Intelligent Design Without God

  • #26
92
0
two more kinds of complexity

Phobos said:
Probably a tough question, but how do you define complexity? If it boils down to increases in genetic code, then we have direct evidence of that from studying genetic mutations. But it's harder to define then that.
"Macro-evolutionary" changes (where increases in complexity are more apparent) take longer than can be conducted under an experiment. Instead that degree of separation is inferred from things like the fossil record & genetics.
For one thing, the fossil record shows that most species in the history of the Earth pre-dated the existance of humans.
Also, genetic relationships between species show that humans are not at the base of the tree of life. Even through there is a lot of non-activated genetic code in our DNA, you can still trace unique genetic markers through various lineages.
Phobos,
1) complexity - unpredicted reultant of a synergetic whole -- i.e. greater than the sum of its parts e.g. RNA-DNA(Life, consciousnes and mind access) --, within a finite set of interrelationships, which interrelationships may change-- active-inactive --over time but always limited by a priori and inherent set of metapysical principles a.k.a. cosmic laws.

2) complexity - less, or more, sets of numerically mathmatical relatisonships.

You are correct that it does not boil down to the "amount" of genetic material. Salamanders have more genertic material per cell than any other animal but I dont consider them more complex than humans.

We can have our current fossil record without evolution(simple-to-complex) occuring but rather with complex-to-simple(devolution).

Keeping in mind that the human-complex requires the most loving attention to survive and proliferate I posit the following two possible scenarios:
1) whole human complexes have arrived here on Earth..

----for the moment put aside the method for this terrestial seeding of humans or any other biologics--

...at various times in Earths history, at places where the environmental circumstances were conducive/supportive to humans..

--only known genetically identified split form apes approximatly 8 million years ago--

..with the newly arrived set of humans immediatly in-breeding and beginning their devolution into less complex and more specialized animalistic characteristics for those specific enviroments.

There may have been very few of these humans in places and, long ago lost, to south sea oceans in and around, many of Earths curent, and perhaps long gone, south Pacfic atolls ergo long gone fossil evidence of their existence as well as perhaps many of the off-spring for many years to come.

2) Parts of the RNA-DNA human complex were isolated-out before being seeded here as many of the animals found in the fossil record, not yet found in the fossil record, fossils long ago destroyed by the enviroment.

Phobos, obviously humans are not at the base of the tree of life, when the "base" is equated as the most simple as in "basic".

If the base is the largest and most comprehensive set of possibities as like a "data base"(the whole tree) then humans amy fit the bill as "the base" from which most, if not all others, can be plucked from.

Yes, you are correct about genetic markers relating not only all animals but all five kingdoms. Animals being closer to fungus than plants. The devolution proposition of Fullers, via me, does not change those set of genetics markers, it merely changes the our concepts about the direction of changes.

Woman being the most complex biologic we know of. There si even some speculative evidence that the Y chromosome is slowly dgreaidng and may cease to exist.

There are asexual female geckos. A form of salmander perhaps?

Rybo
 
  • #27
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
I see no internal inconsistency with a theory of evolution based on survival of those most likely to survive. Fossil and geological records indicate planet earth has been a very hostile environment over time. If it ain't the dang asteroids smacking into it, it's the dang volcanos, earthquakes, and climate that toss down the gauntlet. We should probably not so smugly assume we are a superior life form until we have persisted for as long as the cockroach.
 
  • #28
92
0
Chronos, more complex does not neccessarily mean "superior" over all. In our case it means humans are more superior at "generalization""abtract mind accessing" whereas other less complex animals, more often than not, are superior in their specific "specializations" e.g. olfactory/smelling abilities of dogs and pigs, birds wings, etc.....

Humans through their miind acccessing abstract generalization abilites can create, on occcasion, some technology that is supeior to some part of these specialized aspects, but perhaps never match one-to-one each and every, I.e over-all, the unigness of these animals abilities. To that humans would need to creat biologic life.

That may be possible, but im doubtful until Im well confirmed with enough others that abiogenisis --i.e. biologic-life from wheer before there was none-- has taken place.

Rybo
 

Related Threads on Intelligent Design Without God

  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
255
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
Top