On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 04:29:51 +0000 (UTC), jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net
(Jim Menegay) wrote:

>r norman  wrote in message
news:...
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:57:36 +0000 (UTC), sharikoff{at}lycos.ru
>> (chupacabra) wrote:
>> 
>> >The question that perplexes me - why does evolution progress from the
>> >simple to the complex? The simple bacteria and other
"primitive" forms
>> >of live are by no means less "viable" then more
complex forms --
>> >animals and humans. Many of these "primitive"
species remain the same
>> >for the hundreds of millions of years, survive perfectly in their
>> >enviroments and don't need to evolve into the complex forms. Indeed,
>> >complex forms are often more fragile and susceptible to the
>> >environment perturbations than primitive ones. So how natural
>> >selection alone can explain the  general vector of evolution - from
>> >simple and primitive to more complex forms? Or could there exist some
>> >another force apart from the natural selection -- to
"push" evolution
>> >in the direction of complexity, developed nervous system,
>> >self-awareness etc.???
>> 
>> The general idea now is that there is no "progression"
of evolution
>> towards more and more complex forms.  It is necessarily true that the
>> original life forms were relatively simple. It is also true that we
>> are rather complex.  So if you look at evolution from the original
>> form to us, it does seem like an increase in complexity.  However,
>> most living things are microorganisms and if you look at evolution
>> from the original to a modern bacterium, you get a different
>> impression.
>> 
>> Another way to look at it is as a random walk process.  Evolution
>> tends to spread out organisms in all directions.  However, it started
>> with simple things and there is a lower bound to how simple an
>> organism can be and still be alive.  So there is necessarily an
>> increase in average complexity with time. Still, most things remain
>> simple.
>
>A vivid way of making this same point is to ask for an explanation
>of the "remarkable" southward vector of human migration in the first
>few millenia after the Berring land bridge was crossed.  What conceivable
>force drew these early emigrants enexorably to Tierra del Fuego?
>
>The question seems even more compelling if it is being investigated
>by an ethnocentric Fuegan scientist who is inclined to doubt that the
>larger, richer populations of the Vale of Mexico and the Andes are very
>interesting.  (That is, if you have missed my point, perhaps an objective
>observer might see Nature's "progress vector" as leading to
the flowering
>plants and the insects, rather than to H. sap.)

I like it!  A very nice example.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/18/04 6:22:11 AM