Evolution of complexity/information

I often hear that Humans are more intellegent than the Gorilla.But one:

• never seems in a hurry.
• spends his day eating and playing with the kids.
• has his women folk about him.
• takes a nap every day.
• never worries about what to wear.
• never worries about budgets or taxes.
• has never gone to war.
• doesn't much care what the neighbors think.
• is never late for work.
• has never heard kids asking "What's for dinner"?
• doesn't have to block out channels on the remote.

I have a feeling that just maybe, when they were handing out intellegence, the Gorillas and Humans flipped a coin.We lost.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But that is the only difference between slime mold and humans. The only difference between you and a blade of Burmuda Grass is the DNA code. That is one of the strongest confirmations that we really are all evolved from some single common ancestor.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Acanthostega and Ichthyostega were also important because it looks like another example of changing uses, similar to what lead to wings. The limbs on them were not as well supported and it is unlikely they would work as legs. Instead, they proably were useful in getting around in the marine plant beds of streams or marshes, but not originally used for support.So just as it is likely that wings first evolved to serve some function other than flying, it is likely that what is seen here is a similar process. Here we are seeing fins evolve to make it easier to move through obstacles that later evolved into supporting limbs.Classic Transition species.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, mutations don't make things better, or worse for that matter. They make them different.It is natural selection that determines whether it is successful or not. Better only enters in as in "Better able to survive".The big advantage to Natural Selection is that it controls the results. Although there are always changes and mutations going on, in everyone and everything, they only come into play when they make it easier or more difficult to meet the challenges.Evolution is not directed. A change doesn't happen to meet a need. Rather, some changes allow a critter to better meet a change in environment or to move into a new nitch.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, it really has nothing to do with better or complex. It's just survival. Those that survive reproduce. And that is exactly what we see in the fossil record. Often more complex, bigger, faster or maybe even smarter critters die off. And others that might seem lesser succeed.No plan. No direction.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have to remember that there are still far more single cell critters than anything else. And while a dog or human or dinosaur might be more complex, it's not a direction or purpose. In fact if you look at the record, the complex critters have not been the most successful by a long shot.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let me try to address a point for you. You said and but that's not exactly what happens.Change does not seem to be driven. Instead, change happens. Sometimes those changes help a critter, but not always.The critter never had sight as a goal. Rather, a critter was born that could sense light (most likely during the Cambrian Period). That gave it an advantage over its blind prey.One other thing. Most such systems appear to have been independently developed by many different critters. That is why we see so many different solutions to something like sight. There is everything from simple light sensitive cells to complex eyes.It is not a case of a great idea coming along and then being passed on to other creatures. While we do see some improvement in a particular subset of critters, we also see examples of different and unique independent evolution using totally different mechanisms. Just look at the variety of solutions to flight or legs or digestion or hearing or grasping.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But initially it might not be a lens. It might a covering to keep dirt out. Or maybe it reflects colors diferently and so is useful in mating rituals.A lot of what is seen in evolution are Rube Goldberg solutions. Some part that is used for one function gradually takes on some other function. It ain't neat or even efficient. The eye, primate at least, is a good example. It's a lousy design, all wrong. But it's good enough.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hangdawg13 Here is a link to some of the research done on eye evolution.Maybe it will help explain some of the steps.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which is what Rube Goldberg did. You have studied Rube haven't you?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What is a strawman? The comparison to Rube?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You're in a great area to investigate. During the Cambrian period much of what is now Texas was a reef system and shallow sea. Do a search for Cambrian sites in Texas and head out for some exploration. I think once you find a few limstome bands that are several hundred feet thick you may well change your mind. Who knows, you may just get to find a few trilobites on your own.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, you won't find any human foot prints at Glen Rose.So how quickly do you think limestone forms?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nah, we've been over Walt's stuff and the hydroplate theories way, way too mant times. There are plenty of threads on those dogs already.But take the time to travel around Texas and look at the limestone formations. Then see if you think they could be laid down in less than a few hundred millions of years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't often quote mine, but this thread absolutely begs for it.A few quotes from Albert Einstein: People seem to sense that there is some innate virtue, some GOOD, in complexity. There is not. A more complex critter is not better than, or more evolved or even more able to survive than one that is less complex.There is no indication that a man is more complex than a dinosaur, or that a cat is more complex than a tree.Who cares?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion