General Theory of Evolution

Just a quick note on a technical point. The TOE does not postulate anything like "upward evolution".--Percy

Hi Fred,Sorry to again reply in a bullet point, but I'm being kept pretty busy these days. I wish I could spend more time here, but oh well, and it can't be helped. Glad to see you've again freed up some time!Models attempt to describe the real world. You're arguing that the model (your particular version of it, anyway) doesn't gibe with the real world, and that therefore reality must be wrong. I don't think it works that way.--Percy

Oh my God, Fred is sucking me in! I'll be fired, abandoned, scorned! God give me the willpower to make this the last post today!

Fred writes:

---

Great! So you admit that your theory is now re-defined...

---

I'm not sure how to reply. You've participated in this debate for a long time, so if it's true that you really don't know that the TOE does not view evolution as a progressive force pushing organisms toward improved and more complex forms then I'm surprised. And there's no redefinition. No one here, except you, is using the term "upward evolution."

---

...so that it fits nicely within a creationist framework? In other words, do you agree that there is no evidence for the naturalistic development of new complex systems such as organs, sonar, feathers, etc?

---

Evolutionary solutions to competitive pressures can represent either increasing or decreasing complexity. For example, the cheetah migrates into a new habitat putting the local gazelles under competitive pressure to become more evasive. Most solutions will involve increased complexity. Increased speed would usually mean increased complexity because the gazelle would need improved coordination at the higher speed, improved musculature, better delivery of blood supply to muscles, improved lung capacity, better hoof architecture, and so forth. Evolution of the horns to better fight off the cheetah would not only involve changes to horns, but also to the neck muscles, the skeletal arrangement of the upper spine to better support charging, improved coordination again, and so forth. Many of the solutions will involve increased complexity.But increased complexity is not the only path to improved survival. Getting smaller to better hide in the tall grass is also possible and might involve decreased complexity. Certainly cave fish, which once had sight but lost it, are examples of decreasing complexity.So, both increasing and decreasing complexity are possible with evolution, but increasing complexity seems to more often provide the necessary survival improvement. It is for this reason that the fossil record is one of generally increasing complexity, and not because of any inherently progressive property of evolution.--Percy

Hi Peter,Fred seemed to think that we were redefining the TOE by abandoning an "upward evolution" perspective, and I was only explaining to Fred that such a perspective has never been the view of anyone here, that he was the only one using the term "upward evolution", and further explained what the current view is. It was the evolutionist formulation of the TOE that Fred was misconstruing, not the Peter Borger formulation.--Percy