More about how evolution works: multicellularity (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, February 05, 2018, 18:28 (2273 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As cell puppets talk in your play, it is my point that your dialogue is exactly on point. Complexity builds on complexity. Bacteria have never gone extinct, but multicellular forms always do. If survivability were an issue, multicellularity would never have occurred. And while the bacteria are talking, from their easy living standards, they wonder why we like being so complex. Small cell chauvinism on display. By the way, we have much agreement. Complexity goes hand in hand with improvement, if designed that way.

dhw: Your last sentence is “exactly on point”. Complexity without a purpose makes no sense.

DAVID: The fact that I always espouse complexity leading to the human brain is left out of your discussion. Of course complexity without purpose is nonsensical.

dhw: It’s not left out. You have always wanted to substitute your “complexity” for my “improvement”, and I have always objected to complexity for its own sake. On the "chimps" thread you wrote: "Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue." However, I’m delighted that we are now in agreement.

You've missed the meaning of end of the sentence: 'if designed that way' which means complexity may not result in improvement, just complexity. Back to whales produces complexity and a physiological mess which required all sorts of messy adaptations to make them work.

dhw: Complexity for the sake of improvement makes perfect sense. Improvement “builds on” improvement. According to you, until 30,000 years ago ALL improvements were geared solely to survivability, so it is absurd to say survivability was not an issue.

DAVID: Species survability is always a major issue.

dhw: And again I am delighted that we are now in agreement.

But you are agreeing with me, based on all your comments on individual survival. Let's concentrate on species level only.

dhw: Evolution has advanced through the drive for survival and/or improvement. Doesn’t that make perfect sense?
DAVID: Complexity and improvement are most important. Survivability results from those two.

dhw: I think we are close to agreement, but I would rephrase your comment: The need to survive is of prime importance as an evolutionary driving force. Survivability does not necessitate complexity, but enhanced survivability may result from successful attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity.

Totally backward. Complexity occurs all throughout evolution, much of which turns out not to be improvements. You cannot deny humans are overly complex and that complexity is not necessary for individual survival. All through evolution species that survived eventually reached to point of the primate level, which is obviously the top level, and more complex than others. Birds are not apes in total complexity. Both survive as species so they are improved enough. Do you see that difference in concept?