Evolution and complexity

thank you both for simply stating the problem with irreduscible complexity--we look at it from the wrong end. same goes with ID people who play with probability. anyway, i like the obligate intrecellular parasite thing. one more example, "more complex" parasites such as the twisted-wing parasite (Strepsiptera). the males are free living and look like tiny flies, but the female is an obligate endoparasite in other insects. she has lost most of what would make her a fly-like insect. some families of this order have free living stages, but that in no way disputes how "more complex" organisms can become "simpler" as they evolve.

correct me if i am wrong, please.let's all just remember one thing...no matter how "complex" something is, if it doesn't live long enough to reproduce or outcompete other organisms that occupy or are trying to occupy their specific niche, then its "complexity" doesn't mean squat. why are we just concentrating on information? that is only a third of the picture!an organism's "information" is stored in its genotype (genetic code, DNA, genes, chromosomes, whatever). how that genotype is expressed is the phenotype. identical twins have the same genotype, but their phenotypes can be drastically different. then you have to look at the fitness of the organism's phenotype in its environment.so, "information" means nothing if it confers no advantage or is expressed in the wrong environment.one more thing, it might be wise for all of us to try not to anthropomorphize our arguments. sure, we see complexity in the things we make, but that doesn't mean that the "complexity" we see in nature is the result of a creator.

is complexity that important, saviourmachine? is an increase in information on any of your levels a prerequisite for evolutionary change to occur over time? natural selection is a process in which the fitness of an organism/population is determined by its/their interaction with the environment. or, if you would rather hear it coopted from the conclusion of On the Orgin of Species:

quote:

---

IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

---

look at it this way--the environment is not intentionally choosing for anything, complex or otherwise. the organisms rise or fall or remain constant under their current environmental conditions. if the conditions change, such as, say, africa drying out and savannas replacing jungle there, then the organisms/populations that better adapt will nudge out the organisms in that niche that don't adapt so well. however, that adaptation doesn't have to lead to an increase in complexity.some dinosaurs could be considered more complex (just look at some of their sizes and the mechanisms they had to inherit to attain and remain that size), than many organims alive today that fill the same niches those dinosaurs once occupied. i still don't see why complexity is such an issue. maybe it is just our way of trying to keep the hierachy of organisms, with us at the top of course, alive.