Student,

i can see the logic in your reasoning, but IMO, you have it backwards.  In the beginning there was no complexity, only an ability to combine and later to duplicate (but I believe this falls under chemistry).
But combinations and duplication leads to sometimes imperceptable complexities (little accidents which affect the duplication process).

Most of these accidental complexities are discarded (natural selection), but some exhibit an advantage over others and survive the natural tests which it encounters. If something survives because it has an advantage, its genetic information will become fixed in the offspring and a new branch of species is created, each branch continuing the process of duplication, variation, adaptabiity, survival, trillions of times. Remember, if the original parent was itself successful, it would also continue survive and create additional variations, which may give opportunity for additional branches to evolve as well as continuing to exist in its simple form.

The great apes and humans are perfect examples of such emerging complexity and intelligence. We have a common ancestor (probably much more apelike than humans) which branched off into several hominid species. As the apes themselves were successful in survival, their duplication remained stable and the evolution of their DNA became fixed in a general sense. However one branch continued to evolve and eventually became homo sapiens. Thus we can find both species present in nature.

The single great difference is that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans have only 23 pairs chromosomes. This is due to the “fusing” of two chromosomes into a single chromosome, creating a complex chromosome, which might well have been the cause for our larger brains, while retaining 96 % of the chromosomes which we share with the apes. The other few percent differences gives us our particular human shape, but there is clearly a “familiarity” with great ape appearance and behavior and human behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome

The complexity we see in nature and in the universe, is a mixture and/or combination of independently evolved structures. There is no “irreducible complexity”. The greatest problem most humans seem to have is a lack of ability to imagine the sheer size, scope, and time involved in the evolution of the universe and all that is contained therein. But if you can accept that our ancestors, billions of years ago sprang from single celled organisms, you will have made a big step toward recognizing the similarities and infinite variety in which evolution works, all by trial and error, but fixing those varieties which have a survival advantage.

Write4U:

You said you can see the logic in my argument. What a relief. At times, even if I can not say that. Just for the record, I only have 23 pairs of chromosomes (I think).

You mentioned combining and duplicating. Is this combining and duplicating what the string and brane theory is getting at?

student

student - 12 August 2012 06:45 PM

Write4U:

You said you can see the logic in my argument. What a relief. At times, even if I can not say that. Just for the record, I only have 23 pairs of chromosomes (I think).

You mentioned combining and duplicating. Is this combining and duplicating what the string and brane theory is getting at?

student

First, just because an argument is logical does not necessarily make it correct. It depends on the premise. If the premise is false, the logic may correct, but the result will be false. A computer is the perfect example. “Garbage in, garbage out”. But Darwin’s logic is based on observable evidence from fossils and present day husbandry. His logic was based on a “true premise” and so far has never been proved wrong.

Second, if it were not for that fused chromosome, you might be a young promising chimp, hanging from a tree limb observing the behavior of the alpha, making sure your presence won’t piss him off.

Third, String and Brane is way beyond my scope of knowledge and I cannot answer with any authority, however, as an ex musician, I do like the idea of harmonic vibration (strings) from which dynamic cosmic chords (combinations) may emerge.
A basic example of a chemical combination which yields a perfect environment for evolution is water. Two fundamental elements combining to form a dynamic liquid, which has the ability to combine or mix with almost every other non inert element in existence. What is a chemical interaction, but an expression of evolution? There are also inert elements which do not react with other elements.

And as I understand the concept of branes, this may well be an underlying geometric order. There are several propositions which point to a fundamental geometric function, such as CDT (causal dynamic triangulation). What is a self duplicating fractal, but an expression of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=fractals&FORM=MYMSNA&mkt=en-US&qs=n&sk;=&cp=1252&pi=7317&di=12500

note the picture on far left second row. It is a real broccoli. As are ferns, snowflakes, and your circulatory system based on CDT.

Student, I couldn’t add much to Wrire’s post except that there is a wealth of info out there to help further explain the evolutionary process. If you really want to see evo in reverse get Dawkins’ “the Ancestor’s Tale”. He begins with the current time and works his way back to the beginning of life. The charts are easily understood with little jargon to attempt to wade through. I found it an easy read for a layman in biology!

As to string and M theory, did you read my citation at post #124? It’s a brief intro to the physics of the development of the multiverse theory. I recommend reading Steven Hawking’s (he coauthored the book) “the Grand Design”. Once again, a book for the layman to read as an intro. He includes charts and color graphics that illustrate the multiverse theory. Bottom line here is that there Have been many singularities, not just one. Also see:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/randall03/randall03_print.html

I like her site as it includes string and M. By all means, follow up on these and other suggestions made here and then you can decide for yourself whether there is actually a blind watchmaker as Paley stated, or natural selection. A friendly warning though, you may not like what you see when you peek behind the curtain. Then again you may!

Cap’t Javk