Does evolution lead to the most complex and sophisticated organization of matter?

[metatron]

Dynamic Systems

Maxson J. McDowell

A triangle is static, but a dynamic system also has such pre-existing possibilities. Think of a mountain stream. It is a dynamic system because it only exists while energy flows through it, in this case the water's kinetic energy. Sometimes the stream forms a whirlpool. Sometimes it assumes the serpentine form. The latter is seen most clearly in an aerial photograph of a river delta. Both forms are pre-existing possibilities, characteristic of rivers and streams everywhere. Even the stream of stars in a galaxy sometimes forms a whirlpool (Hildebrandt and Tromba 1996, pp. 12-13). A stream organizes itself, but the ways it can do so are constrained: only certain pre-determined forms are possible.

 

Like a mountain stream, a living creature is also a dynamic system. It too exists only while energy flows through it, either from food if it is an animal, or from the sun if it is a plant. Like the evolution of a mountain stream, evolution in biology is self-organized: it is directed by no outside agent and it leads to emergent levels of order (Holland 1998, pp 225-231). Like a mountain stream, a living creature evolves forms which are pre-existing possibilities.The snake is an example. Not all snakes are related: at different times, several different groups of reptiles evolved the snake body-form (Zug 1993, p. 119) as an adaptation for moving through narrow spaces. A snake-like body-form also occurs in fish (the eel) and in mammals (the ferret). Amongst invertebrates roundworms, earthworms, and centipedes have a similar body-form. The first worm-like fossils, of animals about a meter long, appear in the Precambrian era, about 700 million years ago (Kauffman 1995, pp. 158-161). Thus the body-form of the snake is a pre-existing possibility which waits to be discovered by evolution.

[Sayonara]

I mean complex and organized matter in any sense, even the most abstract. A planet with a population can be seen as a complicated ball from a given perspective. In this sense I am really raising the abstraction level of the thread. I agree it isn't easy to imagine, but MATTER as any combination of items or processes and interactions. So a stellar plasma can be considered a given combination, a planet with a population another given combination etc. The limits of MATTER as considered in these terms may well be greatly in excess of our ability to manipulate. And the possible combinations that matter can achieve may greatly exceed even evolution. Matter may potentially have the ability to combine in vastly more complex ways.

What do you mean, you "agree" it isn't easy to imagine? You haven't given me anything to imagine yet in evolutionary terms.

 

You appear to be waffling.

[metatron]

sorry double post

[Mokele]

Either way, evolution HAS led to complexity!

 

Oh, I don't doubt that (except for when I'm forced to deal with fraternity members). I'm just pointing out that it does not *necessarily* lead to complexity in *all* species.

 

When an organism has become sufficiently advanced there may not be any other reason to continue to gain complexity. But then! You have previously complex organisms becomming parasites to feed off of that extra energy. Without it the complex organism is "thrown back into the ring" and must again compete for resources. And that competition leads to more complexity.

 

Interesting, and I see your point, and agree to a point.

 

However, I'd also point out that, in all this time, our complexity is still limited. Perhaps there is a point of diminishing returns, so to speak, beyond which increases in complexity don't yeild enough advantage in resource efficiency to outweight the attendant problems in other arenas (such as frailty; we aren't exactly great survivors compared to simpler life forms). And perhaps this point of diminishing returns is dependent upon environment. To tie in to exobiology, perhaps on other, harsher worlds, the point of diminishing returns for complexity is much lower than here. Perhaps even the harshness of early earth could have been the reason that complex life took so long to show up.

 

Sure, I'll agree that complexity is rare, and intelligence singular, but I claim that that is the nature of the process. The tallest pyramid has the largest base, so to speak. Therefore, evolution leads to complexity, and intelligence, being a form of complexity, is a natural, even inevitable, result.

 

Well, while intelligence is a form of complexity, is it a necessary form? Couldn't a high level of complexity form in other systems, without a complex nervous system?

 

I'm just hesitant about generalizing based on a sample size of one. After all, we've only seen life on this planet, and it's only evolved once, so there's not a lot of room for testing "what if's" in that.

 

Mokele

[Kygron]

Couldn't a high level of complexity form in other systems, without a complex nervous system?

 

Yes, but given sufficient time, could an increasing level of complexity be maintained without intelligence emerging? I consider that just as rare as you consider the emergence of intelligence at the current time/complexity level. Hence, intelligence (not nessecarily in the current biological form) is inevitable.

 

Perhaps there is a point of diminishing returns, so to speak, beyond which increases in complexity don't yeild enough advantage in resource efficiency to outweight the attendant problems in other arenas (such as frailty; we aren't exactly great survivors compared to simpler life forms).

 

And therefore a complexity level for probable intellect won't be obtained?

But you're basing this on humans, who have already attained intelligence. If we were simple-tool makers only (evolution's counter to the frailty) we would still be in fierce competition with other organisms. In that kind of environment, even the smallest gain in resource efficiency through additional complexity would be selected for. Increase in complexity does not stop, except maybe after intelligence, which leads the way to technological complexity. (I will however agree that a hostile environment can slow the process significantly.)

 

I'm just hesitant about generalizing based on a sample size of one. After all, we've only seen life on this planet, and it's only evolved once, so there's not a lot of room for testing "what if's" in that.

 

We don't have a sample of one. We have a sample of billions of organisms consistantly following "rules" of evolution. Those rules hold through MANY diverce forms of life, through many complexity levels. They lead to greater and greater complexity without bound. Logically that complexity will lead to intelligence. We even have proof that intelligence is possible! Forget human intelligence, it may be a fluke, but it's bound to happen sometime. The only "what if's" I see are those that stop the process, like, what if the sun goes nova before mammals evolve?

 

 

((Forgive my forcefullness, the act of expressing my intuition logically drained me too much to worry about delivery style))

[nameta9]

It may be then that if science is limited, it may be limited in a global domain (like artificial intelligence, or virtual reality, interstellar travel). It may never exceed certain limits. So then we could perfect some technologies in limited domains. Imagine perfecting formula 1 cars for 5,000,000 years. That would end up with an object so unique, it would show that MATTER as such can be combined in extremely unique ways, it is as if MATTER would be "unlimited" within a local domain (formula 1 for example), but limited within global domains like "time travel" or "eternal life". Instead of combining elements of MATTER to see its limit in complexity, we could see also how far it could reach within limited domains. It is always somewhat similar to an ART form or an "aesthetical" combination.

[Mokele]

Yes, but given sufficient time, could an increasing level of complexity be maintained without intelligence emerging? I consider that just as rare as you consider the emergence of intelligence at the current time/complexity level. Hence, intelligence (not nessecarily in the current biological form) is inevitable.

 

Possibly. After all, control systems can be extremely complex and intricate without be "intelligent", right? IMHO, there's a big difference between "intelligence" (which connotates learning, reasoning, etc) and simply a complex control system. If the environment is not sufficiently variable for intelligence to be advantageous, then it won't evolve, and all we'll get is complex control systems. Ergo it is not inevitable without certain environmental components.

 

And therefore a complexity level for probable intellect won't be obtained?

But you're basing this on humans, who have already attained intelligence. If we were simple-tool makers only (evolution's counter to the frailty) we would still be in fierce competition with other organisms. In that kind of environment, even the smallest gain in resource efficiency through additional complexity would be selected for. Increase in complexity does not stop, except maybe after intelligence, which leads the way to technological complexity. (I will however agree that a hostile environment can slow the process significantly.)

 

I think the problem is that you trat complexity as if it has no drawbacks, which is just not so.

 

Let's consider humans, for example. We are very complex, and have complex nervous systems capable of intelligence, which, I agree, makes our resource use more effective. However, we pay for that, literally: that same complex nervous system consumes over 20% of our body's calories, imposing a *huge* metabolic demand compared to other organisms of the same size.

 

There's other downsides too. For instance, consider two bacteria, one with twice the DNA (and twice as many genes with twice as many different functions) of the other. That might be useful, but it *does* pay a price: increased time and resources needed to replicate that DNA when reproducing. So you have two competitors, one that is less efficient but faster at reproducing, while the other is more efficient but slower. If resources are abundant, and that efficiency isn't enough to counteract the problem of slower reproduction, the more complex species will be selected *against*.

 

Complexity also requires specialization of cells, which can also have penalties, especially if the cells become so specialized they can no longer reproduce, like nerve or muscle cells. Imagine two other competitor species, simple and complex, in an environment in which damage and loss of appendages is commonplace. If the simple one, by virtue of it's simplicity, can re-grow these appendages, it might have a greater advantage then the now-crippled yet efficient complex species.

 

My point is that, while I *do* see the advantage of complexity, in terms of increased efficiency, I also see numerous disadvantages that can restrict or prevent further complexity from being selectively useful when all the costs and benefits are added up.

 

We don't have a sample of one. We have a sample of billions of organisms consistantly following "rules" of evolution. Those rules hold through MANY diverce forms of life, through many complexity levels.

 

And all of these living things have a common ancestor, yes? Which lived X million years ago.

 

So, that means *all* living organisms on earth have had precisely the same amount of time to evolve complexity. If you're right, why does the level vary? Why are sponges still here, when tunicates do the same job with more complexity? Why aren't *all* species as complex as we are?

 

The answer is simple: that complexity also has disadvantages, and that the local environment in which a species evolves may be such that it is actually *disadvantageous* to increase in complexity. The atrophy of parasite species should be sufficient to show that, in some cases, simplicity is actually *better* than complexity.

 

And this underscores my case: that increases in complexity only occur when evolutionary and environmental conditions are favorable towards it. These situations are *not* guaranteed, by any stretch, and are, in fact, few and far between. Ergo, it is conceivable that, under certain circumstances, an environment or even an entire world would have constraints such that complexity of our level could not arise. That mere possibility is enough to counter your assertation that it *must* arise.

 

The only "what if's" I see are those that stop the process, like, what if the sun goes nova before mammals evolve?

 

Bah, overdeveloped, self-important fuzzballs. The vast majority of mammals are intellectually inferior to the common sand goanna. It's just that goannas don't waste their minds on socialization and play, but instead focus on "how do I kill and eat that tasty little mammal over there?"

 

Sorry, but I study reptiles almost exclusively, and, in my experience, the only thing supporting the "specialness" of mammals is human bias, not any actual significantly unique or interesting features. Taken objectively, mammals are a modestly sucessful group of limited species richness and poor diversity, at best. After all, over 65% of mammals are either bats or rodents.

 

((Forgive my forcefullness, the act of expressing my intuition logically drained me too much to worry about delivery style))

 

Oh, no worries, but, if I might be so bold, if you're starting with an intuition and trying to amass evidence to support it, that might be the wrong way to go about things, since you're essentially assuming you're right from the get-go.

 

Mokele

[Kygron]

Oh, no worries, but, if I might be so bold, if you're starting with an intuition and trying to amass evidence to support it, that might be the wrong way to go about things, since you're essentially assuming you're right from the get-go.

 

If I don't assume I'm right I lose the challenge of getting there. I'm attempting to do so logically, as you'll notice I'm relying on you for the evidence. I have general knowlegde but not enough experience to draw on. Instead I use intuition to act as a goal for logical arguments. I make every attempt to avoid assumptions, and to integrate your evidence. I'm still learning to do this properly, so I must use your reactions as a measure of my skill. I don't doubt your examples, but if you doubt my logic than I know I've got a problem I need to fix. I'm doing my best to avoid the traps that others who have posted in this thread have fallen into. If I'm unable to make the argument without becoming mystical, than I'll concede the debate.

 

--

 

I think the problem is that you trat complexity as if it has no drawbacks, which is just not so.

 

You're quite correct. Going over your examples leads me to realize that my definition of complexity included adaptability, which is not always the case. I'll change my definition of complex to: containing structures organized to make efficient use of resources. This is always desirable IF it can be maintained. Adaptability is the ability to maintain life reguardless of changes in the environment. This is also always desirable, though not always needed, and therefore inefficient. (I suppose offence/defence are also desirable in order to succeed in the competition for resources.)

 

Seeing as complexity and adaptability do not always increase together I'm going to need to redefine my case based on these new definitions. I think I can still do it. I'll try again tomarrow.

[Kygron]

After further consideration it appears to me that most of your examples are out of context. I'll explain.

 

...consider two bacteria, one with twice the DNA ... If resources are abundant, and that efficiency isn't enough to counteract the problem of slower reproduction, the more complex species will be selected *against*.

 

This was a good example to show me that adaptability (in this case higher reproductive rate allows quicker adaptation) and complexity are seperate, but under what conditions does it happen? I can only see this occuring after a sudden change, either environmental, a mutation, or a migration. Otherwise the situation would have previously been stable, and therefore the extra efficiency WOULD have been enough to counteract the reproduction rate, at least long enough for the bacteria to evolve further.

 

I'll take the cases in reverse order. If this was a migration, it means that the more complex organism exists in a stable environment somewhere, and is NOT being selected against. If a mutation created the extra DNA, than it was a harmfull one and that is already accounted for in the process of evolution. If a mutation created the less complex organism, than the whole community had been poorly adapted to thier environment. Complexity will not evolve in a detrimental way, thus we must assume an environmental change.

 

An environmental change is one of the best methods of gaining complexity or adaptability. Firstly if nothing changes there's no reason to evolve, but I'll deal with more drastic changes from here on. A change can come from a migration, possibly into a newly available environment, or from some large scale change in conditions. How does this effect the organisms? First, some die, because the adaptability of the species only allows a limited population. Next, the remaining organisms specialize for that environment. This removes general adaptability, though it takes time. Durring that time the orgainisms gain efficiency, until the population is large enough to begin competition and more standard evolution.

 

Where does this lead us? As a worst case, all life dies. Nothing to talk about there. Next worse, species lose all traits from the previous environment, along with all the complexity of those traits. This is the best counter to my case, I'll explain it more later. A good case is where the species maintains much of the adaptability from the previous environment, along with that complexity, resulting in no substancial loss or gain. The best case is when the organisms maintain adaptability, plus gains additional complexity from the specializations to the new environment.

 

So when does complexity reduce? It reduces after a sudden environmental change, when the organism fully specializes to the new environment. Ok, so complexity is not constantly improving, but what happens next in the senario? You have a relatively stable environment, with efficient organisms competing for the now-limited resources. It's the perfect environment for evolution towards more complex forms! What this is is a detour, not a roadblock. And that's the worst-case!

 

I doubt that this environment-shifting would happen enough, and on a broad enough scale to stop the evolution towards complexity. If fact, the best I can think of would be your parasite example. The host will be changing too often for the parasite to gain in complexity. However, this requires the host exist, and not all hosts can be parasites as well.

 

Given enough time, complexity continues without bound.

[Mokele]

I can only see this occuring after a sudden change, either environmental, a mutation, or a migration. Otherwise the situation would have previously been stable, and therefore the extra efficiency WOULD have been enough to counteract the reproduction rate, at least long enough for the bacteria to evolve further.

 

How does that in any way detract from the example? Sudden environmental changes happen all the time. Mutations are very common (bacteria have a much higher rate of muation than we do, and even ours is far above what most people think), as are migrations between distant populations (bacteria can become spores, which can be transported thousands of miles on the wind or water, and have even been found in clouds).

 

Also, bacteria are known for both scavenging DNA from the environment (often dead bacteria DNA) and for exchanging "plasmids", circular rings of DNA. Both of these, incidentally, are commonly used to geneticly alter them.

 

That a new, less complex but faster reproducing version can suddenly arise does not invalidate my point. Whether it arose suddenly or gradually, the "more complex" species has to deal with it anyway.

 

If this was a migration, it means that the more complex organism exists in a stable environment somewhere, and is NOT being selected against.

 

Yes, but "environment" includes biotic and abiotic factors. The moment the simpler, faster reproducing version arrives, it becomes part of the evolutionary landscape, to the detriment of the complex form. Vice versa is also true. Selective value of traits can change based on the other organisms in the habitat. Look at Guam; having no flight used to be selectively advantageous to birds there, since it was a waste of energy. Then a new animal showed up (brown tree snake), and now every bird on the island is either extinct, extinct in the wild or badly endangered.

 

If a mutation created the extra DNA, than it was a harmfull one and that is already accounted for in the process of evolution.

 

In saying that, you admitted my point is correct: that complexity can be a harmful trait in some cases.

 

If a mutation created the less complex organism, than the whole community had been poorly adapted to thier environment.

 

Happens all the time. A species does just fine until a newer, better way of doing things arises, and the old species is swept aside.

 

Complexity will not evolve in a detrimental way, thus we must assume an environmental change.

 

1) You contradict yourself here, since you noted, two quotes back, that a complexity increasing mutation *can* be detrimental

 

2) Your first phrase is the problem: you are assuming that, and trying to make the evidence fit. That's not how science works. Furthermore, as long as you keep doing that, then debate is pointless, since you can't be swayed.

 

What you're doing is actually a logical fallacy, called begging the question, in which your assumptions include the very conclusion you are trying to reach.

 

Firstly if nothing changes there's no reason to evolve, but I'll deal with more drastic changes from here on.

 

That assumes an organism is optimally suited for it's environment, which is simply not so.

 

Imagine a series of hills. One is biggest, but there are several smaller peaks. Now, imagine you're playing a game. You stand in one place, and randomly throw 4 balls. You then move to the highest location of all the balls, or stay put if they're all lower. Then repeat the process. In this game, you will always wind up on top of one of the hills, but there is absolutely no guarantee that you'll wind up on top of the biggest hill. Furthermore, if you can't throw far enough to ever land a ball from your hilltop onto the biggest one, you can never, ever reach it in the game.

 

I trust you see the analogy in terms of fitness landscape, local maximum, and random variation.

 

Ok, so complexity is not constantly improving, but what happens next in the senario? You have a relatively stable environment, with efficient organisms competing for the now-limited resources. It's the perfect environment for evolution towards more complex forms! What this is is a detour, not a roadblock. And that's the worst-case!

 

Yes, but you have no guarantee that the complexity *will* continue to increase.

 

Imagine our complex bacteria colony, and the simple one arrives. It outcompetes and eradicates the complex ones. But, over time, it becomes more complex. And this is where you end, but it doesn't end there. Then, yet again, a simpler, faster-reproducing form arrives by migration or mutation. Once again, complex forms go extinct. You see what's happening? Because complexity "isn't worth it" unless it can outweight the costs associated with it, the increase in complexity is continually getting knocked back. If you graph it, for this bacteria population (and the migrating ones), you get a saw-tooth effect, in which complexity increases, then decreases, over and over, without ever making a permanent gain. (Note that this doesn't mean complexity can *never* increase, only that it must be competetively advantageous in more than just a very limited environment to do so.)

 

Correspondingly, if you look at earth's history, the first 3 billion years of life and more was nothing but single cells. And for most of *that* it was mostly bacteria. My take on it, that complexity must confer enough advantage to outweight the penalties and remain competetive with simpler alternatives, explains this nicely. Yours, I'm afraid, doesn't seem to be able to explain this vast "stasis of complexity".

 

Given enough time, complexity continues without bound.

 

3 billion years wasn't enough time?

 

Seriously, look at earth's history. Life arose 3.4 billion years ago. Even eukaryotic cells (like amoebas) didn't evolve until over a billion and a half years later. And even after *that*, multicellular life didn't even show up until *another* billion years later, 550 mya, give or take.

 

That's 2 periods, 1,500,000,000 years each, during which there was no appreciable increase in complexity. And during those times, the time between reproductions (generation time, roughly) was measured in days or even hours. And the life forms had *much* higher mutation rates than we do. So they *clearly* had the evolutionary fuel and time. So why didn't complexity happen for so long? I find it hard to rectify these long periods without appreciable increases in complexity with your idea that complexity is continually increasing in all but the worst circumstances.

 

Mokele

[Kygron]

Well, I can't keep up this pace now. Most of our definitions clash. Most of our time scales clash. I'm forced to examine more and more intricate details which you have far greater knowledge than I do. Mind if I ask a few questions though?

 

Then, yet again, a simpler, faster-reproducing form arrives by migration or mutation. Once again, complex forms go extinct.

 

Complex was better than simple, and now simple is better than complex, and now... Does this really happen?? Surely each succesion has gained SOME advantage over the previous??

 

Correspondingly, if you look at earth's history, the first 3 billion years of life and more was nothing but single cells. And for most of *that* it was mostly bacteria. My take on it, that complexity must confer enough advantage to outweight the penalties and remain competetive with simpler alternatives, explains this nicely. Yours, I'm afraid, doesn't seem to be able to explain this vast "stasis of complexity".

 

Funny, I thought "your take" was my explaination. I explained a few posts ago that randomness happens until it hits on the right one. You agreed and I assumed it to be a given in subsequent posts. I guess I didn't explain well. But my question, is there even a way for those early cells to gain in complexity prior to becoming eukaryotes?

 

3 billion years wasn't enough time?

 

lol, for all my arguments, I really wouldn't be surprized if life took 6 billion to gain intelligence, and that on this planet. At what point in Earth's evolution would you consider intelligence "reasonably probable", and how much more time would be required for it?

 

Anyhow, thanks for humoring me.

[nameta9]

It may be then that if science is limited, it may be limited in a global domain (like artificial intelligence, or virtual reality, interstellar travel). It may never exceed certain limits. So then we could perfect some technologies in limited domains. Imagine perfecting formula 1 cars for 5,000,000 years. That would end up with an object so unique, it would show that MATTER as such can be combined in extremely unique ways, it is as if MATTER would be "unlimited" within a local domain (formula 1 for example), but limited within global domains like "time travel" or "eternal life". Instead of combining elements of MATTER to see its limit in complexity, we could see also how far it could reach within limited domains. It is always somewhat similar to an ART form or an "aesthetical" combination.

 

Complexity is a very ill-defined concept, I think. But in general, I think for evolution mokele is right; if "complexity" leads to advantage it increases else it doesn't. I am considering the much more abstract point of view of MATTER in general, not necessarily in evolution, or technological progress. I don't think there are many limits to the complexity of MATTER in general. There is a combinatorial point of view where the number of combinations exceeds the possibilty to see them all. The number of 100 elements , each element being 10 different types would be 10 ^ 100 which is too huge to explore all the possible combinations. Elements here could be atoms, molecules, software programs, gears in engines etc. So a one of a kind very complex combination is a unique combination of MATTER and shows how far MATTER can reach. Also there are examples of "cognitive" experiences which don't necessarily involve complex MATTER like "eternal life" or "time travel". If there is a way to reach these, technologically it has little to do with the limits of how complicated MATTER can get.

[Mokele]

Complex was better than simple, and now simple is better than complex, and now... Does this really happen?? Surely each succesion has gained SOME advantage over the previous??

 

Evolutionary treadmills are pretty common, actually. An analagous situation is when you have a parasite and host in a population. A new, parasite-resistant host (form B) appears, and rapidly spreads, while the old one (form A) declines. But then, the parasite (lawyer A) mutates to attack form B, becoming a new parasite (lawyer B), which increases massively at the expense of the prior parasite form. However, that parasite boom means that form B is no longer benefiting, and form A (which parasite B can't get at) rebounds. But then parasite A rebounds. And on and on forever, or until one gets a mutation that can break the cycle.

 

In many cases of intra-specific and inter-specific competition, specific strategies are selectively advantageous *only* if they're in the minority. As a result, they increase, hit a limit, then decrease, only to start the whole cycle all over.

 

Funny, I thought "your take" was my explaination. I explained a few posts ago that randomness happens until it hits on the right one. You agreed and I assumed it to be a given in subsequent posts. I guess I didn't explain well. But my question, is there even a way for those early cells to gain in complexity prior to becoming eukaryotes?

 

Ahh, yes, seems we've gotten a bit confused. My main point is that complexity is simply an adaptation like any other, with benefits and drawbacks, and not always the optimal solution nor an inevitable outcome. My cheif objection was that you seemed to be treating complexity as a sort of 'perfect adaptation' without flaws, which would always occur and could not be slowed or limited.

 

As for the early cells, they could gain a little here and there, but the advent of Eukaryotic life represented a huge jump in complexity.

 

lol, for all my arguments, I really wouldn't be surprized if life took 6 billion to gain intelligence, and that on this planet. At what point in Earth's evolution would you consider intelligence "reasonably probable", and how much more time would be required for it?

 

Well, the problem is that it needs suitable conditions; the right critter needs to be in the right place at the right time. It's like a craps shoot: you might get what you want the first roll, it might never happen. On Earth, I'd say it's probable to eventually happen, but Earth is an unusually hospitable world, or so it seems.

 

Mokele