The Law of Evolutionary Complexification
John Smith Ph.D.
To most casual observers of the fossil record
it seems obvious that the complexity
of lifeforms has increased over the span
of geologic history, however it is neither intuitively
obvious nor generally accepted that
increasing complexity is a certain consequence
of evolution. Nevertheless, it can be logically
shown that increasing complexity is indeed
an unavoidable consequence of evolution.
The environment in which every living organism
struggles to survive is a system with thousands
of variables; it is equation to which every lifeform
unknowingly approximates a solution with the
best of its abilities through the process
of natural selection. Because solutions to
equations with increasing numbers of variables
require increasingly complex mathematical
algorithms (the proof is found in any
textbook of technical mathematics and involves
little more than a basic understanding
of linear algebra) it follows
then that lifeforms must become increasingly
complex in order to better approximate a solution
to the "environment equation", for the organism
with the best solution to the equation will
have the best chance of survival- it will be
the "fittest".
Throughout 1) the age of prebiotic chemical/molecular
evolution, throughout 2) the following few billion
years of biological evolution, and now
in 3) the period of machine/computer evolution,
the "Law of Complexification" has acted. It
acts on all three systems equally well and is
both evolution's most important and least
recognized principle.
Paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
first proposed (in the 1920's) that evolution
was governed by what he dubbed "The Law of
Complexification" based on the evidence from
the geologic record which shows a progression
from simpler to more complex organisms, but
he also envisioned that the collective intelligence
of civilization (a concept most commonly
referred to now as Artificial Intelligence,
or AI) would also be governed by the
law and would increase to a theoretical
maximum that he called "The Omega Point".
Although scoffed at and generally dismissed
at the time, Teilhard de Chardin's idea
is today proving to be surprisingly
valid. The best proof of the "Law of
Complexification" is right in front of you
as you read this on your computer screen
and see your reflection in the monitor
screen: you exist, you are amazingly
complex in body and mind, and you are
at the interface of ancient biological evolution
and the rapid new evolution of Artificial
Computer Intelligence. Natural selection
led to your complexity, but increasing
complexity is a necessary consequence
of evolution as explained above.
There is nothing mystical
about the phenomenon, rather evolution's
"Law of Complexification" is based on
mathematics and logic.
Of course the rate "complexification"
is not specified by the law of complexification;
it can take billion of years for only minor
changes to occur (as in bacteria) or
it may proceed much faster (as evidenced
by the four fold increase in hominid brain
size over just the last three million years).
Computer chips (also governed by the law)
are increasing in complexity
at a rate more than a million times faster
than that possible for mere biological
evolution ("Moore's Law") and consequently the "Omega
Point" will probably be reached on Earth
just a few thousand years from today.
What our arrival at the "Omega Point" will
mean is beyond our present comprehension,
but if the Law of Complexification is valid
throughout the Universe then over the past
15 billion years since the Big Bang and
on into the future 100 billion years or so
many other evolutionary systems have evolved
or will evolve to the Omega Point as well.
In that Omega Point existence, once attained,
is likely to be capable of surviving for
billions of years (being of god-like
intelligence) then such entities are likely
to be the predominant form of intelligent existence
in the Universe.
And that.... is the story of Evolution.
-John Smith, Ph.D.
wf...@enter.netxx
<send.n...@futurex.com> wrote:
>The environment in which every living organism
>struggles to survive is a system with thousands
>of variables; it is equation to which every lifeform
>unknowingly approximates a solution with the
>best of its abilities through the process
>of natural selection. Because solutions to
>equations with increasing numbers of variables
and here is, i think, where you commit a logical error which renders
your argument false.
there is no necessity in evolution, nor in nature, that the number of
variables has to increase at all. in fact, we often see the exact
opposite. the evolution of intestinal parasites is often cited as an
example of such a situation. in the intestines, a parasite is faced
with an environment rich in digested food. thus it has no need for a
digestive tract of its own. evolution successfully predicts that
intestinal parasites often will have no digestive tract since this
would absorb energy from other body functions which are needed.
environments can become simpler, or more complex. all that evolution
predicts is a population's genetic structure will change as well.
>
>Paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
>first proposed (in the 1920's) that evolution
>was governed by what he dubbed "The Law of
>Complexification"
AFAIK, no paleontologist takes de chardins work seriously, and the
vatican condemned it a number of yrs ago.
>
>And that.... is the story of Evolution.
>
>-John Smith, Ph.D.
