Re: Complexity of life

mortongr@flash.net
Sat, 06 Nov 1999 20:37:52 +0000

At 01:41 PM 11/06/1999 EST, MikeBGene@aol.com wrote:
>Glenn writes:
[snip]
>>Clearly from this, there has been an increase in complexity throughout
>>geologic time.
>
>That depends entirely on the chosen perspective. For example, *among*
>porifera, has there been an increase in complexity in the last 570 million
>years? Among arthropods, has there been an increase in complexity in
>the last 530 million years? Etc. [Also, don't forget to change the date of
>agnatha in light of the recent fossil finds].

Let me ask you something Mike. What perspective do you want to present?
The number of different cellular types is certainly a measure of
complexity. But if the perspective is as you seem to desire, one that says
"no evidence whatsoever for evolution will be allowed into my
consciousness", then your perspective will certainly never see any evidence.

>So why haven't sponges and arthropods increased their number of cell types?
>Are we to think they stopped evolving since they appeared half a billion
years
>ago?

Let me describe the computer models the authors created. They had 2000
different 'beings' each of which could go up or down in the number of cell
types with every iteration of the computer. While the maximum number of
cellular types continued to go up, the average species didn't go up in
cellular types very rapidly. Secondly, if the arthropods and sponges had
increased their cell nubmers then they would not be arthropods or sponges.
Populations of fish that did evolve are now called amphibians, reptiles,
birds, mammals etc.

If you want to examine the math of this phenomenon, here is a basic program
I wrote to mimick what the authors of that paper did.
glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution