Dear Waldemar and ToKers, I greatly appreciate the 'comparison and contrast' between my way of

thinking about evolution and Mark's. Waldemar characterized what I had to say quite well. I would

only like to add that the Self-referential Self-organizing character of life is of great importance, as are

the First Principles of Physiology, upon which life is founded. Without those aspects there is no explanation

for how and why life exists far from thermal equilibrium, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The ambiguous nature of life due to this violation is the consequence of that 'cheating', and life functions through

deception as a means of coping with the ambiguity, lacking a way of understanding the principles involved in the

processes of life, up until then, but always with the knowledge of 'something greater than itself' as the

'echo' of the Singularity/Big Bang, like the physical echo in the form of the redshift. The reason I

extended the concept back to that state of being is because I had been successful in tracing the evolutionary

history of life based on the iterative, repeatative, pre-adaptive nature of the process. Given that,

once I reached the origin of life the question arose as to how and why biology utilized lipids to form

itself based on Self-referential Self-Organization. So I reverted to the Singularity that existed

before the Big Bang as the ultimate pre-adaptive state, there being no other 'template'. As for the basis for the

Self-referential Self-organization, it only stood to reason that there must have been a huge 'recoil' after the Big

Bang based on Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, hence

the Self-referential Self-organization as the manifestation of that recoil, matter behaving in a way to stabilize itself

through balanced chemical reactions. Biology co-opts such reactions by endogenizing them, as described by

Norman Horowitz (Horowitz NH, Hubbard JS. The origin of life. Annu Rev Genet. 1974;8:393-410).

At that point all of the bases seemed to be covered.

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks to both John and Mark.
I appreciate their replies to a request for a statement “defining” their justifications (a la Henriques).
I remember that Mark has more to say following Gregg’s return.

The explanations provided are helpful and I think I understand them.
However, perhaps it would be best to see if I am on the right track.

To an extent, they seem to be addressing the same thing.
You know the old saw, “they’re the same - - - only different!”
So, let’s distinguish between differences.

Both approaches seem to be making statements about change and adaptation, though in different time frames.

To wit:

·      John appears to be referencing change/adaptation in a geologic/cosmic time frame.
·      In particular, he is not too enamored of the descriptive aspects of “evolution,” principally because it’s hard or impossible to test the description and thereby refute or prove the description.
·      John perceives value in exploring physiology as a means to test evolution, the new biology and genetics.
·      To John, adaptation to “change” is fundamentally adaptation to the environment.
·      This adaption is accomplished via “endogenization” of the environment.
·      The same fundamental physiologic changes, or varians thereof, occur repetitively throughout the history of life.
·      Indeed, the mechanism involved in the transition from matter to life, is repeated throughout the history of life and evolution (ie, from uni- to multicellular life).
·      John sees this as a fundamental aspect of the generation of life out of matter and the “complexification” of life as explained by “evolution.”
·      In other words, John is attracted to “endogenization of the environment,” and the physiology expressed therein, as the means by which life not only arose out of matter but also changed from unicellular to multicellular life forms, such as Homo sapiens sapiens.

I understand and agree with the concept that fundamental physiologic mechanisms, or variations thereof, constitute a testable methodologic means by which life arose and became complex.
John sees this (or these) physiologic processes as having been “present” as far back as the Big Bang.
I, on the other hand, see how these physiologic processes may constitute how life arose from matter but do not (yet) see how they are involved in the formation of matter out of the consequences of the Big Bang.

·      Mark, appears to be focused on change/adaptation in mankind and mankind’s complex social nature and products thereof.
·      Mark, appears to propose that mankind cleverly uses “tools” (of various kinds) to not only adapt to nature/life but also to change nature.
·      But, also perceives that mankind is mostly insensitive to a double hermeneutic involved with tool-based change/adaptation. That is, the tool (or tools) not only modify nature, they also modify us, the tools’ creators.
·      Accordingly, the nature of the available tool/s is important.
·      Hence, the aphorism that “if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem appears to be a nail.”
·      The timeframe in Mark’s observations is more immediate – such as centuries, years, months, weeks, and days.

Hence, both are considering the nature and effects of mankind’s adaptations, but with a different temporal focus or lens.
John claims the physiologic changes date back to the Big Bang and are universally repeated in addressing adaptational challenges with similar but variable results, apparently depending on the environment “endogenized” and the physiology employed in response.
Mark doesn’t appear to be claiming a connection to the Big Bang and addresses the double hermeneutic implications of tools used to address the adaptational challenges.

I submit this to Mark and John, as well as to other TOKers, in hopes of refining my understanding.

Best regards,

Waldemar

PS Welcome back, Gregg.

Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044

Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)

On Jul 10, 2018, at 3:17 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Mark:

Thank you for your response.
Alas, what you have provided does not help me as much as I hope it would.
I am like Joe M - I need help figuring this out.

I am looking for your definition of the new paradigm and the old paradigm which the new one replaced.
For me, the word “paradigm” is well defined by the following:

paradigm (plural paradigms)
A pattern, a way of doing something, especially (now often pejorative) a pattern of thought, a system of beliefs, a conceptual framework.
Synonyms: model, worldview
Thomas Kuhn's landmark “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” got people talking about paradigm shifts, to the point the word itself now suggests an incomplete or biased perspective.
An example serving as the model for
...

[Message clipped]