Why does evolution seem to produce complexity?

Re: Why does evolution seem to produce complexity?

rosborne979 wrote:

So why is it that replicative molecules which must have started out small, evolved into larger replicative molecules with many more pieces and variations?

There is more reproduction than variation, and there is more variation than selection.

It seems only natural that the end result would be diversity.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

anybody invite sir drinksalot?

That's exactly the sort of thing the spokespersons for the investment trusts said about the few warning voices in 1928 and 9. "Obsolete" being the mildest.

It's a business now fm. I do not believe you are in it for anything other than personal gain of somesort. Or hope of it.

It started out as science of the sort "hey lookie here- what shall we call that?" type of science but it's a business now. Huxley started it going. A new Luther with evidence against the High Table rollers who had blackballed him for coarse manners.

And that prospectin' in them thar hills will lead to us burning up whatever you find as fast as you can find it. You're a sort of human drill-head.

And if you keep finding interesting fossils won't we have to pay for buildings and their accoutrements in which to house them and exhibit the ones that "save the theory".

You really should have chosen the cloisters. You would be good at Gregorian chanting I can tell. I once imitated the Pope blessing the Easter gathering over a pint of John Smith's Extra Smooth in the pub--speaking of which....

0 Replies

You must admit fm that JK had a quite delightful way of expressing himself.

It would be thrummy to deny that.

0 Replies

So, some similarities pop up in this commentary on Lisi.

I'm out of it, I was poor in beginning physics, much less what is going on now.

Arf, it's only in abstract.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_wallacewells

0 Replies

osso quoted-

Quote:

Lisi feels that his isolation from the academic world gives him advantages over his contemporaries who need to publish regularly for the sake of career advancement.

A euphemism for cold cash and other goodies.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

ros
Quote:
A flipper is simpler in that it has fewer bones, but it also has hydrodynamic qualities/shapes that are extremely well adapted to the environment
EXACATIKALLY!! Mods that run to the simpler (substitute evolutionarily economic) are derived by successive trials and errors (and the errors are recorded in the fossil record

So you see the flipper as being more complex, not less complex. Did I misread your previous quote? Or am I misunderstanding this one?

But we're getting off track...

Do you think that evolution proceeds toward the direction of complexity?

0 Replies

I would think that both would occur; more or less complexity depending on the change in environment.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I would think that both would occur; more or less complexity depending on the change in environment.

But the Earth started of biologically simple, and now it's biologically complex... how do you explain that if there is no directionality?

0 Replies

There is general complexiality (word?) into our system when viewed from when the earth started, but at this point of maturity, there are biological systems that do not require more complexity based on the environment, but may over time have become more simple.

0 Replies

ros, In my opinion, evolution goes neither to more orless complexity> Complexity is just a term we use(and we shoe up our beliefs in teh Victorian "Upward and onward". Evolution results in morphology that is most economical for theINDIVIDUAL and , by being succesful as the individuals numbers increase, also for the population.

I said before that we infwer complexity because most workers look for it since they are dealing with a model that connects with present species. AWS statistical methods take over , we can analyze terrabytes worth of differences among species and then possibly develop stronger correlations among parent species and derived species.

As ci said, both ends are happening, but we dont spend mch time looking at the cases of lost complexity because it usually ends with that species and opportunities for important finds may be limited :wink:

The study of fossil genes is relatively new and there are piles of new grad students . PErhaps we will see some clever "devolutional mechanisms" in the near future.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

ros, In my opinion, evolution goes neither to more orless complexity> Complexity is just a term we use(and we shoe up our beliefs in teh Victorian "Upward and onward". Evolution results in morphology that is most economical for theINDIVIDUAL and , by being succesful as the individuals numbers increase, also for the population.

Suppose we move beyond the Victorian dogmas of upward is better, or even that more complex is better, and just say that more complex is more complex. And we forget about better or worse in any moral sense.

What if I were to ask "why did early replicative molecules increase in size over time"? That way we're not talking about complexity and we're not passing any judgements on what's better or not. All we're doing is asking why replicative molecules got bigger.

0 Replies

If you read CArroll, I think the answer he states is that a molecule (such as the xNA's) are able to add links like a bunch of sausages with little riders in between each link. Since we have no idea about the specific route that evo took to get to xNA's, but we do know of ribonuclease and protein peptide bonding had occured as seen in ocean sediments and in tar deposits and oils of the Vendean and the later Ordovician. I assume that someones gonna write a decent hypothesis of the "small steps" that actually occured.

If you are only pointing to molecular biology, I must remind you that evolution is not BECAUSE of little molecules, its evolution first , then bookeeping, IMHO. ANYWAY, DNA is not any more complex today because it is just a longer cycle of nucleotides , and RNA is the same , except for uracil.