>
>
mebbe so, but it certainly isnt the one i'm familiar with.
ras...@highfiber.com
>The Law of Evolutionary Complexification
>
>To most casual observers of the fossil record
>it seems obvious that the complexity
>of lifeforms has increased over the span
>of geologic history, however it is neither intuitively
>obvious nor generally accepted that
>increasing complexity is a certain consequence
>of evolution. Nevertheless, it can be logically
>shown that increasing complexity is indeed
>an unavoidable consequence of evolution.
Reptiles losing limbs to become snakes ...?
John Smith Ph.D.
alan filipski wrote i>...
> John Smith Ph.D. writes:
> -The Law of Evolutionary Complexification
> -
> -To most casual observers of the fossil record
> -it seems obvious that the complexity
> -of lifeforms has increased over the span
> -of geologic history,
>
>
> Several observers (e.g. Gould) deny that there is any overall trend to
> increasing complexity except in one sense: there seems to be a lower
> limit on viable complexity[...]
Alan,
Yet if we consider prebiotic molecular/chemical
evolution and very early biological evolution
we would likely encounter entities many orders of magnitude
less complex than even the simplest of today's
bacteria.
>
> -The environment in which every living organism
> -struggles to survive is a system with thousands
> -of variables; it is an equation to which every lifeform
> -unknowingly approximates a solution with the
> -best of its abilities through the process
> -of natural selection. Because solutions to
> -equations with increasing numbers of variables
> -require increasingly complex mathematical
> -algorithms (the proof is found in any
> -textbook of technical mathematics and involves
> -little more than a basic understanding
> -of linear algebra) it follows
> -then that lifeforms must become increasingly
> -complex in order to better approximate a solution
> -to the "environment equation", for the organism
> -with the best solution to the equation will
> -have the best chance of survival- it will be
> -the "fittest".
>
> Organisms don't need to solve equations in any symbolic sense in order
> to adapt to an environmental niche, they just need to respond
> appropriately, with, as you say, an approximate solution over a
> limited domain. Fairly simple neural or genetic algorithms can do this
> very well. It's not clear that more complex systems necessarily do
> better, although they may sometimes.
>
I am proposing that if we consider that
challenge of the environment (with its thousands of
variables) as an equation to which organisms
seek a solution then simple algorithms
cannot possibly approximate the solution as
well as complex algorithms (systems), just
as it is for mathematic problems of linear algebra
for equations with many variables.
> -acts on all three systems equally well and is
> -both evolution's most important and least
> -recognized principle.
>
> well, it's an interesting hypothesis. How do you propose to test it?
> I don't think abstract argument will suffice.
>
> -
> - [Omega Point stuff]
>
> -And that.... is the story of Evolution.
>
> Well, it's one person's speculation, anyway.
>
> Alan Filipski
>
As a test, we could remove all complex
lifeforms from Earth and see how long it
takes for higher (more complex) life to
reappear, but I'll never get grant money
for that.
However, my argument for the Law
of Evolutionary Complexification is based on
a mathematical reduction and the proof in that
sense is inherent to the laws of
mathematics, in particular linear algebra.
As a corollary, surely you have noticed that
computer programs also become more sophisticated
(complex) over time, computer code not being
too different in that respect than DNA code,
and both being subject to the same rules of linear
algebra that apply in solving equations with a very
large number of unknown variables.
Is not "complexification" of the required algorithms is
a necessary consequence for the
best solution in both math and nature?
-John Smith Ph.D.
Pim van Meurs
"John Smith Ph.D." wrote:
> Is not "complexification" of the required algorithms is
> a necessary consequence for the
> best solution in both math and nature?
> -John Smith Ph.D.
>
Does that not depend on how "best" is defined ?
Rich Daniel
> ...To most casual observers of the fossil record
> it seems obvious that the complexity
> of lifeforms has increased over the span
> of geologic history...
I would say rather that the complexity of the most complex species alive
tends to increase. But this could be merely a result of diversification
from a single very simple ancestor.
Viruses are much simpler than bacteria, yet evolved from them. How
does this fit your theory?
> ...The environment in which every living organism
> struggles to survive is a system with thousands
> of variables; it is equation to which every lifeform
> unknowingly approximates a solution with the
> best of its abilities through the process
> of natural selection. Because solutions to
> equations with increasing numbers of variables
> require increasingly complex mathematical
> algorithms... it follows
> then that lifeforms must become increasingly
> complex in order to better approximate a solution
> to the "environment equation"...
But environments are not getting more complicated. Once a species becomes
well adapted to a niche, there's usually no reason for it to change unless
the environment changes.
If your theory were true, bacteria would have been driven to extinction
by eukaryotes long ago.
--
Rich Daniel rwda...@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
Bonz
<send.n...@futurex.com> wrote:
>The Law of Evolutionary Complexification
>
>To most casual observers of the fossil record
>it seems obvious that the complexity
>of lifeforms has increased over the span
>of geologic history, however it is neither intuitively
>obvious nor generally accepted that
>increasing complexity is a certain consequence
>of evolution.
How so? Billions of years ago, all life was single celled. Now
perhaps 99.5% is single celled. Hardly a wave of complexity.
Nevertheless, it can be logically
>shown that increasing complexity is indeed
>an unavoidable consequence of evolution.
>
>The environment in which every living organism
>struggles to survive is a system with thousands
>of variables; it is equation to which every lifeform
>unknowingly approximates a solution with the
>best of its abilities through the process
>of natural selection. Because solutions to
>equations with increasing numbers of variables
>require increasingly complex mathematical
>algorithms (the proof is found in any
>textbook of technical mathematics and involves
>little more than a basic understanding
>of linear algebra) it follows
>then that lifeforms must become increasingly
>complex in order to better approximate a solution
>to the "environment equation", for the organism
>with the best solution to the equation will
>have the best chance of survival- it will be
>the "fittest".
Then why don't wee see any trend toward complexity?
>
>Throughout 1) the age of prebiotic chemical/molecular
>evolution, throughout 2) the following few billion
>years of biological evolution, and now
>in 3) the period of machine/computer evolution,
>the "Law of Complexification" has acted. It
>acts on all three systems equally well and is
>both evolution's most important and least
>recognized principle.
>
>Paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
>first proposed (in the 1920's) that evolution
>was governed by what he dubbed "The Law of
>Complexification" based on the evidence from
>the geologic record which shows a progression
>from simpler to more complex organisms, but
>he also envisioned that the collective intelligence
>of civilization (a concept most commonly
>referred to now as Artificial Intelligence,
>or AI) would also be governed by the
>law and would increase to a theoretical
>maximum that he called "The Omega Point".
Yes. And th3e evidence indicates that he was wrong.
>And that.... is the story of Evolution.
Uh-huh.That would be nice IF we saw a trend toward complexity. We
don't,
い Bonz
To reply by Email, please remove THE OBVIOUS
So you're using the findings of one field of science (Astronomy, say) to
"prove" the validity of findings in another field (say, Biology). In
other words, you're using science to support science and that is
circular reasoning. - Dan Abbott 11/98 Message ID <36451EAB...@dakota.net>
CurtAdams
>Yet if we consider prebiotic molecular/chemical
>evolution and very early biological evolution
>we would likely encounter entities many orders of magnitude
>less complex than even the simplest of today's bacteria.
Not necessarily. By Kauffman's catalytic closure hypothesis the
first organisms could be far more complex (but less efficient)
than their successors.
In any case the nature of organisms prior to the modern cell
is a poor data point. Details are quite speculative.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
maff91
<send.n...@futurex.com> wrote:
>
>
>alan filipski wrote i>...
>> John Smith Ph.D. writes:
>> -The Law of Evolutionary Complexification
>> -
>> -To most casual observers of the fossil record
>> -it seems obvious that the complexity
>> -of lifeforms has increased over the span
>> -of geologic history,
>>
>>
>> Several observers (e.g. Gould) deny that there is any overall trend to
>> increasing complexity except in one sense: there seems to be a lower
>> limit on viable complexity[...]
>
>Alan,
>Yet if we consider prebiotic molecular/chemical
>evolution and very early biological evolution
>we would likely encounter entities many orders of magnitude
>less complex than even the simplest of today's
>bacteria.
>>
>Is not "complexification" of the required algorithms is
>a necessary consequence for the
>best solution in both math and nature?
>-John Smith Ph.D.
I would recommend that you read Stuart Kauffman.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/
"The Origins of Order : Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution"
by Stuart A. Kauffman Paperback - 709 pages (May 1993) Oxford Univ
Press; ISBN: 0195079515
http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
The Genetic Algorithms Archive
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
news:comp.ai.genetic
http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
The similarities between genetic algorithms and biology can be
seen here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature
John Smith Ph.D.
maff91 wrote>...
