Home > Sciences > Biology > Zoology
Do organisms always evolve into more complex forms?
Results so far:
| Yes | 41% | 539 votes | Total: 1318 votes | |
| No | 59% | 779 votes |
Yes
by Gary C. Gibson
Created on: October 06, 2007 Last Updated: December 10, 2008
Shannon entropy is a measurement of the loss of information associated with the transmission of information. Physical entropy is the evolution of order in to disorder. Each phenomena accompanies the evolution of living organisms and not just bureaucracies.
Evolution in to simpler forms would be an increase in Shannon entropy if one associates biological complexity with information theory. The form of organisms may implicitly evolve toward complexity yet not all evolutions necessarily succeed and may suffer arrested development or death. Death in heterosexual contexts tends to increase the statistical occurrence of genetic variation and opportunities for selection by freeing up space available. Life however may be considered to be an information assembly process of evolution toward a post-organic form of sentience. Spirit develops from life as self-awareness compiles with intense bio-feedback sensory systems of stimulus-response and redundant adaptation.
Life seems to have an implicit characteristic of fruitfulness multiplying. The environment may not support such population increases in all instances and then a non-sensory adaptation of intelligence to overcome or transcend the physical environment successfully may be preferred through natural selection of intelligence. Intelligence socially isn't always or inevitably destined to increase or overcome more insensate forms of life. Yet as life compiles and social intelligence compiles complex forms organically have a better opportunity statistically to evolve more complex forms. Life itself added new inorganic compounds and molecules to the planet earth's inventory. The complex ontology of life is an ordering instead of a disordering of both information and order. The direction of life is of an evolution toward complexity-yet their must be an overall conservation of such, and even Shannon entropy may be a manifestation of pluralism within the monism of the Unified field of the Universe. Omniscience may have downloaded information through the Unified field that manifests in space-time as destiny receives.
Evolution(s) might be described as an ordered universe running down into disorder and even into complex disorder. From an initial condition from The One, the Universe has somehow emanated and proximally obtained a zero entropy origin to evolve toward maximum entropy. Complexity is paradoxically an increase in disorder in an intermediate stage toward disorder.
I realize that it is good to keep the argument here simple, yet I will increase the complexity a little in an effort to get to a better comprehension of what is a simple ordered cosmic origin theory cosmologically speaking. I want to write a couple of paragraphs on a possible reason the Universe could be expanding as an idea expressed by The One perhaps for a simple reason. It could be a sort of poem-a line into a circle into a line, or a loop the loop metaphor of structure to explain why the phenomenon of the universe being could be considered as a set theoretical paradigm of a consistent level of complexity to simplicity perhaps akin to a unified field theory's simplified categorical explanation of a pluralistic appearance of the Universe-maybe the Universe is a thought of God?
Einstein remarked that God does not play dice with the Universe, then Schroedinger's wave function determined probabilities of quantum mechanical locations such as anachronistic electrons. A Universe cannot be entirely deterministic and predictably consistent with the existence of intelligence; intelligence can change the physics of pre-determined inertial outcomes. Even super-computers doing physical predictions of quantum cosmology would find their own computational work unable to change to account for the deterministic alterations intelligence can place into an inanimate and determinist physical cosmos. Computers would find their own quantum predictions encountering interference from their own self-generated predictions of what the deterministic pattern of the future universe would be thus effecting the probable shaping of the universe with a pattern of artificial intelligence. Computational modeling of an expanding universe in quantum uncertainty itself has obvious challenges in structuring a universe that requires expansion for the actualization of uncertainty. Uncertainty is necessary for change and for time to exist in space. Time's dimension interacting with spatial dimensions together creating uncertainty as a sort of analogous friction along interacting lines. When quantum computing becomes integrated into the Universe itself the computer modeling of itself would be false-a sort of false consciousness illusion. The Universe as a computer expanding to permit uncertainty could permit the Universe to be a sort of thinking machine for-itself, or at least the expression of someOne that thinks or has thought.
Sometimes organisms become talk radio hosts or television news analysts and extinction has ended the careers of all sorts of humble life forms before they became complex. One cell scum and others may take a very long time to snowball into complexity-perhaps billions of year. Humble blue green algae may seem never to grow more complex in some forms-yet who can say that todays prokaryote or eukaryote may not be next billion year's President of the United Universes?
The parameters of a necessary evolution would entail the concept that evolution is the agent of change. One cannot be certain that given a trillion years to evolve or become something different and more complex something might not even it it has moved within observable human history something like federal action into secure U.S. borders completely against illegal immigration. Some organisms become more complex because of Dr. Frankenstinian genetic recombinations; and engineered complexity by intelligent design isn't usually considered to be evolution. Nonetheless any organism at a given state of existence should become more complex as it's order breaks down; a reductio ad absurdum would indicate that organisms should not become less complex through evolution. Change and the breakdown of simple order tends to increase complexity rather than decrease it, unless one is referring to conscious information or intelligence...in a complex intellect at a given point in time, even artificial intelligence information loss or devolution might be a natural characteristic of particular organisms, or even of social intelligence over time as a structure of support breaks down. While the evolution of intelligence from simple to complex over time is possible it isn't necessary, and unlike the physical structure it can become more simple over even dysfunctional through evolution.
As the physical forces of the universe act upon a given organic clump metabolizing for-itself it's component elements under the influence radiation, the strong, weak and nuclear forces, gravity and such will tend not simply to cohere at a given structural level but to experience a fission from a particular initial or ancillary form changing toward and increase rather than decrease in component numbers and complexity...from automobile construction with ten million complex parts and legal criterion attachments to ossifications of national economic infrastructure even inorganic social components of structures tend to increase in complexity even while the universe for itself runs down from a low entropy condition to a high state of entropy.
While the temporal incarnation of the universe crumbles and permutates forms eternal peace with God through Jesus Christ transcends the vicissitudes of time.
Learn more about this author, Gary C. Gibson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Jonte Rhodes
Created on: October 06, 2007 Last Updated: June 12, 2008
The idea that organism evolve progressively and always into more complex forms largely comes from looking at humans as a species. We are an example of one species that did evolve into more complex organism in that we have intelligence and as such are now the dominant species on the planet. However if everything was aiming at becoming more complex, then there is no explanation as to why there are still things such as single celled organisms, or viruses and parasites.
If everything evolved into more complex organisms then there would simply be no viruses or parasitic organisms left, not to mention single celled organisms. Obviously at one time before anything at all existed on the earth there was only primordial soup, which was basically sludge made up of billions of single celled organisms. As we know the plant like cells were the first to evolve into larger things, probably because they were able to easily absorb their energy from the sun. And so found it easier to become more successful than their rivals. In turn the things that ate the plants could grow larger because more plants were available to eat, and so gradually everything got bigger and more complex.
Or so it would seem, because of course there were still billions of different single celled organisms that were there at the time, that are still exactly the same today. And that didn't have any catalyst to make them evolve into larger or more complex things. Single celled bacteria for example are still secreting the same enzymes that they always have to eat other cells, which is what causes larger things to break down when they die. So for larger and more complex things to exist, there must be less complicated organisms as an absolute rule to make up the bottom of every food chain.
For example there are microscopic invertebrates that eat organisms with only a few cells. These few celled creatures eat single celled organisms that feed on other cells, often being what caused decay after something is dead. Back up higher in the food chain there are larger invertebrates, (although still smaller then a pin head) that then eat the microscopic ones. And so on until we have things like mice and rats that eat the very largest insects. From there we have cats, birds and dogs that naturally eat them, and so on. But basically for anything at the top of the food chain to live, the chain needs to have the smallest organisms for it to work.
We can see from a variety of sources and examples that although some creatures become more complex with evolution. Some have stayed the same for millions of years, and have been around much longer than mankind. Showing in effect that they don't need to evolve into radically different things to become stronger and to survive. Crocodiles for example are a perfect example of a large creature that has remained largely unchanged for millions of years, due to the fact that they are already perfectly suited to their environments. Other than having changed in size and having developed into several sub species, the basic appearance of the crocodile is the same now as it would have been before even the dinosaurs walked the earth.
The reason people might think that everything is evolving along the same pattern as humans, i.e., to become stronger and more intelligent, in an effort to one day become the dominant species. Is because people have a habit of personifying human traits to animals and nature itself, which isn't a true representation of how evolution works. Organisms only tend to change radically if they firstly need to. And then as a result of being more successful will evolve faster because of the larger and more mixed gene pools, which create and allow more mutations and combinations of genes to survive.
Humans have had to be adaptive to the different elements such as the weather, better or poorer hunting etc throughout their existence. And by being more intelligent and therefore more adaptive they have become more complex through a need to survive and adapt to their changing environment. Such as the loss of most of our body hair because of clothes and being inside warmer structures more. A different path than human evolution could have taken might have been that humans grew wings or gills, which would have made survival a lot easier as it would have made hunting a lot easier. And that being the case we probably wouldn't have become as intelligent or strong as we have.
The same cannot be said for animals however, as most of them have remained the same so long as they have survived as they were. Take any animal you care to mention and you will see that in the majority of cases that they have changed either very little or not at all over millions of years, simply because they haven't needed to change and adapt to survive. This can be argued because we cant tell for sure how some species were all those millions of years ago. But some organisms like the coelacanth for example, a prehistoric fish thought to have been extinct until caught a few years ago are proof that not everything changes unless it needs to.
Learn more about this author, Jonte Rhodes.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley