Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Polka Dots
Message-ID: <1510@hao.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 23:11:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1510
Posted: Thu May  2 23:11:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 08:44:06 EDT
References: <1011@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 22

> Maybe you can't explain the increase in complexity (now).  Fine.  It
> cannot be required that one be able to answer all questions at the
> present moment.  But if you say that you don't even *have* to explain it,
> then I think one might reasonably object.

This is absolutely true.  BUT the arguments against the need to explain
the evolve-toward-complexity idea stemmed from a creationist's
criticism that individual species sometimes are seen to be less 
complex in later strata than their presumed ancestral forms in 
earlier strata...therefore if they evolved they evolved to less 
complex forms, therefore evolution is wrong.

The theory of evolution must account for the general increase in 
complexity that is observed in the geological strata.
The theory must also allow for the decrease in complexity that
is often observed as counter trends to the main trend.

The current state of the theory allows for both, though I have
not as yet have seen mechanisms proposed for either.

The creationists, of course have given no expanation of either
(or are we really supposed to accept hydraulic sorting?).