"Life began in the primordial soup and the evolutionary drive has resulted in the origin of organisms of greater and greater complexity."
"Organisms get better as they evolve. They get more advanced, more modern and less primitive."
"From the first cell that coalesced in the primordial soup to the magnificent intricacies of the Homo sapiens, the evolution of life has been one long drive forward towards greater complexity."
True or False ?
Well, as far as I see, a lot of people would tend to agree to these statements...
But then once in a while you come across these books and authors who question such statements and our implicit acceptance of their veracity and they end up shattering many of the myths which we often accept unquestioningly ...
I haven't come across too many such people but one person who makes me think, question, argue and answer, as I read his thoughts is Stephen Jay Gould. SJ Gould is a famous naturalist and evolutionary biologist who has written several wonderful essays (more than 300 in fact, as a continuous monthly series over a period of several years) and quite a few books. While his essays are eye opening with their exquisite ability to interlink diverse events and delving into the depths of any subject to identify patterns and similarities, his books have this uncanny ability of exposing questions to which people have often assumed answers without rigorous questioning.
A good example would be the question of an increasing drive for complexity. Most people, even most biologists, would agree with the statements listed at the start of the post which suggest an inherent drive for complexity. In his book, "The Full House", Gould exposes this fallacy and attempts at convincing us of an alternate possibility.
"The Full house" is a beautifully written book and in true Gould style, it leads to a healthy argument in the minds of the reader as they battle against the statements made by him only to finally accept his logic and rationale. At many times, I have found Gould to be a Stickler for semantics while i have often prioritized and aimed at distilling the meaning implied without stressing on the actual words used. But I guess, in science, a field that deals with rational thought and empirical observations, it is important that one does use the right words to convey the right insight.
In this book, Gould leads us through the labyrinthine maze of statistics and their role in our understanding of this "evolutionary drive for greater complexity". He leads us through a step by step argument that finally leads one to accept that evolution in all likelihood does not have any inherent drive towards complexity. He uses two elegant examples to demonstrate the existence of a left and/or a right wall in various everyday phenomena i.e. a natural upper or lower limit that is inherent to the system under study. The human body, for example, has certain inherent physical limitations which ultimately determine the performance and improvement of athletes (this is an example of a right wall, which means that our physical performance can keep increasing with rigorous training, technology, dietary intake, lifestyle, drugs etc but only till we hit the right wall...which is determined by the limits of the human body). He demonstrates very convincingly that the existence of such left and right walls can actually bias the statistics and thereby our understanding of particular phenomena, leaving plenty of room for wrong interpretations.
The book begins with a succinct explanation of the three major statistical measures - the mean, the median and the mode, Gould first convinces us that the mean is the farthest from the truth (as even a single erroneous value can truly skew our perspective of a population), while the Mode is the closest to the truth as it depicts the most common value in a population.
1,2,3,2,4,100,2,4,5,2,1,1000
The mean for this series would be 98.3 while the median and the mode are 3 and 2 respectively. This clearly highlights the fact that the mode is the best representation of a population and therefore the most likely candidate to be used to study variations in a population.
Extending this point further, he makes the case that in the history of evolution, the bacterial mode of life remains the single most dominant life form that has populated the earth. Bacteria have been the oldest and most successful occupants of this planet as they are found in almost every habitat known to man - ranging from the bacteria that exist as parasites and symbionts to the autotrophic bacteria that are inhabitants of hot thermal springs and volcanic rocks. Thus, considering the long history of evolution and the predominance of bacteria, these tiny, microscopic organisms seem to form the "statistical mode" of life on earth. This line of thought leads us to explore the possibility that life is not an really exhibiting a drive for greater complexity through evolutionary history.
Also, importantly, he draws our attention to one fundamental question which needs to be addressed in the context of evolutionary progress and this is the question of the very definition of progress. What is considered to be more advanced and what is more primitive ? On what basis would one say that a particular lineage is more complex or more advanced ? Does a bacteria become more advanced and complex because it is better adapted to a diverse set of environmental conditions or do humans become more advanced and complex due to their conscious nature ? Or does a virus become more complex, because it has managed to evolve a basic minimal set of functions essential for its propagation and survival ? What defines evolutionary progress or complexity ?
