Sci Am\'s Complexity with Darwinism (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 22:03 (4671 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Lots of fluff. Just quote another scientist's fluffy conjecture and the appearance of eyes must be easy. Cambrian eyes have no precursors, so how is step-wise possible 1% at a time, as the article proposes:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/01/16/evolution-the-rise-of-comp...

I agree that “simplicity” is a common cop-out, as is the theory that rudimentary new organs can create themselves through chance mutations and perfect themselves by tiny (1%) increments. But there is more to this article than fluff. I was particularly struck by the following section:

“Each and every one of our cells is a testament to the simplest way that complexity can arise: have one simple thing combine with a different one. The powerhouses of our cells, called mitochondria, are complex organelles that are thought to have arisen in a very simple way. Some time around 3 billion years ago, certain bacteria had figured out how to create energy using electrons from oxygen, thus becoming aerobic. Our ancient ancestors thought this was quite a neat trick, and, as single cells tend to do, they ate these much smaller energy-producing bacteria. But instead of digesting their meal, our ancestors allowed the bacteria to live inside them as an endosymbiont, and so the deal was struck: our ancestor provides the fuel for the chemical reactions that the bacteria perform, and the bacteria, in turn, produces ATP for both of them. Even today we can see evidence of this early agreement – mitochondria, unlike other organelles, have their own DNA, reproduce independently of the cell’s reproduction, and are enclosed in a double membrane (the bacterium’s original membrane and the membrane capsule used by our ancestor to engulf it). Over time the mitochondria lost other parts of their biology they didn’t need, like the ability to move around, blending into their new home as if they never lived on their own. The end result of all of this, of course, was a much more complex cell, with specialized intracellular compartments devoted to different functions: what we now refer to as a eukaryote.”

I’m in no position to judge the accuracy of the science, but if all this is true, it again raises the question of innate creative intelligence within so-called simpler forms of life, which are able to “figure out” how best to exploit prevailing conditions and to combine with other forms in order to maximize efficiency. How such “intelligence” got there in the first place is a mystery (chance v. design), but once we accept the ability of cells to form efficient combinations, and we accept ability to cope with the environment as the ultimate factor in survival (= natural selection), we surely have the basic mechanism for evolution. “Specialized intracellular compartments devoted to different functions” seems to me a good description of every brain and every body – all having developed from “intelligent” cooperation between cells. At the risk of being a bore, let me yet again repeat Lynn Margulis’s insight that evolution owes just as much to cooperation as it does to competition. I certainly agree with you (yet again) that gradualism doesn't seem feasible, and random mutations seem far less convincing to me than combinatory adaptations and innovations in response to environmental change. This doesn't alter the evolutionary framework of common descent and natural selection according to environmental suitability. So are we heading towards a neo-neo-Darwinism?