RE: Increasing Complexity was [RE: What 'naturalists' really

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swau.edu)
Wed, 02 Sep 1998 10:42:57 -0700

At 09:20 AM 9/2/98 -0700, you wrote:
><<2) Does evolution always result in an increase in complexity?
>
>Most evolutionary scientists would undoubtedly answer no to
>this question. The interesting question is somewhere between
>these extremes, but closer to (2)>>
>
>Agreed
>
><<3) Is there a general trend (with a few possible exceptions)
>towards increasing complexity during evolution?
>
>This question is very controversial. My own opinion is yes and
>I suspect the majority of evolutionists might also say yes.
>There are notable individuals (Steve Gould) who argue in the
>negative though. A key point is that this may be only an
>apparent trend due to our perceptions being influenced by faulty
>sampling. i.e., the cases we tend to be most interested in are
>those involving increasing complexity.>>

I would like to interject a suggestion. Complexity is probably the wrong
word to use, since randomness is the most complex state possible (requiring
the greatest volume of descriptors). I prefer the term information,
identified in biological systems by the addition of specific new
functionality. In this context, Lee Spetner (Not by Chance!) has made a
(in my opinion) compelling case for the absence for any evidence for the
addition of new information in the whole history of the study of biological
organisms. Thus, those who believe that an increase in information can
result from evolution are in the same boat as those who do not.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu