Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.

r norman wrote:

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:35:56 -0600, dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


r norman wrote:


On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:46:04 -0600, dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



r norman wrote:



On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:34:48 -0600, dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:




r norman wrote:




On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:48:02 -0600, dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<snip>

What about "bacteria world" before eukaryotes came along? I don't care how much variation those bacteria displayed. They were still nothing more than microscopic little fuggers that were blind, deaf and dumb. The total complexity of all them doesn't come anywhere close to the complexity of today's living world.



That is a very anthropocentric and completely myopic view of life.


I don't think so.




Actually, if you really were myopic, you would be able to see the
microbes more clearly. And if you were hyperopic I would have to
acknowledge you were 'far-sighted'. So I guess I would have to
conclude that you are really blind to the reality that is not
immediately visible on the human size scale.


What is your point?




For example: " that the Cambrian Explosion established the major
themes of life" should really read " the Cambrian Explosion
established the major themes of life for one particular group of
organisms, the majority of biological entities having already been
around and thoroughly diversified for hundreds of millions of years".

And that "particular group of organisms" added to the diversity that was already there, yes? So the complexity of the living world increased, as it tends to do as a function of time, until the environment changes drastically enough to wipe a lot of it out. After one of these mass extinctions, there is still enough biological innovation left that life can quickly take off again and keep increasing in total complexity. Until we arrive at today's living world.


My point is that if you look at, say, metabolic diversity as the
measure of complexity rather than some particular visible structures
evidenced by macroscopic organisms, you get a very different view of
the world. I don't mean just counting enzymes, I mean looking at the
diversity and complexities of the entire metabolic map.


Bully for the microbes, then. They may be the metabolic champs. Hip, hip, hooray! But it seems to have escaped your notice that I was at least making an *attempt* to define complexity of life as a whole by breaking it into major components. In the part you snipped out above, I said,

"I used the tree of life metaphor so I could make a quick sound bite in last night's post. What I really had in mind was a comprehensive catalog of all of today's organisms, describing their structures, metabolisms, behavior, ecological niches, interactions with other organisms, reproductive mechanisms, and so forth. For sheer diversity, and for the range of biological innovation, today's catalog is unmatched compared to that of catalogs in the past."

Now let's take a look at your beloved microbes again from the viewpoint of structural complexity. Please give an example of any bacteria that are structurally as complex as a tiger.

Crickets chirping...

Please give an example of any bacterial species that has the self-organizational ability of a simple animal like the ant. By this I mean the ability to form an emergent colony.

Crickets chirping...

Please give an example of any microbes that have the ability to sense the external world with the visual sophistication of a hawk, or the auditory sophistication of an owl, or the olfactory sophistication of a dog.

Crickets chirping...

Please give an example of any bacterial species that displays evidence of mating rituals as elaborate as those of Blue Footed Boobies.

Crickets chirping...

Please give an example of any bacterial species that can build a nest even as simple as that of a Robin.

Crickets chirping...

Anyway, this is getting tiresome. All those chirping crickets are starting to hurt my ears.



It is getting tiresome repeating myself: "That is a very
anthropocentric and completely myopic view of life."

This is truly ironic. Didn't you make a reply to Wilkins recently about how everything interesting anybody points out about life he labels "anthropomorphic"?

'I must protest. You find everything important about the world merely
things that *we* find interesting but are not actually "out there".'

Just the ubiquity with which that label "anthropomorphic" (or "anthropocentric") is thrown around here should raise a caution flag.


You believe
yourself to be a highly complex entity and believe the social system
you and your kind (mine, too) have organized to be an even more highly
complex entity and you define your measures of complexity to make sure
you get the answers you want. Then you argue about how that proves
you must be right.


So, making the observation that a tiger is structurally complex compared to a bacterium is anthropocentric and that therefore that observation is ipso facto invalid?

Couldn't I argue the same way and say your own observations are "microbialcentric" and therefore invalid?



Well, at least you haven't found me out on an inconsistency (which
means you haven't looked hard enough).

I complained to John because he didn't believe the things we were
arguing about (whatever they might have been) were not really "out
there". I now complain to you because you fail to recognize the
complexity that really does exist "out there" just because it is
invisible to you. Yes, I believe firmly in diversity. I believe in
political, racial, religious, sexual, economic, nationalistic, and
biological diversity. I believe that chauvinistic views where you
value only your own perspective derived simply by considering your own
politics, race, religion, sex and sexual preferences, economic class,
country of origin or residence, and place in the biological phylogeny
is a limited, self serving, inappropriate, immoral, ineffective and
harmful way of viewing the world.

You don't have to work in a real biology department very long (and I
don't mean physiology department or genetics department or whatever
other medical specialty you prefer) before you find that a
hominid-centric or primate-centric or mammal-centric or
vertebrate-centric or animal-centric or eukaryote-centric view of the
world to be woefully incomplete .. not to mention being woesefully
incomplete.


Frankly, you've completely distorted my ideas about complexity, and particularly about microbes. But I'm out of fuel for today, so this will have wait until tomorrow. I almost said "I'm out of gas for today", but caught myself in time to head off any potential jokes.

If nothing else, posting to Usenet and being clearly understood is pretty good training in writing. I sometimes feel like I'm addressing children, where every little detail has to spelled out in stark simplicity, and nothing can be assumed to be obvious.


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... how much variation those bacteria displayed. ... The total complexity of all them doesn't come anywhere close to the ... And that "particular group of organisms" added to the diversity that was ... Crickets chirping... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... The total complexity of all them doesn't come anywhere close to the complexity of today's living world. ... Bully for the microbes, then. ... Please give an example of any bacteria that are structurally as complex as a tiger. ... Crickets chirping... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... how much variation those bacteria displayed. ... The total complexity of all them doesn't come anywhere close to the ... themes of life" should really read " the Cambrian Explosion ... And that "particular group of organisms" added to the diversity that was ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... The total complexity of all them doesn't come anywhere close to the complexity of today's living world. ... themes of life" should really read " the Cambrian Explosion ... Please give an example of any bacteria that are structurally as complex as a tiger. ... Crickets chirping... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... of the utility of increased computational complexity in evolution. ... considers information processing as a measure of complexity. ... claim that bacteria are getting more complex, ... example of how bacteria tune their metabolism to changing environments." ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading