Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Wow, you have too much time on your handspH wrote:The answer is that you can evolve this sequence in under 10,000 steps.
It is a great demonstration of what evolution actually is though, rather than what JC seems to think it is.
And you are right, there still are a lot of issue with the actual mechanics of evolution ("holes" if you were). If JC actually bothered to read up on evoluton and understand it and came back with the real issues and questions of neo-darwin evolutionary theory this thread would be far more interesting.
Another thing to point out was this example was finding one specific combination out of 5.8E98 and it still managed to do it in 10,000 steps, but in natural evolution there isn't one specific combination, there are trillions, so it makes the job even easier.
Its hard to imagine how, given 2 billion years, evolution wouldn't developed something.0 -
tbh I used a computer, I didn't do this with scrabble tiles and roll a 27 sided dice 10,000 times!Wicknight wrote:Wow, you have too much time on your hands 0 -
pH wrote:tbh I used a computer, I didn't do this with scrabble tiles and roll a 27 sided dice 10,000 times!
LOL
Maybe JC should do that so he understands the process a bit better
as a side we only did genetic algoritims in Comp Sci for like 2 weeks but I must say they are one of the most fascinating aspects of computer science. can you recommend any good books or introductionary web sites (i know what they are, it would be more code examples and how to design them)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Wicknight
The fact that someone wins the Jackpot every few weeks around the same time as 5 million tickets are sold (approx 1.2 million are sold each draw) are not connected because the odds of the Lotto don't carry over after the draw.
If all 5,245,786 individual numbers for each draw would be bought someone would win each draw. And that isn't the "Law of Large Numbers", that is simply the basis of statistics. And this never happens.
This is a bit of an (interesting) aside – but the Law of Large Numbers does indeed apply across draws – take my word for it, consult the Lotto statistics – or a statistician of your choice.!!!!
To illustrate, IF only one million 'panels' were bought for each draw, the Jackpot would only be won on average once in every 5 draws in accordance with the Law of Large Numbers!!!.
If there are 1.2 million tickets bought then that would be about 3.6 million 'panels' @ an average of 3 completed 'panels' per ticket. This would indicate that the Lotto would be won on every second draw - but with the pattern of wins occupying a typical 'bell' distribution curve centred on about 5 million 'panels' sold but with wins after as little as about 1 million 'panels' sold (where there are 2 winners of one draw) and as much as 10 million 'panels' sold (when the normal population of participants are skewed upwards in the week of a high 'rollover' draw).
....but throughout all of this, the Law of Large Numbers continues to 'average out' the jackpot wins to roughly one win for every 5 million 'panels' sold!!!
Scofflaw
JC, your contention that useful proteins are "isolated in combinatorial space", and that changes of even one amino acid will render them useless, is utter rubbish.
I actually said that “There are very limited combinations of CRITICAL AMINO ACID SEQUENCES that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a CRITICAL SEQUENCE can utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.”
Equally, it is observed that ALL functional proteins are tightly specified and in turn they perform highly specific tasks in a closely co-ordinated and tightly integrated manner with other proteins and bio-molecules within the living organism concerned – so there is a hierarchy of multiple layers of tightly specified complexity within which proteins perform their useful functions – and without which they would be functionally useless.
This logically indicates that functional proteins COULDN’T have ANY functionality until ALL of the critical sequence is formed and it is fully integrated within the organism and perfectly co-ordinated within for example, whatever cascade it is catalysing.
There are therefore enormous amounts of ‘useless combinatorial space’ between useful functional proteins and the ‘useless combinatorial space’ is so enormous (even in very short 100 chain proteins) that it would defeat all of the time and resources of the Universe to ‘cross’ it using undirected processes such as mutation and replications errors.
However, intelligence can easily ‘cross’ this ‘space’ by possessing the power to logically specify sequences to meet pre-determined, co-ordinated and fully integrated functional objectives.
And speaking of the appliance of intelligence……..
……………here comes pH, as if on cue, with an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED computer programme that does something akin to Theistic Evolution – by applying intelligently specified constraints to filter out and retain the words “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” from a random letter generator.
pH
Let's take your String (for my purposes I'm calling it 69 chars long, and since space is a valid character we have 27 possibilities in each position).
The chances of generating it randomly are 5.8E98, this is a bigger number than your example I hope you don't mind.
The chances of ever generating it randomly are astonishingly small, you are right to say it could never happen. The problem is no one is claiming that this happens.
Let's look at what are the chances of it evolving, rather than spontaneously appearing as if by miracle.
………………….The answer is that you can evolve this sequence in under 10,000 steps.
What you did pH, was to constrain the computer into retaining the specific letters “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” as each letter was randomly generated – so you immediately ‘locked in’ the letter E in the first position, as soon as it was randomly generated and D in the 69th position as soon as it was randomly generated, etc.
You did the same with each other ‘correct letter’ once the ‘correct letter’ was generated in each of the other 67 positions.
A truly undirected programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the ‘correct’ first letter or that V was the ‘correct’ second letter, etc. Only something with intelligent ‘overview’ (like yourself pH) would know this.
When you programmed the computer you were occupying the supposed role of God in Theistic Evolution by directing the programme to ‘lock in’ each letter as it occurred in your PRE-DETERMINED SPECIFIED sequence – so as to eventually produce the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”
Are you ACTUALLY a Theistic Evolutionist, by any chance??
Your programme exhibits EXACTLY what Dr Stephen C Meyer, Director of The Discovery Institute Centre for Science & Culture described as the properties of intelligence and rational agents:-
“Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks – almost by definition – are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality – with purposeful intelligence……….
Your programme under YOUR intelligent direction ‘locked onto’ i.e. constrained each ‘correct’ letter as it was randomly generated in the ‘correct’ position with the ‘distant outcome’ in mind of the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD.
A truly random ‘blind’ programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the correct first letter, V the correct second letter, O the correct third letter, etc. and it wouldn’t have any mechanism to ‘lock them in’ in any event.
A truly random ‘blind’ programme would also start ‘undoing’ any of the words that might form early on in the process, like the words ‘BEEN’ and ‘THREAD’ in your example.
So, your programme is actually a demonstration of INTELLIGENCE in action – and shows HOW a rational agent (like yourself) was able to programme a computer to constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind, to the point where the odds of something specific happening was reduced from 5.8 E+98 down to 9,339.
However, had you done something akin to Creation and used your intelligence to simply write the words “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” – you could have reduced the odds down to 1 – and saved a considerable amount of computer programming time and effort!!!!:D
Wicknight
Another thing to point out was this example was finding one specific combination out of 5.8E98 and it still managed to do it in 10,000 steps
Such enthusiasm, such FAITH !!!
I must say that I have always found Atheists to be the most enthusiastic and faith-filled people that I have met, outside of ‘born again’ Christian circles.:D
Wicknight, sorry to ‘burst your bubble’ – but pH has just proved that the appliance of intelligence IS required to reduce combinatorial space to the point where complex specified outcomes become statistically POSSIBLE!!!!!
Wicknight
Its hard to imagine how, given 2 billion years, evolution wouldn't developed something.
I find it helpful in answering such a question, to try thinking about how long something that is DEAD will remain DEAD!!!
Wicknight
Well there you go. Out of the trillion or so protein combinations that life has had time to search through in the last billion years or so it has found at least 50,000 functional proteins.
Not bad for a billion years. Give it another billion years and another trillion possible protein sequences life will probably find another 50,000 useful protiens. In the whole 1E+180 set of possible protiens there must be trillions of useful proteins.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that ALL 1E+180 sequences COULD potentially produce a 'functional protein', it would be impossible for an undirected system to 'discover' a 'functional protein' for blood clotting WHEN IT NEEDED IT because nearly all of the 1E +180 of the protein sequences 'out there' would certainly be in the 'useless combinatorial space' for blood clotting agents - so 'finding' the ACTUAL protein sequence to incorporate into the blood clotting cascade at a specific point in time and space would defeat any 'blind' system like Macro-Evolution.
It would be like a spare parts company, randomly searching it's enormous warehouse of 1E+180 spare parts for a particular spare part for your car. You would end up with a pile of useless supplied spare parts the size of the Universe - and still no statistical chance of ever getting the spark plug (or blood clotting protein) that you ordered!!!
You could also look on random mutation as akin to a conveyor belt supplying random ‘parts’ to a car assembly line – you would get a clutch for a tractor when you wanted a brakepipe for a car and a stick of Rhubarb when you wanted a tail-light bulb, or a jacuzzi when you needed a gearbox. Random mutations on the assembly line would also start undoing any useful work that you already had done by turning the steering wheel into a seat or by moving around the wheels and welding them to the bonnet!!!
Son Goku
Either that or he **** two ******** **** Prussian *** to all nine of them.
Sounds like Son Goku is actively engaged in the intelligent design of a sentence with the ‘distant outcome’ of it eventually being meaningful - but being an Evolutionist, I wouldn't bet on a successful outcome!!!!!
