Biological complexity: protozoa sans mitochondria (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, May 28, 2016, 11:43 (3102 days ago) @ David Turell

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.-DAVID: 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:-Please believe me when I say I know that environmental change can also be a threat, and I know there have been extinctions. My point was that environmental changes can also be a spur for improvement!-DAVID: 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-‘Survival' could be a spur for innovation if, for example, the pre-whale finds food is scarce on land, and decides to hunt in the water. That is when the mechanism might set to work making the necessary changes - in contrast to your shotgun complexifications through which the pre-whale suddenly by sheer chance finds itself able to live in the sea or God steps in to do a dabble, and then a few more dabbles to take the pre-whale through its different phases (as if he couldn't have done it all in one go) - presumably in order to balance Nature so that humans can be produced and have food. How does the mechanism work? Nobody knows. That's why we have all these hypotheses, like your divine 3.8-billion-year programme for every single innovation and natural wonder. Has anyone found the programme yet? Has anyone seen God dabble?
 
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.
DAVID: 'Wanting' is very anthropomorphic, isn't it? 
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.
DAVID: 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'.-They know fear, try to survive, cling to life, but they don't want to live? This is simply quibbling over language. Mickey Monkey wants Minnie Monkey's banana, so tries to grab it. Find me another word for ‘want' to describe Mickey's motivation. -DAVID: Complexity explains the bush better than any other approach I know.-Well, I must say I prefer it to your 3.8-billion-year plan plus occasional dabbling. An autonomous inventive mechanism explains the bush better than any other approach I know, but if you prefer to call it an autonomous complexification mechanism, that's fine with me. We'll just stick to our different views on the methods of and motivation for the autonomous mechanism.