Re: [asa] Innate design detector?

Yes, the article is very relevant for many more reasons that
complexity could even be arising neutrally because the result could
very well be functional advantages and a fitness benefit

"Hence, as long as there is selection acting on a system, even
neutral processes that do not cause any immediate fitness benefit
would force the system toward higher complexity."

Neutral evolving complexity is for many reasons very compelling,
especially since there exists a large volume of research that shows
the relevance of neutrality on evolution.

Seems that less and less reasons exist to buy into the 'we don't know
thus designed' approach chosen by the ID movement.

On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:58 AM, David Campbell wrote:

> The latest PNAS has an article on how to evolve complex molecular
> systems, not using co-opting:
>
> Evolution of complexity in signaling pathways, Orkun S. Soyer and
> Sebastian Bonhoeffer, PNAS 103 (44): 16337-42.
>
> Basically, given a simple starting system plus the accumulation of
> mutations, gene duplications, etc. over time, additional steps tend to
> get added on. Number of additional steps reflects the level of
> selective pressure, etc.
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 7 13:17:00 2006