Thank you, you have acknowledged that complexity has increased throughout
geologic time. It was difficult to get you to acknowledge this, but this
will do.
>Let me try to explain. Yes, we seem to see an increase in complexity
>*among vertebrates*, going from 64 to 210 cell types. Yet let's put
>this indirect observation in its CONTEXT. Do we see similar increases
>in other phyla or classes? No.
I wouldn't yet say that we don't. I haven't posted a list of various
arthropods and neither have you. YOu say I am answering Art with
philosophy, what do you call your answer here. There is no documentation
whatsoever to back up your assertion that there has been no increase in
cell types among the arthropods. While I don't know if they have or
haven't, I know this, we can't decide that question by opinion, either
yours or mine. Data is what is required and you haven't presented any.
Thus, the
>overall, general pattern of evolution has not been towards increasing
>complexity
>via increasing cell type numbers. This is the way evolution typically works.
>And this would explain all the lab data which (AFAIK) has not detected
>any new cell types as a consequence of the vast number of mutants that
>have been analyzed. Yet it is within this overall context where we find this
>exception of the lamprey-fish-amphibian-reptile-bird/mammal
>transition. To me, this clearly suggests there is something special about
>this transitional series.
I don't disagree that there is something special about the line that lead
to us. I believe that God created the biosystems with us in mind and thus
rigged the dice of the universe in order to bring us about. That being
said, that doesn't rule out an increase in maximum complexity throughout
time. If God designed the universe is the fashion described above, we would
expect some lineage to lead to us.
>
>Let's use your lottery example to demonstrate this. Say we institute a
>national lottery. You win the lottery (lucky you!). Now, let's say the
>lottery is played every week for every year until the year 3000. Since
>the odds against winning are very low, there are only a total of 100
>winners during this new millenium. Yet every one of those winners
>is one of your descendents. How would you interpret this?
You forget something here. The specialness can not apply to the original
chordate progenitor. If it hadn't been them, it would have been some other
group we were ascribing things to. There had to be an ancestor for whoever
lives today. And whatever form intelligent life took, it would view its
ancestor as special. One can only find retrodicted specialness by looking
backwards. In your analogy, if my great great great grandson looked back
and saw that everyone of his ancestors won the lottery then he would have
some reason to believe his was a special lineage. In 5000 years, when my
genes are spread quite widely around the world, for one of my descendants
to win the lottery will not be very special because I will have maybe
millions of descendants.
Thus, your way of looking at this is wrong. Looking from now to the past,
we find that birds are not on our evolutionary lineage, yet Aves was
clearly a winner in this case. Marsupials are not on our lineage, yet they
also would rank high in the number of cellular types. Actinopterygii also
are not on our lineage. We are descended from the Sarcopterygii, an
equivalent subclass according to Carrol, Vertebrate Paleontology and
Evolution, p. 611. And the Diapsids are not on our lineage. Thus from the
chart I posted, the only direct lineage is agnatha (64)-> Amphibia (150)->
Hominidae (210). The rest of what you had isn't on the lineage.
>
>Glenn:
>I'm glad we can end in agreement.
We agree on more than you think.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution