Re: Complexity of life

mortongr@flash.net
Sun, 07 Nov 1999 08:57:13 +0000

At 08:18 PM 11/06/1999 -0800, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>
>>>Aves 187 cell types 150 myr
>>>Hominidae 210 cell types 5 myr
>>
>>This makes no sense at all. All of the data are derived from the study of
>>extant groups. The assumption is made that these groups have not changed
>>over the entire span of their history. Is this what evolution is about?
>
>It's worse than that. The implication is that arranging extant groups in
>order of complexity illustrates how evolution occurred, that each evolved
>in turn from the one 'below'. A very old and unsupported idea, but one that
>is apparently irresistible. There's no denying that evolution must have
>begun with something simple, but there's no evidence for stretching the
>concept this far.

I will repeat for you what I wrote to Art.

The author's stated:

"To evaluate and supplement the available data on cell type numbers within
clades, of which Sneaths's has proven to be the most consistent with modern
ultrastructural studies, somatic cell type numbers were tallied from the
literature for those organisms for which reasonably complete histological
descriptions exist." James W. VAlentine, Allen G. Collins, and C. Porter
Meyer, "Morphological Complexity Increase in Metazoans," Paleontology
20(1994):2:131-142, p. 133

Your objection doesn't take that into account. And once again, to all the
naysayers, what measure of complexity would satisfy you? If not cell type
number then what? All I hear on that score is silence.

glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution