be the result of copy error, point mutations, environmental mutagens and more. In sexual creatures, the offspring are a new recombination of genes from both parents. Variation in genetic composition and/or phenotype can occur by factors in the environment before (developmental), before/after birth of the offspring (epigenetics) and of course during (lifetime conditions). Variation exists in the offspring, they are not exact copies.
4. Stuff gets handed down. Offspring get their genes and the recombined traits of those genes from their parents. Whether sexual or asexual, parents contribute to the genes of their progeny. In sexual reproduction, a mix or recombination of the parental genes are present in the descendants and are passed then passed on, recombined, passed on. Genes that make certain traits possible can and may be there in the offspring in a dominant state that is always expressed or a recessive state where expression depends being diploid with another recessive allele. Mind you, they will in some measure be present in the offspring of their relatives and in the population. A type of fitness that is known as inclusive fitness. Offspring traits and variations are inherited from the parent(s).	5. Good stuff happens.  Some traits will be adaptive and enhance the individual's ability to survive and reproduce. All things being even, sooner or later, a small advantage improves the individual's chances of contributing to posterity. Some of the variations will have a quality that assists in the struggle of life, others assist in covert ways. Nonetheless if there is any opportunity which gives even the most minute advantage in reproduction of the individual's traits, that's an "evolutionary" good thing. Inherited variation will sometimes be better suited to ecology.

Science and Rigor

Have fun, play safe

MU-Peter Science

© 2016 MU - Peter Shimon

The "Evolution" of Darwin

The Evolution of Darwin Darwin with Modification

Hence, both in space and time, we seem to be brought somewhat near to that great fact

– that mystery of mysteries – the first appearance of new beings on this earth.

Charles Darwin

Darwin
With Modification
In respect of the man and in honor of his publication of the book on his theory… Darwin did not call his theory, the theory of "evolution".  I don’t have problem using the word evolution is if it is being meant as the historical evidence of change over time. I use it in this way myself. You may think this is nit-picking, but sometimes the words we use distort people’s perception in unintended ways. By the way, I also have issues with the way the phrase “Survival of the Fittest” and even "Natural Selection" is used by some people. But that’s a whole other post in itself. See: Logic, Science and Theory

On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection

The only place where Charles Darwin uses the word “evolved” is in the last word of the last sentence of the last paragraph of the last chapter in The Origin Of Species. He knew the word, but clearly didn't use it for his theory. The word evolution, defines an unfolding, a directional development. Yet, Darwin never suggested there was a direction (or evolution) toward perfection or an ideal design. He only observed inherited change in the individuals of populations, over several generations. Explaining this process of change in populations and species over time, Darwin's own words for his theory were Descent With Modification.

Descent With Modification The fact is, these words embody Darwin's insight more accurately than the popular word evolution. Darwin's theory postulates that there is no direction for change except that determined by the favorability or unfavorability brought on by the conditions and circumstances in nature. That the selection is natural, not chosen and as Darwin noted, over time, nature is always changing. Nature, the conditions in which you live determines success or failure for a form of life. To be preserved to go on into the future or perish. The changing conditions in nature drives the changes in the all the forms of life we see. So, these may be better words to keep this in mind and avoid misunderstanding what he meant.

Darwin had the idea for his theory in 1838 but did not publish his book for close to 20 years. It was first published on Thursday 24 November 1859. It is down to speculation as to why. However what is clear was that it took courage. In his time and society, especially with him to have studied Theology in his younger days, he must have know what reaction to expect when implications of what he was saying where known publicly. Courage to stand fast to the facts and evidence that led to his insight and the conviction (in the sense of a belief, held as proven) that led him to publish. He is to be admired as much for this courage, as the results of his work.

In his day, and with the available science, Darwin may not have been quite able to nail down the actual process of inheritance. He was pretty close in his guess that some "gemule" is passed on by both parents to the offspring. Although, it clear that even without the benefit of genetics, he did appear to have a powerful notion of the how inherited modifications of the descendants leads to diversity and speciation by a natural selection. A clear explanation for the variety seen in natural history. What is also clear... Charles Darwin, had an insight that greatly advanced our understanding of life.

THE 5 CONDITIONS IN WHICH NATURAL SELECTION TAKES PLACE	1. Life is not easy. No matter the means to survive, you have to hustle to live. Clearly, all the resources for living are not of infinite availability or supply. This creates a condition that Darwin called a struggle for existence. One must struggle in varying degrees with the conditions of the environment, such as heat, cold and the weather, as well as in varying degrees there are situations where one struggles in competition with other beings. However, there can be advantages in cooperating as well. You must put forth some effort in order to live, eat and reproduce.
2. Bad Stuff happens.  In order to maintain continuity of the lineage there must be an excess of offspring produced to offset natural and unexpected loss. Life is a struggle and not everybody survives this struggle with enough offspring to continue their line. Death, it happens. Predators, competition, old age and illness are vulnerabilities that could be more immediately fatal to the mal-adapted. And death comes not only to the ones unsuitable to the conditions. Sometimes it happens through no fault or defect or deficiency. Natural disasters like volcanoes, don't always seem to be so fussy who's in the way. There are no guarantees that even those in harmony or suitable to the living conditions are going to avoid failure to reproduce into the future due to stochastic events. Asteroids and dinosaurs. Therefore, those that reproduce in greater number than needed solely to replace the individuals will likely have better chances of having offspring surviving into the future. Life is not a sure thing but death is. No one survives forever.	3. Variation happens. Whether reproduction is asexual or sexual, variation inevitably exists in the population. The offspring from reproduction have a constitution and appearance that is similar but not identical in every way to the parent. Variation in asexual organisms that produce clones and sexual organisms can be the result of copy error, point mutations, environmental mutagens and more. In sexual creatures, the offspring are a new recombination of genes from both parents. Variation in genetic composition and/or phenotype can occur by factors in the environment before (developmental), before/after birth of the offspring (epigenetics) and of course during (lifetime conditions). Variation exists in the offspring, they are not exact copies.
4. Stuff gets handed down. Offspring get their genes and the recombined traits of those genes from their parents. Whether sexual or asexual, parents contribute to the genes of their progeny. In sexual reproduction, a mix or recombination of the parental genes are present in the descendants and are passed then passed on, recombined, passed on. Genes that make certain traits possible can and may be there in the offspring in a dominant state that is always expressed or a recessive state where expression depends being diploid with another recessive allele. Mind you, they will in some measure be present in the offspring of their relatives and in the population. A type of fitness that is known as inclusive fitness. Offspring traits and variations are inherited from the parent(s).	5. Good stuff happens.  Some traits will be adaptive and enhance the individual's ability to survive and reproduce. All things being even, sooner or later, a small advantage improves the individual's chances of contributing to posterity. Some of the variations will have a quality that assists in the struggle of life, others assist in covert ways. Nonetheless if there is any opportunity which gives even the most minute advantage in reproduction of the individual's traits, that's an "evolutionary" good thing. Inherited variation will sometimes be better suited to ecology.

Suggested  Further Reading: Start Here: On The Origin Species by Charles Darwin Keep Going: The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin Read More: Ever Since Darwin by Stephen Jay Gould

Science and Rigor

Have fun, play safe

MU-Peter Science

© 2016 MU - Peter Shimon

Ah! The Hypothesis

Ah!  The Hypothesis “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause  to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955)

