From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 14/03/2025 12:18 am, Ernest Major wrote:   
   > On 13/03/2025 11:17, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 12/03/2025 9:31 am, Ernest Major wrote:   
   >>> On 08/03/2025 04:34, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/03/2025 9:29 pm, Ernest Major wrote:   
   >>>>> On 06/03/2025 00:45, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 5/03/2025 3:31 pm, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Is there a limit to capability of natural selection to refine,   
   >>>>>>> adapt and create the “appearance of design”? Yes: the mechanism   
   >>>>>>> itself of “differential reproductive success” has intrinsic   
   >>>>>>> limitations, whatever it may be able to achieve, and this is   
   >>>>>>> further constrained by finite time and population sizes.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Martin, let's stay on topic. Would you agree that there are limits   
   >>>>>> to NS as described, which lead to an upper limit to functional   
   >>>>>> complexity in living things?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> How these limits might be determined is a separate issue, but the   
   >>>>>> first step is establishing this premise.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> First, natural selection is not the only evolutionary process. Even   
   >>>>> if one evolutionary process is not capable of achieving something   
   >>>>> that doesn't mean that evolutionary processes in toto are not   
   >>>>> capable of achieving that.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Natural selection is the *only* naturalistic means capable of   
   >>>> increasing functional complexity   
   >>>   
   >>> Creationists have been known to argue that natural selection doesn't   
   >>> create anything; it merely selects what's already present. As an   
   >>> argument against evolution that's worthless; but as an observation   
   >>> it's true enough. Each step in functionality complexity originates   
   >>> from mutation, or recombination, or gene flow, and is subsequently   
   >>> fixed or not by natural selection or genetic drift.   
   >>>   
   >>> For example Ron Okimoto (I think) recently mentioned that one   
   >>> flagellar gene is a truncated version of another, and results in the   
   >>> assembly of a tapered flagellum rather than cylindrical one. I can   
   >>> imagine that the tapered flagellum is advantageous, and was fixed by   
   >>> selection. It might be that the gene was duplicated and fixed by   
   >>> drift before a truncation mutation occurred, but as selection against   
   >>> excess DNA is effective in bacteria I suspect that it originated as a   
   >>> partial duplication of the gene, which was then selected. But note   
   >>> that the initial increase in complexity was caused by the mutation.   
   >>> Natural selection fixes this in a population, and as you have   
   >>> mentioned acts as a ratchet allowing changes to accumulate.   
   >>>   
   >>> But you are assuming increases in functional complexity are adaptive.   
   >>> They could be neutral or slightly deleterious and fixed by genetic   
   >>> drift. I don't accept without question your panadaptationist/   
   >>> panfunctionalist premise.   
   >>>   
   >>> Passing over the problems with defining an objective criterion for   
   >>> irreducibly complex systems, there are at least three classes of   
   >>> evolutionary paths to this. I think that coadaptation is the   
   >>> predominant one. This goes from non-interaction to facultative   
   >>> interaction to obligate interaction. Both steps could be fixed by   
   >>> either natural selection or genetic drift.   
   >>>   
   >>>> and genetic information.   
   >>>   
   >>> Increases in functional complexity and genetic information are not   
   >>> the same thing. If you use a Shannon or Kolmgorov measure natural   
   >>> selection tends to reduce, not increase, information in a gene pool.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> All other factors have only a shuffling/randomising effect. In every   
   >>>> case, NS is required to pick from the many resulting permutations   
   >>>> the rare chance improvements.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Without the action of NS, all biological systems are degrading over   
   >>>> time.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Second, you've changed the question. Evolutionary processes have   
   >>>>> limitations, but those limitations need not be on the degree of   
   >>>>> functional complexity achievable. Evolution cannot produce living   
   >>>>> organisms that can't exist in the universe. (You could quibble   
   >>>>> about lethal mutations, recessives, etc., but I hope you can   
   >>>>> perceive the intent of my phrasing; for example, I very much doubt   
   >>>>> that evolution could result in an organism with a volume measured   
   >>>>> in cubic light years.)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Applying this to functional complexity, physical limits on how big   
   >>>>> an organism can be, and how small details can be, do pose a limit   
   >>>>> on how much functional complexity can be packed into an organism.   
   >>>>> But such a limit doesn't help you - humans are clearly capable of   
   >>>>> existing in this universe, so aren't precluded by that limit. You   
   >>>>> need a process limitation, not a physical limitation; I don't find   
   >>>>> it obvious that there is a process limitation that applies here.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You say that the first step is establishing the premise. That is   
   >>>>> your job.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That there are things that evolution cannot achieve (a classic   
   >>>>> example is the wheel, though even that is not unimaginable) doesn't   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)