An immediate thought would be to say that the evolutionary success of an organism is the true indicator of its progress and thereby of its complexity; and this is where the impact of bacterial abundance truly hits. Based on criteria such as numbers, abundance, evolutionary ancestry, biomass and adaptation, the bacteria truly seem to be "superior" to all other species including man.
Gould's argument is that this increase in "complexity", as we perceive in terms of multicellularity, physiology, life span, consciousness, etc, is not the result of an inherent drive but is rather a consequence of the existence of a left wall in the history of evolution of life. In the evolution of life, the simplest organisms arose first and things couldn't get any simpler from there. The existence of such a wall on the left of the evolutionary scale meant that things can only move in one direction - to the right. Thus, the origin of multicellular organisms and of sentient life is the result of random events which could only drive the evolution of life in only one direction. He cites the example of a drunk man walking whose left end is determined by the existence of a wall and the right by a ditch. Under the circumstances, there is a good chance that the man would end up in the ditch even though he is walking without an inherent drive because that's the only way open to him. Thus, he says that the evolution of human beings from the single celled organisms is not the result of an inherent drive in evolution towards greater complexity but rather, is the result of random events which cannot be expected to yield the same consequence upon another repetition. Gould also uses the example of parasites and simpler organisms like viruses to introduce the idea that organisms on the evolutionary scale could also tend towards simplicity rather than complexity.
Gould's primary idea of course is to convince the reader that the complexity in life as it exists today is not the result of a pre-ordained or inherent evolutionary drive towards greater complexity but rather the result of random events which have resulted in sentient beings like us, ruling the planet today! While the question of evolutionary complexity does make one think about the possible criteria that can be considered, the ultimate aim of this book is to convince us that evolution, in itself, lacks any inherent drive towards complexity; thereby stripping off any modicum of special ordainment that may be conferred on the reasons for human existence at this point in evolutionary history.
From my perspective, the definition of complexity seems like a question of semantics because i chose to interpret complexity as a reflection of the extent of specialization and adaptation. This is a criteria that Gould has not explored. I think that there has been an undeniable increase in the complexity of organisms since the origin of the first protocells. In the history of evolution, life has moved from the single celled bacteria to mutlicelled humans and the organisms have grown more and more specialized along the way. I do not suggest the existence of an inherent drive towards complexity but I do think, there is a trend towards greater complexity. This increased complexity, as interpreted as increased specialization and adaptation, could also address the existence of parasites and viruses whose existence was difficult to explain by the other definitions of complexity.
The underlying cause for this increased complexity could certainly be the existence of the left wall, as rightly suggested by Gould, but I am definitely, not completely convinced, by his arguments against an increase in complexity. I am also quite taken by his argument for the modal bacterial life and i think that it is a very good point to make. In fact, one rarely realizes the ubiquity and antiquity of bacterial life forms and going by these parameters, the entire history of the evolution of life would seem like the age of bacteria unlike the other ages which have named based on the predominant life forms seen in the period.
Thus, while I understand the case made my Gould in the book against the commonplace understanding of an inherent drive for increased complexity in the origin and evolution of life and I do espouse his view of our existence on this planet being a result of purely random events, which need not (and most likely will not) end the same way, if the history of life is replayed; I am however not prepared to say that over the entire evolutionary history known to us, there is no increase in the complexity of organisms.
On a parting note, I would like to present here a beautiful thought which was used as the opening for the book's second chapter:
"I have often had occasion to quote Freud's incisive, almost rueful, observation that all major revolutions in the history of science have as their common theme, amidst such diversity, the successive dethronement of human arrogance from one pillar after another of our previous cosmic assurance. Freud mentions three such incidents: We once thought that we lived on the central body of a limited universe until Copernicus, Galileo and Newton identified the earth as a tiny satellite to a marginal star. We then comforted ourselves by imagining that God had nevertheless chosen this peripheral location for creating a unique organism in his image - until Darwin came along and "relegated us to descent from an animal world". We then sought solace in our rational minds until, as Freud notes in one of the least modest statements of intellectual history, psychology discovered the unconscious."
"Organisms get better as they evolve. They get more advanced, more modern and less primitive."
"From the first cell that coalesced in the primordial soup to the magnificent intricacies of the Homo sapiens, the evolution of life has been one long drive forward towards greater complexity."