What's so smart about daydreaming? I'm of two minds on this In my pursuit of practicing and promoting good science and life, among other things I have long been and am still exploring "human factors". Today I wish to touch on moments of spontaneous awareness and their role in scientific thought and discovery. This exploration started years ago reading Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) and my thoughts about it were also endorsed by none other than the Ah! man himself...Albert Einstein. The most mysterious thing I am aware of is life, (the universe and everything). Especially us, humans. And I believe it is our wonderful evolutionary adaptations, the natural abilities and harmonies of the human mind and heart, that leads to true discovery. Something I call: A clear and spontaneous awareness. The next mysterious thing to me is where do GREAT scientific discoveries come from? The questions aren't in the data. Data can be viewed many ways, all depending on how or which questions you ask. What conditions and state of mind produces the best of these insights? How can we promote and develop that, not only for scientists but everyone else. And lead to a better world of discovery in all fields. Wouldn't that help mankind? Neuroscience and psychology are discovering great fluidity and plasticity as well as other marvels existing in the structure and capacities of human brain. The corpus callosum is a particularly interesting region. It is the part bridging the two hemispheres. They do not normally function in complete isolation. They are deeply connected. However in the evolution of our lineage we see a reduction of this region yet more communication between "the two brains". What does this mean? The important scientific information here is that counter to what you might think, the corpus callosum functions more as an inhibitor. The idea that the rational mind and emotional mind are separate is a logical or philosophical expedient but now we can prove it is not a biological fact. Science has shown they are not so separate in reality. We have evolved both together in one system. And they are entwined with all kinds of sharing and feedback loops. It is now clearer...Thought moderates emotion and emotion moderates thought. The brain and body also, are only separate in our imagination. The West seems to have lots of unacknowledged integrity. I know that I am the most open to the wonders of life when I’m happy while working and then my kids playing in the background come to my attention, and I’ve suddenly solved a problem. Yes, it’s not the other way… I’m happy first and then I notice my kids, ah!. The openess to spontaneous insight is rooted in your emotional state. Cognitive science bears this out. Happiness and insight do correlate but the latest science show happiness usually comes first. (See Jessica Stillman) Perhaps life, is a Rorshach test. I have found that I have the most success, I’m the most creative and innovative, I Am At my BEST, when I’m already in a happy state of mind, "in flow”. For me, Zen and a little emotional intelligence of course, can help. Whatever works for you. Love yourself as you love your work. Then, you slip into a state of flow. Your brain waves and body chemistry optimize. That, is what gives the best results. In science or anything.

Where does the hypotheses come from? It just comes to mind So let it “The formation of hypotheses is the most mysterious of all the categories of scientific method. Where they come from, no one knows. A person is sitting somewhere, minding his own business, and suddenly –flash – he understands something he didn’t understand before. Until it’s tested the hypothesis isn’t truth. For the tests, aren’t its source. Its source is somewhere else.” Albert Einstein The Divided Brain Iain McGilchrist 'Einstein had said: “Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it… He makes this cosmos and its construction the piveot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience…The supreme task… is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws, only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them…” Intuition? Sympathy? Strange words for the origin of scientific knowledge.' From “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert Maynard Pirsig When my kids say they are bored... I'm delighted. First it means I'm doing my job properly because they usually don't complain about that when all their other needs are met. But it also means that their minds and bodies are now free to explore outside the box. Whichever box, there's so many to choose from. Now, what I'm going to tell you may sound crazy but I have science to back me up. It is this... The best discoveries will likely come to you when you're not actually working. When your mind is free to be open and receptive to all the ideas you've been incubating. Your idea eggs may not have much chance to hatch successfully if you are constantly sitting on them. The pause can be an opportunity for them to break out and to be born(e) into consciousness.  Once born though a good diagnostic for the healthiness of your ideas is  Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. (See excerpt below)

"Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them.” Albert Einstein Want to do more than just good work but great work? Look out the window. Relax and get distracted once in a while. Better still, get up and go out. Many times in science, the ah element, did not appear while the person was miserably struggling at their work or during tedious long hours, office politics, or the stress of a lack of resources… need I go on? No. That’s what we may affectionately call the incubation period. More often the really cool eureka moments happen while in a bathtub like Archimides. Or like Henri Pointcare and the non-euclidian geometry solution that came to him as he was stepping onto a bus. Or the revelation about the benzene ring coming via a dream. The examples are many. Einstein was a master daydreamer. He didn’t discover his theories in a lab or crunching numbers. He performed what he called thought experiments,.others may call that daydreaming. Works for me! Maybe you too. Here’s a question, have you ever had trouble recalling something in the heat of the moment, only to have it naturally come to you when you stopped forcing? Or when you made a good or bad decision… did you “rationally” decide out of fatique, fear, perhaps anger? When you knew things were right, when was that. A more calmly reflective moment, perhaps even after sleeping on it? "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”  Albert Einstein So when do think you’ll be likely to have that brilliant flash of insight? We know we can’t force it. How do we allow it to just spontaneously happen? Twisting ourselves against our biology for some ideological discipline or philosophy is not a healthy habit and is actually counter-productive. Best to go with the flow and be your natural best. Our two minds are not a duality but always a harmonious ONE