> On 26 Dec 1998 20:26:08 -0500, "John Smith Ph.D."
> <send.n...@futurex.com> wrote:
> >> -The environment in which every living organism
> >> -struggles to survive is a system with thousands
> >> -of variables; it is an equation to which every lifeform
> >> -unknowingly approximates a solution with the
> >> -best of its abilities through the process
> >> -of natural selection. Because solutions to
> >> -equations with increasing numbers of variables
> >> -require increasingly complex mathematical
> >> -algorithms (the proof is found in any
> >> -textbook of technical mathematics and involves
> >> -little more than a basic understanding
> >> -of linear algebra) it follows
> >> -then that lifeforms must become increasingly
> >> -complex in order to better approximate a solution
> >> -to the "environment equation", for the organism
> >> -with the best solution to the equation will
> >> -have the best chance of survival- it will be
> >> -the "fittest".
>
> I would recommend that you read Stuart Kauffman.
> http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/
>
> "The Origins of Order : Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution"
> by Stuart A. Kauffman Paperback - 709 pages (May 1993) Oxford Univ
> Press; ISBN: 0195079515
>
> http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
> The Genetic Algorithms Archive
>
> http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
> Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
>
> news:comp.ai.genetic
>
> http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
> Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
>
> The similarities between genetic algorithms and biology can be
> seen here:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
> Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature
>
>
Thanks for the fine references. I went to Kaufman's
site and read some of his ideas, hopefully none of the
references you supplied contain any mystical
explanations for the trend toward complexity-
the trend can surely be explained by math alone.
What remains is to convince other researchers that
a trend toward complexity in all types of evolution
is an unavoidable consequence and to show
them how this follows from mathematical models.
-John Smith Ph.D.
John Smith Ph.D.
alan filipski wrote>...
> "John Smith Ph.D." writes:
> -What remains is to convince other researchers that
> -a trend toward complexity in all types of evolution
> -is an unavoidable consequence and to show
> -them how this follows from mathematical models.
> -
> [...]
> The linkage between "solving complex
> equations", complexity, and fitness is
> not a priori obvious, and I think
> empirical support for the thesis
> is required first.
>
> Alan Filipski
>
>
The empirical evidence for complexification
over the course of evolution has been around
for a long time- the geologic fossil record
hard to ignore! What has been missing
is a mathematical model that shows that
complexification is a necessary consequence
of evolution, and that is what I and a few other
researchers are trying to provide.
I believe the model I have presented is
is a more based in established principles
of mathematics than are most other models
and is at the same time both easier to briefly
explain and to easily understand.
-John Smith Ph.D.
howard hershey
>
> In article <01be31dd$d4e0fa80$b58e4b0c@default> "John Smith Ph.D." <doe...@futerex.com> writes:
> -
> -
> -What remains is to convince other researchers that
> -a trend toward complexity in all types of evolution
> -is an unavoidable consequence and to show
> -them how this follows from mathematical models.
> -
> eubacteria/archaea.
This is due to the rather mistaken notion that evolution requires or
imposes "progress" or "complexity" on life. Life has an extremely small
fraction of species that are examples of complexity greater than
procaryotes only because niches filled by the bacterial level of
complexity are already filled. Life, in general, has a modal level of
complexity at the level of bacteria, just as it did 2+ billion years ago
and just as it will 2+ billion years hence. There is no guarantee that
life 2+ billion years hence will have *any* significant number of
organisms of higher complexity at all, much less of higher complexity
than current metazoans (where was the increase in complexity between the
dinosaurs and mammals?). There are, after all, only an insignificant
few organisms with higher complexity today compared to the many
organisms with the bacterial mode of complexity. Evolution does not
have any inate drive toward increased complexity or progress.
> By any reasonable definition of complexity,
> Eukaryotes are more complex (since they contain bacteria-like
> components, e.g. mitochondria), and they have had plenty of time to do
> this. Yet by many measures, the bacteria are the dominant life forms on
> this planet. The life forms currently in the most precarious positions
> with respect to extinction tend to be large animals/plants. H. sapiens
> is really untested, as we've only been around a relatively short time.
>
> And how about the artificial environments like Tierra? That would
> seem like a good testbed for this hypothesis, but if I recall
> correctly, simple parasitic forms did very well.
maff91
<send.n...@futurex.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Thanks for the fine references. I went to Kaufman's
>site and read some of his ideas, hopefully none of the
>references you supplied contain any mystical
>explanations for the trend toward complexity-
>the trend can surely be explained by math alone.
