Xixax

Ok, I still ( in that summary ) see nothing that would explain functional complexity within an organism. Why would increased entropy result in a highly specialized echolocation feature in some bats?

It doesn't explain any reason for a complex system to match the environment it's in.

Jack the Bodiless

I haven't read Evolution as Entropy, but I've heard it recommended to cretinists of the "evolution contradicts thermodynamics" variety.

I suspect that the position of the authors doesn't contradict Darwinian evolution, but merely restates it from a thermodynamics perspective: i.e. Darwinian evolution is the mechanism through which this thermodynamic effect is expressed.

Motorcycle Mama

Try
<a href="http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED" target="_blank">www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED</a>
and rummage around until you find Brooks and read what he has to say about evolution in an informational world, or something like that.

Complexity is a difficult concept, as is order. The problem is the distinction between order and organization. One way to understand the two is to compare a diamond, which is order but not organized, with a cell, which is organized but not ordered. When dealing with living things the relevant concept is organization.
MM

Motorcycle Mama

One interpretation but what seems to be happening is that the concept has been expanded to include information. Some, in order to avoid confusion, have coined the term intropy for the informational equivalent of entropy and intropy always increases.
MM

Motorcycle Mama

Nope, it doesn't. Function can often be explained via natural selection or something like that. But it is a truism of biology, one even Darwin commented on, you can't use functional characters to erect a phylogeny.

These very few words are not adequate to capture the story on evolution.
MM

Motorcycle Mama

Not sure what the authors would say now but natural selection is likely not the mechanism whereby complexity increases since it is a compplexity-reducing mechanism. If one were to invoke a mechanism it would likely be genetic mutation which, in turn, is a reflection of the thermodynamic instability of DNA.
MM

Nat

"Not sure what the authors would say now but natural selection is likely not the mechanism whereby complexity increases since it is a compplexity-reducing mechanism. If one were to invoke a mechanism it would likely be genetic mutation which, in turn, is a reflection of the thermodynamic instability of DNA."

Umm, no one has argued for natural selection being the only mechanism of evolution - even Darwin. Natural selection is simply the culling or filtering mechanism that allows mutations to become dominant in a gene pool. I highly doubt Brooks and Wiley deny natural selection is the primary mechanism by which mutations are filtered.

Xixax

I agree. I don't see where this differs with Darwinian evolution in any sense then? You're saying it should be abandoned:

When really this sounds as if it is a book dealing with the physical laws behind mutation, and the emphasis it has on evolution. Again, I get the impression this is much the same as the confusion regarding Gould and PE.

If it can't describe why the complexity conforms to the environment of the organism, then how can it be considered an alternative at all?

I also disagree with your statement that natural selection can only reduce complexity. That is absurd.

Consider animals that have had mutations that allow them to digest foods that were once poisonous to them. They don't lose the ability to digest other foods in the process, they now have additional digestive abilities. If a problem were to arise in food supply for animals of that species, the ones with the greater variety of available foods would be selected for.

Yes, the mutation is responsible for introducing the complexity in the first place ( the argument I believe is probably argued in the book you mention ), but natural selection, if anything, would select for it.

Definitely not against or reduce the complexity. It may happen that it never selects for it, or that it either remains as a part of genetic drift or eventually disappears over time.

You've already stated you feel natural selection is one filter responsible for complexity matching the environment. How can you say that, and then also say that it can only reduce complexity? Do you think organisms would be more likely to be adapted to multiple environments, except that natural selection causes it to lose it's generality in favor of specialization? In some ways I would agree, but that's not really what is implied in your statement.

Motorcycle Mama

What is the cause of evolution, natural selection or mutation (if those are the two alternatives)? Can evolution occur in the absence of mutation, given those constraints? I doubt it. Can evolution occur in the absence of natural selection? Yes, due to mutation pressure or meiotic drive (but I forget what this is). Is evolution inevitable given natural selection? No. Stabilizing selection results in no change. Can mcaroevolution be the result of selection? Damn hard to demonstrate, which is a point Philip Johnson makes very good use of. And what were Darwin's other mechanism of evolution? The effect of the environment which, by the time you wade through the Victorian English, is a form of Lamarckian inheritance.
MM

Motorcycle Mama

I gave a web page address in a recent post. You might want to take a look at it. Also complexity is a difficult topic so I can't really respond to the comment about complexity matching the environment until I know what meaning you attach to complexity. And a final question. Why are there things more complex than bacteria, they are well adapted to their environment? Does selection actually select for mutation, as I believe I read? Interesting idea, but very difficult to test.

Why abandon Darwinian evolution? Take a read of Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial (I think that's the title) or George Johnston's Did Darwin Get it right, the Catholic response to evolutin (title approximate). Both of them very nicely lay out the problems with natural selection, Johnson to argue against evolution and Johnston to argue in favor of evolution, but not that due to natural selection. The problem is that when natural selection is subjected to dissection as an explanatory tool it is revealed as the equivalent of a statement of faith. If you want a reference it will be offered but the arguement is too long for this, or any other, post.
MM