Patrick (and Lawry),
PATRICK:
That much is clear: Evolution seems to be toward
greater complexity. Probably some of you here have argued the same thing
(or against it!), but the question naturally arises: Is evolution to
increasing complexity 'good'; does it signify progress? I find it a very
difficult question to answer, but also a rather fundamental question,
because Nature DOES seem to make things more complex in its evolution.
What's the purpose ;-) of that?
Suggestions, anyone?
ROGER:
It would not be correct to state that evolutionary paths show a *strong*
tendency toward enhanced complexity. (I added the additional word for
clarity -- I will circle back to your wording below) To illustrate, let's
consider the various lineages of species and how they have evolved over the
last 3.8 billion years or so. Biologists estimate that between 99% and
99.9% of all species lineages have led to extinction. In addition, it took
over 3 billion years for any lineages to discover multicellularity, and even
here only a handful of species managed to cross the threshold (they later
expanded out into plants, animals and fungi. Furthermore, many of the
lineages of distant eras are still out there today in forms extremely similar
(in complexity) to their ancestors millions, hundreds of millions or even
billions of years ago.
In other words, most lineages did not increase in complexity, and if we had
to assign a predominant species direction in evolution it would probably be
toward extinction. However, there is no doubt that evolution has led to
greater complexity in some lineages. It also has led to greater versatility
and even greater evolvability in some cases. In addition, we can identify
some patterns where certain lineages seem to be "attracted" to complexity.
Some species can get in a feedback loop that tends to increase in complexity
(arms races and what I call evolutionary "K paths"). It would also probably
be true to say that the total complexity of all species tends to increase
over time -- the ecosystem does tend to increase in complexity even if
individual species don't.
So, I would argue that evolution can and does lead to complexity. I would
not argue that it TENDS to lead to complexity on a species level, but it CAN
tend to lead to this in SOME rare cases or circumstances. I would argue
though that it does tend to lead to complexity on an ecosystem level as the
number and variety of species and the nitches expand over time. Does the
distinction make sense though?
As for the question of whether complexity is good or equates to progress, I
would say that the answer is a qualified yes for the following reasons:
1) Complexity relates to the variety of functions, responses, behaviors and
thus experiences that an organism can, well.... experience. In a metaphysics
with no firm distinctions between value and experience, greater range of
experience is almost synonymous with increased quality. It is also strongly
related to increased knowledge.
2) Enhanced adaptability and responsiveness leads to enhanced sustainability
(or at least to relatively consistent sustainability in an increasingly
complex world). Again, if experience is value, then life is better than
death.
3) Finally, one key complex experience or adaptation is that of establishing
goals and purposes. Complex animals have developed this quality. Purpose is
therefore not the cause of evolution, it is an emergent complex quality
arising out of evolution.
Nature does seem to have the capacity to increase in complexity and to
progress toward new qualities. Evolution may not tend to lead to complexity
or progress, but it certainly has found them just the same.
But I could be wrong!
Roger
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST