Re: Test your knowledge of evolutionary theory

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swau.edu)
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:25:05 -0800

At 11:33 AM 12/17/98 -0500, Brian wrote:
>There is an excellent article by Dan McShea which attempts to
>answer this question for what he refers to as "morphological
>complexity". Here's the abstract:
>
>========================================================
>McShea, Daniel W., "Complexity and Evolution: What
>Everybody Knows," Biology and Philosophy, vol. 6,
>pp. 303-324, 1991.
>
>ABSTRACT: The consensus among evolutionists seems to
>be (and has been for at least a century) that the
>morphological complexity of organisms increases in
>evolution, although almost no empirical evidence for
>such a trend exists. Most studies of complexity have
>been theoretical, and the few empirical studies have
>not, with the exception of certain recent ones, been
>especially rigorous: reviews are presented of both
>the theoretical and empirical literature. The paucity
>of evidence raises the question of what sustains the
>consensus, and a number of suggestions are offered,
>including the possibility that certain cultural and/or
>perceptual biases are at work. In addition, a shift in
>emphasis from theoretical to empirical inquiry is
>recommended for the study of complexity, and guidelines
>for future empirical studies are proposed.
>

Let me try again. If the entire data set of organisms consists of say,
100,000 genes, and the number of organisms in the data set is (apparently)
changing through time, through the development of new combinations of these
genes, doesn't the total complexity of the biome increase without an
increase in information? This would predispose the history of life to
exhibit an increase in complexity, just by the different number of
combinations expressed, wouldn't it? At least this is a manifestation of
the difficulty I have in equating information and complexity.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu