Life's direction

TomHendricks474 said:

<< Dawkins then gives his own definition of evolutionary
progress:

"a tendency for lineages to improve cumulatively their
adaptive fit to their particular way of life, by
increasing the numbers of features which combine together
in adaptive complexes."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But wait a minute. Why improve what is fixed? If the
adaptation is high - then stay in stabilizing selection.
If low then change is favored. Again I suggest this model
for selection pressure

As environmental adaptation increases stabilizing
selection increases and directional and diversifying
selection decreases.

It's the other way around. A stable environment often
produces stabilizing selection on a population, which means
that those alleles near the mode of the frequency
distribution curve are selected for, while those near the
tails are selected against.

Quoted message said:

AND VICE VERSA

As environmental adaptation decreases stabilizign
selection decreases and directional and diversifying
selection increases.

Directional and diversifying selection are often caused by
rapid changes in the environment. This brings selection
pressure to bear on the less common alleles in the
population.

Quoted message said:

In other words, Dawkins suggestion is half the answer -
the half where there is still environmental selection
pressure.

I don't think so. Mutation, gene migration, non-random
mating and genetic drift will cause a population to evolve
whether there are changes in the environment to produce
selection pressure or not.

Consider a small ecosystem consisting of a number of
interdependent species within a completely stable
environment. This ecosystem nevertheless continues to
evolve. Due to favorable mutations the various organisms can
continue to improve their adaptive fit. Prey may develop
better camouflage and become faster, predators may develop
better senses, and so on.

[email hidden]

Andrew Melka said:

Let me see if I can be a little more clear. Are you
familiar with the mathematical construct known as a
fitness landscape? This is a three dimensional
representation of a topography where adaptive peaks
represent high fitness, the higher the peak the
higher the fitness. Natural selection works to move
species up the steepest slope at their location. A
species that winds up at the top of an adaptive peak
stops. There might be a higher adaptive peak near
by, but in order to reach that higher peak, the
species would first have to go down into the valley
between the peaks, i.e. experience lower
reproductive fitness. It is possible that as
conditions change and peaks fall and rise and move
about that she'll build you a stairway to heaven.
It's also possible she won't.

If selection were all there was to evolution you might have
a point. But besides selection, there's also mutation,
crossover, genetic drift, gene migration and non-random
mating to jostle these fitness landscapes around and to
allow organisms to jump from one fitness peak to a nearby
one without painfully working their way down one side and
then up the other side. Mutation and crossover are the
reason genetic algorithms find maxima/minima so well. They
don't get stuck on fitness peaks.

[email hidden]

Michael Ragland said:

There is one notable exception to this: human knowledge,
which due to a feedback effect, is increasing
exponentially. That is, the more complex our knowledge
becomes, the faster that complexity seems to increase.
That's why the neurological dimension of evolution is so
important. It's the one area that appears to be still
unbounded. Of course, you could consider human culture as
being outside the realm of biological evolution. If you
look only at the physical aspects of evolution then I
think your idea of forces that oppose increases in
complexity is valid.

dkomo

I don't think human culture is totally outside the realm
of biological evolution.

I don't think so either.

If advances in knowledge such as genetics leads to

Quoted message said:

application of knowledge to the biological organism then
complexity can likely be increased.

And that is likely going to happen.

But just to have our knowledge become more complex

Quoted message said:

doesn't mean our biological complexity increases faster.

No. But our knowledge *is* growing exponentially more
complex. That's the only point I was making. I was
considering cultural evolution as a process in its own
right.

Way too much is

Quoted message said:

made of the "feedback effect". I would argue the vast
majority of biological human specimens can't fully digest
our knowledge becoming more complex. Indeed, I would even
say it has negative consequences.

So what? The knowledge increase is global across all
humanity. No one individual or small group of individuals
can absorb even a small part of
it. But with "black boxing" we can all benefit regardless.
We drive cars without understanding the computer
controls inside today's engines and transmissions. We
watch DVDs without knowing much about servo-mechanisms,
lasers, error-correcting codes, image compression,
integrated circuits and signal processing. There's a
huge amount of technology inside that humble DVD
player. And here we are posting on the Internet with
only the barest comprehension of all the software,
hardware and networking technology that makes it run.

