- #1
nughret
- 45
- 0
Do you think that it maybe possible to categorise life by actions rather than by structure?
nughret said:I guess what i would really like to know is if we replaced the traits of structure by action in Darwins theory of evolution, would it still be true?
What you ask is well known to biology. Species can be classified according to "functional groups". There are many examples. A "predator", an "omnivore", a "herbivore", etc. Life itself is classified by actions--for example, those forms of life that decompose, those that use anaerobic respiration for energy (fermentation one example), those that carry on photosynthesis (green plants--and let us thank them every day), you get the idea. Ecosystems are classified by actions, those with high primary production vs low (eutrophic vs oligotrophic). The reason biologists use structure rather than function to study evolution of life is because function is not commonly stored as information over time. It is the information contained in nature that allows us to reconstruct the past. Now, consider that ecosystems are cybernetic systems, and you can see how such a system would tend to evolve in such a way to maintain itself in a state of stability--and then we see a way to study natural selection based on study of those species whose "actions" help to maintain ecosystem stability--and that leads to study of such species that are coined "keystone species", e.g., those species who by their ecological "actions" help to maintain ecosystem stability over time. A very interesting aspect of biology--the relationship of structure to function.Nughret said:Do you think that it maybe possible to categorise life by actions rather than by structure?
What you describe here is called a "cyborg"--which is a type of cybernetic system--see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg. The field of study called cybernetics is hugh--check out this review:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberneticsDanger said:...By that same token, I can't see how an ecosystem can be called 'cybernetic' as Rade mentioned. The definition of 'cybernetic' that I grew up with was an interaction of some sort between biological entities and artificially created machines.
That is NOT what Lamarck's theory claimed. Indeed, what you're describing is more Darwinian.nughret said:I have a looked at Lamarck's work and although it is a theory of actions it is different to what i am suggesting. i interpreted Lamarck's theory as: the actions of a species, as genarations pass, become more specific and advantageous for the environment they are in.
There is evolution of behavioral traits as well as physical traits, but it's important to keep in mind that those behavioral traits are based on structural traits and genetics as well, at least those that can be passed on to future generations as "innate" behaviors as opposed to learned behaviors.Now what i am asking is that if we say that each organism is born with a set of possible actions for how it will act in an enviroment, and therefore its chances of survival, can this set of actions be used as structure is in Darwins theory of natural selection?
The set of "possible actions" that you look for that determines how an organism will act in an environment, as structure, are called genes found on chromosomes. Each organism is born with a set of genes (possible actions) that help determine how it will act to survive and reproduce. Natural selection is defined as the non random reproduction of genotypes.nughret said:I have a looked at Lamarck's work and although it is a theory of actions it is different to what i am suggesting. i interpreted Lamarck's theory as: the actions of a species, as genarations pass, become more specific and advantageous for the environment they are in.Now what i am asking is that if we say that each organism is born with a set of possible actions for how it will act in an enviroment, and therefore its chances of survival, can this set of [possible] actions be used as structure is in Darwins theory of natural selection?
Action and structure are two different ways of categorizing life. Action refers to the behaviors and activities of living organisms, while structure refers to the physical characteristics and organization of living organisms.
No, life cannot be categorized solely based on its action or structure. Both action and structure are important aspects of life and must be considered together in order to fully understand and categorize it.
Scientists use a combination of action and structure to categorize life. They look at both the behaviors and physical characteristics of living organisms to determine their place in the classification system.
Yes, there are limitations to using action and structure to categorize life. Some living organisms may exhibit similar actions or have similar structures, making it difficult to distinguish between them. Additionally, there are cases where certain actions or structures may not fit neatly into existing categories.
Understanding the relationship between action and structure is crucial in our understanding of life. It allows us to see the connections and patterns between different living organisms, and helps us to better classify and make sense of the diversity of life on Earth.