Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- From: dk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DK)
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:17 -0500 (EST)
In article <geac95$2hs3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have yet to see a good quantitative measure of complexity. I don't
think the essence of complexity can be captured quantitatively.
How about the following?
The more ways a system can be broken (e.g., its properties changed
in some way), the more complex is the system.
Not in the case of parasites. In general, I don't think complexity is
correlated to organismic fitness.
It cerainly is not. It's would be silly to argue that bacteria are more
complex than mammals, yet the former constitute majority of not
only cell count but a biomass on this planet. If fitness is capacity
to reproduce, bacteria are more fit than mammals.
DK
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- From: Entertained by my own EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty.
- Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- From: dkomo
- Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- References:
- Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- From: John Edser
- Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- From: dkomo
- Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- Prev by Date: Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- Next by Date: Re: Possible Basis of Fear and Anger
- Previous by thread: Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- Next by thread: Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|