Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection

dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

JE:-
Complexity is equated with an decrease of entropy mostly because
increasing complexity can be equated with increasing levels of order.

When discussing complexity it's best to stay as far away from mentioning
entropy as possible. When it comes to entropy, hardly anyone knows what
they're talking about.

JE:-
Entropy is a concept of physics which can be usefully incorporated into
falsifiable theories of biology. Like complexity, entropy remains almost
entirely subjective, so indeed, "hardly anyone knows what they're
talking about" with regards to either term. This does not render either
to be invalid or useless, _as long as both remain a part of a
falsifiable theory_.


However, crystals are well ordered while displaying a _higher_ level of
entropy compared to the same substance uncrystallized. I think what we
may need is a better definition of complexity.

Why? Complexity is like pornography -- you know it when you see it.

JE:-
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it may not be a duck.
Verification/non verification remains critically insufficient without
refutation within all of the sciences. The problem is, mathematics is a
not a science so all it has going for it is verification/non
verification. In today's regrettably Post Modern world mathematics
attempts to replace the sciences (e.g. Hamilton's Rule) rendering
subjective concepts of entropy and complexity as (mostly) misused. An
example is the recent discussion here about entropy within which some
contributers failed to comprehend that it, like complexity, has to be
totaled per fertile organism providing an entirely biological concept of
entropy "inside" and "outside" of a biologically critical fertile
organism boundary. Their error is not dissimilar to the ongoing gene
centric proposition of simply ignoring within what fertile organism each
gene finds itself (via the deletion of gene fitness epistasis within
population genetics).

I have yet to see a good quantitative measure of complexity. I don't
think the essence of complexity can be captured quantitatively.

JE:-
I did propose such a definition. Complexity is: the number of _nested
subsets of fitness_(proper subsets of fitness) within one Darwinian,
falsifiable unit of selection. Because Neo Darwinism was and remains a
non falsifiable, mathematical, oversimplified model of refutable
Darwinian theory, Neo Darwinists cannot see any difference at all
between nested sets of fitness and intersecting sets of fitness.
Mathematics cannot distinguish between them because unlike the
falsifiable sciences, mathematics reduces nested sets to just
intersecting sets. For mathematics not to do so would require a non
reversible form of multiplication, i.e. the commutative rule of
mathematics would have to go. However, without this rule, mathematics
ceases to exist entirely.

JE:_
I would say that
complexity could be defined as the number of nested (proper) sets of
fitness per Darwinian unit of selection because nested sub parts can
only form fitness dependent biological sub entities of single Darwinian
units of selection e.g. genes remain fitness dependent on one adult
(fertile) form. Nested, i.e. NON reversible sets of fitness (no matter
how you define fitness) proposed as a measure of organism complexity
must not to be confused with the number of intersecting sets of fitness
because these form reversible populations of Darwinian mono-centric
(single) units of selection _disallowing populations as valid units of
selection_. For example I would hypothesize that diploblasty (a
condition of the ovum in which there are two primary germ layers: the
ectoderm and endoderm) always remains less complex that triploblasty
(the ovum contains three primary germ layers: the ectoderm, mesoderm and
endoderm.

From the Web article:
"To summarize, the lines have been drawn thus: Darwin says that natural
selection causes complexity by continuously moving organisms into
tighter synergy with their environment, necessitating said complexity.
Wolfram says complexity arises naturally with even the smallest change
in the organism's genetic makeup, and that natural selection serves
mainly to rein it in by culling the unworkable variations."

JE:-
Natural selection may only appear to reduce complexity e.g. cave fish
can be observed to be selected to cover their (now useless) eyes with
skin in order to avoid damage and therefore infection while losing most
of their body pigmentation. However, other body systems may increase in
complexity.

Not in the case of parasites. In general, I don't think complexity is
correlated to organismic fitness.

JE:-
I am not saying that it is. I am saying that complexity could be
measured as the number of _nested sets of dependent fitness within each
independent Darwinian mono-centric unit of selection_.

Because almost all Neo Darwinists remain poly-centric theorists they
cannot grasp this simple concept because it remains invisible to them.
This is only because of their continued misuse of non falsifiable
poly-centric mathematical models of evolutionary theory which dominates
their thinking almost entirely. In short, they cannot/refuse, to step
outside of their own square.


I would agree with Darwin but would express it differently:
natural selection will tend to increase the number of nested levels of
selection within each Darwinian mono-centric unit of selection (each
adult form). IOW I would propose that it will remain impossible for
natural selection to evolve diploblasty from triploblasty (the reverse
of what natural history has demonstrated).

JE:-
Please note that the above presents an empirical test to falsification
of the definition of complexity that I have proposed as just one part of
mono-centric Darwinian theory (which can be falsified as a theory).

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... >> Fluctuating selection would satisfy Gould equally well. ... >> Probably the major theme is that complexity follows a random walk ... You were trying to justify a claim that genome length increases through ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Species diversity through time
    ... again like an ordinary random walk. ... Gould didn't think evolution was a random walk. ... He knew that there was such a thing as natural selection, ... of increasing complexity, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Species diversity through time
    ... Gould didn't think evolution was a random walk. ... He knew that there was such a thing as natural selection, ... of increasing complexity, ... explanatory ability of the received view in modern biology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Species diversity through time
    ... That's why I say evolution is a random walk in Gould's view. ... He knew that there was such a thing as natural selection, ... of increasing complexity, ... I only got started seriously on the subject areas of emergence and self-organization in the last two months after reaching a state of utter exasperation with the explanatory ability of the received view in modern biology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... is progressive in more than the Gouldian random walk way. ... natural selection. ... Probably the major theme is that complexity follows a random walk ... refers to ancient genome duplications which occurred at least several ...
    (talk.origins)