A new evolutionary concept has been proposed that explain how complex structures evolves in nature: complexity by subtraction. Is this a useful concept to debunk pseudoscientific claims? Does this concept force us to change our understanding of evolutionary theory?
It seems that Intelligent Design proponents are quote-mining Cadell Last. See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/an_open_letter078181.ht... and picked up at Uncommon descent. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/detection-.../
Hm. I may response to this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I'm surprised it's taken this long for serious scientific work on this matter. Even Darwin, I believe, posited that selection pressures will drive complexity in an arbitrary direction. I.e. that an organ of arbitrary complexity could become more or less complex with time, depending on what suited the pressures. Gould writes about this in his book Full House, which was published in 1996 (and is an amazing read for anyone who loves biology AND baseball!). Progress is a myth propagated by high school textbooks.
I can't stress how much I need to read more Stephen J. Gould. I suppose many theorists suspected that something like complexity by subtraction could occur - but this is the first I've seen someone provide empirical support for it. As I said in the article, the only times I've seen adaptation for less complex structures discussed, it has always been for structures that lost their function over evolutionary time. For me, testing complexity by subtraction could completely change a lot of inherent assumptions about adaptation in the same way exaptation did.
Why do you give credence to this creationist nonsense dressed as science??
Why do you feel the need to troll these articles?? Seriously, do you actually read the words, or do you just get to the first couple sentences and decide that you've got it (as this is the second time in a week or so you've commented on what has nothing to do with what was written)?
I was going to reply, but realized either he a) doesn't understand evolutionary theory or b) is a troll.