>>Second, we need to keep in mind the negative side of mutational change.
>>Natural selection theory,I believe,depends too much on the assumption of an
>>ever upward dynamic. ReMine calls this "naive natural selection,"and I think
>>he has a good point.
>>
>
Brian Harper responded
>I don't really know what to say about this.
I think I know what to say. Once one gets to multicellular organisms there is
very little "upward dynamic. In precisely what way is an amphibian higher
than a fish or a mammal more complex or higher than a reptile. What is the
criteria by which we place birds in this, ahem, pecking order? All have
stomachs, eyes, skin (of some sort) a heart, liver, an oxygen obtaining organ,
ability to locomote in their respective habitats. This business of an "upward
dynamic is a holdover from 19th century progressive philosophical systems like
Hegel, Ficte, Marx etc. From a scientific and information theory point of
view, I see little reason to say that one organism is higher than another.
Should one try to make the length of the genome as the measure of order, I
would be willing to bet that mankind is not the being with the longest, most
incompressible, and therefore most complex, genome.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm