This much I DO know- their were no computers when your 'proposed' evolution started life. Prove to me how you can generate design with NATURAL (being the key word) selection and RANDOM mutation.
Sure. There are computer simulations which show that random mutation plus natural selection produce the appearance of design. You have already been shown this.
show me how the 'laws of physics = a computer in any way shape or form (as you claimed one time).
No-one has claimed, ever, that "the 'laws of physics = a computer in any way shape of form". Perhaps you have misunderstood what has been claimed.
I have explained to you very carefully why the computer itself is not part of the model. If there was anything in my explanation that you didn't understand, please ask some specific question about your ignorance.
In the meantime, let me tell you again.
NO-ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT "the 'laws of physics = a computer in any way shape or form". NO-ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT. So asking us to "show" how that is true is nonsense at best and dishonesty at worst.
Here we go again with man-made computers and computer programs again.
Because computers are a good way to simulate the real world.
I can't answer how 'this radio' thing happened.
Why? Because you don't understand how random mutation and natural selection work?
The researchers who discovered the radio explained it by mutation and selection, because that's what they programmed the computer to simulate. What makes you think they're wrong? What do you know that they don't?
Prove to me how you can generate design with NATURAL (being the key word) selection and RANDOM mutation.
The same way. Organisms mutate; these mutations cause variation among individuals.
The individuals vary in regards to how adapted they are to their environment. More adapted individuals survive and reproduce; lesser individuals don't. Each subsequent generation is the descendants of those who were more adapted. They carry on these characteristics (because offspring inherit characteristics from their parents) but mutations happen, so these offspring vary as well. Some of them are better adapted than others. The process reiterates.
Name one thing that appears random about the human body.
There are more than 100 mutations in your body, as many as 500, that you didn't inherit from either of your parents. I can say this without having met you because you're a human being, and this is true of all humans.
Again, their are 112,000,000 links at Google that testify of a design with purpose and intelligent genius.
I doubt you checked every link, so I know this is a false claim. Even were it true it would be irrelevant, because science isn't done by Google link. Even if it weren't irrelevant, I could find millions more links that would inform you that the human body, like all living creatures, is the result of the processes of natural selection and random mutation.
quote:Prove to me how you can generate design with NATURAL (being the key word) selection and RANDOM mutation.
Crashfrog did. That radio is the result of natural (that is, not consciously produced by a sentient being) selection and random mutation. The programmer simply set up a situation where random processes will create variation, and a mechanism by which, without conscious intervention, some variants will be selected over others.
Now by arguing that the particular situation was originally implemented by a human being, you are moving the goal posts. It has now been demonstrated that a selection process acting on random variations can create complex designs.
How this was set up is immaterial. In the real biological world we see new variations come about randomly (genetic mutations). We also observe, with our own eyes, a selection mechanism, namely that some variants are not as able to leave behind surviving offspring.
So, geneticists have demonstrated that new variants can arise. Population biologists have demonstrated that there is a selection mechanism. And crashfrog's source has demonstrated that a source of new variation plus a selection mechanism can produce "complex designs".
So whether or not natural selection on naturally occurring random mutations can produce "complex designs" is no longer a question; the question is whether natural selection on random mutations did produce the "complex designs" that we see around us.
Considering that the ample amount of evidence that the "complex designs" came about by the evolution of species, something must have caused that evolution. It has been demonstrated that a selection mechanism acting on randomly occurring variations can produce "complex designs"; we see that natural selection is an existing selection mechanism, and we see that genetic mutation is an existing source of random variation; and there is no other mechanims known to cause the evolution of the species for which so much evidence exists. To me, the case is pretty much decided.
============================================================= Natural selection is responsible for the appearance of design. ============================================================= ....the appearance of design? Is that like pulling a rabbit out of you hat. You can't have the appearance of design in the real world. It is either design or it isn't. And this is the last of the evo-babbling I will address.
