Kevin wrote:
>In chemistry and biology, "complexity" is often expressed in terms of
>structural organization. Enzymes are more complex than amino acids because
>enzymes are made of amino acids that then create a three-dimensional object
>that possesses catalytic power. A reaction pathway is more complex than an
>enzyme because it is made of several enzymes that use the product of one as
>their own substrate then pass their own product on to another that uses it
as a >substrate. A metabolic system is more complex than a single pathway
because >several pathways interconnect to form an integrated, cooperative
network. >Eukaryotes are more complex than prokaryotes because eukaryotes
have >internal compartmentalization and organize their DNA into compact
>structures. Multicellular organisms are more complex than unicellular
>organisms because the conjoined cells must communicate with each other in
>an integrated fashion to function as a unit. And so on. Yet despite
>appearances, it is difficult to justify the claim that increased structural
>organization represents progress. Sometimes the simpler approach is more
>efficient, more beneficial. Increased structural organization does make for
>greater diversity and greater versitility, which an organism needs if it is
to >survive competition or environmental challenges. However, simply having
a >complex structure with a larger number of units is not in and of itself
progress.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Hi Kevin,
I agree "progress" might be a meaningless word out of context--like "good"
and "bad". I was suggesting that over time the central nervous system of
mammals has become increasingly complex. As to whether that is "good" or
"bad", I wouldn't judge nature in those terms. Most people judge nature in
those terms if it is good or bad for humans, and I suspect most of us would
consider the complexity which resulted in our consciousness as progress. But
the question is: Have mammals tended to be increasingly more complex as they
made their appearance upon earth. (I realize complexity doesn't necessarily
enhance survivability.) I suppose a question the creationists might ask
would be: "If complexity doesn't enhance survivability, why has natural
selection bothered to come up with increasingly complex mammals? And if it
did offer enhanced for one creature, why not all creatures?" I'm not
suggesting I have any answers, but sometimes creationists ask good questions.
Bertvan