Decontextualization

Decontextualize is an entry in Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. In the art of photopgraphy it means photomontage. And even a Fallacy of Decontextualization exists. But Wolfgang Pfeifenberger has attached a whole philosophic concept to this term.

From the vantage point of fauceir theory, this philosophic view is interesting for two reasons.

  1. The scope is the same as his concept of evolution includes progress, and it is applicable to fields other than biology.
  2. His observation that objects become increasingly detached is consistent with the fauceir concept of evolution.

The first three steps of his example are illustrated below.

evolution of ballistic weapons

His example proceeds through firearms to the electronic machine gun, but the tendency is all the same the fauceir of ballistic weaponry, depicted by a dotted boxes, becomes more and more complex. As in this example the components are arranged in tandem, this linear arrangement conveys the impression that man and victim become more and more detached by the evolutionary process, but this is not always the case, for instance in  biology the distance remains the same – a molecule coupling to the same kind of receptor, but signal transduction and processing becomes more complex. Thus the rule of evolutionary progress in more general terms says increasing complexity by increasing number of fauceir components.

Denial is Normal Human Behavior

Denial is part of a fauceir’s self defense system. To maintain a fauceir’s undisturbed function it is necessary to shield off adverse environmental influences. This holds true for all kind of fauceirs, by the way cells (membrane), organisms (immune system), species (sterile offspring from interspecies breeding), nations (army), culture (interculture taboo marriages), language (regulators), and last not least tenets (denial).

Denial is the defense system typical to human intellectual fauceirs, and it is permanently criticized by the atheist and skeptic communities, but please keep in mind such a defense system exists among scholars, too. For instance, ruling evolutionary biologists deny evolutionary progress although it is quite obvious, simply because it is not explicable to them.

You cannot fight denial directly, which would result in even more aggressive defense, you have to evolve (in the fauceir sense of progress, of course) the underlying fauceir, so that finally it can drop denial because no more necessary. The problem is more complicated if there is a whole business of denial already. This, a fauceir again, will strive for persistence, too, and other strategies have to be developed.

Interspecies breeding

Imperfection Is a Prerequisit of Evolution

In a recent acticle written by Avise and published in PNAS (Avise 2010) the author gives some reaons why

evolution routinely yields suboptimal biological outcomes

From fauceir point of view it is the other way around. Imperfection is the prerequisit of evolution to take place. Even if you consider natural selection as the only driving force of evolution, you have to accept that without imperfection selection makes no sense.

The Changing Role of Evolutionary Biology

This figure is taken from an acticle written by Avise and published in PNAS (Avise 2010).

Avise's view of the evolution of evolutionary theories and its relation to religion.

This, by contrast, is my view.

Evolution of evolutionary views

Evolutionary views are a matter of change (adaptation and evolution), too. Above the original distribution of views, in the middle the present state, and below what I assume will be the future.

It was a time in the past when when there was a clear distinction between evolutionary science and religion, being rational or irrational respectively. Recently, attempts at harmonization can be observed initiated at both ends religion (Elshakry 2009) and evolutionary biology (Neill and Marks 2006; Avise 2010). Also observable are tendencies among some evolutionary biologists to irrationally fight for their believes with arguments as despiteful as ‘ad hominem’ while on the other hand proponents of intelligent design try to acquire rational positions. We are at the middle of my proposed graphics.

Well the process is like a chemical reaction in some time in future these evolutionary biologists that stick to irrational arguments will be drawn deeper into religion while parts of evolutionary design scientists will contribute to a new and better evolutionary theory, which is, you guessed it, fauceir theory. Fauceir theory encompasses natural design. Based on more abtract axioms this theory will sometimes allow to prove or disprove design.


References

Avise, J. C. (2010). “Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome.” PNAS 107(Supplement 2): 8969-8976.

Elshakry, M. (2009). “Global Darwin: Eastern enchantment.” Nature 461(7268): 1200-1201.

Neill, U. S. and A. R. Marks (2006). “Why we think it is important to discuss intelligent design.” J Clin Invest 116(5): 1133.

Coevolution

A recent article investigates coevolution of interacting genes by some new methods called composite linkage disequilibrium and genotype association, a measure of association between genotypes. From the fauceir point of view such a coevolution is not surprising. (1) All these interacting genes form fauceirs by themselves and therefore are subject to evolution each single one and in a compound. (2) In this sense almost every evolution is coevolution.

For instance, the human brain, this so highly sophisticated information processing device, could not have evolved if it were not for so many evolutionary steps before that outsourced most of the energy production and energy consuming metabolic processes. (1) A brain like humans could hardly evolve in a herbivore organism as many of the plants are difficult to digest and require most of the bodies energy supply only to cut down the nutrients and re-synthesize the compounds actually needed, so humans could only evolve after carnivore’s metabolic machinery. (2) Carnivores could hardly evolve without herbivores. (3) Herbivores are heterotrophic organisms that depend on energy supply from autotrophic organisms, mostly the green, chlorophyll containing, plants, so herbivores could hardly evolve before green plants.

Conclusively, the evolution of humans is coevolution right from the beginning. This intertwined and hirachical process can be grasped by fauceir approach only.


Addendum

A recent post provides some interesting figures illustrating this notion. Here is my comment on that page:

I like the idea our brain being the pinnacle of biological evolution. As I outlined some days before, a brain that consumes so much energy resources needs a sophisticated machinery that continuously supplies them. Evolution decided to outsource these functions (autotrophic organisms->herbivores->carnivores) as incorporating it into one single body didn’t work properly, see dinosaurs for instance.

Thus evolution generated a chain, a body that contains autotrophic organisms that converts solar energy into complex organic compounds, herbivores that convert these plant compounds into an abundant supply of more beneficial chemical compounds, finally carnivores that more effectively employ these resources to get a brain ticking.

This chain is a fauceir, for instance, as is the body of a dinosaur. But this chain is the more evolved fauceir as it is much more flexible, more adaptable and less susceptible to faults, as all parts can be easily changed without killing the whole body.

Besides, our economies outsource the same way and for the same reason as they are fauceirs in fact and therefore have to follow the same principles.

The Evolution of Traffic Lights

Red trafic light is clearly visible whatever is behind shrubs or sky.

There is a story behind these pictures. They were taken on a holiday at a traffic light specifically for children to cross the street to go to school. That day they didn’t turn off the traffic light though no schoolboy, no schoolgirl were around. I had to push the button my own, and the cars had to stop for nothing but me taking these photos.

By constrast, green trafic light is hardly perceivable in front of green vegetation.

Following Dobzhanski’s notion that ‘Nothing (in Biology) Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution‘  I will explain traffic lights now. Well, someone may counter traffic lights clearly are not biological beings. I can agree with that, but fauceir theory is about evolution everywhere not solely in biology, and furthermore traffic lights are fully integrated into biological systems. Their environment is mostly biological (trees and bushes) and they effect predominantly on biological beings, us or our eyes to be more particular. And this exactly is the reason why traffic lights are shaped by evolution. Our eye’s capabilities to perceive light is different depending on color. We need the least intensity of light to recognize red color whereas we need the most for green. Probably this has been shaped by evolution, too, as green is the color of chlorophyll and therefore present in almost all plants – nothing dangerous in particular, while red is the color of fire, which has to be detected as early as possible to better escape a blaze.

Yes, and a similar story happened with traffic light. Once upon a time, there were different human tribes that used various types of colors in their traffic lights, but finally only these human tribes survived that used red for stop. The others, unfortunately, braked to late and died in accidents. Admittedly, this is my favored hypothesis why Neanderthals went extinct, really, at least 50% of them. (The other portion have been killed by Fred Flintstone, who didn’t care about trafic lights at all, but this is an other story.)

Now calculating the selective pressure on the population, we may conclude that traffic light selection took place about several million years ago and finished to my knowledge only a few decades back from now. Well, as the evolution pressure is not so firm in respect to whether left-hand or right-hand driving the natural selection is still going on, and I’m a bit worried about our next holiday when again I have to drive on the left side.

Of course, I’m just kidding, we all know that traffic light evolution took place in a relatively short space of time, and we also know that though unfortunately always accidents can happen, no tribe has been extinguished only because not accepting other traffic light colors.  We humans are crowned with intelligence. We can foresee what happens if and change accordingly. This accelerates  the pace of evolution and decreases the collateral damage enormously. Our intelligence, our knowledge, the theories and concepts that we have in mind are all fauceirs by themselves that help to cut short the distance of an evolutionary process. Why declaring this so obvious fact? Because it happens in biology as well: jumping genes, transposable elements, gene duplications with subsequent modification, to name but a few examples where evolution is accelerated by using already existing complex structure, a mechanism that can be easily explained by fauceir theory everywhere in the world.