The Baloney Detection Kit Warning signs that suggest deception Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments: - Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts. - Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. - Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"). - Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. - Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. - Quantify, wherever possible. - If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work. - Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler. - Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result? See Additional issues here: The Carl Sagan Portal Value your imagination and trust your intuition. Don't count your spring chicks before they hatch. And if or when they do hatch... PLEASE verify with good science My intuition told me this is true many years ago, now science is proving I was right.

Science and Rigor

Have fun, play safe

MU-Peter Science

© 2016 MU - Peter Shimon

Authoritative Science

Authoritative Versus Authoritarian Science

"Democracy means each citizen has a voice because each person is their own authority."
Peter Shimon

What do theories need? 
Authoritative or authoritarian voices?

Excerpt from  The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould CHAPTER ONE Defining and Revising The Structure of Evolutionary Theory Theories Need Both Essences and Histories In a famous passage added to later editions of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1872, p. 134) generalized his opening statement on the apparent absurdity of evolving a complex eye through a long series of gradual steps by reminding his readers that they should always treat "obvious" truths with skepticism. In so doing, Darwin also challenged the celebrated definition of science as "organized common sense," as championed by his dear friend Thomas Henry Huxley. Darwin wrote: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [the voice of the people is the voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science." Despite his firm residence within England's higher social classes, Darwin took a fully egalitarian approach towards sources of expertise, knowing full well that the most dependable data on behavior and breeding of domesticated and cultivated organisms would be obtained from active farmers and husbandmen, not from lords of their manors or authors of theoretical treatises. As Ghiselin (1969) so cogently stated, Darwin maintained an uncompromisingly "aristocratic" set of values towards judgment of his work—that is, he cared not a whit for the outpourings of vox populi, but fretted endlessly and fearfully about the opinions of a very few key people blessed with the rare mix of intelligence, zeal, and attentive practice that we call expertise (a democratic human property, respecting only the requisite mental skills and emotional toughness, and bearing no intrinsic correlation to class, profession or any other fortuity of social circumstance).

Democratic thought and way of life in science "Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion." (Wikipedia) I freely disclose my biases. I consider these two Evolutionary scientists, Charles Darwin and Stephen Gould (the first and third most cited names in evolutionary biology, C.G. Simpson is second), to have been the strong silent type of Leader. I also detect they had at least some of the characteristics of distruptive innovators. I recognize Gould's punctuated-equilibrium particularly in it. Disruptive and sustaining adaptations. I see evolutionary theory having a place in the economic and public sphere as well. And so, I am developing my own consulting business with evolutionary science. This, with the purpose of bringing scientific disruptive and sustaining innovations to the world of education, medicine and business for the good of all. When I was in my graduate studies, I was doing mating and reproductive experiments looking at a possible new species of Diaptomus leptopus. Yes, my first love is hominid evolution, but no one was going to give me a grant to experiment with a population of people for god knows how many generations (Haldane's dilemma notwithstanding). However, I also eventually did graduate work with Dr. Ken Jacobs in Paleo-Anthropology at another university and was on excavation teams at some of the most amazing hominid sites in Southern France, working with Dr. Serge Lebel and the legendary Dr. Henry de Lumley. Alas, more on that will have to wait for a future blog post. Diaptomus leptopus copepod  My thesis committee was to be composed of 3 professors (2 will remain nameless for discretion). The first was fortunately and naturally my supervisor and mentor Dr. Ed Maly. A wise Evolutionary Ecologist and in my eyes definitely a great scientist and human being (props to my man Ed). I chose as my second member Dr. "Smith" also a great microbiologist and human being... (had novelty at the time... a PCR machine in her lab) and who was helping me with DNA-sequencing and fingerprinting. BTW, some people think that electro-phoresis is a technique, but I have witnessed botched technique in some hands whereas in other hands, wow it's an art. But I digress... And finally, as my 3rd member, I chose Dr."Jones". Who excelled at numbers but had a completely different personality and even theoretical approach from mine (she was a Neo-Darwinist or Modern Synthesis person and very pro-Dawkins. She was tyrannically rigorous with stats. My first encounter with her was as an ungraduate, again in Ed's lab, watching a thesis presentation of one of Ed's grad students. Once the floor was open for questions she ripped into this girl's numbers, almost bringing her to tears before her profs and peers. I knew then I wanted her on my future committee. My hunch was right, (it turns out as I endured her courses over my undergrad years, and her grilling during graduate committee sessions) she would end up liking me. Apparently a drop of diplomacy and a dab of emotion intelligence go a long way. And I know she always had my best interests at heart. So here's my point. As a scientist or a business person or anyone. Trust your own mind and heart, but surround yourself with competent people who although are not always on your side in opinion, are nonetheless ultimately are on your side in common purpose, Quality and Excellence.

