(May 31, 2014 at 10:01 am)vodkafan Wrote: If there is no drive towards complexity why are we not still one celled organisms? They are extrordinarily successful. Things don't change unless they have to. Why did we not stop at being insects? They are all over the planet and incredibly adaptable. It's quite incredible really that we have evolved arms and legs and brains to be able to manipulate our environment. I am not a creationist but it does look like evolution has an objective. I believe it is a question worth answering.

It might appear that things are growing more complex, but that's just depending on where you're looking. On a wide enough timescale, that's not necessarily true; whales evolved from land animals that are regaining old traits their ancestors had as aquatic beings, organisms shed functions and structures all the time... hell, even humans are losing bits; did you know our little toes are shrinking generation by generation, and may one day go entirely? Same with wisdom teeth and appendixes. To characterize the variation of life as a march toward complexity is to simply ignore large swathes of what's actually going on.

As to why things evolve to be more complex, that's simple; survival advantage. Being multicellular at least conferred an advantage at some point, and that is why. It's a lengthy subject to talk about, but that's the basic gist.

(May 31, 2014 at 10:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: .......................that right there is probably the root of your confusion. Things change regardless. There is no "have to" - things aren't even "responding" to challenges in the way that human beings conceptualize the terms. This stuff is just happening.

Hi Rhythm
You may well be right, but accepting "shit happens" isn't a very scientific answer. I want to know WHY it happens.

I think there is a basic "have to" about Life. Life always tries to survive, first and foremost. Our most important job, even as more developed biological systems is to pass on our genetic material before we die. (that's the Meaning Of Life right there) You may be right that it does not "respond" to challenges (ie changes in environment) but it does take advantage of changes, to fill every niche, exploit every possible avenue. But it could easily do that without becoming more complex. The more complex a system is , the less adaptable to changes the actual individual organism is. For instance the same bactrium might survive in water or out of it, at high altitude or low altitude, in a volcano or in the arctic. Put a mammal out of his narrow comfort zone and it is dead in a couple of minutes. Do you see what I am getting at? There must be some huge trade off that is advantageous., or evolution would not work that way. What is driving evolution to develop in the direction of more complexity ?

---

(May 31, 2014 at 10:12 am)Esquilax Wrote: As to why things evolve to be more complex, that's simple; survival advantage. Being multicellular at least conferred an advantage at some point, and that is why. It's a lengthy subject to talk about, but that's the basic gist.

Survival advantage. Yep but I don't see one example of something becoming less complex ; Can you agree with that? That means there is a question to answer as to why the direction is only going one way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q71DWYJD-dI

(May 31, 2014 at 10:23 am)vodkafan Wrote: You may well be right, but accepting "shit happens" isn't a very scientific answer. I want to know WHY it happens.

Why do we change? Mutation.

Quote:What is driving evolution to develop in the direction of more complexity ?

Nothing, as you mentioned..there are plenty of "simple" things around - relative to us for example. Many more of them by number and mass than there are of us. Complexity is just -one avenue-. Simplicity still gets it's due - even amongst the "complex" (where's your tail?).

(May 31, 2014 at 10:01 am)vodkafan Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 9:40 am)Chas Wrote: The conditions then were radically different than the conditions now.
For instance, there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere or dissolved in the oceans.
The conditions now are not suited to abiogenesis - organic molecules that form will get consumed or broken down.

There is no drive toward complexity per se.
If you start with single-celled organisms, where is there to go except more complex?
Many organisms are very simple and have been so for billions of years.

Hi thanks you got what I meant. Yes I have heard and considered that argument. But haven't scientists duplicated the conditions and made "primordial soup" and flashed lightning at it and it just hasn't happened? It's an area of research I am very interested in. Why can't we make new life? It should be easy

Why should it be easy? It should, in fact, not be easy.
If it were easy, life would have started many times, possibly in many ways with different chemistries. But it doesn't look like it did.

We have tried to reconstruct the conditions and we have been doing those experiments in a few bottles for a few decades. Nature had the whole earth for millions of years.

