> >Ccogan: I suppose that even you would admit that many living things are
>very
>complicated. This certainly proves that material things can be as complex
>as we might desire.
>
>DNAunion: *IF* you are implying that this in any way validates evolution,
>your logic is flawed. Existence of something complicated does not tell us
>that it came about by evolutionary mechanisms.
No. I'm not implying that that one fact validates evolution. I'm pointing
out that matter has nothing against being organized in complex ways. Thus,
the question arises: Might not some small bits of it become complex through
natural, material processes not involving design?
DNAunion
>For example, "I suppose that even you would admit that computers are very
>complicated. That certainly proves that material things can be as complex as
>we might desire." Computers are designed.
>
> >Ccogan: Finally, I may as well point out that, if you understood the
>literally *infinite* richness that derives mathematically from the principle
>of repeated, cumulative variational branching, it's doubtful that you would
>claim that the theory is "simplistic."
>
>DNAunion: That is incorrect: there is not *literally infinite* richness
>produced by repeated cumulative variational branching. Had you said
>"infinite", in double quotes to indicate the word should not be taken
>literally, then your comment could be considered correct. But had you even
>said simply infinite, without double quotes, your statement would be wrong.
>And it is clearly wrong since you prefaced the word infinite with the word
>LITERALLY.
My point is that there is *absolutely* no limit, in *principle*, to the
degree of complexity that can be achieved by cumulative variational
processes. I should have emphasized that I was speaking in mathematical
terms though. Oh, WAIT! I *did* emphasize that. Perhaps you missed the word
"mathematical" only three words further along in the sentence?
DNAunion
>Simple refutation. There are 20 amino acids. If they are peptide bonded
>into a 10,000 amino acid protein, then there are 20^10,000 possible unique
>arrangements of symbols (i.e., amino acids). This is many orders of
>magnitude larger than the estimated number of fundamental particles in the
>universe.
>
>But then there are 20 times MORE unique combinations that are have just one
>more amino acid in the chain. Then there are another 20 times MORE thatn
>that one when another single amino acid is added, and so on, and so on, and
>so on. All the possible unique combinations have not been hit, and never
>will, even if the universe gets to be trillions of trillions of trillions of
>trillions … [you get the idea] years old.
Actually, this does not refute my point at all. Obviously, since the amount
of matter in the (known) Universe is finite, and the amount of time since
the (probable) "Big Inflation" is finite, the *actual* number of possible
combinations that can be achieved will necessarily be finite. However, this
is not particularly relevant to my point. My point is that there are no
special limits to the complexity that can be achieved by the process that
are inherent in the process itself. Any kind and degree of complexity that
can be achieved by *any* process can also be achieved by a strictly
evolutionary process of cumulative variation and replication, assuming that
the materials are available for it. My point was intended to counter
Bertvan's incredibly fuzzy-thinking about the topic of what it takes to
produce complexity, *not* to claim that an infinite number of such
combinations would occur in the real world.
Perhaps I should have emphasized that I was talking about the mathematical
implications of the basic process of variation branching and replication.
But, wait! I *did* emphasize that!
Seriously, though, perhaps I should have added asterisks around the word
"mathematical," but, even as is, I think it should be clear that I'm not
claiming that an *actual* infinity is or would be or even could be produced
in a finite period of time. The point is that the process of producing
variations has no ultimate limit in and of itself, and that, therefore, the
variations can be as complex as is physically possible, given available
materials and time (lack of materials becomes a *selective* factor at some
point, as does, in a sense, insufficient time). There is no inherent
"complexity-barrier" in the process. Only when selection is introduced as
an integral aspect of what is being considered do we get limitations, and
they depend on what kind of selection there is and how much of it there is.
Here's the idea stated as a general principle:
If the variations are within certain limits and are sufficiently
nearly random or otherwise exhaustive of possibilities as
time goes on, and if selection does not *prevent* the development
of a particular degree and/or kind of complexity, then, given
sufficient time, that particular degree and/or kind of complexity
*will* occur, with nearly absolute certainty (approaching 1 as
time approaches infinity).
In the real world, selection *does* severely limit what can be produced,
and the variational mechanism itself has limits on what it will produce
(ordinary water-and-carbon-based life may not be able to evolve internal
combustion engines such as those in an ordinary car, for example, nor will
a large population of a species evolve naturally if it has no means
whatever of being reproduced).
> >Ccogan: Is it possible that it's your *understanding* of it that is
>"simplistic"?
>
>DNAunion: That might be the pot calling the kettle black.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 12:49:00 EDT