> 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.
The idea I've been trying to pound home is that any relevant
definition of Evolution (relevant to the Creation vs. Evolution
debate, relevant to the public's understanding of Evolution,
and even relevant to the impression Evolutionists wish to convey
to the general public) necessarily includes the concept of
increased complexity through natural means.
> Evolution: "Change through time" A view of Life, Gould.
>
> "p. 647: Darwinism is not a theory of intrinsic progress"
Wasn't Gould a science *fiction* writer? Anyway, if there
wasn't some aspect of intrinsic progress, how is it that the
alleged history of life goes from simple to complex?
> 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.
The observed tendency of life to lose complexity is beyond dispute.
The most obvious examples are species extinctions. The burden is
on you to show that life is increasing in complexity, or that
while some life loses complexity, others gain. We are unimpressed
by any admission that complexity can be lost.
> 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.
No, complexity can just be made more apparent given the
right conditions. The formation of the snowflake doesn't cause
the laws of physics or properties of water to form. Further, even
if you want to disregard this reason, you still come pathetically
short of any mechanism to explain bacteria-to-man.
> 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.
Evolution is foreign to nature and you claim my argument is one of
personal incredulity. The burden is on you, not me. You say
Evolution happened/happens. I say it doesn't.
There are several measures of complexity. The number of different
kinds of items working together for a single function. The number
of non-random deviations from equilibrium. Etc. Your argument is
that there is no difference between a human brain and a puddle of
protein-rich water.