[email hidden]

Michael Ragland <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it fair to expect widespread genetic engineering of
people over a gradual period of time (certainly not
millions of years) could lead to a speciation event?

Species boundaries will become less distinct in the future.

As it becomes increasingly possible to steal "subroutines"
from one organism and transfer them to another one, this
will happen increasingly.

In other words, species boundaries will become increasingly
weaker barriers to gene transfer.

The genomes of living systems will become more modular in
the process.

Even with cloned human strains (instant new species!),
specialised humans are most likely to arise via the use of
additional synthetic chromosomes. They are likely to share
their basic genome - and differ only in an identifyable
subset of their genes. Failure to remain attached to the
human gene pool will normally not make much sense, since -
among other things - that cuts you off from a big source of
disease resistance genes - and puts you in much more direct
competition with everyone else in the world.

IMO, it would take a *major* geographic division to stop
human gene sharing.

Migration to another star system /might/ be enough - but
probably not not even that would put a stop to human
gene trade.

So: I see species doing more merging, and not doing so
much dividing.

If today, McDonalds, Wal-Mart and Sony are analogous to
species, then the future situation will be like if a big
multinational took over these companies behind the scenes
and got them to work together cooperatively.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

TomHendricks474 said:

<< Well, I think it's obvious that human cultural
evolution is proceeding orders of magnitude faster than
its biological evolution, so within the next few hundred
years we'll take charge of not only our own evolution but
that of the entire biosphere. (I've put on my optimist's
hat here :-) ). >>

I think that may well be a nightmare. Once every species
that exists is there by the grace of humans, we've lost a
diversity that may have well been a saving grace in the
long run.

I don't think any generation has the knowledge to know
what should co exist and what shouldn't. I use the idea of
large mammals as ex. They compete with humans and have
been shunted off to the marginal areas left wild.

We must be very very careful in forming a world to suit
our present human needs.

I would hope our descendants wise up and leave more of
nature back to nature.

My idea of an enlightened global super civilization taking
charge of the biosphere includes setting aside huge chunks
of the planet where nature can be left alone to follow its
"natural path." This will be a civilization which has put a
brake on its own chaotic breeding and destruction of nature.
So your nightmare scenario is not what I'm proposing here.
However, we will also be bioengineering existing animals and
even creating new types of life. But we will understand that
we can't control and anticipate everything, so we will allow
nature to do her thing as well as much as possible.

[email hidden]

Anthony Cerrato said:

"Michael Ragland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim:

I was responding to dkomo's comments in what appears to be

his

Quoted message said:

confidence in the progressiveness of Darwinian evolution

(not just in

Quoted message said:

the past but the present), not to your essay. I personally

don't see any

Quoted message said:

grand vision of the far distant future merely riding on

the engines of

Quoted message said:

Darwinian evolution. As you know I'm a big advocate of

possible uses of

Quoted message said:

genetic engineering of humans and this would mark a change

in the course

Quoted message said:

of Darwinian evolution. I'm not knowledeable enough to

know if

Quoted message said:

widespread application of genetic engineering would

eventually lead to

Quoted message said:

[censored] Sapiens becoming extinct and dramatically

influencing, if

Quoted message said:

gradually, the course of Darwinian evolution. My guess is

it would over

Quoted message said:

the long haul. So we are really talking about another

species creating

Quoted message said:

this grand vision of the far off future, not us. We can

dream about it,

Quoted message said:

fantasize about and speculate about it but ultimately I

don't see a

Quoted message said:

"grand vision" of the future being made possible by [censored]

Sapiens. The

Quoted message said:

most they could be said to contribute would be devising

their own exit

Quoted message said:

as a species and this would be mainly through the

discoveries of

Quoted message said:

scientists, research, etc. Eventually there would be

genetic engineering

Quoted message said:

applications and gradually over a long period of time

(I'll be

Quoted message said:

optimistic and say hundreds of years) a new species will

be created

Quoted message said:

through genetic engineering. I think only a fool would

thing Darwinian

Quoted message said:

evolution will be responsible for our next possible

speciation.

