> It might be better to say that X's being irreducibly complex implies that X requires a more circuitous, and hence less likely, evolutionary pathway.>
Joseph: <<My understanding is that the trend of the entire universe is in the
opposite direction from evolution. That does not help me join with your
sentiments in spite of my wish to be affable. >>
You are right and wrong. Yes over the long term the 2nd law lies doomingly over our universe. But that hardly means that at shorter timescales and spatial scales things cannot be reversed. Luckily for us this is observed daily. So no real problem here, other than in the ignorance of some.
> E.g., Dawkins uses the non-biological example of an arch. It's undeniably irreducibly complex -- pull out any stone and the whole thing collapses. And yet it's -possible- for one to "evolve" from a pile of stones if one is lucky, if the right stones get washed away in a stream, e.g. This comes not by building up to an arch, but by "building down" from a pile of stones.>
Joseph: <<A living cell is more complex than any arch or any suspension bridge or
anything else ever built.>>
And ?
> And I certainly agree that the origin of the cell and abiogensis are
> enormous and utterly unsolved challenges for evolutionary theory.>
Joseph <<"Spontaneous generation, in biology, is the theory, now disproved, that
living organisms sometimes arise from nonliving matter.>>
Presently such spontaneous generation appears unlikely but that does not mean it was not possible under past circumstances.
I guess the myth of the 4th dimension lives on as such eh Joseph