Posted: Jun 25, 2010 3:19 am
by AMR
Here is my basic refutation of Dawkins' argument from complexity: evolution.

Basic single celled life forms after billions of years exploded into myriad complex forms about 500 million years ago. So our basic understanding of the history of life on earth tends to refute Dawkins' greater complexity theory if man can evolve from a protozoan it would tend to invalidate Dawkins whole line of reasoning.

Now I'm aware of the argument of the late Stephen Gould that evolution isn't an onward and upward advance of complexity or intelligence; the biomass of ants and people are about equal and there is considerably more blue-green algae, so from a strictly evolutionary standpoint they are at least as "successful" as we are if not far more since they have been around for hundreds of millions or billions of years. Evolution can also work in the opposite direction e.g. pre-cellular prions and viruses, apparently degenerate forms of life. But the mere fact that a higher complexity (as measured in genome size) can be emergent from a lesser complex state refutes Dawkins' point handily and elegantly.

Besides is the universe in fact all that complex? It has been reduced to the basic operation of just three fundamental forces: strong, electroweak, and gravity.

Now onto the theory that the universe is actually a nested simulation with quantum level resolution!