Re: Fred Hoyle's `Mathematics of Evolution'
Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:19:19 -0800>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:19:53 -0600, John E. Rylander wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >SJ>neoDarwinian step-by-step method must fail claims Hoyle, because it
> >>implies 100 non-functional steps. The alternative: a jump of 100
> >>mutations
> >>of exactly the right kind would be highly improbable [20^100 or 10^130
> >>SJ]. The histone-4 case is in fact a case of Michael Behe's Irreducible
> >>Complexity long before Behe published his Darwin's Black Box, since the
> >>hand-written version of Mathematics of Evolution was 'published'
> >>in 1987."
>
> [...]
>
> JR>The deductive argument IC -> couldn't have evolved is just as mistaken
when
> >Hoyle presents it as when Behe does, EVEN IF the conclusion is true. IC
of
> >suitably complex system does imply that the simplest path is unavailable
> >(for the reasons presented in the quote above), but (certainly in
principle,
> >anyway) there are indefinitely many more circuitous evolutionary paths
still
> >available, even given IC of the end result.
>
> All Hoyle is saying is that one cannot plausibly arrive at histone-4 by
the
> normal, bottom-up, step-by-step, Neo-Darwinian pathway.
Chris
Since this claim is *not* a part of Neo-Darwinism, and, in fact, is
*contrary* to it as a universal claim, I'm not sure how this refutes
Neo-Darwinism. Dawkins and many others have described cases in which what
evolved along one direction ended up being used for something else, or in
some radically different context. This is to be *predicted* in cases where
the environment changes irregularly over time but without first consulting
the organisms in that environment to see which way they want to evolve next.
Because there is no guarantee that what an organism now has at hand is what
would be ideal for changes in the environment, it makes do with whatever it
has and with whatever (apparently non-directed) variations occur and get
selected for.
Neo-Darwinism does not postulate a "normal, bottom-up" pathway, as far as I
know. There *is* no "normal" pathway in Neo-Darwinism. In fact, *if* there
is such a bottom-up pathway, and *if* it is followed, that is merely good
luck (probably involving a slowly-changing environment).
Rylander is right.