Hey Susan,
I'll try to be open minded about "specified" complexity, though I have an inclination not to be. I don't understand your definition. The theory of evolution doesn't claim that natural selection leads to a "specific" goal. In fact, as Dawkins says, everything is intermediate. So I don't know why you'd even need an idea of "specified" complexity when talking about evolution.
Can you give me examples of "specified" complexity? And how bout some "run of the mill" complexity examples? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that either. What do you mean by complexity having a purpose? Or usefulness? Those two words can be pretty arbitrary. And most everything carries information. Change the direction of one atom, and you can store information (in fact, don't they do that already?).
I think I'll stick to this and let my original comments about simple systems becoming more complex be my response to your attack on a "central tenet" of evolution.
-Brandon
No comments:
Post a Comment