>I think you're being a bit simplistic here, Art, and I think you know you
are.
Caught me!
>First, the issue of complexity. There are certainly periods in evolutionary
>history that DID move toward greater complexity (single-celled to
multi-celled,
>and the development of the human brain, for example). But there is no
evolutionary
>imperative that says that it had to have done so, nor is there any such
imperative
>today. And beyond a certain threshhold of complexity, it becomes
impossible to
>detect any such increase. Is a reptile more complex than an amphibian simply
>because the former evolved from the latter? Now, the issue of perfection.
>Perfection is, of course, quite a subjective term and one that really is
>inapplicable in the discussion of evolution. What evolution does is move
toward
>greater adaptation with the local environment. If perfection means
adaptation to
>the local environment, then certainly what is "perfect" in one environment
might
>mean extinction in another. I realize that creationists would likely
accept this
>type of evolution as well, so it isn't really an issue in the
creation/evolution
>debate. I do think it is important to point out that evolution can "do
something"
>without having to lead toward perfection.
Good point, well taken.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu