A Different Perspective on Irreducible Complexity
by BradfordBefore Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box Sir Fred Hoyle identified the evolution of the histone H1 protein as problematic for mainstream evolutionary scenarios. Although he did not use the term irreducible complexity the interactive nature of the protein was implicit to his analysis of the evolution of chromatin.
Another Protzoan and Front-Loading nominates a candidate for a front loading process. In this election year we are sometimes painfully reminded that candidates do not reveal detailed plans for processes effecting outcomes promised in stump speeches. This is not unlike the evolution of irreducibly complex systems.
Telic Thoughts commenter Rock had this to say recently:
As Mike pointed out one can remove H1 from a particular metazoan and retain viability for that particular organism. But if presently observed genomic features in complex organisms resulted from a series of steps constituting a process, then one could reasonably argue that there are steps within the process that were essential to maintaining the integrity of the process itself. We may not be able to identify the steps themselves even if general ideas about them are put forth. But since when have detailed pathways to irreducibly complex systems become a sina quo non for METers?
Rock's approach has the advantage of viewing IC on a process level as opposed to a parts perspective. Part x may be dispensible for organism y but the presence of x and some favorable genomic circumstances may be evidence for front loading. FL in turn may explain a histone complex the way loaded dice are able to explain outcomes resistent to standardized dice rolls.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Hmmmm…. dice loading.
Comment by johnnyb — July 1, 2008 @ 11:28 am
July 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
When they feel the need to refute Behe.
[nitpick] sine qua non [/nitpick]
Comment by chunkdz — July 1, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Speaking of dice loading, this recent article dances around the idea that:
(A) Darwinian evolution itself is insufficient to produce a trend in complexity,
(B) Chance is insufficient to produce a trend toward complexity,
(C) But chance + Darwinian evolution + the right initial conditions + lots of time can produce an "arrow of complexity".
But of course, an article which dances so closely to front-loading must have the usual disclaimer in the conclusion.
Comment by chunkdz — July 1, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Ummm, anybody seen the *edit* function?
Comment by chunkdz — July 1, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Look at it this way then. If chance + Darwinian evolution + the right initial conditions + lots of time do not produce the observed "arrow of complexity" then either the front loading was of a different type or the process cited is erroneous.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
That's why they speak of the *right* initial conditions, which just happen to be very friendly to front loading. From the article:
In other words, we need a sufficiently flexible medium (like proteins), a favorable environment, and the initial state must be biased towards adaptivity and increased complexity.
Front-loading anyone?
(BTW Bradford, are you able to close the tags on my errant post above?)
Comment by chunkdz — July 1, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Edit function is confusing at the moment, I'll restore it once I fix it. Preview works though.
Comment by Guts — July 1, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
A relatively small set of components that can be combined in many different ways, like an Erector Set.
Actually, they considered that complexity may be a response to unfavorable environmental perturbations.
While there are still open questions, their tentative conclusion was that there is no driven tendency to complexity. Rather, life fills available niches, and an increase in complexity can represent an unoccupied niche.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
chunkdz:
You and Zachriel have used they and their. Aren't the linked articles authored by single individuals?
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Zach,
I was talking about an environment favorable to complexity.
The conclusion is that an arrow of complexity requires a set of prevailing conditions, which I listed in my post.
Comment by chunkdz — July 1, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Bradford,
Right you are. I was thrown by the fact that the author of the paper I linked to uses "we" throughout the text.
Comment by chunkdz — July 1, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Thanks for the fix, BTW!
Comment by chunkdz — July 1, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
You modified "initial state" to "prevailing conditions". I'm not sure how this affects your summary.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Z,
No. The initial state is one of the necessary prevailing conditions.
I'm not sure if you have anything of substance to say.
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 11:11 am
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 am
None of the conditions listed appear to be initial states. In particular, the explorable design space is constantly changing, including any strict bounds and steps within that design space.
I was asking for clarification.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 11:29 am
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Initial state = starting point
From the paper:
Sorry. I assumed you had read the paper.
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 11:49 am
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
It is a stupid little article though, isn't it?
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 11:53 am
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
No. In this instance, "initial state" does not equal "starting point". In context, "starting point" refers to the beginning of each individual jump, not the initial state of the space. This is a statement concerning the geometry of the evolving design space.
According to the paper, that would not be sufficient. The conditions have to be prevailing. "Front-loading" isn't supported at all.
As to the biological search space, there is a great deal of evidence concerning step-wise adaptation, e.g. fins to legs to arms to wings to fins.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Z,
You can play this game if you want, but either way you have to follow the regression. A journey of a thousand jumps begins with a single jump – each jump requiring the same set of conditions.
I said this already. Nice job of cherry picking my words though.
Follow the regression. What would a front-loader do to give life an edge in prevailing conditions present and future?
Yeah, I love Discovery Channel too.
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I'll let you make your own case, but the evidence indicates that evolution is a spontaneous process.
Handwaving. In fact, we have evidence of a large number of transitions, each novel structure being an incremental adaptation of an existing structure.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Or were you denying the evolution of fins to legs to arms to wings to fins?
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Z,
Which has nothing to do with the question I asked you. Interesting.
Look, the crux of the article is that
(A) Watches don't make themselves (chance ruled out)
(B) If you give The Blind Moron a screwdriver and he's more likely to stab himself in the groin than he is to build something useful, much less a watch. (Warrant ruled out)
(C) Give The Blind Moron a set of watch parts that practically assemble themselves, and a good environment to work in, and you've got a better chance at making a watch.
This of course begs the questions – where did The Blind Moron get all those great gadgets and tools? And isn't it lucky that The Blind Moron has the perfect work bench for watchmaking?
Did I say Discovery Channel? I meant Nat Geo.
You are just itching to say the words "nested heirarchy" aren't you?:grin::lol:
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
No, that doesn't seem to be the intent of the article.
The writer is describing the evolutionary search space in broad terms. It's a rather simplistic analysis, but nothing he writes indicates that these conditions can't be met by the natural environment.
The explorable design space is too vast for a random search to successfully find complex solutions. Evolutionary search reduces the search space considerably, but it depends on their being selectable pathways through the space. That seems to be the intent of the article.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
From the conclusion of the article itself:
Warrant ruled out.
Chance ruled out.
Life is conditional….
Life needs a robust, adaptable mechanism…
Life needs a favorable environment.
Is that what your brain is telling you that I am saying? Fascinating.
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
That rules out a mechanism of a driven tendency (such as front-loading).
Yes, as I said.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
chunkdz,
I think you missed the point completely on this part. This seems to mean Life is not front-loaded to march towards any specific goal. This seems to directly contradict your assertion that the paper supports the idea of front loading. He's saying its neither telic nor random.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 2, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Z,
Front-loading is not a mechanism.
Perhaps you are confusing the mechanism of Darwinian evolution with the mechanism of life? One is passive, one is driven.
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Todd,
I wouldn't expect him to say life is telic. What he does say is that the march towards complexity is not a warranted consequence of the laws of physics. It requires some very fortuitous conditions.
Look at the title: "The Double-Edged Sword". He says rather explicitly that Darwinian evolution is just as good at destroying complexity as it is at facilitating it. Yet the arrow of complexity has grown for billions of years due to a favorable environment, and a robust mechanism of life. The Blind Moron gets all the credit for the beautiful watch, but personally, I'm more interested in looking at The Blind Moron's work bench and wondering where he got all those cool gizmos to work with.
I would expect a front-loader to design a robust mechanism that could exploit a wide range of environmental search space. I would not expect such a mechanism to arise spontaneously. I understand that you might disagree and fully expect that such a mechanism would spontaneously appear. Cest la vie.
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Evolution is a process. However, there are a number of well-known evolutionary mechanisms. The point stands.
That rules out mechanisms of a driven tendency (such as those rather loosely implied by the notion of front-loading).
In fact, the author states just the opposite.
Logical consequence of
1. Life
2. Laws of physics
3. Geological environment
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Z,
After all this time you still really have no idea what front-loading is, do you? Fascinating!
I read your quote, and nowhere do I see the author asserting that the march towards complexity is a warranted consequence of the laws of physics.
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I've noticed on several occasions you had an opportunity to advance the discussion, but didn't. Oh, yeah. I remember now.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Front-loading doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis or theory. Rather, it's a vague idea or claim, lacking empirical support, that primoridal life was designed for future contingencies. The paper you cited does not support front-loading.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Z,
I've noticed that when you say that front-loading is a mechanism, and I point out it is not a mechanism, you respond with:
LOL!
I also noticed you tried to strawman me, cherry pick me, obfuscate, and most inexplicably, you tried to refute me by using my own argument as your own.:?:
As for advancing the discussion, Zachriel, you are in no position to throw stones. Your adopted role as contrarian is becoming rather trite.
First, I merely suggested that the paper was "friendly" to front-loading.
Second, the fact that you seem to believe that front-loading is some kind of "mechanism of driven tendency" demonstrates that you are simply being contrary without even knowing what you are arguing against.
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
You had spoke in the same breath about the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, when there are many known mechanisms of evolution. And then I provided a modified statement for clarity, just so you wouldn't be confused.
Zachriel: That rules out mechanisms of a driven tendency (such as those rather loosely implied by the notion of front-loading).
The conclusion ruled out any driven tendency. Front-loading is a vague concept, poorly defined.
Once again you wave your hands, but provide no substantive reason. You've had several opportunities, for instance, to provide a clear definition of front-loading, or even a valid scientific theory subject to testing, but you have neglected to do so repeatedly. It must be a secret.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Zachriel:
Let me take a stab at this.
front loading: a set up of initial conditions so as to steer the outcome(s) of subsequent events in a definite direction. A cook front loads a container of boiling water by adding specific ingredients to attain a specific (named) soup outcome. One would front load in order to obtain the result of a world of diverse organisms (the outcome) by constructing a cell or cells with a capacity to replicate and adapt to environmental conditions.
Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Here is my understanding of Behe's IC:
Irreducible complexity is not something on its own, but in parallel with CSI. You can't argue against IC without arguing at both. There are two sub-parts to this, IC is true because if you took out something it won't work, that's exactly what Behe observed, that is science btw. The second part is IF the IC function had previous functions in different states and forms that did different things. This is the part about whether something which is obviously observed to be IC could have evolved by Darwinian Evolution from pre-existing functions into its more complex modular state. Although its true that you could use many parts for different things, whats wrong with this picture is that Behe argues without any goal-directed deterministic algorithm you won't get to from point A to point B (IC). IC is a function of its specificity (CSI).
In addition to this, in my POV, if something was irreducibly complex and still performed the function even at 20 percent less efficiency given its functional loss, that would be more evidence of design then previously thought. For example, this would be synonymous with fault-tolerance or the concept of data integrity. Fault tolerance is more indicative of design because its an additional layer of specificity on top of the function being performed. If you look at something like the open systems interconnection model for networks, you have protocols for error detection and error correction that are there to supplement the data signal loss which can happen frequently. At each layer, different things happen at different levels of abstraction and modularity, but there is enough back-up to compensate for failures. Without such design implementations communications would be pretty crappy.
Comment by computerist — July 2, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Sorry this:
"if something was irreducibly complex "
is supposed to say this:
"if something was reducible"
from my previous reply.
Comment by computerist — July 2, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
computerist:
Biological protocols enabling error detection and correction are excellent design candidates in my view. We do not know that cells are viable in their absence and there is considerable evidence that some level of error correction and detection is needed to maintain genomic integrity within cells.
Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Bradford wrote:
Zachriel, since this is well known around here, and Bradford has laid it out pretty succinctly, so why on earth would you think that front-loading is a mechanism of driven tendency? It's not a mechanism. And it's resultant tendency is not driven, it's passive.
I find it hilarious that you've been poo-pooing front-loading around here for a fairly long time, and only now when your ignorance is exposed are you demanding that someone define it for you!
Too freakin' much!
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
[quote]Biological protocols enabling error detection and correction are excellent design candidates in my view. We do not know that cells are viable in their absence and there is considerable evidence that some level of error correction and detection is needed to maintain genomic integrity within cells.[/quote]
I agree, I am not too familiar with the biological similarities/analogies but I think this sort of design is the ultimate indication of design in biological systems. Its just probably not that obvious since it works behind the scenes to get stuff done efficiently.
Comment by computerist — July 2, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
steer, to control the course of : direct.
Directed tendency, steer in a definite direction.
I provided this definition. Front-loading is the idea or claim that primoridal life was designed for future contingencies.
Are you saying that this definition is incorrect?
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 7:27 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 am
Scale-free networks naturally exhibit fault tolerance. For instance, taking out a random node will rarely have a significant effect on the overall network, and the system can be easily rerouted. It can be shown that scale-free networks will evolve through preferential attachment.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 7:42 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Hi Zach:
Isn't this more in-line with Mike's front-loading view?
Comment by Doug — July 3, 2008 @ 8:35 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Preferential attachment due to local and temporal conditions *without* regard to the future structure of the network seems to be contrary to front-loading. It's a natural result of network evolution (presupposing the existence of network attachment, i.e. populations of imperfect replicators).
We can also show that on many scales biological networks resemble scale-free networks. Scale-free networks exhibit highly complex interactions on many levels. Major nodes exhibit irreducibility, and tend to be remain highly stable over time. New attachments work around well-established patterns, reinforcing modularity at larger scales. And it also helps explain the pattern of change itself, with lots of small changes, a few big changes, and rare revolutions that occur at surprising times.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 9:21 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Guts just started a thread on modularity.
Modularity of Biological Networks
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 9:25 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 am
Wow, do you really think Bradford's definition is substantively different from the one Zachriel provided? You really think "steer the outcome(s) of subsequent events in a definite direction" is describing a passive tendency? When you drive your car down the highway do you make it around the corners as result of a passive tendency? You seem far more interested in attacking Zachriel than understanding or participating in this discussion.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2008 @ 10:35 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
HOT/COLD design theory explains the trend of increasing complexity (in both biology and technology) as due to the requirement for robust adaptation. By “robust” is meant quasi- or conditionally independent; invariant over a wide range of parameters and parameter values; insensitivity (/hypersensitivity).
Systems of arbitrary, and non-robust complexity may be formed “spontaneously” or “randomly” by the simplest devices. As someone observed above. A fair die suffices. In any case, a spontaneous or random increase in a trend is a contradiction in terms.
And, as one might expect, the conditions for the special cases, of decrease in complexity (on any number of measures of complexity), are be better understood than the general case. But an appeal to special cases is just that; it doesn’t invalidate the observation of the general trend.
Miconi raises an interesting question about the differences between notions of statistical and functional complexity. What is the difference?
Since Miconi identifies the two, for his purposes, he can't help me really understand the trend of increasing functional complexity.
(Zachriel, I don’t think “preferential attachment” really explains anything, but is little more than a species of “curve-fitting,” as long as the “preferential attachment rule” is just the mean degree scale factor itself. Calling the same thing by a different name doesn’t really ‘splain much, does it? Review your sources and help me understand otherwise.)
Comment by Rock — July 3, 2008 @ 11:25 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Todd,
Do you really think front-loading is akin to steering a car down a highway?
So if I call Zachriel on faulty logic I am "attacking" him?
Comment by chunkdz — July 3, 2008 @ 11:46 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
steer, to control the course of : direct.
Are you saying that this definition is incorrect? I note that you have again missed an opportunity to clarify the issue for our readers. Please provide a definition of Front-Loading.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Dissipation. Passive.
Comment by chunkdz — July 3, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Thank you, chunkdz, for typing that out.
MikeGene: Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation.
Interestingly, the phrase "evolution through its dissipation" only appears once on Google, when Mike Gene posted it on ISCID Brainstorms.
Let's consider an analog. We would certainly consider an artificial channel a way to *direct* water to a destination, even though the water follows its natural tendency, even if it is a wide valley or maze, as long as there is a destination involved. Mike Gene's further comment indicates that there are specific destinations that Front-Loading will lead to, such as multicellularity.
