There are also good reasons for thinking that organisms get stuck at higher=

levels of complexity. John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary argue at bo=
ok
length that the formation of complex assemblies is often irreversible.<A HR=
EF="http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR27.3/#11">11</A> When
free living mitochrondria and early cells came together, for instance, to=

make the first eukaryotic (true) cells, they swapped genes, so that
mitochondrial proteins are now encoded by nuclear genes and vice-versa. At=

this point, things are essentially irreversible and the two partners can't =
go
their separate, simpler ways. Dembski seems unaware of this well known poin=
t.
Dembski's it-just-gets-simpler argument also relies on an erroneous
assumption that natural selection cares primarily about the cost of raw
materials. But selection cares only about how many kids you have. If I use=

more raw materials but have more kids than you, my type gets more common,=

period. Last, Dembski's argument is betrayed by his own examples of admitte=
d
Darwinism. When Salmonella evolved penicillin resistance and the mosquito=

Anopheles evolved DDT resistance just how did they get simpler? The answer =
is
they didn't.<A HREF="http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR27.3/#12">12</A>


http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR27.3/orr.html