True or False ?
Well, as far as I see, a lot of people would tend to agree to these statements...
But then once in a while you come across these books and authors who question such statements and our implicit acceptance of their veracity and they end up shattering many of the myths which we often accept unquestioningly ...
I haven't come across too many such people but one person who makes me think, question, argue and answer, as I read his thoughts is Stephen Jay Gould. SJ Gould is a famous naturalist and evolutionary biologist who has written several wonderful essays (more than 300 in fact, as a continuous monthly series over a period of several years) and quite a few books. While his essays are eye opening with their exquisite ability to interlink diverse events and delving into the depths of any subject to identify patterns and similarities, his books have this uncanny ability of exposing questions to which people have often assumed answers without rigorous questioning.
A good example would be the question of an increasing drive for complexity. Most people, even most biologists, would agree with the statements listed at the start of the post which suggest an inherent drive for complexity. In his book, "The Full House", Gould exposes this fallacy and attempts at convincing us of an alternate possibility.
"The Full house" is a beautifully written book and in true Gould style, it leads to a healthy argument in the minds of the reader as they battle against the statements made by him only to finally accept his logic and rationale. At many times, I have found Gould to be a Stickler for semantics while i have often prioritized and aimed at distilling the meaning implied without stressing on the actual words used. But I guess, in science, a field that deals with rational thought and empirical observations, it is important that one does use the right words to convey the right insight.
In this book, Gould leads us through the labyrinthine maze of statistics and their role in our understanding of this "evolutionary drive for greater complexity". He leads us through a step by step argument that finally leads one to accept that evolution in all likelihood does not have any inherent drive towards complexity. He uses two elegant examples to demonstrate the existence of a left and/or a right wall in various everyday phenomena i.e. a natural upper or lower limit that is inherent to the system under study. The human body, for example, has certain inherent physical limitations which ultimately determine the performance and improvement of athletes (this is an example of a right wall, which means that our physical performance can keep increasing with rigorous training, technology, dietary intake, lifestyle, drugs etc but only till we hit the right wall...which is determined by the limits of the human body). He demonstrates very convincingly that the existence of such left and right walls can actually bias the statistics and thereby our understanding of particular phenomena, leaving plenty of room for wrong interpretations.
The book begins with a succinct explanation of the three major statistical measures - the mean, the median and the mode, Gould first convinces us that the mean is the farthest from the truth (as even a single erroneous value can truly skew our perspective of a population), while the Mode is the closest to the truth as it depicts the most common value in a population.
1,2,3,2,4,100,2,4,5,2,1,1000
The mean for this series would be 98.3 while the median and the mode are 3 and 2 respectively. This clearly highlights the fact that the mode is the best representation of a population and therefore the most likely candidate to be used to study variations in a population.
Extending this point further, he makes the case that in the history of evolution, the bacterial mode of life remains the single most dominant life form that has populated the earth. Bacteria have been the oldest and most successful occupants of this planet as they are found in almost every habitat known to man - ranging from the bacteria that exist as parasites and symbionts to the autotrophic bacteria that are inhabitants of hot thermal springs and volcanic rocks. Thus, considering the long history of evolution and the predominance of bacteria, these tiny, microscopic organisms seem to form the "statistical mode" of life on earth. This line of thought leads us to explore the possibility that life is not an really exhibiting a drive for greater complexity through evolutionary history.
Also, importantly, he draws our attention to one fundamental question which needs to be addressed in the context of evolutionary progress and this is the question of the very definition of progress. What is considered to be more advanced and what is more primitive ? On what basis would one say that a particular lineage is more complex or more advanced ? Does a bacteria become more advanced and complex because it is better adapted to a diverse set of environmental conditions or do humans become more advanced and complex due to their conscious nature ? Or does a virus become more complex, because it has managed to evolve a basic minimal set of functions essential for its propagation and survival ? What defines evolutionary progress or complexity ?
An immediate thought would be to say that the evolutionary success of an organism is the true indicator of its progress and thereby of its complexity; and this is where the impact of bacterial abundance truly hits. Based on criteria such as numbers, abundance, evolutionary ancestry, biomass and adaptation, the bacteria truly seem to be "superior" to all other species including man.