>
>What remains is to convince other researchers that
>a trend toward complexity in all types of evolution
>is an unavoidable consequence and to show
>them how this follows from mathematical models.
>
>-John Smith Ph.D.
Some more references for you:
"Brainchildren : Essays on Designing Minds, 1984-1996 (Representation
and Mind Series)" by Daniel Clement Dennett - Paperback - 424 pages
(March 1998) Bradford Books; ISBN: 0262540908
"Consciousness Explained" by Paul Weiner (Illustrator), Daniel
Clement Dennett - Paperback (October 1992) Little Brown & Co (Pap);
ISBN: 0316180661
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea : Evolution and the Meanings of Life" by
Daniel Clement Dennett - Paperback - 672 pages Reprint edition (June
1996) Touchstone Books; ISBN: 068482471X
"Kinds of Minds : Toward an Understanding of Consciousness (Science
Masters Series)" by Daniel Clement Dennett - Hardcover (July 1996)
Harpercollins; ISBN: 0465073506
"The Mind's I" by Douglas R. Hofstadter, Daniel C. Dennett, Doug
Hofstadter - Paperback Reissue edition (May 1, 1985) Bantam Books;
ISBN: 0553345842
"How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker - Hardcover - 660 pages (October
1997) W.W. Norton & Company; ISBN: 0393045358
"The Language Instinct/How the Mind Creates Language" by Steven Pinker
- Paperback - 496 pages Reprint edition (February 1995)
Harperperennial Library; ISBN: 0060976519
"Connections and Symbols (Cognition Special Issues)" by Steven Pinker
(Editor), Jacques Mehler (Editor) - Paperback - 255 pages 1st Mit pr
edition (August 1988) MIT Press; ISBN: 0262660644
"Language Learnability and Language Development" by Steven Pinker
Hardcover - 435 pages Reprint edition (April 1996) Harvard Univ Pr;
ISBN: 0674510534
"Learnability and Cognition : The Acquisition of Argument Structure
(Learning, Development, and Conceptual Change)" by Steven Pinker -
Hardcover - 411 pages (June 1989) MIT Press; ISBN: 0262161117
"Overregularization in Language Acquisition (Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, No 228, Vol 57, No 4)" by Gary F.
Marcus, Steven Pinker, Michael Ullman - Paperback (October 1992)
Society for Research in; ISBN: 0226504565
"Chaos : Making a New Science" by James Gleick - Paperback - 352
pages Rep edition (December 1988) Penguin USA (Paper); ISBN:
0140092501
"Complexity : The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" by
M. Mitchell Waldrop - Paperback (September 1993) Touchstone Books;
ISBN: 0671872346
"At Home in the Universe : The Search for Laws of Self-Organization
and Complexity" by Stuart A. Kauffman - Paperback Reprint edition
(November 1996) Oxford Univ Pr (Trade); ISBN: 0195111303
"Hidden Order : How Adaptation Builds Complexity" by John H. Holland,
Heather Mimnaugh (Editor) - Paperback (September 1996) Perseus Pr;
ISBN: 0201442302
"The Complexity of Cooperation : Agent-Based Models of Competition and
Collaboration (Princeton Studies in Complexity)" by Robert M. Axelrod
- Paperback - (September 1997) 272 pages
"The Economy As an Evolving Complex System II : Proceedings (Santa Fe
Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Vol 27)" by W. Brian
Arthur (Editor), Steven N. Durlauf (Editor), David A. Lane (Editor) -
Paperback - (August 1997) 400 pages
"Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy (Economics,
Cognition, and Society)" by W. Brian Arthur - Paperback - (July 1994)
"The Self-Organizing Economy" by Paul R. Krugman Paperback - (January
1996)
"Emergence : From Chaos to Order (Helix Books)" by John H. Holland-
Hardcover - (January 1998) 258 pages
"How Nature Works : The Science of Self-Organized Criticality" by Per
Bak- Hardcover - (September 1996) 212 pages
"The End of Certainty : Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature" by
Isabelle Stengers, Ilya Prigogine - Hardcover - (August 1997) 240
pages
"Bright Air, Brilliant Fire : On the Matter of the Mind" by Gerald M.
Edelman - Paperback - 304 pages Reprint edition (May 1993) Basic
Books; ISBN: 0465007643
"Remembered Present : A Biological Theory of Consciousness" by Gerald
M. Edelman - Hardcover - 346 pages (February 1990) Basic Books (Short
Disc); ISBN: 046506910X
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/Literature/Genres/Nonfiction/Authors/Calvin__William/>
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/bk8.html
http://discoveryschool.com/fall97/programs/thebrain-evolution/index.html
http://www.duke.edu/~twp2/consc_adapt_n_epi.html
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/39241.txt
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Brainchildren.html
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Consciousness_Explained.html
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Darwins_Dangerous_Idea.html
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Elbow_Room.html
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/s/philosophy.html
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/s/psychology.html
CREATURES FROM PRIMORDIAL SILICON
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/971115/features.html
Further reading: A collection of Adrian Thompson's papers is posted on
his Web site at http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.html
It's life, but not as we know it
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980704/notasweknow.html
http://www.newscientist.com/keysites/networld/silicon.html
http://alife.santafe.edu/
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980613/features.html
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980124/features2.html
http://www.labs.bt.com/people/cochrap/views.htm
"The Next 500 Years : Life in the Coming Millennium" by Adrian Berry -
Hardcover (February 1996) W H Freeman & Co.; ISBN: 071673009X
"The 500-Year Delta : What Happens After What Comes Next" by James
Taylor, Jim Taylor, Howard B. Means, Watts Wacker, ho Means -
Hardcover - 320 pages 1 Ed edition (June 1997) Harperbusiness; ISBN:
0887308384
"Beyond Humanity : Cyberevolution and Future Minds" by Gregory S.
Paul, Earl Cox - Paperback (October 1996) Charles River Media; ISBN:
1886801215
"Bold New World : The Essential Guide to Surviving and Prospering in
the Twenty-First Century" by William Knoke, Bill Knoke, Philip
Turner - Hardcover (January 1996) Kodansha; ISBN: 1568360959
"The Community of the Future (Drucker Foundation Future Series)" by
Frances Hesselbein (Editor), Marshall Goldsmith (Editor), Richard
Beckhard, Richard Schubert Hardcover - 384 pages 1 Ed edition
(February 1998) Simon & Schuster; ISBN: 0787910066
"The Organization of the Future (Drucker Foundation Future Series)" by
Frances Hesselbein (Editor), Marshall Goldsmith (Editor), Richard
Beckhard - Hardcover - 383 pages (February 1997) Jossey-Bass
Publishers; ISBN: 0787903035
"The Leader of the Future : New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for
the Next Era (Drucker Foundation Future Series)" by Frances
Hesselbein (Editor), Marshall Goldsmith (Editor), Richard Beckhard -
Paperback - 352 pages (September 1997) Jossey-Bass Publishers; ISBN:
0787909351
"Conscious Evolution : Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential" by
Barbara Marx Hubbard - Paperback - 356 pages (January 1998) New World
Library; ISBN: 1577310160
"Building a Win-Win World : Life Beyond Global Economic Warfare" by
Hazel Henderson - Paperback - 320 pages (October 1997) Berrett-Koehler
Pub; ISBN: 1576750272
"The Global Brain Awakens : Our Next Evolutionary Leap" by Peter
Russell" Hardcover (April 1995) Global Brain Inc; ISBN: 1885261055
" Imagined Worlds (Jerusalem-Harvard Lectures)" by Freeman J. Dyson -
Paperback - 224 pages (September 1998) Harvard Univ Pr; ISBN:
0674539095 ;
"Darwin Among the Machines : The Evolution of Global Intelligence"
(Helix Books) by George B. Dyson - Paperback - 304 pages (October
1998) Perseus Books; ISBN: 0738200301
"Pale Blue Dot : A Vision of the Human Future in Space" by Carl Sagan,
Carol Sagan - Paperback Reprint edition (October 1995) Random House
(Paper); ISBN: 0679764860
"Bionomics : Economy As Ecosystem" by Michael L. Rothschild -
Paperback Rei edition (April 1995) College Entrance Examination Board;
ISBN: 0805019790 - Paperback Reprint edition (May 1995) Perseus Pr;
ISBN: 0201483408
"New Rules for the New Economy : 10 Radical Strategies for a Connected
World" by Kevin Kelly Hardcover - 144 pages (November 1998) Viking Pr;
ISBN: 0670881112
http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/series.html
http://www.gbn.org/bookclub.html
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>The linkage between "solving complex equations", complexity, and fitness is
>not a priori obvious, and I think empirical support for the thesis
>is required first.
