George Murphy commented: "Evolution does not involve increase in complexity
as a matter of definition."
Bill Payne replied :
> 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.
Evolutionary biologists, isn't this the process in a nutshell?
1. The evolutionary process (a family of processes which includes variation,
natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) favors only reproductive success in
some particular environment/ecosystem.
2. Some fraction of the reproductively successful species will be more
'complex' ('complexity' needs to be defined) than their predecessors.
3. Reiterate 1 & 2 throughout geological history with its diversity of
changing environments and ecosystems.
4. Result: A diverse community of species characterized by a broad spectrum
of 'complexity values,' with the maximum complexity value tending to
increase in time.
(This assumes, of course, that the 'potentiality space' of the Creation is,
by God's unfathomable creativity and unlimited generosity, rich with
possible organisms having a wide range of complexity values. It also assumes
that God has generously equipped the Creation with the requisite formational
capabilities to explore that rich potentiality space so that some of the
more complex forms will be actualized in the course of time.)
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 10:26:54 EST