Which of these two ways should biological existence be viewed?
1. As phenotypes being vehicles for the survival and competition of genetic material.
2. As replication and genetic transmission simply being a method of optimisation for the survival and competition phenotypic models.
Or neither?
Other things to consider - What came first, the genotype or the phenotype? Is there a point in evolutinoary history where the genotype and phenotype are not readily distinguishable?
Other urls found in this thread:
postgenetic.com
twitter.com
vump
Neither are strictly true. Life is simply spontaneous order. This frequently gives the illusion of competition and optimization, but these are simply coincidental analogies to intelligent human behaviors. Adhering to one or the other misses the big picture.
Why do genuinely interesting bio questions get ignored for the sake of ones about iq and racism if sci is so smart?
In a sense this statement suggests a definition of intelligence.
I think I know the answer to that but I can't seem to put it in words.
If you are OP I think "Darwinian populations" by Peter Godfrey-Smith might be of interest for you.
As for the questions I'll take a look at them but be warned I'm self-studied on evolutionary biology.
>Is there a point in evolutinoary history where the genotype and phenotype are not readily distinguishable?
hmm maybe you could define prions as such. I mean, they are definitely the phenotype, but since they lack genetic material but still can confer their propagation, i guess they don't have a genotype. Their phenotype IS their genotype in a way.
ah shit i forgot the main question. do prions have "biological existence"? I would say absolutely
Not really, it just means that humans have intent while evolution does not.
>As phenotypes being vehicles for the survival and competition of genetic material.
Please specify what you mean with "the competition of genetic material."
>As replication and genetic transmission simply being a method of optimisation for the survival and competition phenotypic models.
Specify what you mean with "optimisation". And because of the language you use I don't fully understand what you mean with "competition phenotypic models". Do you mean "competition between phenotypic models"?
Maybe this is of your interest as well, look for the parts about evolution:
postgenetic.com
Competition can be taken out. Simply referring to dawkins gene centred view. And yes competition between phenotypic models because all regulators are proven to be models of the system they regulate. I mean phenotypes because only living breathjng animals show this regulation. In a mathematical sense it has been proven that natural selection is equivalent to hypothesis testing since the price equation is formally equivalent to bayesian updating. Natural selection can therefore be naturally seen as a way of optimising a phenotypic model of its niche through hypothesis testing
Regulation i mean as in organisms are regulated systems or they die.
>Simply referring to dawkins gene centred view.
I was under the impression you were. You should certainly check out the notes by Yaneer Bar-Yam and maybe the book by Peter Godfrey-Smith for another view. If you are interested of course, and you can conclude for yourself.
>the price equation is formally equivalent to bayesian updating.
I am not familiar with both so I can't say anything about that.
>Natural selection can therefore be naturally seen as a way of optimising a phenotypic model of its niche through hypothesis testing
Does this conclusion allow redundancy?
Note I am a bit of a brainlet. If you can't find satisfying answers here you should go to reddit, though the evolution sub has plenty of dilettantes as well.
I think it's: Life uses phenotype for competition/mate selection to reinforce genotype for survivability.
Bayesian Methods and Universal Darwinism - arXiv.org
because the first post was the best post
Redundancy?
Source on this image?
Just search free energy principle google images
Just search free energy principle google images
Its in the words, when I read optimising I think of efficiency and that isn't what happens in evolution. So I'm asking if it would allow redundancy.
Natural selection is optimisation in the sense it is a method of selecting the best phenotype through differential survival. Its optimising a phenotype.
I kind of imagine that evolution is efficient short term but maybe not long term actually. Wonder if ud agree with that
>Natural selection is optimisation in the sense it is a method of selecting the best phenotype through differential survival
But wouldn't there be a several good phenotypes instead of one best genotype?
Neither
What's the difference between something alive and a rock?
We're all made up of the same stuff when you get down to it.
I'd say life isn't a binary question, but instead a spectrum.
one thing to add, but it's kind of important.
>Natural selection is optimisation in the sense it is a method of selecting the best phenotype **in a particular environment*** through differential survival. Its optimising a phenotype ***in a particular environment***.
sorry that's pretty important
And environments shifts and differ, so it doesn't make sense to select for a single phenotype, at least that's what I think
that's the point i was making yes, that there is no "optimized" phenotype, only a phenotype that is optimized for an environment. A phenotype does not arise as a "long term goal", just a product of many short term goals
>Or neither?
this - it should be viewed in that it exists and nothing more, don't assign "purpose" and "meaning", such things don't exist in nature.
You sound like a high-schooler trying to sound intelligent.
Let me guess, you also think debating whether or not viruses are alive is an interesting thing?
Im talking in quite abstract terms. im saying it can be described as an optimisation process. Whether there is a single best way or not (which is probably true) i think the process can still be described that way. Its like moving in a direction even if theres no destination or it cant get there. if the environment does change then the direction will change again of how the phenotype will tend to look in offspring. Genetic variation in the population can be seen as a way of kind of hypothesis testing. Using samples (each offspring). Some hypotheses (phenotypes) die, some survive. In a way, natural selection can be seen as a process of making inferences about what your ecological niche is.