On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:39:51 -0500 george murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I'll repeat the point that I made at the beginning & which has not been
> does not involve increase in complexity as a matter of definition.
That should not be refuted; I agree, as a matter of definition. But if
there is not a generally increasing vector of complexity, with only minor
countercurrents, then the theory fails to explain how we got here.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 08 2002 - 22:54:37 EST