Michael; as you may know, I also have been preaching the
far future (maybe not _too_ far) genetic engineering of
[censored] sap. for quite a while here--also with the
understanding that, ultimately, there will be numerous
interstellar diasporas of our species, or rather post-
species (plural,) amongst other stars and planets. I agree
it's possible that [censored] sap. as we know her will disappear
completely from the universe in hundreds of thousands, to
millions of years, however I doubt it.

More likely I think will be the dispersion of post-human
species into, let's call it, Polyhomo sap., namely, a
spectrum of myriad "genengineered" varieties of creatures--
capable, if desired, of reproducing themselves in vitro,
on demand. Of course, there will be a norm of predominant
forms (which may still be called "species" although they
afford much greater variation than the classic term
permits,) but all Polyhomo sap. creatures will continue to
be characterized as "human" by the criterion of their
minimal brain complexity, organization, and power in
comparison to the progenitor human brain. Poly-saps
designed to live on hellholes as varied as Venus, Pluto,
and perhaps even gas giants someday, will still be able to
greet each other...and still call themselves brothers! 🙂
...tonyC

I agree that we humans will produce a great variety of
descendent species, some of whom will produce their own
descendent species. One only needs to look at the incredible
variety of life nature has produced by the slow process of
evolution and imagine what human beings could do once they
start directed modification of DNA. Also one only needs to
look at the bewilderingly numerous assortment of artifacts
humans have designed so far.

I also think there will be migrations to the stars, but as I
stated in a reply to Michael Ragland tonight, I don't think
pure breed humans will necessarily disappear. I think we'll
be able to live in harmony with our custom designed
"children."

[email hidden]

Michael Ragland said:

Michael Ragland wrote: You sure sound confident in
relating Dawkin's view of the progressiveness of Darwinian
evolution. What do you forsee for the next millions of
years? "A continuation of coevolutionary arms races
between predatory and prey species, the prey progressively
becoming less easy to catch, the predator in return
progressively becoming better able to catch it. These arms
races can last for millions of years." We are the main
predatory species, yes? Do you forsee this going on for
millions of more years. I will be honest I don't.

dkomo: Well, I think it's obvious that human cultural
evolution is proceeding orders of magnitude faster than
its biological evolution, so within the next few hundred
years we'll take charge of not only our own evolution but
that of the entire biosphere. (I've put on my optimist's
hat here
:-) ).
If we succeed at this, we'll turn earth into an Eden and
stop the destruction of its environment. So there's a good
chance that we could last a few million years as a
species. But it might require some migration to other star
systems if things get a bit too rough here on earth.

RESPONSE: How do you figure we could last millions of more
years as a species if we take charge of our evolution as
well as the biosphere? When you mention taking charge of
our evolution I assume you mean man made influencing it
through such processes as genetic engineering. Isn't it
fair to expect widespread genetic engineering of people
over a gradual period of time (certainly not millions of
years) could lead to a speciation event?

Of course. We'll not only be genetically re-engineeering
ourselves, but experimenting with man-machine hybrids,
robots, androids, and other types of purely artificial human-
like constructs. As a result we may end up creating not
just one new species, but possibly hundreds. And we'll have
to redefine the purely biological idea of what constitutes
a species.

But this doesn't imply that human beings would necessarily
become extinct. I can envision large numbers of "Mr.
Naturals" and "Ms. Naturals" choosing to remain as pure
breed humans. Remember that all this is taking place within
a highly advanced global civilization, not only
scientifically, but morally, ethically, politically and
economically. The ruthless process of survival of the
fittest doesn't necessarily apply anymore. So there might be
large populations of natural humans who decide to stay as
they are without fear of being replaced or oppressed. They
might even dwell in their own enclaves, away from their
designed ancestor species. They would be like those people
today who drop out of society and go live on isolated farms
where they become self-sufficient.

If things get rough on earth I think genetic

Quoted message said:

engineering will likely play a role in allowing migration
to other star systems.

dkomo: Other than that, I've run across a serious proposal
that mankind should begin seeding the Milky Way galaxy
with life. The reason for doing it is that we have a
responsibility as an intelligent species to see that life
carries on in the universe even in the event of our
untimely demise.

