Sciences >
Zoology
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedDo organisms always evolve into more complex forms?
Results so far:
| Yes | 34% | 228 votes | Total: 662 votes | |
| No | 66% | 434 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesShannon 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.
Evolut ion 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
Many organisms that have successfully survived and evolved have not become more complex. There are many examples, but I will describe only a few... The lowly sponge has lived in the oceans little changed for many centuries. Similarly there are many sea creatures such as the horseshoe crab, sea slugs, clams and plankton that haven't evolved into more complex forms. On land, some plants such as the ferns, moss and lichens have imperceptibly changed in many millennia into more complex forms. Also, many insects and the frogs, turtles, crocodiles and snakes are examples of creatures that have survived but not evolved into more complex forms.
However, some snakes and frogs are actually changing and evolving quite rapidly in an inner arms race that we don't see on the outside. Frogs have evolved toxins that attack the snakes if they eat the frogs, but the snakes evolve to become resistant to the toxins so the frogs evolve to become even more toxic. Is this a form of complexity? Perhaps, but their forms don't outwardly change. They don't develop more complex bodies. They stay basically the same in form although their functions may change, sometimes quite dramatically.
There are many examples of organisms that have survived little changed over the eons, which raises the intriguing question, "Are there some organisms that don't evolve?". Perhaps there are some organisms that don't evolve in form as rapidly as others such as the sea sponges or crocodiles, but they must all adapt to their changing environments. These organisms have successfully adapted, but have had little selection pressures to change their forms into more complex structures.
The other aspect to consider is whether complexity confers a particular survival advantage or not? If something becomes too complex, we can imagine that it may have difficulties in other basic functions such as reproduction or adapting to environmental stresses such as heat or cold. There's an overall critical balance between many competing factors that keeps many organisms from becoming overly complex.
Snakes evolve better, more toxic venoms, while their prey evolve better resistence to those toxins. This is a predator-prey cycle that causes both predator and prey to evolve better molecular offenses or defenses respectively. This produces more powerful and sometimes more complex molecular toxins that are countered by a more efficient molecular machinery to neutralize the toxin in the prey. Are these molecules always more complex? Not always, but they are usually more efficient at killing or immobilizing the prey or toxins, in the case of the prey, to give the surviving predator or prey a selection advantage over those who don't have these more efficient molecules.
This suggests that evolution is itself a somewhat complex and competitive molecular arms race and that the forms that organisms evolve into must be attributed to different selection pressures. Certainly a frog that has an armor-like skin might have an advantage over one that didn't, but this form may severely limit the frogs' ability to function in reproduction or escape, which may lesson this rather narrow advantage. These evolutionary constraints often prevent organisms from evolving into more complex forms without preventing them to adopt to their changing environments with an underlying molecular evolution that enhances their overall survival.
Learn more about this author, Richard G. Lanzara.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
