The most difficult aspect of discussing evolution is evolutionists' penchant
for exotic definitions of terms. It is far more confusing than "legalese".
However I am trying, sincerely trying. I no longer say I disagree with
Darwinism, I say I disagree with "random mutation and natural selection as
the main explanation of macro evolution". Sometimes, instead of macro
evolution, I feel compelled to substitute, "the appearance of novel organs,
systems or body parts". And I am really confused as to the Darwinist
definition of "random". I, and I believe most laymen, would define random as
"accidental--without, plan, meaning or purpose". In respect to "directed"
mutations, such as is being investigated by Shapiro, would you still call
them "random" by a Darwinist definition of the word? (Directed as meaning
influenced by environmental pressures of by "use".) Now, I have a new
confusion, the definition of complexity.
Kevin said:
>That's not what I said at all. You had said that mammals were becoming more
>complex as they evolved. I said that in fact they were not becoming more
>complex because the mammalian level of complexity was simply being
reshuffled >and rearranged. I said nothing about comparing mammals with the
biosphere.
>Brain? Yes, but only in the sense that the human brain has a larger
structure. >CNS? No, at least not from an anatomical, physiological or
biochemical >standpoint.
Bertvan:
Most people would define "more structure" as more complex. Are you saying
"more structure" is not more complex from an anatomical, physiological or
biochemical standpoint? What WOULD be considered more complex from an
anatomical, physiological or biochemical standpoint? In any case, I think
the question we were originally discussing was whether evolution shows
direction. I suggested that as new mammals made their appearance on earth,
they tend to show greater complexity. Can I say "as new mammals made their
appearance on earth, they tend to show more structure"? If so, that could be
direction, couldn't it?
>> Or a fish--the varieties present billions of year ago, not octopus.
Kevin:
>Same answer as above. "Not octopus" what?
Bertvan:
I suspect Octapus show more structure than primitive fish, ( since I can't
say increased complexity).
>> Or a worm?
Kevin:
>Same answer as above, except that worms do not have brains.
>This is a different question. Complexity has been increasing continuously
since >worms first appeared, at different rates for different systems, but
only in certain >ways. Biochemically and physiologically there has been
almost no change, but >some systems have undergone a great deal of anatomical
change. Again, >however, any increase in complexity simply represents an
increase in structure.
Bertvan:
Here you say complexity has increased since worms. But you say complexity
has not increased in mammals?-(-as I originally suggested) What is the
difference between "anatomical change" and "physiological change"? I can't
think of any reason why there should be any biochemical change, but are you
saying there has been no physiological change? You have a new definition for
physiological?
I have a hunch even after we agreed on all definitions, a basic disagreement
would remain between us, but maybe it would be one where we each respected
each other's right to disagree.
Bertvan