In sedimentology, we often do rock breakdown studies in sed 101 . We immerse pieces of first order rocks into water and watch the PH and Eh and read the changes and reconstruction of crystals by hydrolisis and surface reactions.
We have whats been called a "rock cycle" (although thats a kind of misnomer in reality). Rocks do, when immersed, dessicated, heated, ground etc, reformulate themselves at the molecular and atomic levels and what may have originally been a simple sulfide in a fedspar and silica mix becomes a complex colloidal mix of a number of chemicals that essentially form the same types of molecules over and over again.

0 Replies

I'm trying to understand your answer FM. I asked:

rosborne979 wrote:

"why did early replicative molecules increase in size over time"?

And you answered:

farmerman wrote:

If you read CArroll, I think the answer he states is that a molecule (such as the xNA's) are able to add links like a bunch of sausages with little riders in between each link.

I'm having trouble understanding that answer. You seem to be answering "how" not "why".

0 Replies

Nobody knows "why" ros.

How can you expect fm to know "why" when everybody knows that nobody knows "why" ? Even babies in push-carts know that they don't know why. If they knew why do you think you would see them fast asleep when their mums are taking them to see the Tall Ships exhibition.

His "how" is a bit speculative as well. What's the inside message of "links like a bunch of sausages with little riders in between each link."

Is it a code?

0 Replies

well, spendi seems to be right. good grief Latiffe. Good Golly miss Molly. We can conjure reasons that provide correlations to atmospherics, or gas content, even complex tectonism. However, nobody seems to be holding on to a decent "why". Perhaps RL may know that answer.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

We can conjure reasons that provide correlations to atmospherics, or gas content, even complex tectonism. However, nobody seems to be holding on to a decent "why".

Feel free to speculate within the realm of natural causes and probability.

For instance, is it possible (or probable) that there is a reproductive advantage to molecules with more parts? If so, what natural effect might cause this?

0 Replies

I'm not even close to farmerman's league on this subject, but I'd like to venture a wild guess. The answer is yes, because the more molecules anything has, it has a greater chance at finding the correct molecule for survival. On the other hand, less molecule means less ability to survive - for example a single molecule. After it dies, it's all gone.

0 Replies

Ill check into Zubbay's work (2002) and get back > I have some project things that need attending first, Ill see what I can find later this week.

Till then, all I can add is the progression of life parallels the envionment, so Id think that the first issue that a living state had to solve was a cell wall and respiration, then , since its not as critical (in the larger scheme of things), would follow up reproduction/

The eubacteria we have from the Apex chert(3.6 B y) are about the first fossil vidence of colonial celle walled prokaryotic life. The chemicals within are fossilized phospho-salts like (Apatite-a familiar "fertlizer compound"that is found in vast deposits of evaporite salts). This indicates a reducing environment and is similar to the remnants of the fossil chemicals of the Isua formation of 3.8 B. y. SO we have chemical evidence of life in 3.8 By deposits and actual chain like prokaryotes in3.5 By deposits. The interesting thing about APex life is that thy are filamentous and arent stymied by some growth limitation. ie they can apparently just keep budding new filaments. Does this give us evidence of the imprative to "apparent bigness"? I dont know, Im not so well versed in that archane area Im just a rocknockerwhos not trying to wander outside his comfort zone(expertise in one area doesnt confer andything in others). Thats where Zubbay comes in. SO Ill try to get back with something other than speculation.

Im more inclined to reword your initial question into, what is the evidence of the progression of life from its inception.

1 Reply

Quote:

Dry Bones
Written By: Unknown, Copyright Unknown

Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
"Oh, hear the word of the Lord."

The foot bone connected to the leg bone,
The leg bone connected to the knee bone,
The knee bone connected to the thigh bone,
The thigh bone connected to the back bone,
The back bone connected to the neck bone,
The neck bone connected to the head bone,
Oh, hear the word of the Lord!

Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk aroun'
Dem bones, dem bones, gonna walk aroun'
Dem bones, dem bones, gonna walk aroun'
Oh, hear the word of the Lord.

The head bone connected to the neck bone,
The neck bone connected to the back bone,
The back bone connected to the thigh bone,
The thigh bone connected to the knee bone,
The knee bone connected to the leg bone,
The leg bone connected to the foot bone,
Oh, hear the word of the Lord!

You can't write songs with names of molecules c.i.

0 Replies

you claim to be a chemist spendi, yet youve never heard the "Carbonyl sulfide rag?"

0 Replies

Why does evolution seem to produce complexity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know