Sci Am\'s Complexity with Darwinism (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, January 19, 2012, 00:50 (4693 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Lots of fluff. Just quote another scientist's fluffy conjecture and the appearance of eyes must be easy. Cambrian eyes have no precursors, so how is step-wise possible 1% at a time, as the article proposes:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/01/16/evolution-the-rise-of-comp...

I agree that “simplicity” is a common cop-out, as is the theory that rudimentary new organs can create themselves through chance mutations and perfect themselves by tiny (1%) increments. But there is more to this article than fluff.

No there isn't. The Lynn Margulis stuff is standard knowledge. The fluff is all the bit-by-bit propositions, the 1% increments. Horse turds!

I’m in no position to judge the accuracy of the science, but if all this is true, it again raises the question of innate creative intelligence within so-called simpler forms of life, which are able to “figure out” how best to exploit prevailing conditions and to combine with other forms in order to maximize efficiency. How such “intelligence” got there in the first place is a mystery (chance v. design),

This is part of my pre-planning theory. The genome does have more smarts than we have found so far

So are we heading towards a neo-neo-Darwinism?

That is what the Altenberg conference was all about.