Re: [asa] Back to Darwin

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Fri Apr 11 2008 - 18:19:59 EDT

I was just making an oblique connection to the YEC contention that
evolution toward greater complexity does not happen, ... y'know, that
information-related argument. Of course, that information line of
argument has a measurement problem that is a counterpart to the
complexity measurement poser you mention.
JimA

David Campbell wrote:

>>Drive to complexity seen in animal evolution
>>This news item points to a trajectory to increasing complexity as being the
>>norm, rather than devolution, with specific instances of the latter being
>>deucedly difficult to find.
>>
>>
>
>Complications: how is complexity measured? What if one aspect gets
>more complex and another gets less so?
>
>Some things have gotten more complex over time; others seem to have
>stayed fairly simple. Can you get much less complex than a simple
>bacterium and still function? If not, then random variation in
>complexity coupled with an absolute lower limit would produce a net
>increase in complexity over time.
>
>Loss of a particular complex feature is common enough-snakes, whales,
>caecilians, legless lizards, etc. have lost limbs; bivalves have
>largely lost their heads; rapidly reproducing taxa often have reduced
>genomes...
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 11 18:23:36 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 11 2008 - 18:23:36 EDT