Gould's argument is that this increase in "complexity", as we perceive in terms of multicellularity, physiology, life span, consciousness, etc, is not the result of an inherent drive but is rather a consequence of the existence of a left wall in the history of evolution of life. In the evolution of life, the simplest organisms arose first and things couldn't get any simpler from there. The existence of such a wall on the left of the evolutionary scale meant that things can only move in one direction - to the right. Thus, the origin of multicellular organisms and of sentient life is the result of random events which could only drive the evolution of life in only one direction. He cites the example of a drunk man walking whose left end is determined by the existence of a wall and the right by a ditch. Under the circumstances, there is a good chance that the man would end up in the ditch even though he is walking without an inherent drive because that's the only way open to him. Thus, he says that the evolution of human beings from the single celled organisms is not the result of an inherent drive in evolution towards greater complexity but rather, is the result of random events which cannot be expected to yield the same consequence upon another repetition. Gould also uses the example of parasites and simpler organisms like viruses to introduce the idea that organisms on the evolutionary scale could also tend towards simplicity rather than complexity.
Gould's primary idea of course is to convince the reader that the complexity in life as it exists today is not the result of a pre-ordained or inherent evolutionary drive towards greater complexity but rather the result of random events which have resulted in sentient beings like us, ruling the planet today! While the question of evolutionary complexity does make one think about the possible criteria that can be considered, the ultimate aim of this book is to convince us that evolution, in itself, lacks any inherent drive towards complexity; thereby stripping off any modicum of special ordainment that may be conferred on the reasons for human existence at this point in evolutionary history.
From my perspective, the definition of complexity seems like a question of semantics because i chose to interpret complexity as a reflection of the extent of specialization and adaptation. This is a criteria that Gould has not explored. I think that there has been an undeniable increase in the complexity of organisms since the origin of the first protocells. In the history of evolution, life has moved from the single celled bacteria to mutlicelled humans and the organisms have grown more and more specialized along the way. I do not suggest the existence of an inherent drive towards complexity but I do think, there is a trend towards greater complexity. This increased complexity, as interpreted as increased specialization and adaptation, could also address the existence of parasites and viruses whose existence was difficult to explain by the other definitions of complexity.
The underlying cause for this increased complexity could certainly be the existence of the left wall, as rightly suggested by Gould, but I am definitely, not completely convinced, by his arguments against an increase in complexity. I am also quite taken by his argument for the modal bacterial life and i think that it is a very good point to make. In fact, one rarely realizes the ubiquity and antiquity of bacterial life forms and going by these parameters, the entire history of the evolution of life would seem like the age of bacteria unlike the other ages which have named based on the predominant life forms seen in the period.
Thus, while I understand the case made my Gould in the book against the commonplace understanding of an inherent drive for increased complexity in the origin and evolution of life and I do espouse his view of our existence on this planet being a result of purely random events, which need not (and most likely will not) end the same way, if the history of life is replayed; I am however not prepared to say that over the entire evolutionary history known to us, there is no increase in the complexity of organisms.
On a parting note, I would like to present here a beautiful thought which was used as the opening for the book's second chapter:
"I have often had occasion to quote Freud's incisive, almost rueful, observation that all major revolutions in the history of science have as their common theme, amidst such diversity, the successive dethronement of human arrogance from one pillar after another of our previous cosmic assurance. Freud mentions three such incidents: We once thought that we lived on the central body of a limited universe until Copernicus, Galileo and Newton identified the earth as a tiny satellite to a marginal star. We then comforted ourselves by imagining that God had nevertheless chosen this peripheral location for creating a unique organism in his image - until Darwin came along and "relegated us to descent from an animal world". We then sought solace in our rational minds until, as Freud notes in one of the least modest statements of intellectual history, psychology discovered the unconscious."
Nice post. I wish to know, is there any specific book written by Freud that you would recommend? It is essential that the book is not too large; I tried reading Interpretation of dreams - I only kept having more dreams without getting better at interpreting them :P
ReplyDeleteThank you Abhiram.
ReplyDeleteAs for Freud, well, I have not read any of freud's books... infact i haven't even tried to read them. Somehow I am not too captivated by his hypothetical dwellings on the subconscious.. My understanding of Freud's work only extends to other people's writings on him.