Evolution: The chaos motor of life

Great Debates
1

In SciAm July 2001 on pg. 57, “Making Molecules Into Motors”, we find a detailed description of the chaos motor, that is, a motor that derives work from random action.

A simple description of a chaos motor is a paddle wheel that can rotate in either direction, but is attached to a ratchet that only allows motion in one direction. Random energies constantly create force against this paddlewheel, but because of the ratchet, we have a net sum gain of energy in one direction.

Would evolution be aptly described as the chaos motor of life? Random mutation can move life in either direction, neither necessarily worse, but one direction is less aptly suited for the job. The ratchet controlling the direction would be life or death. If a mutation is not non-detrimental, the organism lives, and the ratchet moves up a click. If the mutation is detrimental, the organism dies, thus the ratchet stops backwards motion.

However, if we consider evolution to be a chaos motor, then would intelligence not be a reintroduction of chaos’ influence into the system? With intelligence, an organism can overcome the ratchet by working around it, thus removing death from the equation.

We must also consider that while intelligence may eventually remove deaths’ influence from the system, perhaps intelligence can also be considered an engine to power the motor once the original construction (life vs. death) is disrupted? A high enough intelligence can ‘leap teeth’ in the gear, moving forward at rates impossible with only natural selection…

We must consider then the possibility that there is a ‘flat spot’ in the gears where intelligence (or another mutation) does not help enough to overcome it’s reintroduction of chaos, so where does this leave us? We may speculate that we reach multiple ‘flat spots’ in evolution where something that will become a great help is momentarily (on geological time scales) a hinderance thus naturally selected against, or simply not an advantage then simply not selected for, and an outside engine must power the motor until either evolution retakes the influence, or the momentary hinderance’s power becomes strong enough that it’s influence overrides the original influences. I suppose this may be akin to physics where when a system reaches a great enough size, quantum energies no longer have measurable effects and physical influences begin to reign. So what would be the non-quantum influence if evolution is a chaos motor? The religion-inclined may speculate that a non-corporeal entity, or God (or gods) may be this non-quantum influence, whereas perhaps the atheistic or non-religious may speculate that natural forces, such as a disaster, may be the non-quantum influence.

Okay, so the first three paragraphs I can pretty much agree with myself on, but the last three are complete speculation and I can’t say that I agree or disagree either way.

I’ve always considered that life is an application of physics over a grand scale with chance mixed in… this just takes that theory a step further…

What do you guys think?

–Tim

2

One thing: AS SOON AS someone begins to argue for or against the existance or influence of a God or gods, I WILL ask for this thread to be closed. Please do not get into a tangential argument like that, I think this thread has enough potential in it’s own merits.

–Tim

3

I like your analogy. The problem I have with it is that you put organisms on a one-dimensional scale and you assume one direction is always preferred to the other. I think your space needs more dimensions and rather than having one direction preferred, you have regions that are more favorable than others. Also as conditions change, the location of the preferred regions may change. Dinosaurs were pretty successful at one time. Whatever happened to them, the conditions changed so that their position was no longer preferred.

4

What about God? :wink:

I suspect that it may be an interesting analogy, but not an all-encompassing description.

True, but mutation is not the only mechanism at work in evolution. (natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, recombination, etc.)

Or more accurately, the ability to reproduce since the passing-on-of-genes is the key to evolution. Death is merely a hinderance to reproduction. :slight_smile:

You seem to be saying that evolution has a preferred direction. This is not the case.

Intelligence can’t eliminate death, but it does seem to be a big evolutionary advantage (at least, so far). Also, how is intelligence chaotic? There does seem to be a general pattern to human behavior…although very complex, I don’t know if I could call it random.

Again, no preferred direction for evolution. Also, IIRC, natural selection is something that reduces variations in a gene pool, not increases. (i.e., no leaps forward…but rather a testing of existing variations to see which are best suited for current conditions.)

yikes…I’ll have to think about that.

5

I’m sorry it appeared that way. I agree with your statements. It is easier to analogize in one dimension, however. We could say I took the easy path. :slight_smile:

As for one direction being preferred, I’m sorry if I implied that. One direction is not preferred, however multiple directions can all be better adaptations to the environment (but non-exclusive) than another adaptations, and therefore these traits will not be selected against. As the environmental selections increase further down certain paths, the organisms begin to diverge.

Absolutely. I was incorrect in using the word mutation, I should have used the phrase “species-specific influences or environmental factors”.

Good catch! You are spot-on!

Oops. Sorry for the implication. No, I realize evolution doesn’t have a preferred direction, just an impetus of species survival. When I use the forward-motion analogy, I simply mean evolutionary advancement as seen from our perspective, not necessarily evolutionary directive.

When I say intelligence is the reintroduction of chaotic influence, I mean that while it cannot, in early stages, eliminate death, it can ‘put off’ death long enough to reproduce or ‘advance’ where it may not have previously. This reintroduces chaotic influence by reducing the strength of the ‘forward motion’ in evolution by displacing the main strength of the ‘ratchet’ (sexual selection, environmental fitness, reproduction, death) with intelligence which can triumph over these natural restrictors.

This is the flat spot that I refer to, a trait that can override the ‘motor’ enough to reintroduce the chaos, but not provide a secondary ‘ratchet’ to compensate for the renewed strength of the chaotic factors. Another chaotic factor may be a predator powerful enough that it has no competition, or a prey that has no natural predator, or a prey that evolves to the point where it’s previous predators become benign in nature. While these don’t necessarily stop evolution, they can slow it’s influence without a new ‘motor’ to ‘take over’, or an ‘engine’ to power the original ‘motor’ until this accomplishment can be dealt with sufficiently.

:slight_smile: I’m enjoying the direction this is taking.

–Tim