Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Chairs and Chromosomes
Message-ID: <256@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 00:18:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.256
Posted: Thu May  2 00:18:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 04:25:22 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 81

___________________________________________________________________________

> From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
> > In article <330@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes:
> >> 6.  No known mutation has ever produced a form of life  having
> >>     both  greater  complexity and greater viability [a,b] than
> >>     any of its ancestors [c-f].
> > [Mike Huybensz]
> > Single mutations seldom would cause a new species to develop.  However...
> > Autopolyploidy in plants is a standard trick of plant breeders to
> > develop more vigorous plants by doubling or tripling their chromosome
> > numbers.  Several species of plants are believed to have arisen
> > naturally by this method.  I'd say that more chromosomes satisfies the
> > greater complexity clause.
> I'm a little surprised that you didn't say they satisfy the greater
> viability clause.  That is more obviously true.
> 
> For complexity, I'd say number of chromosomes is meaningless.  There
> is no relationship between chromosome count and complexity.
>
> Man has 46.
> Chrysanthemums: 18 - 198
> Crustacea have from 8 to 208
> Arachnids have from 6 to 84
> Birds: 12-80
> Insects: 5-380
> The Radiolaria protozoa have over 800 chromosomes.  Are they therefore
> more complex than any living organism descended from them? (Whatever
> that might be...)
>
> Chrysanthemums vary from 18 to 198 chromosomes.  Which one is most
> complex?  Are they any different?
>
> Salamanders have about half as many chromosomes as us, but twenty times
> as much DNA.  One could say "I'd say that more DNA satisfies the
> greater complexity clause."  How many and which parameters do you want
> to consider?

In some cases, I guess it might be legitimate to say so.  I would
write off "complexity" as a highly subjective term, and therefore,
useless.

> >> { a segment from rck's list of "evidences for creationism". }
> 
> > Duplicated chromosomes would count as new structures, since each copy is
> > then free to mutate in different directions.
> 
> So if I make a chair, and then I make another one, I have a new kind of
> furniture - a new structure by duplication?  Come on.  Yes, the
> chromosomes are free to mutate, but that in itself is no demonstration
> of anything, except that they mutate.  It does not demonstrate, e.g.,
> that any new structure *does* arise.

Simple duplication is not the same as different structures.  However,
as indicated by the original paragraph, this is a step in the right
direction.

> > There are quite a few candidates for nascent organs (assuming you are
> > referring to things we can see today, rather than "evolution in one
> > year right under my nose".)  Two examples I'm well familiar with are
> > the development of claws in the family Dryinidae (some wasps parasitic
> > on Homoptera) from the first tarsal segment, and the development of
> > claws from a spur of the femur of mites parasitic in the gills of
> > Hermit Crabs (Ewingidae, recently placed in the family Glycyphagidae.)
> 
> Ok.  You might have something here.  Please post some references.

Before he does, please specify the criteria under which you will accept
a developing/half/semi/pseudo organ.  Remember, an organ does not have
to serve the same purpose which under "development", if you can consider
any organ as "fully" developed.  There is no stated or implied "destiny"
of evolution of organisms, and certainly not of organs.  When creation-
ists say that an organ is half-developed, they imply that there must be
some destination for the transformations.  Theories of evolution does
NOT provide for any such destinies.  Basically speaking, the hair on
your head may be intermediates between its previous form and spikes.  It
may change to something else soon.
___________________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }