Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.

Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

If we take the notion that evolution implies progress and that humans
are at the pinnacle of this progressive journey (towards us...unlike
apes or Geico cavemen we evolved) as the populist view that dominates
or has dominated, that would to me be the "received view" and measures
of progress (or singular direction) like "computational complexity"
merely reinforce a preconception.

The Gouldian view is the one that challenges the reader to shed their
preconceptions (everything from inherent progressivism and the
adaptionism that goes hand in hand).

The problem with Gould's view - is that it's total nonsense:

``In a book on the subject, Gould claimed evolution lacked a
progressive character - while Dawkins wrote in [a review of
that book]:

``Notwithstanding Gould's just scepticism over the tendency to
label each era by its newest arrivals, there really is a
good possibility that major innovations in embryological
technique open up new vistas of evolutionary possibility and
that these constitute genuinely progressive improvements
(Dawkins 1989; Maynard Smith & Szathmary 1995). The origin
of the chromosome, of the bounded cell, of organized meiosis,
diploidy and sex, of the eucaryotic cell, of
multicellularity, of gastrulation, of molluscan torsion, of
segmentation - each of these may have constituted a
watershed event in the history of life. Not just in the
normal Darwinian sense of assisting individuals to survive
and reproduce, but watershed in the sense of boosting
evolution itself in ways that seem entitled to the label
progressive. It may well be that after, say, the invention
of multicellularity, or the invention of metamerism,
evolution was never the same again. In this sense there may
be a one-way ratchet of progressive innovation in evolution.''

...and concluded:

``For this reason over the long term, and because of the
cumulative character of coevolutionary arms races over the
shorter term, Gould's attempt to reduce all progress to a
trivial, baseball-style artefact constitutes a surprising
impoverishment, an uncharacteristic slight, an unwonted
demeaning of the richness of evolutionary processes.''''

- http://originoflife.net/direction/

The Transitions view of evolution has a basic logical flaw in it.

Take any pathway for the Urancestor to any modern species. Each one has
a bunch of "major transitions" that are special to it. Lichens had a
major transition when an algae and a fungus joined as commensuals. Is
that a "major transition"? If not, why not?

In fact I think the "informational transitions" is an artifact of the
things that *we* find interesting and salient. It is just a modern form
of the great chain of being.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages