Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is most likely a part of intelligent design
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 59 (357476)
10-19-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
10-19-2006 11:20 AM


Re: There are no instructions
How is that not synonymous?
Because, as any engineer knows, more complex isn't necessarily better. More complex means more places to break.
It's no accident that the vast, vast majority of living things on Earth are now, and have always been, single-celled organisms. The macrobiotic life that you immediately think of when somebody says "life", the zebras and the monkeys and the whales and such, those are just blips. Statistical outliers. Exceptions to the rule.
Most evolutionists of the past recognized a general direction-- from less to greater, less intelligent to more intelligent, less autonomy to more autonomy, from simple to complex. Over the past century, some very unpopular beliefs about eugenics arose as a direct result of Darwin's theory. Its now considered taboo to refer to a species as more or less evolved, as in, less complex or intelligent, to more complex or more intelligent.
Source for this? History of evolution is one of my hobbies and there's no indication in the historical record that your account here bears any relation to reality.
When looking at the famous evolutionary tree, anyone can see a general direction no matter how taboo that's become in recent decades.
Sure. There's a general direction. A whole lot of people here are telling you what it is, but you don't seem to be interested in paying any attention. Why is that? When so many people are desperate to teach you, why is it like pulling teeth to get you to learn?
There's an overall direction in the history of life on Earth. Nobody's said different. That direction is that diversity expands and increases over time. At the beginning, living things were not very diverse. They were mostly all the same. Even during the "Cambrian explosion", described in creationist circles as the immediate and sudden appearance of most of today's major phyla, less than about 10,000 different species evolved. Most of the phyla represented in the Cambrian period are known from only a few hundred species each.
Today those phyla encompass millions of species. Diversity increases over time; that's real trend. And as part of increasing diversity, we would expect a few complex organisms over time, like we have now. We certainly wouldn't expect every organism to get more complex - that would be less diversity over time, not more. We see a greater diversity of complexity, which is why there are more complex organisms at this time than in the past, and also why simple organisms are still the rule and always will be.
I was speaking more about how RNA could have come about all on its own in the frist place when it needs enzymes and genes at the same time.
It doesn't. RNA can catalyze it's own formation. Small segments of RNA can assemble randomly.
It's not hard to see where this is going, I hope.
The synthesizing of nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved just as challenging as all the other Origin of life considerations.
Well, biology isn't for sissies. If you're afraid of a little hard work I'd suggest a different hobby.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-19-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 10-19-2006 2:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 59 (357481)
10-19-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
10-19-2006 2:08 PM


Re: There are no instructions
Well, at least initially there was a definite trend towards increased complexity. When you are a single celled organism there ain't many options 'cept stay the same or become more complex.
However, I do not know how someone would actually compute that life today is more complex than say, life one million years ago.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 10-19-2006 2:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 10-19-2006 3:44 PM jar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 59 (357505)
10-19-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
10-19-2006 2:28 PM


Re: There are no instructions
However, I do not know how someone would actually compute that life today is more complex than say, life one million years ago.
Me neither. I have no idea how you would measure complexity except in the most casual, loose sense. A motorcycle is more complex than a bicycle. A Macintosh is more complex than an abacus.
Diversity, though, that seems pretty easy to measure. Which is why it's so easy to see the trend in it's increase throughout the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 10-19-2006 2:28 PM jar has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 49 of 59 (357616)
10-20-2006 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Parasomnium
10-12-2006 4:47 AM


Re: There are no instructions
But that's not what I said. We may indeed not understand (yet) how replication starts, but once it does ("if there are imperfect replicators"), if it is imperfect (which is the case with the replication of DNA), and if there is selective pressure (which is the case in an environment of limited resources), then the only possible future for these replicators is one of evolution. Logic does indeed dictate that.
All environments have limited resources. All environments have selective pressure. Only one planetary environment has developed RNA and DNA that we know of. You negleted to include extiction.
Perhaps one can say that evolution may be a property of imperfect replicators as a whole. When/if this unique chemical process arises evolution may happen. Pehaps more precisely, imperfect replication IS evolution.
It seems you do not know what the word 'obviate' means. Let me rephrase: the inherent inevitability I spoke of means that there is no need for instructions.
Glass and gravity are not a good annology. Your observation has no obviating implication what so ever on the question of instruction. One must first define instuction and do it within the framework of evolution.
One can say that imperfection in replication is all the instruction needed to become evolutionary. It depends on what view one takes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Parasomnium, posted 10-12-2006 4:47 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-22-2006 4:51 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 50 of 59 (358165)
10-22-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by 2ice_baked_taters
10-20-2006 12:28 AM


