Does the influence of a higher level on another (boundary crossing) have
an effect on complexity?
Ex. human influence on apple species, which may have proliferated under
millennia of social-biological interaction, to become standardized
(species lost, disvalued) by an intellectual/social interaction (modern
marketing)?
I can think of other examples. Is it consistent enough to be a
'marker' or artifact of the effects of the evolutionary levels
interacting?
maggie
On Saturday, August 17, 2002, at 01:21 PM, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> 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
>
>
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