Biological complexity: homeostasis (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, October 19, 2018, 18:54 (2227 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David: An interdisciplinary team of researchers has discovered that the answers to these questions may lie in the ability of life to find a middle ground, balancing between robustness and adaptability.

"And these nodes include many of life's key building blocks -- genes and proteins that act as master switches controlling cell division, growth and death, and communication.

***

"'In a stable system, organisms will always come back to their original state," explains Daniels. "In an unstable system, the effect of a small change will grow and cause the whole system to behave differently."

"Through rigorous testing of the 67 networks, the team found that all of the networks shared a special property: They existed in between two extremes, neither too stable nor unstable.
As such, the team found that sensitivity, which is a measure of stability, was near a special point that biologists call "criticality," suggesting that the networks may be evolutionarily adapted to an optimal tradeoff between stability and instability.

Tony: I think this touches on one of those fundamental truths that is present among most world religions and philosophies. It is this idea of conflict between order and chaos. If there is too much order, things become stagnant, and then actually regress. If there is too much chaos, the organism can not cope and dies. So, the introduction of chaos in the form of'time and unforeseen circumstances' becomes critical to growth by presenting us with challenges to overcome by which we can grow. And here we see that all life is fine tuned to thrive at this edge, most likely oscillating like a wave between periods of chaos where we take on new information and have our foundations shaken, and order where life reaches new equilibrium.

Tony: However, I have been thinking about this a lot, and I think homeostasis is wrong. I think it is the wrong way to look at the problem, because it is by definition static, and I see no real evidence to support that if we look across the long reaches of time, integrating all that we know from a multitudes of sciences from biology to geology. There is definitely some form of forward progress, an epoch moving forward with some underlying current of intentionality. I do not find the concept of macro-evolution to be solid enough, either in terms of evidence or explanatory power, to couple biological life's unique interaction with its host planet to transform the planet from a molten, gaseous, barren planetoid into a rich, varied, habitable, thriving ecosystem. It is as if every single living thing that ever existed, whether it realized it or not, whether it intended to or not, contributed to the development of the world as a whole. Humanity differs in that we possess the ability to look into the future and delay our gratification in order to reach ever higher. Call it a sacrifice.

Homeostasis in biologic science simply means sustaining the current status of the organism. You are carrying the idea beyond its original meaning and I agree that the arrival of living organisms on the Earth transformed the planet while creating a balance of nature which is critical for living organisms to continue. And life's diversity must be present to maintain the balance.

Tony: I've been listening to a series of lectures by Jordan Peterson on a Psychological Significance of the Bible, which I highly recommend. I find it gratifying to see the physical and structural evidence of reality noted in these experiments matches with psychological and spiritual truths espoused in the texts. If something is true, or perhaps sound if the word true disturbs you, historically, scientifically, psychologically, spiritually, and philosophically, isn't that about as close as you can get to divine revelation?

Is there an on-line reference?

Tony: I mean, without putting too fine a point on it, this contrast between chaos and order, the constant required cycle of death and rebirth, sacrifice, stripping off the old personality in order to confront the chaos, then confronting it like a battle with a dragon followed by the return home to where you start the cycle over again by rectifying your previous model to incorporate and account for your new experiences. You can't escape the chaos. It's fundamental. Perhaps more importantly though is the question "If I could avoid the chaos, should I?"

Gleick's book,Chaos, 1987, points out how much order is really hidden in chaos. I have no disagreement with your points. What I see built-in into the history of the Earth is a drive to complexity and improvement of conditions, wich I think demonstrates God's work.