I would think that at a minimum, there would be some correlation between variation and adaptation. More targeted mutations and less malthusian wastage.
Dear js1138, is it correct to conclude that you think variation and adaptation are the main drivers of the evolution of the universe and, in particular, life – i.e., speciation -- on this planet?
If this is not so, then please disregard the following.
But if it is so, may I offer an alternative speculation? Which is not really “mine,” but actually a reconsideration and continuation of a line of development that began in ancient Greece, with the great pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, and continued into more recent times by the great mathematician/philosopher, Leibniz, and in modern times by A. N. Whitehead (among others). This particular line of inquiry about the ultimate nature of the Universe goes to questions of ontology, a specialty of philosophy – ontology being the “science of Being.” That is, the science of what is, how it came to be, and by what principles it is organized.
According to these thinkers, everything that comes into existence in this world is the product of two ultimate laws: (1) a conservation principle, which refers to that which does not change; and (2) a variation principle, which refers to that which changes. The Universe and everything in it is the product of the resonant tension between the two.
To my mind, there is a very direct analogy here to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law is the conservation principle: matter is neither created nor destroyed. The second law – the law of maximum entropy increase – is the principle of change. Without the second law, the Universe would be entirely static. Without the first law, chaos would rule, and nothing could come into existence at all.
It is interesting to note that the second law has been undergoing reconceptualization in recent times, to make it more “biology-friendly” (so to speak). Of particular noteworthiness is the work of Katalin Martinas et al. In contrast to the view of classical physics and chemistry which regards entropy as the engine of chaos and, finally of thermodynamic equilibrium or “heat death,” in the “biology-friendly” model of the second law, entropy is regarded as the probability distribution of a virtually infinite set of biologically-accessible possible states. This idea is tied into Shannon’s concept of “successful communication”: living organisms are able to “select” from the set of possibilities (that is, upon the “reduction of uncertainty in the receiver”) the relevant information necessary to the furtherance of biological goals, internal (e.g., maintentance activities, repair, protein-folding specs, etc.) and external (e.g., the ability of the organism to react sensitively to changes in its environment, to be self-moving, etc.). The source of biological information (analogous to the conservation principle) is conveyed or mediated by universal EM and (at the subtlest levels) vacuum fields. “Successful communication” – which causes a “reduction of uncertainty in the receiver” – is facilitated by photon exchanges at the quantum level of the organism.
On this scheme, high entropy is most desirable for biological organisms – the more, the merrier. For the higher the entropy, the more the biological possibilities from which to select. Which would appear to be a great engine for biological variation and adaptation in an evolving Universe.
On this view, the fecundity principle or life principle is the universal information source itself, which intrudes itself on us (so to speak) by means of the primary universal Vacuum, via energetic exchanges at the quantum depths of organisms. This is what makes organisms “alive,” and not just inert matter.
Personally, I find this speculation highly intriguing. I don’t know what you will think of it, js1138; but I’m counting on you to let me know.
me: What would you assert are characteristics of intelligence that would be seen in a variation regardless of the agent - God, aliens, collective consciousness, self?
you: I would think that at a minimum, there would be some correlation between variation and adaptation. More targeted mutations and less malthusian wastage.
It seems to me that Gehring's work on master control genes (eyeness evolving concurrently across phyla) along with Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium observation are sample correlations of profound efficiencies in mutation/adaptation.
Causations being investigated point to a control: on the one hand, mutation resistance in control genes and on the other, metasystem transition.
As we move further into the research, perhaps the properties of intelligence will be apparent in either the causation/control or the resulting adaptation.