From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Further Clarification
Organization: Biology, Indiana University - Bloomington
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:32:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.174944.15397@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>To define progress is hard, but I think most people have a 
>reasonable intuitive understanding of what progress is

Well, this is very nice.  Write 108 lines attempting to prove something,
but don't define it.  Alright, I'll define it for you.  Progress is
the inherent tendency of a system to change in a specific direction
along some gradient.  As a preview, Onar wishes to imply that evolution
inherently proceeds toward increased complexity.  I maintain that
this is merely an artifact of the starting point in the system, not some
inherent directional trend. (Come on, Onar, you should get this:  it's
sensitive dependence on initial conditions).

[deletions]
>If we define mathematical complexity of a topic to be the number of less 
>complex topics upon which it is based, 

Doesn't this strike you as a little circular?  

>we see an obvious relation between the time of
>discovery and the complexity = the older the topic, the less complex.

Oh, this is rich!  First, Onar defines complexity in such a way that,
to be complex, a topic _has_ to be built on other topics (i.e. it has
to be a "newer" topic).  Then, he implies that he's shown us
something when he tells us that older topics are less complex.

>mathematics often branch off into topics of equal
>complexity. This means that some branches may progress faster than others
>depending on the application of the topic. Thus the best way to represent the
>developement of mathematics is by a tree like in organic evolution. 

Ahhh...since math can be represented by a tree similar to that of
organic evolution (at least, similar to that which Onar assumes to be
of organic evolution), it must provide a good analogy.

[additional analogy, in which Onar states that people who want to
succeed in industry will branch off into new technological fields 
rather than older, more established ones, deleted]

>As I think most of you already have guessed this was yet another analogy for
>evolution itself. There is a selective preassure on increased 
>complexity. Since a specie meets less competition on a higher 
>level of complexity, it obviously has greater chances for success.

Note that the selection here is not on increased complexity per se, but
on _novelty_; a species (and yes, Onar, the singular _is_ "species")
succeeds at a level of higher complexity because it "meets less
competition" there, not simply because it's more complex.

This is, as I stated at the beginning, merely an artifact of the
fact that the first organisms were less complex, therefore the only
way to achieve novelty was by increasing complexity.  Chris Colby
and I explored the opposite pattern with our "Palmworld" thread back
in July:  what would happen if the first organisms in a biosphere
were _complex_, rather than "simple?"  The answer is obvious:  
simplicity would evolve, because it would be novel.

Does the fact that any realistic imaginable biota has to begin at low
levels of complexity make an increase in complexity any more inherent
in the process of evolution itself?  Of course not.  It merely makes
the expected patterns of outcome similar.

[deletions]
>If you take a look at the tree
>
>         \/ | || |\/
>          \ \/ \/ /  
>           \|/ \|/
>            \| |/ 
>             \ / 
>              |
>
>You see that it narrows in at its origin.

This is assuming that this is the "true" tree.  As someone else suggested,
read Gould's _Wonderful Life_, and learn.

> I therefore suspect that there fewer
>possible solutions the closer the origin you get. 

You only have one data point (one tree), Onar.  You can't draw such
far-reaching inferences from one datum.

>We are about to become pieces in a larger machinery, like cells. Mankind
>is about to become its own entity, its own individual. Other such 
>entities exists already. Antsnests and behives act almost like 
>individuals. Thinking individuals...

Since you're also reading Gould, perhaps you should read some E.O.
Wilson while you're at it.  Insect societies (and all eusocial
systems) evolve from a very predictable set of preexisting
circumstances, which we do not fit.

>This might sound slightly philosophical, but it's only biology.

Actually, it's pure speculation, very little actual biology included.

>Comments are appreciated.

Good.

>Onar.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
Newsgroups: talk.origins