Biological complexity: protozoa sans mitochondria (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, May 27, 2016, 18:52 (3102 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: We have long since agreed that gradualism (tiny steps) is out. My approach is not “seeking improvement for survival”. Survival may be one spur for innovation (the giraffe and the whale), but I keep stressing that changes in the environment may not be a threat - they may also allow for new opportunities/improvements.-You are quite correct, but partially. Of course environment can become friendly and allow for advances, such as more oxygen, but it also can wipe out 90% of all species as in the Permian extinction with volcanic activity and more:-https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiNxv7E5frMAhUD72MKHaI8CTAQFggsMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPermian%25E2%2580%2593Triassic_extinction_event&usg=AFQjCNGxphhHZs2s8fZw6HFEOvb-XvCk-A&bvm=bv.122676328,d.cGc-Please explain how 'survival' is a spur for innovation. How do animals turn on their genome for invent survival mechanisms? There is no known mechanism, only epigenetic adaptations have been found, and phenotypical changes are saltational through an unknown process and are giant leaps in functionality.
> 
> dhw: If your dcm is autonomous, it is exactly the same as mine, except that you give it a different motivation: it wants to be more complex for the sake of complexity, whereas mine becomes more complex because it wants to survive and/or improve.-Anthropomorphic 'wanting', a mental illusion, doesn't work in my view. A built-in drive to complexity doesn't require any mental wanting. And it explains the weird branches of the bush. If unimpeded it can create all sorts of strange variations. See the further discussion below: -> DAVID: 'Wanting' is very anthropomorphic, isn't it? Complexity, if it works, is always improvement. Of course, what we see in the fossil record are the improved forms. We don't see the failures, only the comings and goings of successful species through the ages due to extinctions, which it has been shown are usually just bad luck with the environment.
> 
> dhw: Why is ‘wanting' anthropomorphic? Other organisms don't speak English, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the experience of survival, danger, hunger, pain - or even improvement.-Come on, talk with an ape and ask him what improvement is. Of course they know fear, etc., and try to actively survive. All animals cling to life. But they don't 'want'.-> dhw: I would reverse your next statement: improvement is (almost) always complexity. As for failures, either organisms cannot adapt to new environments (bad luck) or they fail in their quest for improvement (a fish explores the land, and goes too far from the water). But you would say they fail in their attempts to become more complex for no reason other than to become more complex.-Yes, but I've covered this. Complexity explains the bush better than any other approach I know.