Andrew writes (to Pim)...
> 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.
I agree with this simple statement. Biological complexity of some
lineages have increased. Lineages presumably arise via evolution.
It's not much of a stretch to combine these two statements. But
beware the mangled representation of this synthesis which I
warned about in an earlier letter (ie. the "bogus" argument).
Pim writes...
>> 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 responds:
>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.[...]
This reply doesn't address the question: "mutational change leads
to decrease in complexity?" And it never addressed the question
of whether the mutation in hemoglobin-S represents a decrease in
complexity.
Andrew, you suggested a couple measures of complexity -- the # of
components in system or the "number of non-random deviations from
equilibrium" -- but none of these metrics allows us to determine
the relative complexity of the wild-type and HbS alleles. Can
you provide another measure for this particular case? If anything,
these methods suggest that having this mutation _increases_ the net
complexity in heterologous individuals living in malaria-infested
areas. Now, I won't try to claim that this is actually the case;
I only want to note that your own measures, Andrew, do not
necessarily work in the direction you expected.
---------------
Well, Andrew, have we seen complexity "increase" in organisms,
based on any of the measures suggested? I think so. Gene
duplication is pretty common and we've seen cases in micro-
biology where duplications are selected and enriched under
different growth conditions. These cases represent increases
in the number of system components and probably comprise "non-
random deviations from equilibrium". I hedge on the last
claim only because I'm not 100% sure what is meant by "non-
random deviations from equilibrium". The uptake and
incorporation of foreign genes into bacterial chromosomes
also fulfill both criteria, IMHO.
Success?
Regards,
Tim Ikeda (tikeda@sprintmail.com)