What is the deal with people saying that evolution and natural selection do not result in more complexity?

Question

"Duplication of homeobox genes can produce new body segments, and such duplications are likely to have been important in the evolution of segmented animals. Interestingly, there is one insect family, the xyelid sawflies, in which both the antennae and mouthparts are remarkably leg-like in structure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_genes

The above example and chromosome duplication can surely lead to added complexity in an evolving organism.

Obviously it does not bring God into the equation it's a scientific theory.

I simply believe that the evidence is such that it is obvious that there is added complexity.

Answer 1

Your question has actually three aspects to it and can thus not be answered in one swift move. Let's look at each individually and go from there.

First aspect: Does evolution produce complexity?
Second aspect: Does natural selection produce complexity?
Third aspect: What's wrong with people denying either one to produce complexity?

Aside from the fact that to answer your question(s) we need to be familiar with evolutionary theory, one significant issue we have to figure out is how to define 'complexity'.

Complexity can be defined many ways, one of which is to count the bits of information necessary to describe a phenomenon. The longer description would be of greater complexity. Another may be the functional ability of an organ, for example. Can it serve many purposes, thereby making its context less easy to define. For argument's sake, let's just go with the first definition and see where we get.

Given this definition of complexity, we can now take not only anatomical features but, what is far more difficult to grasp, ecological relationships. Here now evolution can produce greater complexity simply in that more complex systems of relationship can evolve. It would require longer descriptions to describe the system at one point than at an earlier point in time. The same holds true for brain evolution or, as you pointed out, for body plan evolution. But let's be clear: evolution can also simplify things! The reduction of organs can lead to an easier description of the entire body. Likewise, a successful predator can drive a species to extinction, thereby deprive itself from food and eventually lead to no life at all (of course this would require a limited habitat etc.). But overall, evolution seems to be directed towards complexification. Why that is is a question up for grabs...

As for natural selection, the problem is even more "complex". In fact, natural selection primarily reduces complexity in a population. Variation between individuals in a population occurs due to such phenomena as genetic mutations, epigentic influences, etc. etc. But this resulting complexity is reduced by natural selection, which causes some individuals to reproduce while others do not. As a result, the complexity of that one generation woud be reduced. Of course, in the following generation, you get once again new variability, and so the problem is to determine, whether overall the complexity remains the same or not. This certainly depends on a number of things, such as the environment, mutation rates etc. Consequently, it is not easy to say whether natural selection per se increases complexity.

Now, to answer your final, and central question, why people are afraid of accepting the notion of evolution/natural selection producing complexification. For many this takes the omnipotent divinity out of the equation. But bare in mind, that this fear is based on a rather specific and dubious understanding of God. Here, God becomes the god of biblical literalism. But for numerous reasons such a God would be problematic. If indeed God is loving, how can he not give us freedom of choice? For if love is at the center of it all, and we are to love God, then we have to be able to choose. If we were created to simply love God, we are like automatons and not like free free moral agents, the prerequisite for any love. So, moral evil is possible, and the omnipotent God must have let go of his omnipotence, or else love cannot be at the center of it all. if that were the case, we are left with problem of evil and suffering, and that God permits it. We would also have a problem with 'sin', since without free choice there cannot be sin. Also, that the wolrd evolves is now easier to understand. If Love is at the center, freedom is important, so God had to release his creation into freedom. And so, the outcome of evolution must be not entirely known to God. But perhaps the move towards complexification is what comes from God, and moreover, through continuous creation, rather than a one time act, God may sustain the world so it can freely evolve. In such a model, God would learn as would we.

Answer 2

People that dont see evolution as a true, factual phenomneon are ignorant to today's science and probably should not be on the zoology page in answers. The whole field of zoology is now being re-written so to speak to account for new evidence of evolutinary decent. Evolution plays a big part in the formation of complex organisms and body parts. The antennae and chelicera of various arthropods are meant to be homologous to the primitive leg, just with more sensory applications. Pincers on a crap or lobster, or the pedipalps of a spider or scorpion, did not just appear on the original animals, it was through adaptive radiation and natural selection that these impressive and complex body parts evolved. They serve a critical purpose that helped these animals survive for millions of years. When arthropods first moved onto land, they were one of the only creatures there. This allows for a very wide range of adaptive advantages to evolve. I am Catholic, and I believe in God, but the reasons "just because" or "faith" dont explain how things happen. They give a possible result but no method. The biggest argument, that creationists had against evolution is that they called it the theory of evolution, however in science Im sure you are aware of this, theory actually means fact! so in a way they are actually arguing for evolution by saying the "theory" of evolution.

Answer 3

I did read all that, thanks for the refresher lesson. Yes, we Creationists do understand the fundamentals of evolution, believe it or not, we're not all back woods, church brainwashed hicks. I find it odd that evolutionists tend to nit pick on the terminology, fine, we all tend to oversimplify the other side. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Goddidit" as a 'common Christian response' when clearly it's an oversimplification. Monkeys, apes, common ancestor, really? Does it change the idea? No. No, evolution itself does not explain origin of life, but it does seem to come exactly after the "puddle of ooze event" again with the nit picking, how do you explain evolution without that ooze event? I'm not sure. I'm just saying, clearing up the commonly used oversimplifications does nothing to change the theory. It is what it is and those of us who know God created us and all things for us will never accept it no matter how complex or simple the explanation.

Answer 4

What do you mean 'deal with people'.
Sounds like you've decided on the answer you want to hear and want to make the evidence fit.
Natural (or man-assisted) Selection works on *existing* genetic information. It cannot add new genetic information. If a mutation results in a copying mistake and an extra pair of wings, say, this is not new information. In is like having one page in a book printed twice.

Neo-Darwiniam evolution claims that new genetic information has arisen through mutations. The evidence shows us that mutations never add information and are almost always harmful. Natuaral Selection works to weed out mutations.
Occasionally a mutation can have a beneficial result. for example sickle cell anaemia helps resist malaria, but is hardly evolutionary progress.


Incidentally there is nothing unscientific about Creation. *All* ideas about the past are based on assumptions. Evolutionists typically start with the assumption that there is no God, and *define* science to exclude anything but materialism. It is not a scientific appraoch to rule out certain possibilities a priori.

The creation/evolution debate is not religion v science, it is the science of one religion v the science of another religion.

If you want to 'deal with' creationists then I recommend that you understand their arguments - no better place to look than AiG.

Answer 5

Surely evolution can lead to complexities, look at the difference between us and amoebas, not much difference in my case, but by its very nature there is no reason why it cannot go in reverse if the conditions are right, and evolve less complex structures.

Answer 6

i dunno! They had a trial recently..can't remember where!, it was exactly like the Scopes trial and they went through the meaning and how right/wrong evolution is. There were a couple key things wrong with evolution, but they were easily explainable..i always feel like people that don't agree with evolution haven't looked researched it properly or feel like God created everything so evolution couldn't have happened. I have a very strong belief in God and I think evolution did happen, and God help direct it and he wanted evolution to occur

Answer 7

Look, if this is referring to the whole creationism bollocks. It IS bollocks and that's it. It's been made up to fit in with ancient story-books that don't make any sense. At least the theory of evolution is fact-based and has some science behind it.

Answer 8

evolution is in error big time. it does not even bring God into the mix

Answer 9

i am a gorilla, quit teasing.