RE: Fred Hoyle's `Mathematics of Evolution'

John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:19:53 -0600

> neoDarwinian step-by-step method must fail claims Hoyle, because it
> implies 100 non-functional steps. The alternative: a jump of 100
> mutations
> of exactly the right kind would be highly improbable [20^100 or 10^130
> SJ]. The histone-4 case is in fact a case of Michael Behe's Irreducible
> Complexity long before Behe published his Darwin's Black Box, since the
> hand-written version of Mathematics of Evolution was 'published'
> in 1987."

The deductive argument IC -> couldn't have evolved is just as mistaken when
Hoyle presents it as when Behe does, EVEN IF the conclusion is true. IC of
suitably complex system does imply that the simplest path is unavailable
(for the reasons presented in the quote above), but (certainly in principle,
anyway) there are indefinitely many more circuitous evolutionary paths still
available, even given IC of the end result.

(To put this another way: evolutionary IC -> instead of 100-at-once, or 100
neutral or dysfunctional steps, there are 100+n steps, where n is probably
some fairly large number. Instead of building up from zero, it builds at
least in part laterally or down from other complex precursors.)

John