From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 16/03/2025 9:51 am, Ernest Major wrote:   
   > On 14/03/2025 04:57, MarkE wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)