>
>Alan Filipski
>
yes, he kinda makes up his own argument, forgetting that much evidence
seems not to support it.
Pim van Meurs
"John Smith Ph.D." wrote:
>
> The empirical evidence for complexification
> over the course of evolution has been around
> for a long time- the geologic fossil record
> hard to ignore! What has been missing
> is a mathematical model that shows that
> complexification is a necessary consequence
> of evolution, and that is what I and a few other
> researchers are trying to provide.
>
Ah, so there might not be a necessary condition that complexity always
increases under evolution ?
I would appreciate if you could provide us with a description of the
fossil record and the numbers that
show the complexity. That would allow all of us to determine if indeed
complexity increased.
Furthermore I would appreciate a definition of complexity and how it can
be measured/quantified.
John Smith Ph.D.
howard hershey wrote>...
> > John Smith Ph.D.writes:
> > -What remains is to convince other researchers that
> > -a trend toward complexity in all types of evolution
> > -is an unavoidable consequence and to show
> > -them how this follows from mathematical models.
> This is due to the rather mistaken notion that evolution requires or
> imposes "progress" or "complexity" on life. Life has an extremely small
> fraction of species that are examples of complexity greater than
> procaryotes only because niches filled by the bacterial level of
> complexity are already filled. Life, in general, has a modal level of
> complexity at the level of bacteria, just as it did 2+ billion years ago
> and just as it will 2+ billion years hence. There is no guarantee that
> life 2+ billion years hence will have *any* significant number of
> organisms of higher complexity at all, much less of higher complexity
> than current metazoans (where was the increase in complexity between the
> dinosaurs and mammals?). There are, after all, only an insignificant
> few organisms with higher complexity today compared to the many
> organisms with the bacterial mode of complexity. Evolution does not
> have any inate drive toward increased complexity or progress.
>
Howard,
You have repeated above a long held dogma
in evolutionary biology, but even a very slow complexification
increase (as seen in bacteria) is nevertheless a trend, and
regardless the Earth must be viewed as an interacting
whole which has undeniably produced some very
advanced lifeforms.
The reason that complexification is in fact
an unavoidable consequence of evolution is not intuitively
obvious, but it can be validated via mathematical proof
of the multi-variable environment challenge to the
equation solving algorithm defined by the genetic
system of all living organism. Increasing the complexity of
that algorithm inevitably leads to a closer solution
of any equation with many variables, both
in mathematics and in the natural selection
process.
-John Smith Ph.D.
howard hershey
>
> The Law of Evolutionary Complexification
>
> obvious nor generally accepted that
> increasing complexity is a certain consequence
> shown that increasing complexity is indeed
> an unavoidable consequence of evolution.
>
It is quite debateable whether there is any inate drive toward
complexity in the history of life.
There are several cases where complexity *can* be explicitly defined,
rather than vaguely hinted at: For example the degree to which the
vertebrae of the spinal column becomes differentiated within an organism
(the upper part is different in shape from the lower part) as opposed to
organisms where all the vertebrae are similar (the latter being the
simpler and the former more complex). Another example is the fractal
increase of the suture lines in ammonites. In neither case is there any
evidence that, once one is away from the left wall of minimal
complexity, that further evolution has any direction in favor of
complexity. Neither do the more complex species have greater
longevity. Neither is, in those cases where ancestors and descendants
can be determined, any tendancy toward greater complexity (for those
cases where there is a significant difference in complexity in
descendants one way or the other).
In short, there is no evidence for evolution driving species toward
greater and greater complexity. The increase in complexity seen in the
tiny fraction of species that show complexity is most likely a simple
consequence of there being nowhere else to go in complexity except away
from the minimal level of complexity. The minimal level remains a
perfectly valid (and the most common) life style of life taken as a
whole. We are simply prejudiced because of our status at the tiny
ephemeral tail of complexity of the current crop of living organisms (we
think that that implies our inevitability).
maff91
<send.n...@futurex.com> wrote:
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Engineering/Electrical_Engineering/Neural_Networks/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Computer_Science/Algorithms/Genetic_Algorithms/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Complex_Systems/>
howard hershey
>
> howard hershey wrote>...
> > > John Smith Ph.D.writes:
> > > -What remains is to convince other researchers that
> > > -a trend toward complexity in all types of evolution
> > > -is an unavoidable consequence and to show
> > > -them how this follows from mathematical models.
