https://phylogenous.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/book-review-biologys-first-law-by-mcshea-and-brandon-2010/
> The authors spectacularly avoid what they call “colloquial complexity” – what > we normally mean when we say complexity – in favor of “pure complexity,” a > measure of “number of part types” and “differentiation among parts.” In this > sense, a mammalian spine is more complex than a fish spine because there are > different kinds of mammalian vertebrae (cervical, thoracic, etc.). The key, > however, is that pure complexity is “level-relative.” Just because a > mammalian spine is more complex than a fish spine doesn’t mean a mammal is > more complex than a fish. Because pure complexity doesn’t scale up > hierarchies, comparing two organs to two organisms (or taxonomic classes) > doesn’t work. So to get back to the bacteria/human question, we need to > compare a bacterial cell to a human cell (not the human organism). That’s how > the complexity question actually becomes fascinating, especially because the > answer is not quite so clear. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