=================================================================== NO-ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT "the 'laws of physics = a computer in any way shape or form". NO-ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT. So asking us to "show" how that is true is nonsense at best and dishonesty at worst. =================================================================== I'm not going to waist my valuable time looking for the post. I wasn't even talking to you. If you'll notice- Crash didn't deny he said that and if he does I will then prove he did- so why don't you sit down and shut up.
You can't have the appearance of design in the real world. It is either design or it isn't.
Is it? I recall presenting an example with pennies that proved this isn't true; in that case, you had purposeful design that had the appearance of being random. Why couldn't the reverse be true?
You're asking us to accept that appearances can never be deceiving, but everybody knows the opposite is true.
And this is the last of the evo-babbling I will address.
Until you tell us how we're wrong - how consensus biology has been wrong for over 150 years - you haven't addressed anything.
This thread began as a response to comments made by several people, one of whom was myself. The comment attributed to me was:
quote:The human body is far too complex to have been designed by a sentient entity
Let me show by example by what I meant by this, since we are talking about how genetic algorithms show the power of mechanistic selection on randomly appearing variations.
Here is a website about using the evolutionary process to "design" antennas. Here are pictures of two antennas designed by this process:
Note how "complicated" these two anntenae look. In fact, they certainly don't look to me like the products of conscious design -- if I didn't know better, I would say that these wires were just bent at random angles and were just junk. Yet, they are very good, functioning antenna, performing the functions for which they were designed better than consciously designed antennae.
To me, this is what a cell looks like. A cell certainly performs a certain function well -- namely, utilizing an external energy source in order to reproduce itself. But the mechanisms within a cell look to me like these antennae: a complete mess, a jumble of junk put together. To me, it is remarkable that something so ugly and messy (clearly I am no biochemist!) could function so well. In other words, cells look to me like they were designed like these antennae, by a process of selecting the best "performers" among a varying population.
So this is what I meant by my response to IC. IC claimed to see the results of conscious design; me, I see the results of natural selection.
If you'll notice- Crash didn't deny he said that and if he does I will then prove he did- so why don't you sit down and shut up.
Well, then do so, because I never said that the laws of physics were a computer.
What I told you is that things in the real world happen according to physical laws, just like the way things in a computer simulation happen according to the laws programmed into the simulation. When you program laws in the computer that represent the laws of physics in the real world, then your program is a simulation of the real world.
It's difficult for me to understand why your missing these really basic points. Are you sure you're reading my messages closely, not simply looking for statements that you can misrepresent for your own purposes?
============================================================ Why? Because you don't understand how random mutation and natural selection work? ============================================================
No Crash, because I'm not a computer expert. I think their is a logical reason this probably happened if all the facts were known. They even admitted themselves they don't know how it happened and they are supposed to be the experts.
round and round and round it goes where it stops...is when you die and have to face the One you deny..."and their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"! Matthew 13:42
I'm done here. I think the Lord would prefer that I shake your dust off my feet now and carry on. I pray each of you will someday have your eyes of understanding opened and not have to spend eternity seperated from the One who created you ,loves you and is offering eternal life as a free gift to anyone who 'receives' it!
Beleive it or not, this is the one and only reason I came to this site was to try to help people see the truth. IC (and will always see) DESIGN OF A GREAT AND AWESOME GOD- AMEN!!! GOOD BYE ALL
It's not necessary to be one. The programmers told you how their program worked - by simulating the processes of evolution. Random mutation and natural selection.
You don't have to know how the computer works; it's sufficient to know that the program models those processes. Radios weren't pre-programmed in the software. A radio was generated by mutation and selection, the same processes that have been proven to be at work in the natural world.
round and round and round it goes where it stops...is when you die and have to face the One you deny..."and their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"! Matthew 13:42
Religious threats don't constitute an argument, and this isn't a forum for comparative religious studies. Biology is the subject of discussion here.
I'm done here.
You keep saying that, but you keep coming back. It's just a idle threat, isn't it? Like the spoiled kid who says he's going to take his ball and go home, but never does.
Beleive it or not, this is the one and only reason I came to this site was to try to help people see the truth.