The proposal is that when we have the technology we start
sending out automated spacecraft which carry specially
bioengineered organisms that could survive long journeys
of thousands of years and thrive on planets of distant
stars in the galaxy. The spacecraft would automatically
steer toward such planets. The proposal estimated that in
five million years or so, we could fill the entire galaxy
with terrestrial life.

RESPONSE: Where does this estimate of 5 millions years
come from.

I ran across both the proposal and the estimate of 5
million years in Seth Shostak's _Biocosm: The New
Scientific Theory of Evolution : Intelligent Life Is the
Architect of the Universe_. Look up the book on Amazon. The
proposal, however, was not original with the book. The
people who are developing the idea are not crackpots, but
reputable scientists. A number of papers about it have been
published in peer reviewed journals. You can get more
information here:

panspermia-panspermia-Open ↗
society.com/Astrobiology_About_Society.htm

and here:

panspermia-society.comPanspermia Technical.htmOpen ↗

We currently

Quoted message said:

don't even know any planets of distant stars which could
thrive on specially bioengineered organisms (that I'm
aware of). I suppose its based on probabilty of a
particicular star system. I like the idea. I think it is
worth pursuing. Just curious.

MR:You quote, ""a tendency for life to increase in
anatomical complexity, or neurological elaboration, or
size and flexibility of behavioral repetoire, or any
criterion obviously concocted (if we would only be
honest and introspective enough about our motives) to
place [censored] Sapiens atop a supposed heap." Yup, we're
atop the supposed heap.

dkomo: We are the specialists in intelligence in the
animal kingdom. Other than our brains, there's nothing
particularly impressive about our anatomical complexity.

RESPONSE: You've acknowledged human cultural evolution is
proceeding orders of magtitude over biological evolution.
Doesn't that suggest to some extent we are not the
specialists in intelligence (at least in terms of
biological evolution) we might think we are. Granted we
are the specialists of intelligence in the animal kindom
but that specialization is much more reflected in cultural
evolution i.e. advances in science and technology than it
is in our biological evolution. Our behavior is similar to
many other animals

Give it a little more time. We've only been at the cultural
evolution game for maybe 10,000 years, a tiny instant in the
evolutionary time frame. The next few hundred years will see
unbelievable advances due to the exponential nature of the
increase of knowledge.

Quoted message said:

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
survival value."

Stephen Hawking

Time will tell.

[email hidden]

Tim Tyler said:

dkomo <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler said:

dkomo <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

>Tim Tyler wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Here's an essay I wrote recently about life's
>>direction.
>>
>> originoflife.netdirectionOpen ↗
>
>In his latest book of essays entitled _A Devil's
>Chaplain_, Richard Dawkins has a review of Steven
>Gould's book _Full House_ in which Gould attempts to
>treat growth of complexity in evolution as a statistical
>artifact. The Dawkins review was published back in June
>of 1997.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

world-of-world-of-Open ↗
dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1997-06fullhouse.shtml

I cite the review - and quote from it at some length in
my essay.

Right, I glanced at the review on the web and mistook it
for a different review.

Dawkins talks about evolution's direction as an
improvement in the adaptive fit of species to the
environment. Is this the same criterion you're using when
you say "having a direction associated with progressive
accumulation of technology for existing and reproducing?"

No.

I actually preferred Gould's complexity metric - however
poorly specified Dawkins claimed it was.

My preferred metric for measuring evolutionary progress
would be the rate at which entropy is degraded by the
living system in question.

This is too abstract to be a practical measure. Sort of like
Kolmogorov complexity -- everybody loves to talk about it
but no one knows how to compute it. Tell me, does a cat
degrade entropy at a higher rate than a dog? Or does a human
degrade entropy faster than a chimp?

Quoted message said:

However I'd be happy with practically any measure of
sophistication, complexity, or development of an ecosystem
- provided it's not totally counter-intuitive.

Richard Dawkins came up with an easily understood,
intuitive, and practical way to compare the complexity of
different organisms. I'll post his proposal here shortly.

[email hidden]

dkomo <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler said:

dkomo <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dawkins talks about evolution's direction as an
improvement in the adaptive fit of species to the
environment. Is this the same criterion you're using
when you say "having a direction associated with
progressive accumulation of technology for existing and
reproducing?"

No.

