> Sure. But a dictionary is not going to tell me what the
> scientific definition of evolution is. I don't think that
> increase in complexity is 1) easily measurable 2) part of the
> definition of evolution.
Andrew: The idea I've been trying to pound home is that any relevant
definition of Evolution (relevant to the Creation vs. Evolution
debate, relevant to the public's understanding of Evolution,
and even relevant to the impression Evolutionists wish to convey
to the general public) necessarily includes the concept of
increased complexity through natural means.
I don't believe that evolution requires such a concept. It is merely an observation. It fails to address a workable definition of complexity. So until we have a definition, it will be hard to determine if evolution requires increase in complexity and if there is indeed only increase in complexity.
> Evolution: "Change through time" A view of Life, Gould.
>
> "p. 647: Darwinism is not a theory of intrinsic progress"
Andrew: <<Wasn't Gould a science *fiction* writer? Anyway, if there wasn't some aspect of intrinsic progress, how is it that the alleged history of life goes from simple to complex?>>
The two are unrelated. The theory need not require intrinsic progress, however such progress might or might not occur. Also you are looking at the overall picture of evolution and have yet failed to provide for a definition of 'complexity'
> So you claim yet data show otherwise. That is quite interesting
> would you not say ? Please explain your statement that
> "mutational change leads to decrease in complexity". Some
> examples would be helpful. Please also explain how you measured
> complexity of the organism.
Andrew: The observed tendency of life to lose complexity is beyond dispute.
The most obvious examples are species extinctions. The burden is
on you to show that life is increasing in complexity, or that
while some life loses complexity, others gain. We are unimpressed
by any admission that complexity can be lost.>>
If evolution does not require an intrinsic increase in complexity how then is there a burden on me to show that life is increasing complexity ? It was your argument that "mutational change" leads to a decrease in complexity. You failed to provide examples other than 'death'. But mutational change need not lead to death.
So what is your definition of 'complexity' allowing you to claim that mutations lead to decrease in complexity ? Or is your argument that some mutations lead to some change in complexity ?
> Yep, all in the end boils down to physics and chemistry and
> binding forces at (sub)atomic levels. So complexity can naturally
> increase after all.
Andrew: <<No, complexity can just be made more apparent given the right conditions. The formation of the snowflake doesn't cause the laws of physics or properties of water to form. Further, even
if you want to disregard this reason, you still come pathetically short of any mechanism to explain bacteria-to-man.>>
How can you say this when you have failed to provide us with a definition of complexity ? If a snowfalke forming is an increase in complexity and it happens totally naturally, why can the same not happen for evolution ? There are no intrinsic unnatural forces required in the theory It is all based upon physics/chemistry and 'natural selection'. The change bacteria to man, while interesting is in no way prohibited by any physical law from occuring. This does not mean that it truely did occur though.
> Since it is your argument, I suggest that you first define
> "complexity" in a scientific, measurable manner. Your argument
> however still remains one of 'personal incredulity', no matter
> what your definition of complexity really is.
Andrew: <<Evolution is foreign to nature and you claim my argument is one of personal incredulity. The burden is on you, not me. You say Evolution happened/happens. I say it doesn't. >>
Again a claim without evidence. Why is evolution 'foreign to nature' ? And yes evolution can be observed all the time, we merely disagree on the mechanisms explaining the observations.
Andrew: <<There are several measures of complexity. The number of different kinds of items working together for a single function. The number of non-random deviations from equilibrium. Etc. Your argument is that there is no difference between a human brain and a puddle of protein-rich water.>>
My argument is that lacking any quantifiable measure, complexity is a very vague concept and yet you draw some very quantitative conclusions. How can you do this when you have no measurement for it ?
How can you say that 'mutation decreases complexity' ? My argument is simply that the theory evolution does not require intrinsically complexity to increase. That the data indicate an apparant increase over time (although there is no reason why on smaller time scales complexity could have decreased as well, after all we still lack a definition of complexity), is no problem for evolution per se.
The theory of evolution is claimed to be governed by laws of physics/chemistry and natural selection.
So
1. Give us a quantifiable measure of 'complexity'
2. Show that mutations lead to a decrease in complexity
3. Show that 'evolution is foreign to nature'