> Andrew: <<Evolution means a gradual increase in complexity. This
> is what everyone used the word to mean before Darwin.
>
> That however is not the definition of evolution.
Andrew: <<May I suggest that you go get a dictionary.>>
Sure. But a dictionary is not going to tell me what the scientific definition of evolution is. I don't think that increase in complexity is 1) easily measurable 2) part of the definition of evolution.
Evolution: "Change through time" A view of Life, Gould.
"p. 647: Darwinism is not a theory of intrinsic progress"
> Harmful mutations lead most often to extinction of the individual
> so I am not sure if you are correct that harmful mutations
> increase. Could you given an example ?
Andrew: <<As a matter of observation, species tend toward decreasing complexity, including extinction. Mutational changes which accumulate also tend to decrease the complexity of organisms. The law of nature is devolution, not evolution.>>
So you claim yet data show otherwise. That is quite interesting would you not say ? Please explain your statement that "mutational change leads to decrease in complexity". Some examples would be helpful. Please also explain how you measured complexity of the organism.
Andrew: <<And, when the Evolutionist tries to present an
> observation of Evolution,
> he points to something based on his irrelevant definition of Evolution
> (e.g. pepper moths),>>
> That is evidence supporting the proposed mechanism of evolution,
> natural selection
Andrew: <<Thank you for agreeing with my point... when asked for examples of observed Evolution, Evolutionists come up with this non-Evolution stuff.>>
It isn't. It is based upon a poor understanding of the fact of evolution (Change over time) and the theory of evolution "how did it happen ?". Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. So the peppered moth is an example of the mechanism of evolution in action.
> Andrew: <<he points to the opposite of Evolution -- the loss of
> complexity (e.g. sickle-cell anemia), >>
>
> How is sickle cell anemia, less complex ? Me thinks you do not
> understand what the sickle cell anemia argument is truely about ?
Andrew: <<Sick-cell anemia is caused by a loss of genetic information that instruct blood cells how to form.>>
Please explain what genetic information was lost ? Perhaps you are trying to say that "information was changed" ?
> Andrew: <<or he points to the deterministic expression of
> pre-existing complexity (e.g. the snow flake).>>
>
> Only when confronted by the unscientific assertion that
> complexity can not naturally increase ? And how is the snowflake
> a 'pre-existing complexity' ?
Andrew: <<The pre-existing properties of the water molecule is the pre-existing complexity the determines how a snowflake forms. >>
Yep, all in the end boils down to physics and chemistry and binding forces at (sub)atomic levels. So complexity can naturally increase after all.
> On the contrary, complexity increases, occur quite often in far
> equilibrium systems in nature. THeir significance is quite relevant
Andrew: <<Nothing more impressive that the complexity found in a snowflake.>>
I am glad that you agree then that complexity can increase naturally.
> Andrew: << It is highly absurd to believe that random variation
> and natural selection can account for the complexity that we see.>>
>
> Argument from personal incredulity. Perhaps you should explain
> this further as well ?
Andrew: <<Fine, point out any demonstration that natural selection and mutation creates complexity. >>
Since it is your argument, I suggest that you first define "complexity" in a scientific, measurable manner. Your argument however still remains one of 'personal incredulity', no matter what your definition of complexity really is.