I actually preferred Gould's complexity metric - however
poorly specified Dawkins claimed it was.

My preferred metric for measuring evolutionary progress
would be the rate at which entropy is degraded by the
living system in question.

This is too abstract to be a practical measure. Sort of
like Kolmogorov complexity -- everybody loves to talk
about it but no one knows how to compute it.

To give an example of a practical application, the metric
suggests that the albedo of a life-containing planet is
likely to get darker as evolution progresses - at least on
the side of the planet that faces the sun.

Several components are involved here - life will get better
at extracting the resources from radiation - and it will
improve its abilily to invade desserts and polar regions.

As time passes, a living planet is likely to come to
approximate a black body - since a black body degrades
the a black body degrades any incident radiation as much
as is possible.

Quoted message said:

Tell me, does a cat degrade entropy at a higher rate
than a dog? Or does a human degrade entropy faster than
a chimp?

That depends on the environment they are placed in ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

"John Edser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

TT:- Here's an essay I wrote recently about life's
direction.

originoflife.netdirectionOpen ↗

In it I argume that the notion that evoultion is a
directionless process whose direction at any time is
contingent on envrionmental conditions is nonsense.

That notion fails to consider the possibilty that there
are systematic regularities in the environment. Such
regularities do exist - and they provdide a definite
direction to the evolutionary process in nature.

PF:- I know at least three key explanatory subcategories
of evolutionary pressures that can help us to exploit this
fact -- i.e., that such and

still

Quoted message said:

more complex regularities do exist. ;-)

JE:- So called "explanatory subcategories of evolutionary
pressures" do not exist, as such.

Don't they! :-)

(I know for sure that at least about three such septal
constructs do exist.)

Quoted message said:

What exists are explanatory subcategories of selectee
_responses_.

Yes, responses of selectees to, e.g., Synaptic Hibernation
[illustrative of a kind of required hibernatory self-
regulation as specific as even a "Long Term Depression"
(LTD) effect on just a part of an otherwise distress-
motivating neurons's dendritic tree] Imploring Type
Situations" are crucial in context of my explanatory
philosophical terminology (or take on things).

Leaving aside intrinsic evolutionary pressures, selectees
obviously don't exist independently of their environment
(including environmental evolutionary pressures).

If that is what you tried to underscore - I shall keep in
check my inclination to be scEPTical. :-)

Quoted message said:

Because all selectees are unique, they can respond
differently to the same pressures. Thus categorising
selective pressure makes no sense.

I know, it must be hard and frustrating to be an exactness-
seeking absolutist in this dynamic, fuzzy, and often
demanding of an averaging or probabilistic analytical
approach, world! :-)

Quoted message said:

Selectee responses are active and not just passive.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

If you wish to categorize these responses then I agree,
such an endeavour has real worth. However, these responses
must be limited by each species type.

I am worried that you suspect that I think they are not
active, and limited to the individual's genophenotype!!! :-)

I have categorized amongst certain highly humanly _relevant_
evolutionary patterning tendencies (or ditto "pressures"😉.
And I have done so in a way that does (in the way I
understanding things) 'compensate' for the mostly missing
(overlooked or - even - preconsciously evaded, so to speak)
"items of insight that can be taken" into a rational (but
not mathematical) scientific account for how we are and got
to be (and ongoingly get to become) 'this way'.

Most generally, there is on one hand - considering a
didactic dichotomy consisting of constructive (complexity-
building or varying but not diminishing) - "opportunity
type" such; And, on the other hand, destructive or
adverse [and as if primarily 'pruning-in' (of
phenotypes)] type such.

I have found that in order to make encompassing (unifying
evolution-theoretical and neuropsychobiological) sense out
of how we are and evolved one must put up with having to add
[censored] (come CURSES) 'to the picture'.

[censored] occurred in the lifetimes of individuals of
populations in _our_ phylogeny. (And it still occurs as we
speak.) It is an naturally inevitable and phylogenetically
significant type (however to complex for mathematical
modeling) of environmental-individual influence and/or
interaction. IOW, it is a subcategory of adverse naturally
selective pressure.

P

I told John his writing was gobbledygook but perhaps he will
answer your profound treatment of his ideas.

