When considering that many find it hard to reconcile the differences between micro and macro evolution and ageing not only should one examine the differences between the macroscopic and microscopic level, but the similarities between evolution and ageing.
Science is firmly based on reductionist theories that suggest that everything can be broken down and explained by virtue of its smallest parts. I hold this to be a logical truism, and firmly believe this will explain memory, consciousness, evolution and ageing. Whether these processes occur entirely in a predetermined way from the smallest level or whether they are entirely random (I put my trust in the former and put forth the point that things just appear random due to not knowing the laws which determine them) is another question, though I suggest that there is no will involved.
I would like to see a merger of theories of emergence and reductionism so that any new laws of thermodynamics or laws that define complex systems/constructs/structures could also be defined on the smallest level. Any new theory should be explainable on the smallest level and I reject any law that is mutually exclusive with reductionism.
Ageing as we see it, I believe, is universal and should apply to all complex structures unless a new law existed (other than that which sustains complex structures but allows them to age), a law which indefinitely sustained ultra-complex structures (of which we do not belong).
Viruses accumulate damage in many forms and it can be considered that they age, this is also true of planets, cars, computers, houses and humans. It is the complexity of these structures and not their status as animate or inanimate, living, non-living, dead, conscious structures or having free will that determines whether they can continue to sustain themselves (continue to exist by repair, copying etc). The opposite force to this continued existence of complex structures manifests itself as ageing. Yet again, I reiterate there is no will involved in this phenomenon, only that the complex structures have arranged themselves like a knot in the fabric of the universe which is not easily untied.
I would like to evolve Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection by saying that the dynamic between these two physical forces (ageing and continued maintainance of complex structures) which is controlled by physical laws, manifests itself as natural selection. This phenomenon occurs in animals and viruses but also in brands of cars, mimetics and so on. The last example of mimetics suggests that a meme is a complex idea with the prerequisite of a complex structure such as a computer chip or brain and is subject to the same laws that we are trying to elucidate.
In summary, there are probably unique qualities of complex structures which are in place due to certain as of yet undescribed physical laws that allow them to maintain there existence, perhaps even increase in complexity. There are also laws in effect which are in opposition to this and are the already known laws of thermodynamics. Finally the interplay between these laws manifests itself as the core dogma of contemporary biology in evolution, ageing and the Theory of Natural Selection. Whereby complex structures interact not only to create more complex structures but to compete against each other for existence (lexicon note: existence rather than survival as denotes a lack of sentience or will). I suggest that we as humans do not continue to look at such problems and concepts from a humanocentric viewpoint which seems to include notions of dualism, religion, nature, conservatism, traditionalism, ego, identity, individualism and bias.