Quote:If there is no drive towards complexity why are we not still one celled organisms? They are extrordinarily successful. Things don't change unless they have to. Why did we not stop at being insects? They are all over the planet and incredibly adaptable. It's quite incredible really that we have evolved arms and legs and brains to be able to manipulate our environment. I am not a creationist but it does look like evolution has an objective. I believe it is a question worth answering.

Like I said - if you start with one cell there's nowhere to go but more complex.

There is no evidence of purpose, direction, goals, or foresight in evolution.
In fact, the evidence indicates that evolution is blind and purposeless.


You should read about evolution. I suggest:

The Blind Watchmaker, R. Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable, R. Dawkins
River Out Of Eden, R. Dawkins
The Greatest Show on Earth, R. Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale, R. Dawkins

(May 31, 2014 at 10:32 am)Chas Wrote: Why should it be easy? It should, in fact, not be easy.
If it were easy, life would have started many times, possibly in many ways with different chemistries. But it doesn't look like it did.

We have tried to reconstruct the conditions and we have been doing those experiments in a few bottles for a few decades. Nature had the whole earth for millions of years.

Yes Chas that's a good point. Let's hope we do succeed. On the other hand I was reading an article the other day that said it had to have happened pretty quickly. Chemical reactions do happen quick. Maybe we just haven't got the soup mix right yet.

I get what you are saying about single cells and the only way is up to more cells. But I want to play devil's advocate and keep asking why. We could have just mutated to a different single celled organism instead.

(May 31, 2014 at 10:23 am)vodkafan Wrote: Survival advantage. Yep but I don't see one example of something becoming less complex ; Can you agree with that? That means there is a question to answer as to why the direction is only going one way.

No. No I don't agree with that. Mostly because I provided two examples of things becoming less complex off the top of my head in the paragraph preceding the line you quoted.

(May 31, 2014 at 10:32 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why do we change? Mutation.

Nothing, as you mentioned..there are plenty of "simple" things around - relative to us for example. Many more of them by number and mass than there are of us. Complexity is just -one avenue-. Simplicity still gets it's due - even amongst the "complex" (where's your tail?).

Yep, there are still simple things around. And complexity is just one avenue , that's a good answer and I am sure that is part of it. But I don't see anything going the other way, become less complex, and I want to know why. Me losing my tail doesn't count, or a proto-dog taking back to the water and eventually ending up as a seal- those are adaptations - they are not less complex. The drive is still upwards to more complexity.
Thanks for all the feedback

---

@downbeatplumb, good video thanks. One single cell swallowed another. Interesting .

(May 31, 2014 at 11:03 am)vodkafan Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 10:32 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why do we change? Mutation.

Nothing, as you mentioned..there are plenty of "simple" things around - relative to us for example. Many more of them by number and mass than there are of us. Complexity is just -one avenue-. Simplicity still gets it's due - even amongst the "complex" (where's your tail?).

Yep, there are still simple things around. And complexity is just one avenue , that's a good answer and I am sure that is part of it. But I don't see anything going the other way, become less complex, and I want to know why. Me losing my tail doesn't count, or a proto-dog taking back to the water and eventually ending up as a seal- those are adaptations - they are not less complex. The drive is still upwards to more complexity.
Thanks for all the feedback

---

@downbeatplumb, good video thanks. One single cell swallowed another. Interesting .

Nope, no drive. There is no evidence of a 'drive'. Advantageous changes simply accumulate.

(May 31, 2014 at 11:03 am)vodkafan Wrote: Yep, there are still simple things around. And complexity is just one avenue , that's a good answer and I am sure that is part of it. But I don't see anything going the other way, become less complex, and I want to know why. Me losing my tail doesn't count, or a proto-dog taking back to the water and eventually ending up as a seal- those are adaptations - they are not less complex. The drive is still upwards to more complexity.
Thanks for all the feedback

Would you consider losing eyesight 'upwards to more complexity'?

Quote:Evolution sometimes leads to progress, but it sometimes leads in the opposite direction. For instance, the Texas blind salamander has lost his eyes after many generations of evolution due to the uselessness of eyes in the dark caves where he dwells.

http://sciencequestionswithchris.wordpre...d-species/