[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Coping w/ the rule; was metabolic rate [...]

Considering human design of complex systems, where
subsystems must work in concert to accomplish a given task; it is empirically 
and theoretically unlikely that a human designer manifesting a novel system, or 
 refining an existing system, is going to be capable of building his 
 at either end of the attainable size spectrum, even if such is his primary 
intention. There
 will inevitably be a period of testing and refinement, although forethought
 and empirical knowledge can shorten it greatly. Conversely, lack of 
forethought and
 knowledge will likely increase time of optimization greatly, which leads to the
 next point.

If the problems inherent to designing systems are a
 fundamental aspect of reality, rather than mere subjective human experience; 
and the process of evolution may be symbolized as a 'designer' w/out the 
capability of forethought; then it follows that
 the probability of a basal organism being well removed from the
 minimum and maximum possible size for it's particular bodyplan/lifestyle is 
quite high, even if there is no correlation of metabolic rate and evolutionary 
rate to support Hazen's interesting and self-described "wild speculation". In 
other words, basal organisms are likely to have 'room to move' in either 

Further, here in the 'Newtonian zone', sometimes it is good to be small.
 However, it can be effectively argued that whether engaged in competition for 
resources, avoiding predation, or efficient utilization of resources obtained, 
it is _usually_
 advantageous to be bigger than the competition, within the limits inherent to 
your particular design
 and lifestyle. 

Therefore, it doesn't seem remarkable that as basal organisms
 radiate into more derived forms, many of them, probably a majority of
 them, will increase in size. Given the vagaries of probability and game 
theory, and the complexity of environment, it is also
 not surprising that there are plenty of exceptions.

So my question is; isn't any "statistical appearance" of an evolutionary 
undertow toward large size
 that might be found in the fossil record easily explained by the foregoing 
strictly practical considerations?