>
> > This is due to the rather mistaken notion that evolution requires or
> > imposes "progress" or "complexity" on life. Life has an extremely small
> > fraction of species that are examples of complexity greater than
> > procaryotes only because niches filled by the bacterial level of
> > complexity are already filled. Life, in general, has a modal level of
> > complexity at the level of bacteria, just as it did 2+ billion years ago
> > and just as it will 2+ billion years hence. There is no guarantee that
> > life 2+ billion years hence will have *any* significant number of
> > organisms of higher complexity at all, much less of higher complexity
> > than current metazoans (where was the increase in complexity between the
> > dinosaurs and mammals?). There are, after all, only an insignificant
> > few organisms with higher complexity today compared to the many
> > organisms with the bacterial mode of complexity. Evolution does not
> > have any inate drive toward increased complexity or progress.
> >
> Howard,
> You have repeated above a long held dogma
> in evolutionary biology, but even a very slow complexification
Actually the long held 'dogma' in evolutionary biology (if there is one)
is the idea that there has been progress and increases in complexity.
> increase (as seen in bacteria) is nevertheless a trend, and
> regardless the Earth must be viewed as an interacting
> whole which has undeniably produced some very
> advanced lifeforms.
> The reason that complexification is in fact
> an unavoidable consequence of evolution is not intuitively
> obvious, but it can be validated via mathematical proof
> of the multi-variable environment challenge to the
> equation solving algorithm defined by the genetic
> system of all living organism.
What does the above gobbledeygook supposed to mean? Are you a troll? I
was talking biology, not pseudomath.
> Increasing the complexity of
> that algorithm inevitably leads to a closer solution
> of any equation with many variables, both
> in mathematics and in the natural selection
> process.
References? I have read some population genetics, but never have seen
anything like this. For a start, can you give some experimentally
determinable examples of 'complexity'?
> -John Smith Ph.D.
>
jeff wiel
[snip]
: The empirical evidence for complexification
: over the course of evolution has been around
: for a long time- the geologic fossil record
: hard to ignore! What has been missing
: is a mathematical model that shows that
: complexification is a necessary consequence
: of evolution, and that is what I and a few other
: researchers are trying to provide.
: I believe the model I have presented is
: is a more based in established principles
: of mathematics than are most other models
: and is at the same time both easier to briefly
: explain and to easily understand.
:
What model?
Quit blathering about math and post some equations.
Right now, your position is on the order of "the dog ate my homework".
Show the math, bunkey.
: -John Smith Ph.D.
Oh, and where did you get that Ph.D? In what subject?
howard hershey
>
> On 27 Dec 1998 16:06:08 -0500, "John Smith Ph.D."
> <send.n...@futurex.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Thanks for the fine references. I went to Kaufman's
> >site and read some of his ideas, hopefully none of the
> >references you supplied contain any mystical
> >explanations for the trend toward complexity-
> >the trend can surely be explained by math alone.
> >
> >What remains is to convince other researchers that
> >a trend toward complexity in all types of evolution
> >is an unavoidable consequence and to show
> >them how this follows from mathematical models.
Sorry. But I see no *necessary* evolutionary trend toward complexity
*independent* of natural selection. 'Complexity' (a difficult subject
to define) is favored only to the extent that it has a selective
advantage over simplicity in a particular local environment. The
converse is also true. Simplicity is favored only to the extent that it
has a selective advantage over complexity in a particular local
environment. Simple organisms continue to exist (and are the most
common types of organisms in nearly all environments) because simplicity
is often favored over complexity. Complexity is favored only when and
where such features have an advantage and as a natural consequence of
increased variation in form. There is no secular trend favoring
complexity independent of local selection. If there were, one would
expect a plot of organismal complexity to shift the *modal* organism
toward greater complexity (rather than merely shifting the mean
orgaanism toward complexity). If, for example, one takes increased size
in foramniferans as being a measure of increased complexity, one sees,
in the three increases in species variance that occurred after the
initial increase and after two subsequent collapses in species numbers,
an increase in *mean* size when one measures the size of living species
(up to a plateau, which by itself indicates a limit to complexity
increases), but there are still many small species and the modal species
remains small. I.e., one sees an increase in *variance* over time in
the only size direction one can vary. Only the small, simple species
survive the crashes, however. If increases in complexity (size) somehow
produced more favorable organisms, they were not the ones that survived
the occassional stresses that caused contraction of the number of
species. Being complex is over-rated as a survival strategy over
evolutionary time. Ask the dinosaurs and the bacteria which strategy
worked.