More about how evolution works: multicellularity (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 06, 2018, 16:14 (2272 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

You agreed that “complexity without a purpose makes no sense”. If the purpose is not improvement, what is it? My hypothesis has cells/cell communities designing improvements which may lead to added complexity. Yours has God doing the same thing. Not complexity for its own sake, which makes no sense even to you. Whales are only a problem for you, because “messy adaptations” don’t fit in with your notion of an always-in-control God personally preprogramming or dabbling every major change (so that he can produce Homo sapiens' brain). It all makes perfect sense if intelligent cell communities keep looking for ways to survive and/or improve. (One would hardly expect them to find perfect answers to EVERY problem, which might also help to explain the 99% extinction!)

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.

DAVID: 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?

I’m afraid I’m having great difficulty in finding any coherent line of argument here. I have said that survivability does not necessitate complexity, and you tell me complexity is not necessary for individual survival. Totally backward? You say primates are top,and apes are more complex than birds but both have survived and have finished improving. Why is that the exact opposite of saying that enhanced survivability may result from attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity, e.g. a species improves survivability by inventing spears, and complexifies or enlarges its brain as a result? I can’t see any connection between the two “concepts”, let alone why one is “totally backward” from the other.