> > It might be better to say that X's being irreducibly complex
> implies that X requires a more circuitous, and hence less likely,
> evolutionary pathway.>
>
> My understanding is that the trend of the entire universe is in the
> opposite direction from evolution. That does not help me join with your
> sentiments in spite of my wish to be affable.
You're right about the physical trend of the universe, but this doesn't
contradict evolution any more than it contradicts -any other- -localized-
increase in order or functionality, such as biological growth. So it's a
good premise, but the conclusion doesn't follow. (To put it another way,
evolutionary theory does not violate the second thermodynamic law. Not even
remotely.)
> > E.g., Dawkins uses the non-biological example of an arch. It's
> undeniably irreducibly complex -- pull out any stone and the
> whole thing collapses. And yet it's -possible- for one to
> "evolve" from a pile of stones if one is lucky, if the right
> stones get washed away in a stream, e.g. This comes not by
> building up to an arch, but by "building down" from a pile of stones.>
>
> A living cell is more complex than any arch or any suspension bridge or
> anything else ever built. No one uses or has ever used Dawkins'
> fantasies, like "building down." If anyone did, I would speculate that
> starting from the beginning of time to the end of time they would still
> be sitting by their pile of randomly placed rocks with no sign of any
> design of any kind. More disorder, yes. An arch or a bridge will
> crumble. More order, never. The trend of the entire universe is in the
> opposite direction.
I absolutely agree about the greater complexity of a cell v. an arch. My
point is simply a logical one: irreducibly complexity does not IN PRINCIPLE
entail a lack of evolutionary development. It makes it more circuitous,
less direct, but does not in itself block all evolutionary pathways, just
the seemingly simplest ones.
> > And I certainly agree that the origin of the cell and abiogensis are
> > enormous and utterly unsolved challenges for evolutionary theory.>
>
> "Spontaneous generation, in biology, is the theory, now disproved, that
> living organisms sometimes arise from nonliving matter. It is sometimes
> referred to as abiogenesis, as opposed to biogenesis, the now
> established fact living organisms arise only from the reproduction of
> previously existing organisms." Encylopaedia Britannica's entry under
> Spontaneous Generation. This summarizes the experience of billions of
> people many billions of times now and throughout history. Abiogenesis
> is a myth more than 2,000 years old, continued as a myth and, in my
> opinion, will always be a myth. For these reasons, I view it as the
> antithesis of science and cannot subscribe.
In the sense in which "spontaneous generation" has been used historically,
that is absolutely correct. But evolutionary theorists never use it to mean
"sterile feces -> flies" or anything like that. (No evolutionary theorist
I'm aware of, e.g., says that any cell- or virus-design in use today arose
via abiogenesis. that's why "even the simplest cell could -never- have
just -happened!-" arguments are straw men.) Rather, they speculate -- I
think that's the right word for it -- on various hypothetical developmental
pathways moving from simple molecules through a variety of controversial
intermediaries to an extremely simple protocell to some "real" cell,
precursor of all today's cells, all the while natural selection preserving
the best new variants. This is clearly the weakest, most speculative part
of evolutionary theory.
> I hope I have not said anything to offend you, John.
>
> Joseph Mastropaolo
>
Not at all, Joseph. And I'm really sorry you and Glenn got off to such a
bad start. He's a good guy, and very knowledgeable, though as you possibly
noted, a bit brusque at times :^>, particularly when he believes he's
dealing with persistent arguments without merit (as he clearly believes this
time).
--John