William Morse 

> > Since there is no "forwards" in evolutionary terms,
it's a difficult
> > question to answer.  If you mean "forwards" to mean
more complexity,
> > then it is generally evident in the fossil record that such steps do
> > occur.  If an organism becomes more survivable with less complexity,
> > it may in fact be a step forward.  It depends only on whether a
> > simpler organism is more likely to survive and reproduce, nothing
> > more.  "Direction" is a human attribution to a
directionless process.

> WM:-
> No. The process has direction, it just doesn't have a goal. There are
> very clear individual directions: flight, vision, dexterity, sociality,
> communication, intelligence, and size (both extremes) to name a few.
> These are not coordinated in any overall direction, and may well compete.
> And simplicity is as much a direction as redundancy. But there are
> directions.

JE:-
The direction of evolution is always to
increase the Darwinian fitness maximand
as measured per Darwinian selectee per
population. This maximand is defined as:

The total number of fertile forms reproduced
per parent into one population.

Everything that living
nature has or will produce is deducible from
just this _one_ maximand embedded within
a self consistent theory structure.
This Darwinian theory of evolution
by natural selection _can_ be tested to
refutation via an experiment using a
natural population (not just a model).
Please note: Neo Darwinism revisions of
Darwinian theory cannot be tested to
refutation only to no verification
where only refutation is definitive.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 10/28/04 6:18:33 AM