Edited out from
lichess.org/forum/community-blog-discussions/ublog-VurlfRGt?page=5#43
about the image on top of the blog (linked from first post there). To-do find link to that picture. The linear line view of evolution, implying increasing worth from some value system, usually one side not very “evolved” and the other being the pinnacle.
Modern theory of evolution, still not getting through, hypothesis:
Could it be that the speciation tree dominating imagery or view is also contributing to the lack of awareness that everything is a web of co-evolution, that there are interactions in the transversal never shown?
Note that I am not saying the tree is wrong itself, but its systematic pure tree emphasis. It is lacking a lot of the knowledge about how this excerpted summary of just one aspect of evolution that is compatible with growing molecular sequences databases so far. Here is more precision perhaps of what I am trying to grasp and share at the same time. (I am sorry that I have to share the ugly discovery process, I have limited time/energy/stamina to do either, so both).
It is not presenting the physics that underlies how this scaffolding tree understanding of the whole shebang came about. That it is only a trace and mostly only asking one question: that of the conservation and inheritance inferrable from sequence data under neutral evolution filtering of the information and only asking about branching and chronological ordering in the data fitting, projection that is the tree data structure.
It is half of the story. Or maybe less. It does not talk at all about selection forces. And that there might be very non-local interactions (in the transversal angle) if we had the full model of the whole tree including its dynamics and bio-physical (etc... ) constraints (static laws of physics, etc...).
But with the questions that I know it is a scientific understanding best current working theory of, and knowing what it does not even ask, I do hold it as a valuable part of the theory of evolution. Part of the facts.
But on the presentation or propagation of it, by not containing all that I know as assumptions and actual questions being the context of that resulting formatted knowledge. It is not putting a dent on the foresight problem that is part of the evolution science field. That of explaining how this trace of evolution speciation events happened, and how would it continue to happen and explain the current snapshot state of the biosphere, us as a species, included.
The not displayed “forces” and static biophysical (and derived) constraints of the physical universe context, and the biological mechanism of exploration, and reproduction (persistence or fluctuations, or migrations, or speciation and migration, cycles, and what not). The niche elephant in the room of that speciation dominated narrative. Not intended, yet, as the most commonly perceivable graphic representation, without needing to know its projection induced missing information, it might be reinforcing the hindsight solo branch terminating on the “you are here” node: the pinnacle of evolution. And when stuck in one line of branches succeeding, nothing will prevent the preconception to keep its narrative on top of the rest of the tree story.
I do find it refreshing that I can walk back into that part of past knowledge and finally verbalize what has been subconsciously nagging me these past years. I would not know to make such a hypothesis about why does the ancient narrative derived conception keeps permeating our societies despite the theory of evolution shown in that branching tree. But if we do not get concerned with possible audience having such preconception individually, which is still a compatible misconception, nothing prevents someone from only looking at one branch, as all they need to know. Being of that branch.
lichess.org/forum/community-blog-discussions/ublog-VurlfRGt?page=5#43
about the image on top of the blog (linked from first post there). To-do find link to that picture. The linear line view of evolution, implying increasing worth from some value system, usually one side not very “evolved” and the other being the pinnacle.
Modern theory of evolution, still not getting through, hypothesis:
Could it be that the speciation tree dominating imagery or view is also contributing to the lack of awareness that everything is a web of co-evolution, that there are interactions in the transversal never shown?
Note that I am not saying the tree is wrong itself, but its systematic pure tree emphasis. It is lacking a lot of the knowledge about how this excerpted summary of just one aspect of evolution that is compatible with growing molecular sequences databases so far. Here is more precision perhaps of what I am trying to grasp and share at the same time. (I am sorry that I have to share the ugly discovery process, I have limited time/energy/stamina to do either, so both).
It is not presenting the physics that underlies how this scaffolding tree understanding of the whole shebang came about. That it is only a trace and mostly only asking one question: that of the conservation and inheritance inferrable from sequence data under neutral evolution filtering of the information and only asking about branching and chronological ordering in the data fitting, projection that is the tree data structure.
It is half of the story. Or maybe less. It does not talk at all about selection forces. And that there might be very non-local interactions (in the transversal angle) if we had the full model of the whole tree including its dynamics and bio-physical (etc... ) constraints (static laws of physics, etc...).
But with the questions that I know it is a scientific understanding best current working theory of, and knowing what it does not even ask, I do hold it as a valuable part of the theory of evolution. Part of the facts.
But on the presentation or propagation of it, by not containing all that I know as assumptions and actual questions being the context of that resulting formatted knowledge. It is not putting a dent on the foresight problem that is part of the evolution science field. That of explaining how this trace of evolution speciation events happened, and how would it continue to happen and explain the current snapshot state of the biosphere, us as a species, included.
The not displayed “forces” and static biophysical (and derived) constraints of the physical universe context, and the biological mechanism of exploration, and reproduction (persistence or fluctuations, or migrations, or speciation and migration, cycles, and what not). The niche elephant in the room of that speciation dominated narrative. Not intended, yet, as the most commonly perceivable graphic representation, without needing to know its projection induced missing information, it might be reinforcing the hindsight solo branch terminating on the “you are here” node: the pinnacle of evolution. And when stuck in one line of branches succeeding, nothing will prevent the preconception to keep its narrative on top of the rest of the tree story.
I do find it refreshing that I can walk back into that part of past knowledge and finally verbalize what has been subconsciously nagging me these past years. I would not know to make such a hypothesis about why does the ancient narrative derived conception keeps permeating our societies despite the theory of evolution shown in that branching tree. But if we do not get concerned with possible audience having such preconception individually, which is still a compatible misconception, nothing prevents someone from only looking at one branch, as all they need to know. Being of that branch.