Refusal to Accept anything that might be directed

[questionposter]

I am tending to agree with you that complexity is not a good avenue to argue for direction in evolution as initially asked here.

 

Although I think it is blatantly obvious that complexity has increased over time, i.e. from no life to life, from simple ecosystems to complex ecosystems. And you could argue that once evolving systems begin they will tend to these more integrated ecosystems, but this is not a directed evolution as intended by the original poster.

 

The original post was a question about the teleological direction in evolution, as if it had an end it worked toward. So complexity is not something it would strive to be, but it may be an inevitable outcome.

 

I think the analogy of a pre determined plan, although a very religious concept that tends toward Paleys watchmaker and the argument from design, is still a valid scientific hypothesis.

 

I have never seen anything that even hints at accepting it as true, and many good arguments against it. But nonetheless it is conceivable that future science could uncover an inevitability to the evolution process that is present from the laws of nature and physics etc. Many would no doubt want human cognition to be at the pinnacle but I wouldnt want to give any special mention to us humans just yet. If it turns out us humans can develop a method of creating universes then I may pay more attention as this would suggest that an evolutionary / developmental model for our own universe is more valid.

 

Some people have explored this from a thermodynamic perspective developing theories based on the maximisation of energy dissipation as a direction to evolving systems. Seems a bit lame to me and just riding on the back of the universality of thermodynamic laws.

 

frank

 

There are very likely limits to the physical capabilities, but there's nothing in the laws of physics saying something can't be more complex. And with all the chaos and randomness inherit in evolution, it's unlikely there is any sort of "end" or that evolution can plan in any way.

Edited February 16, 2012 by questionposter

[FrankQuietly]

Questionposter, would you consider the evolution of evolvability planning? Not planning to a specific end , ala teleology, but planning to adapt best to unknown future circumstances.

 

I'm not sure if this has been rebutted, but I remember hearing of research into organisms increasing their mutation rate as the environment becomes stressed. And it was shown that the mutations were not increasing due to direct damage from the environmental stresses but by the down regulation of the genome supervision and repair systems.

 

Assuming this was sound research is this planning?