Michael Ragland

"John Edser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... TT:- Here's an
essay I wrote recently about life's direction.
      originoflife.netdirectionOpen ↗ In it I argume that
the notion that evoultion is a directionless process whose
direction at any time is contingent on envrionmental
conditions is nonsense. That notion fails to consider the
possibilty that there are systematic regularities in the
environment. Such regularities do exist - and they provdide
a definite direction to the evolutionary process in nature.
PF:- I know at least three key explanatory subcategories of
evolutionary pressures that can help us to exploit this fact
-- i.e., that such and still more complex regularities do
exist. ;-) JE:- So called "explanatory subcategories of
evolutionary pressures" do not exist, as such. Don't they!
:-) (I know for sure that at least about three such septal
constructs do exist.) What exists are explanatory
subcategories of selectee _responses_. Yes, responses of
selectees to, e.g., Synaptic Hibernation [illustrative of a
kind of required hibernatory self-regulation as specific as
even a "Long Term Depression" (LTD) effect on just a part of
an otherwise distress-motivating neurons's dendritic tree]
Imploring Type Situations" are crucial in context of my
explanatory philosophical terminology (or take on things).
Leaving aside intrinsic evolutionary pressures, selectees
obviously don't exist independently of their environment
(including environmental evolutionary pressures). If that is
what you tried to underscore - I shall keep in check my
inclination to be scEPTical. :-) Because all selectees are
unique, they can respond differently to the same pressures.
Thus categorising selective pressure makes no sense. I know,
it must be hard and frustrating to be an exactness-seeking
absolutist in this dynamic, fuzzy, and often demanding of an
averaging or probabilistic analytical approach, world! :-)
Selectee responses are active and not just passive. <snip>
If you wish to categorize these responses then I agree, such
an endeavour has real worth. However, these responses must
be limited by each species type. I am worried that you
suspect that I think they are not active, and limited to the
individual's genophenotype!!! :-) I have categorized amongst
certain highly humanly _relevant_ evolutionary patterning
tendencies (or ditto "pressures"😉. And I have done so in a
way that does (in the way I understanding things)
'compensate' for the mostly missing (overlooked or
- even - preconsciously evaded, so to speak) "items of
insight that can be taken" into a rational (but not
mathematical) scientific account for how we are and got to
be (and ongoingly get to become) 'this way'. Most
generally, there is on one hand - considering a didactic
dichotomy consisting of constructive (complexity-building
or varying but not diminishing) - "opportunity type" such;
And, on the other hand, destructive or adverse [and as if
primarily 'pruning-in' (of phenotypes)] type such. I have
found that in order to make encompassing (unifying evolution-
theoretical and neuropsychobiological) sense out of how we
are and evolved one must put up with having to add [censored]
(come CURSES) 'to the picture'. [censored] occurred in the
lifetimes of individuals of populations in _our_
phylogeny. (And it still occurs as we speak.) It is an
naturally inevitable and phylogenetically significant type
(however to complex for mathematical modeling) of environmental-
individual influence and/or interaction. IOW, it is a
subcategory of adverse naturally selective pressure. P

A professor asked a student, "If you had a choice between
the oppressed and the oppressor which would you choose." The
student replied, "Neither". The Professor shook his head and
stated, "You don't have a choice." The student paused and
said, "The oppressed".

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... Here's an essay I
wrote recently about life's direction.
      originoflife.netdirectionOpen ↗ In it I argume that
the notion that evoultion is a directionless process whose
direction at any time is contingent on envrionmental
conditions is nonsense. That notion fails to consider the
possibilty that there are systematic regularities in the
environment. Such regularities do exist - and they provdide
a definite direction to the evolutionary process in nature.

I know at least three key explanatory subcategories of
evolutionary pressures that can help us to exploit this fact
-- i.e., that such and still more complex regularities do
exist. ;-) P

Oh please, please tell me the three! ROFLMAO. Maybe you will
get a response from John Edser. That's right you already did
and you replied.

Michael Ragland

A professor asked a student, "If you had a choice between
the oppressed and the oppressor which would you choose." The
student replied, "Neither". The Professor shook his head and
stated, "You don't have a choice." The student paused and
said, "The oppressed".