By contrast, rather than a channel, the Theory of Evolution posits that life will fill all niches as they become available. Think of it as water poured against a wall (of zero complexity). The water will tend to spread away from the wall (into increasing complexity). This would be a tendency, but not directed.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Z,
I think your characterization of front-loading as some kind of aqueduct to a specific destination is a poor analogy.
Comment by chunkdz — July 3, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Zachriel said:
A tendency as you describe it is not a proactive process but a reactive one. Please tell me how in the world a reactive process creates anything significant.
Comment by computerist — July 3, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Zachriel,
Or decreasing complexity. Or no change in complexity. Or fluctuating complexity.
The question you should be asking yourself is "What would a designer do to skew the odds in favor of an arrow of complexity?"
Comment by chunkdz — July 3, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
chunkdz said:
Exactly!
Comment by computerist — July 3, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Hi computerist,
The way Miconi put it was this:
Comment by chunkdz — July 3, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
This is why software companies should really start looking at Darwinian Evolutionary algorithms instead of primitive foresight.
Comment by computerist — July 3, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Hi Bradford,
A recent post by Patrick at UD regarding error-correction mechanisms might be of interest:
Comment by computerist — July 3, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Forgot to add smiley to my last reply to Chunkdz
(ie: sarcasm)
Comment by computerist — July 3, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I have no idea what your point it here. The analogy presupposes that life like water will tend to fill the available niches.
The wall is zero complexity.
As the water is being poured against the wall, it will tend to spread away from the wall.
Miconi concluded that "the appearance and growth of complexity in evolution is the logical consequence of
1. Life
2. Laws of physics
3. Geological environment
Evolutionary computation (genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, neural networks, cellular automata) is already being used to solve real problems in engineering, e.g. aerodynamics, circuit design, person recognition for security, etc.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Right, and that's exactly why its reactive and not proactive. The most you get is patterns exhibiting inequalities. Your analogy is similar to that of throwing garbage inside a garbage bag (forming one pattern), then tossing the garbage in another bin which produces another pattern, the garbage is being shuffled around enough based on a reactive process of garbage taking sequence or precedence over the other but this has nothing to do with increasing complexity, specificity, function of any type. Proactive processes involve foresight, there is goal-direction not tendency.
Comment by computerist — July 3, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
computerist:
Thanks. It gave me an idea for a future post.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Okay, so you've defined "proactive processes" in terms of foresight. Let's return to your original use of the term.
Evolution.
The analogy was illustrative. Given evolutionary processes, life tends to fill niches when they become available, complexity being one such niche. So even though there may be no inherent tendency for increasing complexity in evolution, life will tend to spread into those niches, as well as more simple ones.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Zachriel said:
Great, so I guess your illustrative analogy proves that a reactive process (organisms reacting to changes in the environment governed by the laws of physics) act as a proactive one minus any foresight. How silly of me to think it was not
It seems this blog should be shutdown.
Comment by computerist — July 3, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Um, analogies are not meant to prove. The question was in the conext of the Miconi article, and whether evolutionary processes lead to "a passive, incidental growth, or a pervasive bias towards complexification." You are free to ignore the analogy.
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 8:18 am
July 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Just as an aside for this thread, the article cited by Chunkdz doesn't mention anything about a "relatively small set of components". Also in some cases, there may actually be a driven trend towards complexity increase. See for example this book .
Comment by Guts — July 7, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 8:46 am
It's well-established that the Red Queen Effect can cause rapid evolution, the hominid brain being a case in point. As Miconi points out, there are also examples of rapid decrease in complexity, such as in the evolution of parasites. The question is whether a general increase in complexity is intrinsic to evolutionary processes or incidental to its spread into new niches. (Hominid brain evolution wouldn't be 'large scale' in this context anymore than the peacock's tail, though we can certainly understand why peacocks might see evolution as trending towards the most beautiful and elaborate tail.)
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2008 @ 8:46 am
July 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Zachriel:
The question is , what is the point of having a larger, more costly, brain size, and why do others follow suit instead of finding simpler solutions? It's an open question.
Zachriel:
It's not just hominids, it's a general trend among pretty much all terrestrial vertebrates.
Comment by Guts — July 11, 2008 @ 5:31 pm