>not surprisingly [...] the outcome is likely often chaotic.
Ok so if we have assumption that to make Identical[DNA + environment] equal to a chaotic outcome, then we need to add variable, random. Random would be determimed by environmental noise or possibly even
(even more random) random quantum noise.
Why should we expect the effect of Random to be large enough to create easily identifiable personalities, or more accurately, behavior patterns?
So to be fair about this: I'm not aware of a specific reason it was so obvious to you (you don't provide any).
Your intuition in hindsight will always seem like common sense to you. That's why it's good we do these types of experiments which question our intuition.
> Why should we expect the effect of Random to be large enough to create easily identifiable personalities, or more accurately, behavior patterns?
Well, my main reason for thinking it is that complex systems tend to be chaotic unless there's some reason for them not to be. Two pendulums attached to each other produce a chaotic system. A living being is a lot more complex. When things aren't chaotic, I'm looking for an explanation.
I suspect that a little chaos is probably beneficial to the species/gene, so to the extent that there is a reason to expect anything, chaos seems likely (obviously only when the chaos isn't actively maladaptive).
My other source for the idea is a little introspection and observation. I can see the effects of small things in my own live and those of others.
Sure, that's a good point, but to play devil's advocate, I could also say something like: "life tends towards patterns of similarity" and point to anything from fractal patterns in life to similar behavioral outcomes in social strata or in culture.
I would argue that this is only true to the extent that there's a reason for the similarity. Similarities arise when they serve an adaptive purpose. And, to be fair, those clonal fish are a lot more similar than they are different. They're all still very similar looking fish!
My whole point was that the authors of the paper seemed to expect the similarity to continue beyond what there's any adaptive reason for, and that's just crazy!
I think we're a bit disconnected b/c I haven't done a good job of communicating my idea.
I'm not saying you don't have good ideas about what conclusion we should expect, I'm saying it's a good idea not to worry too much about such ideas in any place where we can conduct an experiment. Humans are notoriously bad at this and shouldn't do it if we have a better way (and we do,
experimentation). See:
Orwell wrote about the problem of arguments in an essay On Politics, which can be found in the published book (not the essay) Why I Write. He discussed the aquatic screw, and how leading figures published ideas in leading print newspapers and journals arguing both for and against its effectiveness. It was only when an experiment was conducted that we, collectively, could know well-enough to consider it fact which one worked more efficiently.
Feynman said, pretty much: 'if it turns out nature is this way or that way so be it, it doesn't matter how good or how beautiful your ideas are, nature is going to come out to be the way she is, that's the beauty of science.'
Ok so if we have assumption that to make Identical[DNA + environment] equal to a chaotic outcome, then we need to add variable, random. Random would be determimed by environmental noise or possibly even (even more random) random quantum noise.
Why should we expect the effect of Random to be large enough to create easily identifiable personalities, or more accurately, behavior patterns?
So to be fair about this: I'm not aware of a specific reason it was so obvious to you (you don't provide any).
Your intuition in hindsight will always seem like common sense to you. That's why it's good we do these types of experiments which question our intuition.