We've seen the truth. We know that the best explanation for the complexity of life on Earth is evolution, not creationism. You haven't brought evidence; you've just quoted the Bible and called people names. I think you have a lot to be ashamed of in regards to your conduct here, especially for someone who told me that he endeavored to be pleasing to God in all things.
Remember what I first told you in email? You've proven me right at every turn by refusing to act honestly.
round and round and round it goes where it stops...is when you die and have to face the One you deny..."and their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"! Matthew 13:42
While your sadistic fantasies about us provide an interesting insight into your state of mind, they are not actually an argument in favor of your crackpot pseudoscience.
Sorry to see you go. Because I think the problems you have with the computer evolution example are common (such programs take advantage of what is more formally known as genetic algorithms), I'll explain a little anyway.
I'm not going to refresh my memory by going out on the web, but the description at NewScientist.com in the Radio emerges from the electronic soup article is of an incredibly primitive experiment. Transistors on circuit boards fitted with programmable switches? Not since the 1980s at the latest, so I have no idea why they were doing this in 2002.
The article feels funny to me for another reason, and that is because it is so similar to an earlier experiment performed in the US using PGAs (Programmable Gate Arrays), which is how one would actually perform such an experiment today. The outcome in the US was precisely the same. Experimenters used genetic algorithms driving the programming in PGAs in an attempt to obtain an oscillator design. The winning 'organism' did produce an oscillating signal, but only because it was picking up electromagnetic emissions from the oscillator in a nearby computer. In other words, in the exact same way as this more recent result, an oscillator was created by designing a radio receiver. This was written up in EE Times a while back, but the article doesn't seem to be turning up in a search of their archives today.
That the experimenters say they don't know the mutational path taken that resulted in a radio receiver means that they kept very poor records, another alarm bell for me.
Anyway, a genetic algorithm is just a simulation of the evolutionary process. There has to be a final goal, and in this case it was an oscillator. There has to be an evaluation algorithm which assesses who well each 'organism' (design version) satisfies the final goal. The winning designs have their 'genes' (design parameters) mixed in some way while producing 'offspring' designs in order to simulate sexual reproduction. Then the offspring are assessed for how well they measure up against the final goal and the process is repeated until there is a winner, in this case a working oscillator.
Simulation of anything by a computer program, be it evolution or the weather or of particle interactions or of blackjack hands, is not a process which involves interaction by humans. Humans only write the programs and set up the initial conditions. Meteorologists do not design tomorrows weather when they simulate weather patterns in order to create a forecast. Particle physicists are not designing what the particles will do when they simulate particle interactions to figure what will happen in the next experiment. And electrical engineers are not designing the circuits that simulations of the evolutionary process carry out.
Evolution is just selection followed by descent with modification. You can see that my description of genetic algorithms follows this process precisely. First designs are selected to be bred for the next generation. Then the design parameters from the breeding population are mixed (often between breeding pairs, but of course a computer program doesn't have biology's constraints and can mix the parameters in many different ways) to produce offspring which differ from the parents, which is descent with modification.
Genetic algorithms are a excellent demonstration of the ability of the evolutionary process to create novelty, in this case using a radio receiver to create an oscillator.
You are using us as the starting point. If we are complex and require a IDer then that IDer is complex and requires a IDer and so on. I'm just starting one level lower than us. Computers are complex and thus require a IDer. That IDer is us and so we are complex and require an IDer and so on. Using your logic the computers can exist but we can't.
Not at all. Computers and humans are bound by the same physical rules and as such are different only in their level of structure. The ID postulate assigns only the stipulation that complexity indicates an intelligence and we can see that such a postulate leads to unresolvable conflict. However, in a scenario where the world comes about as a natural consequence of the as yet unresolved physics {or lack thereof}, we need run up against no postulation that requires us to invoke entities that have no support and that leave no tracein precisely the same way that would be apparent if said entities did not exist to begin with.
``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality should be like.''
™ Version 4.2
