Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

Debbie Mann wrote:

>Thank you for all your responses. Wayne, I like your comments about 'why do
>things evolve upward?'. In the same thought process as 'The Clockmaker'
>argument, it seems totally illogical that they do - unless there is a
>'Programmer'. I learned at some point how complex DNA is, and I have tried
>to operate certain non-intuitive electronic devices by mathematically trying
>all combinations which could conceivably work. I also have studied
>combinatorics and statistics. It just doesn't make sense to me that things
>evolve upward unless God is directing things.
>
>
>
I am not sure that things evolve 'upwards' although as Gould has shown,
evolution in the presence of a lower limit of complexity has no choice
but to grow in complexity even under the process of the 'drunkard walk'.
In other words, random walk and a wall of minimum complexity 'forces' an
increase in complexity. Secondly, I do not understand why 'it does not
make sense that things evolve upward unless God is directing things'.
Are you suggesting that God is intervening at any moment to 'increase
complexity'? Where does His involvement end? We know that evolution can
increase complexity without the need for external guidance beyond
'natural selection'.
Also, evolution does not try all combinations which could conceivably
work, such a random search is not how evolutionary processes work.

>A fundamentalist, Bible thumping Christian, who is also a biologist (is that
>a word?) assured me that he has seen upward evolution in slugs and frogs. I
>believe it.
>
>But, I do not believe it can be undirected.
>
>
>
Undirected in what sense? Evolutionary theory involves 'direction' by
the environment.

>I could accept downward diversification with the natural selection of traits
>in beings that were less advanced than the master parent race. But,
>statistically, how can anyone justify greater complication? If it were a
>theory which had not been seen evidentially - wouldn't you all reject it as
>being improbable to the point of being ridiculous?
>
>
Why? You claim that statistically there is somehow a problem despite the
fact that scientists have shown that there are no inherent problems
statistically speaking.

See for instance http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463
Evolution of biological complexity in PNAS | April 25, 2000 | vol. 97 |
no. 9 | 4463-4468, especially figure 4

See more papers by Adami at http://www.krl.caltech.edu/~adami/cas.html
Received on Sat Mar 25 19:17:21 2006