Direction of Evolution

[Daniel Marsh]

First 'rule' of evolution suggests that life is destined to become more complex
March 17, 2008
Scientists have revealed what may well be the first pervasive ‘rule’ of evolution. In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences researchers have found evidence which suggests that evolution drives animals to become increasingly more complex.
Looking back through the last 550 million years of the fossil catalogue to the present day, the team investigated the different evolutionary branches of the crustacean family tree.
They were seeking examples along the tree where animals evolved that were simpler than their ancestors.
Instead they found organisms with increasingly more complex structures and features, suggesting that there is some mechanism driving change in this direction.
“If you start with the simplest possible animal body, then there’s only one direction to evolve in – you have to become more complex,” said Dr Matthew Wills from the Department of Biology & Biochemistry at the University of Bath who worked with colleagues Sarah Adamowicz from from the University of Waterloo (Canada) and Andy Purvis from Imperial College London.
“Sooner or later, however, you reach a level of complexity where it’s possible to go backwards and become simpler again.
“What’s astonishing is that hardly any crustaceans have taken this backwards route.
“Instead, almost all branches have evolved in the same direction, becoming more complex in parallel.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2008-03-evolution-life-destined-complex.html#jCp

 

[Bungle_Bear]

First 'rule' of evolution suggests that life is destined to become more complex

OK, let's see where this goes...

....evidence which suggests that evolution drives animals to become increasingly more complex.

Really?

“What’s astonishing is that hardly any crustaceans have taken this backwards route.
“Instead, almost all branches have evolved in the same direction, becoming more complex in parallel.

So, does life become more complex or not? Apparently sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Sounds like that first rule is not a rule at all. One could almost infer that, where it is advantageous to become more complex that happens, but where simplicity is advantageous that happens.

I'm not a scientist, but isn't that what TOE would predict?

 

[Biologist]

So, does life become more complex or not? Apparently sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Sounds like that first rule is not a rule at all.

"
ON THE TENDENCY OF VARIETIES TO DEPART INDEFINITELY FROM THE ORIGINAL TYPE
"
On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type, by Alfred Russel Wallace

(very short paper by the co discoverer of Evolution)

The only rule is a permanent departure from the original type. Complexity isn't a good measurement of evolution. Ants have changed very little morphologically but the species we have today aren't the same as the ones in fossilized amber.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

First 'rule' of evolution suggests that life is destined to become more complex

Why did you put "rule" in quotes?

In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences researchers have found evidence which suggests that evolution drives animals to become increasingly more complex.

Isn't this what evolutionists have been saying for more than 100 years now?

They were seeking examples along the tree where animals evolved that were simpler than their ancestors.
Instead they found organisms with increasingly more complex structures and features

So, they didn't find one, single example of any evolutionary mutation which made the animal a little more simple, out of billions of examples over billions of years? Uh huh...

And, how were they defining "simpler" anyway? Were they limiting the definition to one species at a time, or were they saying something like an ant with only one set of mandibles was simpler than a crab with two pincers?

Instead they found organisms with increasingly more complex structures and features, suggesting that there is some mechanism driving change in this direction.

No. Evolutionists have no right to use words which imply meaning, purpose and intelligence to describe their theory of randomness. "Mechanism" means, "a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about".

The definition of "process" is, "a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end."

The definition of "order" is, "the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method."

We assign meaning to specific sounds, which we then call "words", for a reason, so that when people from different countries, cultures, or organizations use words like, "order", "process", and Mechanism" we have a mutual understanding of what they mean. That's why dictionaries exist.

If you start to use words like, "order" to describe what are meant to be random processes, then only confusion and self deception will result.

 

[Jenny Perkins]

Whatever the direction evolution takes you can be sure that no magic will be involved.

 

[sfs]

No. Evolutionists have no right to use words which imply meaning, purpose and intelligence to describe their theory of randomness. "Mechanism" means, "a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about".

Okay.

The definition of "process" is, "a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end."

Um, no. That's one definition of "process". Here's another: "8. A continuous and regular action or succession of actions occurring or performed in a definite manner, and having a particular result or outcome; a sustained operation or series of operations. (Now the most common use.) a. With reference to natural or involuntary action." This is perfectly standard meaning of the word, has no implication of purpose or intent.

We assign meaning to specific sounds, which we then call "words", for a reason, so that when people from different countries, cultures, or organizations use words like, "order", "process", and Mechanism" we have a mutual understanding of what they mean. That's why dictionaries exist.

And if you look in dictionaries, you'll find they often have more than one definition for a single word.

 

[JackRT]

The first rule of evolution is survival. Animals stranded in a restricted environment tend to become smaller. Most woolly mammoths went extinct in Eurasia and North America about 10,000 YBP but the mammoths on Wrangle Island north of Siberia survived until about 5,000 YBP. They were about 1/3 full size. About the same size as a woolly rhinoceros. This is a loss of complexity in favour of survivability in a restricted habitat.

 

[Speedwell]

And if you look in dictionaries, you'll find they often have more than one definition for a single word.

And which may not include definitions special to some technical field.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have several diverse comments to make on the paper and some of the subsequent remarks.

1. I am routinely bewildered by why people are perfectly happy to comment upon a reporter's interpretation of some research, rather then reading the original. You can find that here.

2. No one has commented on what Daniel has made abundantly clear. This paper is almost ten years old. Time permitting I shall investigate whether other researchers have turned up similar findings for other taxa since its publication.

3. The authors talk much more of trends than they do of rules. There most telling use of the three occasion "rule" is used in the paper is this, in the opening sentence: "Most of the natural sciences operate by documenting patterns and trends and thereby formulating general rules. Evolution, however, is an essentially contingent process, meaning that evolutionary trajectories can rarely be predicted."

Note the important use of the adjective "general".

4. To Bungle Bear, your comments (objection) to the validity of the "first rule" might be valid if the researchers had asserted there was such a rule. They didn't. They simply noted a strong trend and observed that the trend had been seen in other taxa also.

5. Endtime Survivors asks, of the tendency to increase in complexity, "Isn't this what evolutionists have been saying for more than 100 years now?"
I don't think so. The pyramid concept of evolution with man at the top certainly held sway for many decades after Darwin, but I believe the more recent tendency has been to see complexity as a consequence of The Drunkard's Walk.
What is different about this study is that the authors express surprise that so few examples of regression to less complex forms were found. That is, in my limited experience, novel.

6. Endtime Survivors comments "If you start to use words like, "order" to describe what are meant to be random processes, then only confusion and self deception will result."

Evolution is not a random process. It is a complex process with some random and some non-random elements within it. The presence of the non-random elements make it incorrect to describe it as random.

7.To Jack RT, the reduction in size of the Wrang Island mammoths does not represent a loss of complexity. If size determined complexity then my wife would be less complex than me - a suggestion that any husband will know to be silly.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

4. To Bungle Bear, your comments (objection) to the validity of the "first rule" might be valid if the researchers had asserted there was such a rule. They didn't. They simply noted a strong trend and observed that the trend had been seen in other taxa also.

I find it funny how you complain about others not reading things properly and then commit the same error yourself! I didn't attribute the rule to the researchers. I simply commented on the fact that whoever stated there was a rule was in error.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

That's one definition of "process". Here's another: "8. A continuous and regular action or succession of actions occurring or performed in a definite manner, and having a particular result or outcome; a sustained operation or series of operations. (Now the most common use.)

Hi sfs. Thanks for posting this alternate definition. But there's still a problem with that definition. It took me a few read-throughs to see it, though.

Here is the etymology for "definite":
mid 16th century: from Latin definitus ‘defined, set within limits,’ past participle of definire (see define).

The root word of "definite" is "define", meaning to "set within limits". You can't do that without meaning, purpose and intent.

No matter how you try to define a process which is completely random, you will never find a definition which accurately does so, because we humans are created to crave and seek out purpose and meaning. You may program a set of virtual dice to always roll randomly, and in that sense you could have a "process which is random", but that would still be inaccurate because you first had to define or, "set within limits", the dice to behave randomly.

Again, words which imply meaning, purpose and intent are off limits to you when describing any theory which does not support purpose and meaning. You can't have it both ways, but you want to, because deep down you know you can't support a theory for how you came to be which has no purpose or meaning to it.

Even something like, "natural selection" can be seen for the teleological jargon that it is. The theory goes that some organisms were "selected" to live simply because they didn't die. It's a zero sum statement. We could just as easily say the animals who didn't get the beneficial mutations were selected to die. And so there is no selection at all to evolution; it's all completely and totally random according to when and where the mutations occur.

An animal living in a desert climate may mutate a thick coat of fur. Of course it will die. If the same animal had lived in a cold climate, it probably would have lived. No selection to it. Only random chance according to the mutations.

Stop stealing our language to give your own meaningless theory something more than it deserves. -_-

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Evolution is not a random process. It is a complex process with some random and some non-random elements within it. The presence of the non-random elements make it incorrect to describe it as random.

What are the non-random parts? Here are some antonyms for the word random: deliberate, essential, methodical, planned, systematic, definite, particular, and specific.

If you say there are "non-random" parts to evolution, then the only other possibility is that there are some parts of evolution that do involve meaning, purpose, and intent. This is why I said earlier that it's important to use words according to what they actually mean, instead of what we want them to mean. You are a creature created to crave meaning, so it makes sense that you will try to imply meaning to your existance, but because you're an atheist you don't want to say such meaning comes from anything greater than yourself, so you find yourself in this confusing scenario where you keep trying to give life to a dead idol.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The first rule of evolution is survival.

Nope. There are no rules in evolution (well, not according to what evolution is actually meant to be). That's the whole point. Here's the definition of "rule": 1. one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

If the first rule of evolution is survival, then who, or what, particularly set the rule so that it would govern the conduct of the organism to desire survival? Did gravity decide survival should be the rule? Or some other random force?

You can't have it both ways. Either there was meaning and purpose, or there wasn't. Stop stealing our language. If you want the essence of your existence to be the result of randomness, then be true to your conviction. Stop cheating on evolution with meaning and purpose.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Sciences researchers have found evidence which suggests that evolution drives animals to become increasingly more complex.

The definition of the word drive (as it's used in this context) is: propel or carry along by force in a specified direction.

So, evolution "specifies" the direction in which it wants organisms to change? Nope. That's not what the theory says at all.

In its simplest form, evolution is the result of random mutations which happen over billions of years. No proponent of evolution will say an organism mutates a thick coat of fur because it lives in a cold climate. The mutations are completely random. There is no order, direction, or purpose behind them. If an animal develops a beneficial mutation, it is selected to live. If it does not develop a beneficial mutation it is selected to die. That's it. Those are the only two factors which evolution consists of; location and mutation. There is nothing more; no drive, no rules, no laws, nothing which implies any meaning or purpose. Otherwise, it is no longer evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

What are the non-random parts?

1. The genetic character of an organism that determine what variants may arise from it following sexual, or asexual reproduction.
2. The genetic character of an organism that determine what mutations in its germ cells are possible.
3.Environmental constraints that limit the options that may occur to the organism at any time in its lifespan and that consequently impact on its ability to reproduce and the timing of that reproduction.
4. Biochemical pathways that are fixed by the laws of chemistry.

These non-random aspects of biology ensure that evolution is not wholly random. In combinations they, with other similar controls, constitute the foundation of what we call natural selection and sexual selection, both decidedly non-random processes.

Here are some antonyms for the word random: deliberate, essential, methodical, planned, systematic, definite, particular, and specific.

Thank you for confirming that evolution contains non-random parts: the environmental constraints that are particular; the biochemical pathways that are systematic; the genetic character of an organism that is specific and definite.

If you say there are "non-random" parts to evolution, then the only other possibility is that there are some parts of evolution that do involve meaning, purpose, and intent.

Incorrect, as I have just demonstrated with your assistance. Evolution has controls that neatly fit your definitions of non-random.

This is why I said earlier that it's important to use words according to what they actually mean, instead of what we want them to mean.

I hope you will have the courage to take those words to heart and honour them.

You are a creature created to crave meaning, so it makes sense that you will try to imply meaning to your existance, but because you're an atheist you don't want to say such meaning comes from anything greater than yourself, so you find yourself in this confusing scenario where you keep trying to give life to a dead idol.

1. I am not an atheist. Please get your facts straight before making such assertions.
2. I don't crave meaning. I crave understanding. These are quite different things.
I am quite ready to accept that not all humans will have the same perspective on life as I do. I recommend such a posture to you.
3. I am perfectly capable, as are we all, of choosing my own meaning for my own life: a meaning that acknowledges my insignificance within the grandeur of the universe.
4. I'd rather use my education and intellect to do what you choose to misrepresent as "giving life to a dead idol" than allow my critical thinking to become dead idle.

 

[Ophiolite]

I find it funny how you complain about others not reading things properly and then commit the same error yourself! I didn't attribute the rule to the researchers. I simply commented on the fact that whoever stated there was a rule was in error.

Good. So we are agreed that the rule is nonsense and that the researchers did not assert it.

(On the subject of misinterpretation I have a rule. If my words, verbal or written, are misunderstood I look to myself as the probable source of the misunderstanding. I encourage others to do likewise. [And I am aware of how one could 'misinterpret' that comment for a humorous put down.])

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Thank you for confirming that evolution contains non-random parts:

A dishonest interpretation of my words may make you feel better about yourself, but it's still dishonest.

2. The genetic character of an organism that determine what mutations in its germ cells are possible.

So, are you confirming that, as an evolutionist, you do not think the mutations are random? Then, does that mean you think an animal in a cold climate will mutate thick fur because the "genetic character" recognizes what "cold environment" means and recognizes what the appropriate solution should be (i.e thick fur)?

I've never, ever heard any evolutionist, anywhere, who will say that the genetics of an organism will mutate according to it's environment or according to any other stimuli. What you are describing is not evolution.

Incorrect, as I have just demonstrated with your assistance. Evolution has controls that neatly fit your definitions of non-random.

If there is "control" then that control must come from somewhere. Here's the definition of control: "
1. the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events."

Evolution is directly opposed to any kind of control or influence in how things happened. That is the point of evolution; there was no influence, control, purpose, or meaning to any of it. If you want to introduce control, then you cannot call it evolution. It's just more of this confusion where you don't want to admit there is a God behind all of this while at the same time you are created to crave purpose, so you've concocted a theory where your existance here is the result of meaningful control and influence, but at the same time you are not accountable to that control. In other words, you only recognize influence and control behind your existence in as far as they suit your personal desires but you can't have it both ways. If there was control, then there was an intelligent power behind the control. Otherwise it would make no sense, according to what the word actually means, to say there was random control.

And, I'm not particularly inspired by your dishonest conclusions that I am supporting your version of evolution. It just feels like I'm debating a conman. Get your own arguments and stop trying to claim mine as your own.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

1. I am not an atheist. Please get your facts straight before making such assertions.

Oops, sorry about that. I see you're an agnostic.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

1. The genetic character of an organism that determine what variants may arise from it following sexual, or asexual reproduction.

This is one of the more interesting aspects of evolution; sexual reproduction. At some point, for every species which reproduces through sex, there had to be a mutation which facilitated the change from asexual to sexual.

This means that for every, single species which reproduces sexually, there had to be two mutations, one for the male and the other for the female, and these mutations would have needed to occur to organisms which lived in the same area and within a few years of one another. "Billions of years" cannot reasonably cover this level of chance.

And on top of this, most evolutionists will say the mutations are gradual, but the process of reproduction for most sexually reproducing animals isn't simple. The process contains several steps often involving multiple sets of organs working together. This isn't a gradual or small step. We're talking huge change involving several parts within the organism as a result of a single mutation? And this supposedly happened in every species, out of the millions that exist? Again, billions of years simply cannot account for this.

 

[Ophiolite]

A dishonest interpretation of my words may make you feel better about yourself, but it's still dishonest.

<snip>

It's just more of this confusion where you don't want to admit there is a God behind all of this while at the same time you are created to crave purpose, so you've concocted a theory where your existance here is the result of meaningful control and influence, but at the same time you are not accountable to that control. You can't have it both ways.

And, I'm not particularly inspired by your dishonest conclusions that I am supporting your version of evolution. It just feels like I'm debating a conman. Get your own arguments and stop trying to claim mine as your own.

I intend that this will be the only occasion in which I acknowledge you have made accusations of dishonesty. Please do not make such accusations again.

So, are you confirming that, as an evolutionist, you do not think the mutations are random? Then, does that mean you think an animal in a cold climate will mutate thick fur because the "genetic character" recognizes what "cold environment" means and recognizes what the appropriate solution should be (i.e thick fur)?

I've never, ever heard any evolutionist, anywhere, who will say that the genetics of an organism will mutate according to it's environment or according to any other stimuli. What you are describing is not evolution.

The organism cannot consciously recognise the nature of the environment. The mutations that can occur are governed by the existing genetic make up of the organism. That is the non-random part. If this is not clear I shall attempt a more detailed explanation.

If there is "control" then that control must come from somewhere. Here's the definition of control: "
1. the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events."

I believe it has already been pointed out that words have often multiple meanings. You are choosing one here that fits your understanding of evolution, but that understanding appears to be faulty.

Evolution is directly opposed to any kind of control or influence in how things happened. That is the point of evolution; there was no influence, control, purpose, or meaning to any of it. If you want to introduce control, then you cannot call it evolution.

It is apparent that you do not understand evolution. I do not think I can rectify this in a couple of posts, especially when you seem to have a hostile attitude to considering alternatives.

It's just more of this confusion where you don't want to admit there is a God behind all of this while at the same time you are created to crave purpose, so you've concocted a theory where your existance here is the result of meaningful control and influence, but at the same time you are not accountable to that control. You can't have it both ways..

I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me what I think and why I think it. Such behaviour is offensive and interferes with a productive discussion.