>It might be thought strange that a book on biological evolution should be
>written by a physicist. Thomas Kuhn observed that insights rarely come
>from those trained in a particular discipline.
Darwin himself is of course the prime example. Despite the utter illogic of
the notion that one shouldn't promulgate a new idea unless one has been
trained in it by others, we will continue to see challenges here of the form
'Show me your credentials, so I can make an ad hominem argument!'
>Citing his own published work, much of it from the Journal of Theoretical
>Biology, he contends that even where information increase is possible
>the rate of mutation is far too low in the evolutionary time frame.
Does Spetner discuss the bootstrapping nature of the accumulation of
mutations? That is, that the mechanism for the implementation of mutations
does itself improve, such that a linear view of the process is inappropriate?
>Using the numbers provided by evolutionary scientists, Spetner demonstrates
>that fixing a mutation with a slight advantage in a population is essentially
>impossible.
This seems a challenge to a rather fundamental point. Can someone explain
in non-mathematical terms why an advantageous mutation could not spread
within a population? Given of course, that it is not hopelessly linked with
disadvantageous genes.
>He discusses parallel and convergent evolution, concluding that "convergent
>evolution is impossible."
Is it possible to mention briefly why it is impossible? One would think that
if the environment is a directing force, it could direct different organisms in
the same direction.
>He states "The average person finds it hard to believe that complexity and
>sophistication of such high order was developed by having natural selection
>organize random events·as we have seen the average person's intuition
>is correct·"
This is what we used to call 'Aunt Louise's theorem' (Why, the whole world
knows it's true!).
>Chapter five is the heart of the book. Here Spetner touches the soul of the
>inadequacy of evolutionary theory. Asking the question " Is there any
>evidence that evolution can build up information in living things?," he
>then proceeds to systematically defrock every claim of increase in
>information in the scientific literature of which I am aware.
Again, the objection seems based on the strawman of linear increase in
information, of gradual 'build-up'. My view is that there was a massive
sudden increase in information to kick off the Cambrian explosion, followed
by slight increases (and decreases) as these new organisms were distorted
into tetrapods etc. This is simply what the fossil record implies.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com