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: Complexity revisited.
Message-ID: <270@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 5-May-85 03:49:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.270
Posted: Sun May  5 03:49:26 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 07:13:12 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 27

___________________________________________________________________________

> From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
> 
> 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?).

Mike, as you might have seen, I must disagree with your statement
that evolutionary theory must account for the general increase in
complexity as I cannot justify the need to account for complexity
in any sense at all.  (Please refer to my last article.)

I do see your point, however, as you are approaching the problem
from a different direction, and you point is quite valid in that
context.
___________________________________________________________________________

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