Two Kinds of Development Stages, and Errors Regarding Development

From a qualitative point of view, a full cycle of development consists of two kinds of stages, in the case of

  • biological,
  • technical / technological,
  • economic

and

  • social development

alike.

These are

  • the revolutionary
  • and evolutionary

stages.

1 Characteristics of the revolutionary stage
The revolutionary stage is

  • fast, but this is not the most important. The most important is that it brings
  • basically new elements
  • and a basically new way of applying them.

2 The relationship between the final and starting stages of the full cycle

2.1 Because of the revolutionary stage, the final state is essentially different from the starting one, thus it is usually not possible to make deductions regarding the starting state merely from the characteristics of the final one.

2.2 A problem of the full cycle

The full cycle is realised through
a great number
at the beginning through few big,
later through a great number of mall steps.

The starting step was (and maybe the first few steps were)
– unexpected,
– often unrepeatable due to changes in the circumstances,
took place only once and in one place.

Therefore, going backward through these changes and the also big ones that take place as a result of the many small steps, it is extremely difficult,  indeed next to impossible to get to the beginning.

If at all, it can be successfully realized through a combination of
– logics,
– experiment on thoughts
– and theories.

To illustrate this, here is a simple mathematical exercise:

Let us suppose that only the final state is known. In mathematical terms this means that one single point of a time function is known. The task is to find another point without knowing the function itselff or even the form of the function.

Obviously, given these circumstances the task cannot be realized.

Not even if the function form itself and the values of all the parameters but one are known.

Even in the most simple case, that of a two-variable linear function, for if
y = ax + b,
and only one of the parameters are known, there are an enormously great number of possible solutions. In case a present value-pair of
x = x1 y = y1
is known and  we are trying to find the value of y belonging to the initial value of x=x0

Of this, it will not even be known whether it is bigger or smaller than the present value-pair.

It is not of too much help either if, on the basis of certain knowledge, consideratins and experience, both the

  • domain of definition and the
  • value-stock

can be defined, as even through this the scope of possible solutions is limited only to a telatively narrow area.

Just because “amino acids lack the ability by which they could have organized themselves into a biologically sensible order”, it does not follow that a “sensible order” is the outcome of some kind of intelligent planning. (The writers of today’s software programs have no idea whatsoever of the connecting of the basic steps in the so-called machine-code programs, like, for example, the realization of a timing, forking or a leap, they just use  them. However, it was through working out such basic steps that the making of compuer programs has reached the level it is at today. I am aware of this because I have gone through all this in the course of 48 years.)

In other words, it cannot be said for certain that it is possible to draw from the present state well-founded conclusions as to the state at its coming into being of the amin-acid order. (For it cannot be excluded that they have disappeared, as have, to give another example from the world of IT, the first microcomputers, which would look rather weird for today’s generation.)

Just because by today the enzyme-substrate relationship has become something like a key-lock relationship, it does not follow that this is not the outcome of development. (An IT example again: Today, there are a number of so-called fitting standards used in IT. These are applied, among other things, to enable two programs to work together in such a way that data can be transferred from one to the other. Because of this, the two programs can change together only. Despite this, this is the result of development, and there were, and are, stages in the development when no such things existed.

What we see today with regard to proteins is a state existing 3.5 billion years after the coming into being of the oldest proteins known, while in the case of IT, only 60 years have elapsed since the appearance of the first, so-called Neumann-concept programs. And yet, the change is this enormous.

The same holds true for the concepts of “simplified complexity” and “All the component parts of the mousetrap have to be in the same place at the same time.” (Pp. 28-29).

The fact that in our time science is incapable of producing living things of any kind does not prove that it will never be able to do that. Today, nobody would be able to create, say, any version of Windows, as it is a long process consisting of a number of steps and requiring the cooperation of a lot of people.

It is completely wrong to try and define an entire complicated system by way of using the current state of the system as the point of departure. (Here is a very simple example, this time not from IT, to illustrate this: Let us suppose that only one value-pair of a two-variable function is known, say, the folowing one: X = 0 Y = 0. There are a many times over infinitely great number of functions whose image go through the origin. To mention but the simplest case, even of straight ones there are an infinitely great number.)

As regards the currently existing variants / changes (?)  [magyarban: “szemváltozatok” szó szerepel. Elírás?], it is the wrong question, “In what area would these small changes have been useful?”  In nature (and also in IT) a change between two states suitable from some point of view does not take place in optimum steps. Quite often, the correct result is arrived at through so many erronious efforts, and, importantly, the transitory forms of the different steps, usually present in a small number, will quickly disappear after the appearance of the “right” solution, and as there were only a few of them, later it is rather difficult to find their traces.

(Let us take an example from the world of IT again: In 1976 the IT publication “Interface Age”  sold programs on a supplememt called floppy ROM. This actually was a disc of the size of a CD or DVD. Who, with the the exception of a few people interested in IT history, knows about that device today? Although I do have a copy, very few people do, I believe.

Or, to have a non-IT example as well, one that closely concerns me: who knows about the fact that the first copying machine realized in one single piece of equipment and process flow, which operated on the basis of the concept applied to day, was, in 1946, the invention of a Hungarian, namely my father? I only have a photo of the equipment, not a single piece of which is to be found anywhere today.)

It is also wromg  to assume that “to bring about a new biological structure, another one has to be destroyed first, and during the ztansformation neither one, nor the other of the systems can fumction.” This is not so. For the transformation is realized through a leap, and the so-called transitory forms on the steps of the leap can come imto being as a result of a favorable circumstance which exists only then. It is needless to put on the defumct beings a sign saying, “Sorry, species under reconstruction.”

(Back to IT:  From the mid-1970s on, a lot of small IT companies were set up in the US, ome of them being SWTP. Towards the end of that decade, big firms in the field also started to appear, as a growing market was attractive enough for them too. As the big companies were manufacturing on a large scale, they were able to purchase components at lower prices. As a result, the small firms went bankrupt, with the exception of two. And it was thanks to a great idea that they were able to survive. The Apple story is well known, but that of SWTP is not. What the company did was that they bought for next to nothing Motorola’s  so-valled dynamic RAM memories designed for a 16-kbit capacity, one half of which did mot work. SWTP bought them all so that its rivals could not get hold of any.  SWTP  matched them, amd built them in its computers based on the memory put together from the two halves and designed for it. As in those days RAM was the most importamt single element determining the price of a computer, SWTP was able to sell its computers cheaper than its rivals, while the manufacturing technology it applied was more expensive. The company was able to stay on the market right until another major development  came around: the IBM PC appeared This was somethimg the firm could not survive.)

It is not an aceptable argument that “the remains of only 250,000 extinguished species have been discovered, which is far from enough to demonstrate the alleged billions of ‘transitory states’  between the 2.5 million or so species living today.

The  vast  majority of the 2.5 million species are microorganizms and insects. The overwhelming majority of these do not get fossilized, as they do not have a solid frame. Therefore very few traces referrimg to them are left behind Of the remains of bigger beings, also a small proportion is to be found only, as they often perish at the time the beings demise, and the different effects coming about during the course of time simce the demise also destroy the remains.

While it is possible that “life did not begin with RNS”, anf it is also a fact that as yet no proven theory regarding the coming about of life exists, it does not follow from all this that no such theory with a  materialistic foumdation will ever exist or that it can be explained only with the operation of some intelligent planner.

Also, let me stress again that the author mingles evolution with revolution and calls the evolution theory to account for lack of an explanation of revolution. Revolutionary (taking place in leaps) processes are characterized by different circumstances, ones that will not perhaps repeat ecactly in the same way (just think of, for example the so-called shocked quartz structure created by the extraordinary circumstances that came about when heavenly bodies happened to collide with earth.)Maybe, it is not even known what they were. And it would be possible to attempt to crreate the same circumstances and explain what happened way back then.. (For ecample, in the 1960s there were frequent cases of ethylene-polymerizing reactors exploding during operatkon, seemingly without any explanation. The reason behind these accidents was not found until I realized that on the basis of a theory of mine, quite small changes in certain parameters under certain circumstances caused considerable changes in other parameters. Through this, as well as by what since then has become to be called chaos theory,previously unexplained evemts were now explained.)
It happens every now and then that something starts to be applied for something different than previously. It is possible, for example, that that something called the three parts of the tail of a bacterium had already existed earlier (wholly or partly), but bacteria had used it for something else, and “switched it on” for this purpose only when they had ‘assembled” it. z (It is often the case with inventions that an already existing one is used for something else than it earlier was. As a matter of fact, this practice is so widespread that in the categorization of patents there is a separate category of  ‘new applications’.) And it is not a requirement that it should work properly right from the start. The early auto engines for example were of rather low performance, yet they were used. Self-organization is not a requirement either.

The advantage of selection does not apply for transitory forms but for the trasformed ones. (It is the same when the creation of something new is often successful only following a great number of errors.)