2ice_baked_taters writes:
One can say that imperfection in replication is all the instruction needed to become evolutionary.
In nature, yes; since nature will take care of the rest. For artificial life, however, you do need to program in selective death, or you'll run out of memory and crash the universe.
Oh, and Para's glass example was a good one. To make a computer model of a falling glass that comes anywhere near to full complexity would take billions of lines of code. However, anything in reality that uses a falling and breaking glass doesn't need to include those billions of lines. All you need to do is let it go, and the universe makes sure that it does a 100%-complexity fall-and-shatter.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-20-2006 12:28 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-27-2006 3:10 AM DominionSeraph has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 51 of 59 (359214)
10-27-2006 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by DominionSeraph
10-22-2006 4:51 PM


Oh, and Para's glass example was a good one. To make a computer model of a falling glass that comes anywhere near to full complexity would take billions of lines of code. However, anything in reality that uses a falling and breaking glass doesn't need to include those billions of lines. All you need to do is let it go, and the universe makes sure that it does a 100%-complexity fall-and-shatter.
A computer simulation is quite removed from actual events. The point was understood but glass breaking is a very poor choice.
When soda,lime and sand come together under the right conditions and form self replicating units that evolve....now you have something.
Otherwise glass breaking must be compared to a bug hitting a windshield or a person falling from a plane and splattering on the ground. And again....there is nothing here that indicates either way if intelligence is involved or not. A point of view in either direction is simply a matter of opinion/belief.
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-22-2006 4:51 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-27-2006 6:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
laughorloseit
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 59 (359345)
10-27-2006 4:01 PM


Galileo Galilei was reported to say...
"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle. "

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 53 of 59 (359374)
10-27-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by 2ice_baked_taters
10-27-2006 3:10 AM


2ice_baked_taters writes:
A computer simulation is quite removed from actual events.
Which is exactly the point. Everything needs to be coded for because it can't cheat off reality.
You can't code for a glass balanced precariously on the edge of a table, then code for a person sweeping up glass shards, and expect the universe to fill in the bits between. It won't do that, so you can't use that as a shortcut.
This is not the case for a code that intersects with the universe. With one of those, you can just hand things off, let the universe do its thang, and then come back in.
It's like:
__     _________________________________     ______
  |   |                                 |    |
  ----                                  -----
A B   C                                 D    E     F
The high is the universe's part, and the low is the code's.
So, we come in at point (A), which is the universe just doing its thing. At (B) we switch over to the code. The code then dictates what happens up to (C), where it hands things back off to the universe. The universe then ticks along until point (D), where the code takes over again. We hand things back off to the universe at (E), which then brings us to (F).
So, we've gotten from point A to point F, but the code only tells us how to get from B to C and from D to E.
Rather efficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-27-2006 3:10 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 11-22-2006 7:32 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 54 of 59 (365500)
11-22-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by DominionSeraph
10-27-2006 6:40 PM


Are you saying that the "code" is somehow separate from the universe?
Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-27-2006 6:40 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
Sour
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 63
From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 55 of 59 (365503)
11-22-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ramoss
10-11-2006 9:22 PM


Re: God vs. Aliens
I remember reading about this (or something very similar) in New Scientist.
I don't recall the article claiming irreducible complexity, but the evolved solution used physical properties of the board to accomplish the goal. Transferring the design to a different board broke the device.
I found an online version at NetScrap(TM): CREATURES FROM PRIMORDIAL SILICON

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ramoss, posted 10-11-2006 9:22 PM ramoss has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 56 of 59 (365949)
11-25-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by dwise1
10-11-2006 3:09 PM


