Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Polka Dots
Message-ID: <592@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 17:37:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.592
Posted: Fri May  3 17:37:10 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 00:32:31 EDT
References: <1011@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 97

[....................]
>I assume you refer to _Biston betularia_ and other species of moths.
>So what kind of evolution is this?  Now they are changing back as the
>pollution comes under control.  This is an unconvincing example because
>it does not demonstrate anything but a horizontal change within a gene
>pool.  Only a shift of allelic frequency within a population.  Nothing
>new, which is what evolution requires.  Or does it require that?  I
>guess not.  Not a priori.  But post hoc it is seen to be a necessary
>part of a theory that's supposed to explain *what happened*.  This
>example doesn't touch it.

You seem to be implying that there are 'vertical' changes and
'horizontal' changes.  What is this based on?   What differentiates a
'vertical' and a 'horizontal' change?

>> >            1.  Spontaneous generation (the emergence of  life  from  non-
>> >                living  matter)  has never been observed. All observations
>> >                have  shown  that  life  only  comes   from   life.   This
>> >                observation  is so consistent that it is called the Law of
>> >                Biogenesis. The theory of evolution  conflicts  with  this
>> >                law by claiming that life came from non-living matter.
>
>> 	This is  amisunderstanding of the nature of the "law" of
>> Biogenesis, which is nothing more than an *observation* that under
>> current conditions life is not *seen* to appear without a living
>> precurser. It is *not* an absolute statement of the impossibility
>> of such origin(there are *no* absolutes in science).
>
>Except no creator! :-)

With proper evidence, existence of a creator could possibly become
'science'.

>> >         * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial
>> >           change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. When

>> 	Nice definition :-)  I don't know of any reputable biologist
>> who would accept it as it stands. Increased complexity a *defining*
>> characteristic of evolution??? What about structural reduction in
>> parasites??(like tapeworms).  Evolution *only* talks about increased
>> *adaption* *not* improvement!!
>
>That's right, complexity as a defining characteristic.  Ho and
>Saunders, for instance.  Of course, your following sentence (the one
>about parasites) puts the finger on one phenomenon that gives fits to
>their ideas.
>
>---
>
>The following comments are not directed specifically to Mr. Friesen.
>But I have noticed that several people now have chafed at the suggestion
>that increasing complexity is an aspect of evolutionary theory.
>
>Evolution *has* to have increased complexity *sometime*, to get from
>simple organisms to the complex organisms we see today.  If not, then
>you have to say the most complex organism *began* that complex.  Not
>likely.
>
>It is true that an increase in complexity need not be an A PRIORI
>requirement of an evolutionary theory.  (Indeed, how could it be?)  But
>is it not maintained that evolution arose in a *data-driven* manner?
>Is it not maintained that evolution was derived from, and accepted on
>the basis of, *observations*?  Do these observations not form what is
>commonly called the *fact* of evolution?  Does not this *fact* of
>evolution, derived from *observation*, show *increasing* complexity?
>Is not *increasing* complexity therefore a characteristic of the
>evolutionary record and the evolutionary process?  Are the evolutionary
>record and the evolutionary process which the record is supposed to
>show not the very things to be explained via the mechanisms postulated
>by evolutionary *theory*?  DOES NOT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THEREFORE HAVE
>TO ACCOUNT FOR INCREASING COMPLEXITY?  DOES IT NOT?
>
>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.

Perhaps evolutionary theory CAN provide an EXPLANATION for increasing
complexity, but if you will review the original statement:

>> >         * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial
>> >           change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. 

Note that evolution is not DEFINED as ALWAYS producing 'increasing complexity'.
I think this is what we have problems with.  In other words: NOT ALL
EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES ARE ASSUMED TO BE INCREASING IN COMPLEXITY.  Perhaps
statistically, changes in general may tend toward increasing complexity,
BUT THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OR DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION.  If you examine
a certain subset, you may find that for a time, a given organism may
tend toward decreasing complexity, due to associated advantages.  Note
that MORE does not always mean BETTER.

>Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd