Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Polka Dots
Message-ID: <419@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-May-85 14:53:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.419
Posted: Sat May  4 14:53:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 05:55:17 EDT
References: <1011@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 65

>[From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois), Message-ID: <1011@uwmacc.UUCP>]
>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.

I agree with Paul that the theory of evolution is based on observations of
events that do indeed show an increase in complexity.  My question is:  So
what?  I don't understand why creationists feel that's a major drawback of
the theory, and I don't understand why (at least some of) the evolutionists
on this net hedge on it.

Anybody out there looked under your bed lately?  What did you see?  10 to 1
you found dust bunnies.  Yes, dust bunnies - the tiny individual particles
of dust that were hiding under there got together and formed a more complex
structure.  Who knows why, maybe some superior being created them (:-), but
I tend to think the air you stir up blows 'em close enough together so that
the tiny electromagnetic charges on em is strong enough to hold em together.

We're talking about how living organisms on earth gained complexity, and the
surface of the earth is not a closed system here.  We have energy streaming
in from the sun, we have winds and rains and lightning and tides and waves,
not to mention heavenly bodies crashing into us from time to time and the
earth herself belching up occasionaly.  There are countless opportunities
for things to be nudged together, and once forced together nature has her
way with them.  Hydrogen and oxygen atoms get nudged together and do what
they do (rain), and whatever's in proteins get nudged together and do what
they do, and proteins get nudged together and do what they do, and hey, I
think we've got something.  What *is* the problem here?  Maybe we don't yet
know exactly what conditions are necessary to make the proteins do what they
do (then again maybe we do - I don't know), but there's a helluva of lot of
circumstances to try.  I can't see how anyone (creationist or not) can say
it's absolutely not possible.  And if they admit that it's possible then
there's no argument.

So let's argue about something fun.  Like, if life was orginated by an
omniscient, benevolent creator, where'd [name your favorite flamer]
come from?  :-)

-- 

--JB                                                  "The giant is awake."