Evolution and complexity

Reread the topic title again: "Evolution and complexity.
In this context 'evolution' is a short form of the Theory of Evolution of Life and it's diversification. We are talking about life.We should stick to that since we can say nothing about the other step as we don't know what it was or how hard it is or what the change in complexity would be. Again, I think you are right to say the jump to life from non-life is an increase in complexity. But until we define complexity precisely I can't say anything about comparitive changes.Since we don't know the process to get from non-living to living we also can't say how big the complexity jump is.In fact, today, we can't seem to settle on an agreed line where nonliving leaves off and living starts. A prion is pretty complex but not all that complex (is it alive?). A virus is more complex, is it alive? (many so no). A bacteria is definitely alive ( right?). How much more complex than a virus is it? Is a horse a smaller amount more complex than a bacteria is to a virus? I don't know yet.

Hey;Wait a minute...I've been pulling out what little hair I have left on my head in an attempt to explain, in a coherant fashion, why I don't think that there is an inherant drive towards complexity and this whole time you have been in basic agreement with me! ()Actually, this has been fun and I must admit that it has "forced" me to better explain my position, which in tern has "forced" me to look at new data as well as refine my ideas. So I guess, that in warped sorta way I should be thanking you. Hey, if I didn't enjoy this, or if I took your criticism personally, I would have left days ago. I'm not sure I agree completely with this. If you look at the "average" complexity, then because of bacteria, we will always get a relatively low number. I think what Gould was trying to say (isn't it too bad we will not get the opportuniy to have this answered by the man himself) is that even if you take bacteria out of the equation, we still see no drive towards complexity. That is, even if we started our investigation at middle lines of descent (the first fishes, the first mammals, the first seed plants, etc), we will see some organisms evolving from that point and becoming less complex while some others take the route towards more complexity.
Or are we again both saying the same basic thing. You in a concise sentence or two, and me in a verbose paragraph? Well, aren't you a bundle of positive thoughts (). I know, extinction is a virtual certainty at some point...but still, I hope it's a ways off yet.

Saviourmachine: You're not really gonna make me go through this all again are you?
My previous posts on this thread have explained why I do not think that there is an inherent drive towards complexity. I use the same arguments to explain why I do not think that there is an inherent drive towards simplicity. So if we don't see a significant difference between the numbers of organisms that are a result of simplification from their ancestors and those that are more complex than their ancestors, by default my position would be that things just evolve. If simplification will solve the "problems", so be it...if complexity is needed..then that's fine too. Either way, natural selection will "make" that descision, and I see no reason to suspect that one route should be favored over the other.

I think we are agreeing. That is, there is no drive towards complexity. We are also, I think, agreeing that complexity may well have increased. Cetainly if you go back far enough. It is just that nothing is pushing for it. It has occured because of the circumstances of history.

By George...I think we've done it! See, Canadians and Americans can get along, despite the best efforts of "dudya" Yes, I agree that complexity has increased, and that it was a result of the "left hand wall" and not an inherent drive.Whew, that was close! (meaning I didn't have much hair left to pull out).

I shaved mine off last week. What are you worrying about?

EverybodyI found a really interesting website about certain McShea. He thinks about complexity and evolution the same as you and Flies. I will address the key points.A passive drive to complexity
"Because of that lower limit, and because no upper limit on complexity has been established yet, ... McShea says it may be just time alone, not any sort of driving force, that makes it seem there is an overall trend favoring complexity."Harold Morowitz doesn't agree
"The Chart of Intermediary Metabolism, he says, outlines the development of chemistry. "On it," Morowitz says, "we can see that chemistry is enormously interconnected." If you want to change the makeup of something, you have to add to it. "This is the reason [International Business Machines (IBM)] can't give up DOS. And because IBM is in competition, the company can't start over." "Complexity as the amount of different parts
"Basically, McShea has started to quantify two aspects of complexity. "There's complexity in the sense of the number of different parts at the same scale," he says. The question in this case is: "How many different things are inside you?" "Complexity of levels
"But now he has turned to the other sort of complexity--of levels. In particular, he is testing the hypothesis that when cells get together to form an organism, they can lose complexity. "When they get together, they should lose some internal machinery," he says. In other words, when upper levels arise, lower levels disappear."It seems like we gave a summary of his life work in this thread. SourceNosyNed: I was not speaking about addition of a tail!!! Only about regulation versus destruction of the genes encoding for a tail.Edit:
- Source added
- Sorry, Gould already mentioned about McShea but anyway I've now a name to search on...[This message has been edited by Saviourmachine, 02-20-2004]

So much you didn't say about that. Your point is clear enough, but I should like if you want to explain the 'tail' example.Immediately will raise this question: What's the speed of this passive drive of evolution towards complexity, this 'drift'?

(an aside, don't use 'drift' in this context, it has a special technical meaning that doesn't really apply here (or at least is a detail we don't need to touch here ))Obviously, the speed varies with the circumstances. Natural selection can, under the right conditions, restrict change. Under those circumstances we may get only a few complexitrons per millenium. Under other conditions, say after the KT boundary there are lots of niches open and changing conditions. We may get many complexitrons per millenium.(I'm playing with 'complexitrons'. I think the correct term is darwins isn't it? )To ask this quesion implies some idea of direction at all. There isn't any. Each creature is, in some way, different. Each reproduces more or less successfully. Depending on the conditions and how they change with time there may be what looks like a direction from this or may not.

You invented a new word, I couldn't google it. Through quoting you I'm now a little bit famous too. No, it's a side-effect. In the case of tossing coins, the maximum amount of succesive heads will increase over time. You can assign a speed to that. Do you think that this amount will always be the same? I guess no one can answer that question, because you've to guess the amount of generations in the past and the generation sizes, besides assuming a steady mutation rate and lots of other things like changing conditions as you mentioned. So, for me this part of evolution theory is highly speculative.

I'm not sure how well founded any rates are. I think there is some reason to treat them as more than speculative.

Am I correct in saying that Complexity is a human term created to describe a quality observed in the universe, but it is not an actual entity in the universe? Is everything equal and the only difference between dirt and a human is what we seem to percieve but in reality there is no difference, universally speaking?So there is no complexity difference between dirt and a human, but from our perspective there can be if we look at it subjectivly. But if we look at the universe objectivly as a whole, then there is no difference in complexity because complexity does not exist.

Observed but not actual. I think things we observe are actual enough. You say that complexity depends on our perception, so you should have said that 'there is no difference between dirt and a human.' There s a 'complexity difference', if you define complexity as depending of human perception. Warmth is a human perception and we can not define it propriately, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.Of course, you can have postmodern thoughts about everything. But, in science you're working within certain frameworks. So assume that what we're observing is reality and you can join us again on our journey.

Saviourmachine:Ok, so in post 86 you said:I guess I'm not completely sure what you're trying to ask here. I interpret this to mean that you think I am claiming there is an equal likehood of either of these "tail losing" scenarios arising. I'll answer this as best I can based on this interpretation.
Specifically, are you asking me (as I see it) if complexity would have decreased in either case, even though one scenario is a loss of information while the other is a net gain? Is this a correct assesment of what you were trying to ask me to address in the above quote?By my assesment of complexity, either route would be considered a decrease. Remember, I am basically claiming that the expression of the genes is what is measurable, not the genes themselves. How can we use genes to measure the complexity of organisms that are extinct and all we have are the "bones"? Plus, tail-loss is readily seen and measurable. How would we deal with other, more subtle changes in an organims complexity if we do not look at the phenotype instead of the genotype (especially if we do not know the loci of the involved genes)?
Let me see if an analogy would help. Let's say I draw up some plans for a way to open my front door without me having to get up out of my chair. I draw these plans with non-easable ink, so if I change my mind on what I want, I have no choice but to alter what I have already written. Ok, so I design this elaborate system of pullies and buttons and switches and alternate tracks that operate such that when I pull a string, a bowling ball is released from some resting point and rolls along these tracks I have built and activates these various swiches and and pullies and alternate routes and eventually it opens the front door by falling on a lever that turns the door knob and opens the door. I use this system for a while but grow tired of the time it takes to open the door so I add to the original plans an alternate route such that the bowling ball simple follows a straight path towards the door, falls onto the lever, which turns the knob and opens the door. I would conclude that despite a very detailed and complex set of original plans and the addition of a novel route, the final outcome would be a simple method of opening the door. Does this do anything to help explain my position? I fail to see why this question will immediately be raised? Why does the speed (rate) of change matter?

To answer my own question, I would suggest that in the case where code is destroyed the amount of information and complexity of the organism is lowered, while in the adding code case the amount of information is preserved and the overall complexity is even increased.I would like to hear the opinion of NosyNed about your type of complexity. Probably he does agree with none of us. If you decide to define complexity as the amount of different parts then you're taking the right decision in considering it both as a decrease. But I used this example to question your definition (and didn't expect that you wouldn't alter your definition). It's allowed... I think this is a false analogy. I do not want to express all lost information throughout the years within my definition of complexity. But certainly the new blue print you made is important too, not only the opening of the door itself, or the mechanism you're using. If the mechanism is self-constructive (using the blue print), wouldn't you consider the blue print a part of it? So, I don't talk about original plans, but about current plans! If you agree with me that there are to types of adaptions, normal adaptions (driven by selection) and complexity adding adaptions (due to this passive drive towards complexity) then it's maybe possible to calculate the speed of both. Until now I saw that the observed speed of mutations is much higher than should be expected looking to the fossil record. Maybe this is an explanation for evolutionists. (I'm not always your adversary, certainly not. I definitely believe in an absolute truth we're all trying to find. )