Think for yourself with a mind educated by rigorous science A majority of one. That's where it starts. Work shouldn't only seem like play. If you're doing it right, it should be play. “The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.” Albert Einstein Letter to a minister November 20, 1950;  from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 95.

Science, Business, or Life There are no real authorities better than your own good judgement Charles Darwin When aged 46 in 1855, by then working towards publication of his theory of natural selection. He wrote to Hooker about this portrait, "if I really have as bad an expression, as my photograph gives me, how I can have one single friend is surprising." (Wikipedia) In my personal and professional adventures, I have had the good fortune of meeting many truely great people. Some famous, some not so famous. Here's one of my favorite scientists and human beings. A definite scientific and real life hero to me. Stephen Jay Gould A man I had the honor to know briefly. I am proud to say I have talked with him, shaken his hand. He gave me more than the ambition to great science, he flattered me greatly once by calling me a colleague. (I may not be worthy, but he made me feel like it.) Stephen Jay Gould is a man I will remember not only for his brilliant mind but his generous heart. I am humbled and grateful that even for a short time in life's long history, he shared his Wonderful Life with me. How I met Stephen Jay Gould Every moment was great.

Use your best judgement. Encounter and engage yourself  with good-hearted people and great minds Surround yourself with quality people, this includes the articles, books and media by the people who created them. Keep those that are the best, close. However, beware of the vox populi, for as the Buddha said, in the end you should only trust your own best judgement. Step back from the crowd and into the crowd to find out what that is. But, don't turn away so easily from opposing views. If your idea has mettle (courage and fortitude) and metal (formative stuff) it will stand the tempering. You will be up to it if you have the passion of your conviction. Science is a self-correcting process on many levels. (It can apply to business and to personal growth as well). Once really good ideas are hatched what they need is exposure to fresh air and other people. Exposure first perhaps to a close circle of expertise, the best people from a variety of perspectives. And eventually to an open science at all levels of society and an awareness in the public that it's there. Open, accessible information that is for all walks of life, those who wish to live by the wisdom of the best science available. From the CEOs, MBAs, MDs and PhDs to the BMWs (that's Bus, Metro, Walk... Metro is the name for the subway here) I believe that this may allow for better policy, synergy, collaboration, idea eggs for further research, critiques, improvements, tweaks, revisions, evolutions and revolutions for the good of all. In the development of design, the input of expertise is invaluable. Wherever it comes from, it must be credible and sincere.The building of great ideas is the building of quality relationships. This ultimately comes down to relationships with quality people. True in Science. True in Business. True in Life. Equilibrium evolution produces sustaining innovations. Punctuated evolution... disruptive innovations. I am basing my MU consulting on some of these evolutionary principles. It should be interesting. I think the incorporation of evolutionary science into corporate motives, decisions and actions can be of powerful benefit. It will be central to my MU consulting services for education, medicine and business.

Science and Rigor

Have fun, play safe

MU-Peter Science

© 2016 MU - Peter Shimon