Is Evolution progressive from lowest or simplest to highest or more complex?

Answer 1

No. It's undirected. Both complexity and simplicity are virtues in evolution. Simpler forms must precede more complex forms, but there is nothing preventing a return to simplicity except that the niche may already be occupied. The prototypical member of the phylum cordata, the tunicates, have a notochord (precursor to the spinal chord) in larval form, then anchor to rocks and become filter feeders.

Answer 2

Evolution does not inevitably lead to more complex creatures. Obviously, there are many life forms that are around today that are much more complex than the original single cell life forms, but there are also still plenty of single cell creatures, and other very simple creatures about. These are different from the original life forms, so they have evolved, but they have not become noticeably more complex over the last few hundred million years.

Answer 3

Evolution itself is indifferent to complexity.

For example, a more complex animal can become into what we might view as a more simple animal. (Losing or not using past genetic information or capability)

Such as. A fish with eyes, who evolves to not have eyes, might be seen as "less complex". Though as a result, it's better suited to it's environment than fish who do have eyes, spending all those extra resources and energy making or using them -- when there is no light to be seen or significant importance of doing so.

It's a factor of the environment.

Evolution itself is indifferent.


As to more simple life, there is a minimum - and the way to evolve was to go up. Also, a way to evolve was go down, such as with viruses - though apparently it couldn't go down further.


That's one answer. If you try to take "more evolved" then it becomes a question of what you quantify that with. Like "most changes"? or "longest being relatively unchanged"? or do you play the egocentric card of having consciousness? ;)

Answer 4

Natural selection favours organisms which leave behind more offspring...period! Often that means that complexity increases over time but the opposite can be true as well. For example many species of cave fish have lost their eyes and body pigmentation (it's useless in total darkness), and eyes have been lost in many burrowing vertebrates. Having an organ you don't need is a liability and not an advantage. The best examples are parasites. Tapeworms have lost their nervous system (mostly), circulatory system, digestive system, and sense organs. They live in the dark and absorb the already digested food through their body wall (they are essentially just egg laying machines).

Answer 5

Yes.
Simple organisms ──►[evolution]──►Complex organisms

Answer 6

an exciting question and that i wish I knew the respond. maximum folk (nicely, maximum on the information superhighway) who attempt to attack evolution gain this on the muse of entire fake effect. They hear a sermon which tells them evolution is XYZ, they fail to question the sermon (and absence sufficient medical know-how) and anticipate it may actually be actual. i think an analogous happens with the bible. They hear a sermon claiming XYZ, fail to question this and anticipate it incredibly is actual. this skill the actual question must be why do preachers, pastors, clergymen etc., cherry p.c.. their teachings to impact their congregations. i think of the respond is contained in the question nevertheless :-) EDIT: its beneficial to ascertain that the stereotypes have replied in a stereotypical way. it could have been a shame if no one had achieved the monkey fallacy or tried the "actual looking doubt" argument. Evolution is as valid a medical concept because of the fact the concept of familiar Relativity. A sentence contained in the bible does no longer "disprove" evolution in any way. technology isn't a complicated situation, I in simple terms wish greater human beings tried to earnings it.

Answer 7

NO, evolution has nothing to do with increasing complexity just that organisms become more "fit" for their specific environment, an ant is just as evolved (possibly more) as homo sapiens are.

Answer 8

Evolution can't be defined or constrained by concepts of complexity. Those are human attributes that have nothing to do with a natural process.

Answer 9

you should define complexity

for instance: # of cells type of cells, # of molecules or atoms, arrangement of atoms/molecules/cells (when I think of complexity I think of arrangement)

evolution cannot be represented by a single line, there are branches and parallels and stop points, so the progression itself is complex i suppose and so the answer can't be straightforward.


I'm liking the answer below mine
|
|
V

Answer 10

Generally, yes, but only because there is a limit to how simple an organism can get. Since all organisms are descended from single-celled creatures--which is prety close to that lower limit--the only place to go was up.