Darwin re-visited

[Pyrotex]

BINGO! (and a tip of the Pyro hat) to REASON and Michaelangelica.

 

Increasing complexity occurs. Yes. But in only a minority of life forms on Earth. The more complexity you see, the smaller the proportion of life. Extremely complex eco-systems as well as individual life forms are much rarer than the simpler.

 

And even given our complexity, WE are made up (as MA said) mostly of bacteria. Our cells are two kinds of bacteria that merged together in symbiosis. [Margulis] So are the cells of plants, but different kinds of bacteria.

 

External complexity is often unconnected to internal "bauplan" DNA complexity. There are worms with more genes by far than we have. Reminds me of the way that the Mandelbrot Set (the visual images) are far, far more complex than the equation that generates them.

 

So, is "striving for complexity" actually RULE #1 of Life here on Earth?

 

I would say NO. The vast majority of Life has survived quite well without (or with limited amounts of) complexity. I venture to say, that it is only those life forms that were in specificly "complexity-friendly" environments, with vast amounts of resources, with DNA that had evolved novel genes such that only 1 mutation was necessary for huge external changes,... [add more as we think of them]... only those life forms were in a "position" to become more complex successfully AND have that complexity add to their "fitness" for multiple eco-niches.

 

Like being in the right place at the right time with the right girl after seeing the right movie. You get lucky.

 

:)

[Thunderbird]

BINGO! (and a tip of the Pyro hat) to REASON and Michaelangelica.

 

Increasing complexity occurs. Yes. But in only a minority of life forms on Earth. The more complexity you see, the smaller the proportion of life. Extremely complex eco-systems as well as individual life forms are much rarer than the simpler.

 

 

 

So, is "striving for complexity" actually RULE #1 of Life here on Earth?I would say NO. The vast majority of Life has survived quite well without (or with limited amounts of) complexity. I venture to say, that it is only those life forms that were in specificly "complexity-friendly" environments, with vast amounts of resources, with DNA that had evolved novel genes such that only 1 mutation was necessary for huge external changes,... [add more as we think of them]... only those life forms were in a "position" to become more complex successfully AND have that complexity add to their "fitness" for multiple eco-niches.

 

Like being in the right place at the right time with the right girl after seeing the right movie. You get lucky.

 

 

 

:)

I do think life strives for complexity.

 

Its one of life's fundamental qualities is to reach out and connect, to transcend.

 

This tendency is inherent in life and leads to making connections and these connections lead to even more connections, with each connection the web of life becomes more and more complex. This is especially true for man. This above all things is how we became what we've become. Its our natural nature.

 

If we were just about survival we would still be livening hand to mouth in a hut. Instead we create, why because that is how we express being alive.

Science itself is this inherent nature of life personified.

 

Is science more complex that it was 25 years ago? Of course why. because that is the very nature of life.. to expand outwards to new frontiers.

 

Your description of life has no value to me what's so ever.. You measure life like a butcher measures out a portion....meat. This does not give life its due. You cannot equate a value to a fundamental principles of life by measuring it in gross tonnage ratio between bacteria and algae to dolphins and men, anymore than you can gage the importance of mankind's technological advances by measuring all the nuts ,bolts and screws to the ratio of space shuttles and lap tops.

[Michaelangelica]

Bugger someone has already thought of symbiosis (thanks for reference Pyrotex)

A departure from mainstream biology, the idea of symbiosis--as in the genetic and metabolic interactions of the bacterial communities that became the earliest eukaryotes and eventually evolved into plants and animals--has attracted the attention of a growing number of scientists.These original contributions by symbiosis biologists and evolutionary theorists address the adequacy of the prevailing neo-Darwinian concept of evolution in the light of growing evidence that hereditary symbiosis, supplemented by the gradual accumulation of heritable mutation, results in the origin of new species and morphological novelty. They include reports of current research on the evolutionary consequences of symbiosis, the protracted physical association between organisms of different species. Among the issues considered are individuality and evolution, microbial symbioses, animal*bacterial symbioses, and the importance of symbiosis in cell evolution, ecology, and morphogenesis.Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor of Botany at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, is the modern originator of the symbiotic theory of cell evolution. Once considered heresy, her ideas are now part of the microbiological revolution. Rene Fester is a graduate student in the biological sciences at Northern Arizona University

Symbiosis As a Source of ... - Google Book Search

 

Wiki says

Theory of symbiotic relationships driving evolution

 

She later formulated a theory to explain how symbiotic relationships between organisms of often different phyla or kingdoms are the driving force of evolution. Genetic variation is proposed to occur mainly as a result of transfer of nuclear information between bacterial cells or viruses and eukaryotic cells. While her organelle genesis ideas are widely accepted, symbiotic relationships as a current method of introducing genetic variation is something of a fringe idea. However, examination of the results from the Human Genome Project lends some credence to an endosymbiotic theory of evolution—or at the very least Margulis's endosymbiotic theory is the catalyst for current ideas about the composition of the human genome.

Significant portions of the human genome are either bacterial or viral in origin—some clearly ancient insertions, while others are more recent in origin. This strongly supports the idea of symbiotic—and more likely parasitic—relationships being a driving force for genetic change in humans, and likely all organisms. It should be noted that while the endosymbiotic theory has historically been juxtaposed with Neo-Darwinism, the two theories are not incompatible and the truth is likelier to be that natural selection works on many levels (genetic up to the ecosystem) and variation is introduced both at the genetic and the cellular level.

This is interesting heresy too

She does, however, hold a negative view of certain intrepretations of Neo-Darwinism, excessively focused on inter-organismic competition, as she believes that history will ultimately judge them as comprising "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."[6]

 

She also believes that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk."[7]

 

She opposes to such competition-centric views of evolution, stressing the importance of symbiotic or cooperative relationships between species.

Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Pyrotex]

I do think life strives for complexity. Its one of life's fundamental qualities is to reach out and connect, to transcend. ...Your description of life has no value to me what's so ever. You measure life like a butcher measures out a portion....meat....

You seem to be anthropomorphizing "life". If "life" (not a particular organism, or all organisms, but "Life Itself") can "strive" and "reach out" and "connect" and "transcend" or even just "choose" to evolve in the direction of complexity -- then "Life Itself" must have senses, must gather information over time, must analyze, judge and select.

 

So where are "Life Itself's" senses?

Where are "Life Itself's" analytical organs?

How does "Life Itself" select or choose the path of evolution for a particular organism, say, a worm or a beetle?

 

Now, in a poetic, metaphorical sense, the image of "Life strives for complexity" is indeed a pretty picture. But it's an unnecessary picture. Because a worm or a beetle does not NEED some inexplicable "Life Itself" choosing its evolution path for it. The worm and the beetle WILL evolve. Given that they live in environments that are complex, and supportive of complexity, they will probably become more complex over time.

 

But they can do this by themselves without "guidance" or "transcendence". That's the beauty of Life. :hihi:

[Pyrotex]

Did y'all know that Lynn Margulis was married to Carl Sagan?

S'truth!

[Thunderbird]

Did y'all know that Lynn Margulis was married to Carl Sagan?

S'truth!

What! Are you ****** me! :hihi:

[Pyrotex]

What! Are you ****** me! :hihi:

No.

Carl Sagan was ******* Lynn Margulis. ;)

[REASON]

No.

Carl Sagan was ******* Lynn Margulis. :hihi:

 

Yeah, and they had two sons together, Dorian and Jeremy, both in their upper 40's.

[Thunderbird]

No.

Carl Sagan was ******* Lynn Margulis. ;)

 

Any children? :hihi:

[Thunderbird]

Yeah, and they had two sons together, Dorian and Jeremy, both in their upper 40's.

 

Learning new stuff every day.:hihi: Are they scientist?

[REASON]

Learning new stuff every day.:hihi: Are they scientist?

 

Dorian is a science writer, and Jeremy is a computer programmer.

[Pyrotex]

Dorian is a science writer, and Jeremy is a computer programmer.

 

We're hoping that Dorian and Jeremy will perform a symbiotic merger soon, and evolve the next (more complex, of course) level of Human.

[Thunderbird]

Dorian is a science writer, and Jeremy is a computer programmer.

 

Dorian writes about Non-equilibrium thermodynamics,:hihi: this is a perfect fusion of his parents cross disciplinary fields of study. Evolution personified.

[Michaelangelica]

You seem to be anthropomorphizing "life". If "life" (not a particular organism, or all organisms, but "Life Itself") can "strive" and "reach out" and "connect" and "transcend" or even just "choose" to evolve in the direction of complexity -- then "Life Itself" must have senses, must gather information over time, must analyze, judge and select.

yes

the interesting thing is that choice seems to happen, anthropomorphizing or not. Some choice is made at a cellular or maybe even quantum level.

From a previous post

Some work by a gentleman called Cairns published an article in science in 1988 saying that cells could CHOOSE the Gene it needed.

 

. . .

They suggest that evolution seems to hop and jump, rather than crawl

So how does this happen?

When does it happen?

Why does it happen?

and

How many 'choices' are there?

and

who or what decides?

 

So where are "Life Itself's" senses?

Where are "Life Itself's" analytical organs?

How does "Life Itself" select or choose the path of evolution for a particular organism, say, a worm or a beetle?

 

P.S.

Why does evolution itself choose evolution to search for solutions? ...

(a bit more anthropomorphising ?)

http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~fstentif/evolution.pdf

[Pyrotex]

...the interesting thing is that choice seems to happen, anthropomorphizing or not. Some choice is made at a cellular or maybe even quantum level ...

Yes. For exactly, precisely the same reason that a pair of thrown dice may "choose" to come up 7 instead of 8. The "choice" is actually trillions of "choices" (reactions) made at the atomic level. But there is no overarching intelligence involved. There is no "chooser" on the outside (with an agenda or goal) affecting the "choice" on the inside.

 

PS: I loved the link to the article on Evolution. Good one.

[Thunderbird]

Yes. For exactly, precisely the same reason that a pair of thrown dice may "choose" to come up 7 instead of 8. The "choice" is actually trillions of "choices" (reactions) made at the atomic level. But there is no overarching intelligence involved. There is no "chooser" on the outside (with an agenda or goal) affecting the "choice" on the inside.

 

PS: I loved the link to the article on Evolution. Good one.

 

 

 

Then life is only a product of random chance ? A series of accidents, from stardust to starfish with no pre-existing principals. That's it..... nothing else to consider scientifically ?

[REASON]

Then life is only a product of random chance ? A series of accidents, from stardust to starfish with no pre-existing principals.

 

Why not? You sound disappointed. Is it not a truly incredible prospect to consider? What are you suggesting would have established any pre-existing principles?

 

 

That's it..... nothing else to consider scientifically ?

 

Well I believe there is still much to learn and understand as to how it has all come about, scientifically.

 

What an amazing thing to discover, don't you think?