Re: God vs. Aliens
dwise1 writes:
There was an interesting outcome to genetic algorithm experiments in which evolutionary processes were used to evolve an amplifier design out of a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The resulting amplifier was irreducibly complex.
I’m struggling with the concept of irreducible complexity as you allude to it, so you need to help me out here a little. In Message 55 Sour has posted a link to the experiments in question and I’m pretty confused. I just don’t get the irreducible complexity bit.
My basic understanding of evolution is that if you have a naturally occurring complex mechanism, you might want to label it x. Evolution suggests that it will have arisen as a result of a mutation (and natural selection) from a different (but most likely similar) mechanism which can be labelled (x - 1) . which in turn has arisen out of mechanism (x - 2) etc, all the way back to (x - y), being the earliest single cell structures or whatever.
At this point the ID lobby wants to step in and say if we can’t find an (x - 1) or (x - 2) etc for any mechanism x, we can deduce that it cannot have evolved so is therefore the result of ID.
What I’m struggling with is the idea that the aforementioned amplifier is in any way irreducibly complex. Complex yes, irreducible no. According to the report, it took 4,100 ”mutations’ to reach the ”complexity’ required to carry out the task. Each of these mutations is a step on the evolutionary path that leads from (x - y) to x, so fails to match the criteria required by the IDists in their search for irreducible complexity.
What am I missing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2006 3:09 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 11:57 PM dogrelata has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 59 (368365)
12-08-2006 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kent75
10-11-2006 1:48 AM


and in the dna carry the blueprints that will direct these organisms to evolve one day into intelligent life,
I don't think DNA ever carried the "blueprints" for intelligence, as evolution has no plan. Intelligence (if that is what we will call it) just happened. Think, lack of blueprints. Imagine building a structure that must hold up in time. You make some crazy wood things that rott away, but then "accidentally" add a roof, which keeps the underlayers from rotting. Then you "accidentally" add shingles, which keeps the roof from rotting. And before you know it, you have a house. You "accidentally" keep building on this structure from here and there, trying this and that. Some things are good, some are not. In the end, you will always have the original structure with the shingles (simple life), but you will probably 've also come up with "accidentally" a mansion or two along the way .
Sorry, bad analogy, but it's the best I could do with the blueprint thing.
The problem, is that if there WERE DNA probes that shot onto Earth to make us (I assume that is what you are ultimately hinting at), then we could not conclude that they were created with us as a blueprint. I mean, if a mansion was the intention, why did we end up with so many shacks along the way?
J0N

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kent75, posted 10-11-2006 1:48 AM kent75 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 59 (368593)
12-08-2006 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by dogrelata
11-25-2006 1:08 PM


Design versus appearance of design
I just don’t get the irreducible complexity bit.
My basic understanding of evolution is that if you have a naturally occurring complex mechanism, you might want to label it x. Evolution suggests that it will have arisen as a result of a mutation (and natural selection) from a different (but most likely similar) mechanism which can be labelled (x - 1) .
At this point the ID lobby wants to step in and say if we can’t find an (x - 1) or (x - 2) etc for any mechanism x, we can deduce that it cannot have evolved so is therefore the result of ID.
It's a little more than that - it has to do with reducing the feature\system to the point where you take one more element away and it doesn't function, and then question how that situation could have evolved.
See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for a quick intro to Behe's definition and to the problems with this line of thinking.
The problem is that it is as intellectually challenging as wondering how a natural arch formed. Doing a google image on "natural arch" nets you some 6,910 images. One of my favorite images is of the Bridge of Ross is in Ireland, County Clare, as it looks like blocks in a designed arch.
http://users.sisna.com/archman/SABridgeOfRoss2.html
It's like arguing that if you take away the keystone of an arch it falls down, so how can you build one by random action eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by dogrelata, posted 11-25-2006 1:08 PM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by dogrelata, posted 12-09-2006 3:11 AM RAZD has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 59 of 59 (368612)
12-09-2006 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
12-08-2006 11:57 PM


Re: Design versus appearance of design
Cheers RAZD.
RAZD writes:
It's a little more than that - it has to do with reducing the feature\system to the point where you take one more element away and it doesn't function, and then question how that situation could have evolved.
I was actually reading your thread the other day, and immediately realised my understanding of IC was incomplete (and flawed).
But I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t have just one more question
In the FPGA experiment, it was concluded that the process led to a functional amplifier by the 4,100th mutation. I now understand that if we remove one element of this amplifier, it fails to function. Well, as an amplifier at least . and that we (as humans) can detect no function in what remains.
But I’m not sure how relevant that is. To the best of my understanding, in ToE, nature determines what will survive (and therefore has function), not little old me.
I’m going to have to take some time to go through your other thread in more detail and try to get my head round all the biological stuff. In the meantime, where have I gone wrong with the above?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 11:57 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024