……we’ll come back if and when he is finished!!!!!:D
0 -
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
JC, your contention that useful proteins are "isolated in combinatorial space", and that changes of even one amino acid will render them useless, is utter rubbish.
I actually said that “There are very limited combinations of CRITICAL AMINO ACID SEQUENCES that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a CRITICAL SEQUENCE can utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.”
And this is occasionally true, with the rider "for some proteins, for the original purpose". However, that it is occasionally true does not make it any kind of law from which you can draw the very large conclusions you choose to draw, particularly since you have not added the rider.J C wrote:Equally, it is observed that ALL functional proteins are tightly specified and in turn they perform highly specific tasks in a closely co-ordinated and tightly integrated manner with other proteins and bio-molecules within the living organism concerned – so there is a hierarchy of multiple layers of tightly specified complexity within which proteins perform their useful functions – and without which they would be functionally useless.
You are entirely wrong. it is perfectly possible to have two or more variants on a protein doing the same job either better or worse. That is the subject of the papers which come up in the Google search I suggested you do before wasting our time.J C wrote:……………here comes pH, as if on cue, with an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED computer programme that does something akin to Theistic Evolution – by applying intelligently specified constraints to filter out and retain the words “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” from a random letter generator.
What you did pH, was to constrain the computer into retaining the specific letters “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” as each letter was randomly generated – so you immediately ‘locked in’ the letter E in the first position, as soon as it was randomly generated and D in the 69th position as soon as it was randomly generated, etc.
You did the same with each other ‘correct letter’ once the ‘correct letter’ was generated in each of the other 67 positions.
A truly undirected programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the ‘correct’ first letter or that V was the ‘correct’ second letter, etc. Only something with intelligent ‘overview’ (like yourself pH) would know this.
When you programmed the computer you were occupying the supposed role of God in Theistic Evolution by directing the programme to ‘lock in’ each letter as it occurred in your PRE-DETERMINED SPECIFIED sequence – so as to eventually produce the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”
Are you ACTUALLY a Theistic Evolutionist, by any chance??
No, JC. pH just understands evolution, and you don't. See my description of the biological analogue of pH's program.
Also, please note that pH has intelligently "modelled" evolution, that is to say, he has applied his intelligence to recreating what Nature does without intelligence. I am sure you need not be told which end of this stick you should grasp...J C wrote:Sounds like Son Goku is actively engaged in the intelligent design of a sentence with the ‘distant outcome’ of it eventually being meaningful in mind!!!!!
……we’ll come back when he is finished!!!!!:D
Do please feel free to apply intelligent design to your own ramblings. We'll let you know if you ever pass the Turing test.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
J C wrote:take my word for it
You will excuse me if I don't :rolleyes:
That is exactly how evolution works. A successful outcome is "locked in" by natural selection by the fact that it propogates rather quickly though the population group. Therefore the odds that this change will be in the future accidently destroyed by a further mutation become quite small, since the odds of the mutations altering the same gene or structure in the small animals in a population group at the same time are very small.J C wrote:What you did pH, was to constrain the computer into retaining the specific letters “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” as each letter was randomly generated – so you immediately ‘locked in’ the letter E in the first position, as soon as it was randomly generated and D in the 69th position as soon as it was randomly generated, etc.J C wrote:A truly undirected programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the ‘correct’ first letter or that V was the ‘correct’ second letter, etc.
For the LAST TIME natural selection is not a undirected process!!!!!
Seriously, what part of that do you not understand!!!!
Just as pHs program selected a desirable letter, natural selection selects a desirable outcome based on if the outcome provides benefit to the organism. This outcome then spreads to the rest of the population group to such a point where the chances that it will be reversed again by another mutation are small (but not unheard of).
pHs model demostrates this very well.
- The random altering of letters mimics the random altering of mutation.
- His identification of a correct letter mimics the indentification of a welcome out come by natural selection, one that provides a benefit or advantage.
- His fixing in place of this letter after it has been indentified mimics evolutions fixing in place of selected outcome with in a population group by the fact that they propagate quickly through the species.
Now of course this fixing in place isn't perminent since evolution isn't. But then pHs program was just an example. You could easily mutation the final string into another string using of words using the exact same process.J C wrote:A truly random ‘blind’ programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the correct first letter, V the correct second letter, O the correct third letter, etc. and it wouldn’t have any mechanism to ‘lock them in’ in any event.
That is the whole bloody point :rolleyes:
Natural selection is not a "truly random blind program" You admitted to that yourself only a few posts ago.
We have been trying to explain this to you for months now, evolution is not a random process.J C wrote:Such enthusiasm, such FAITH !!!
You are saying it is faith to accept that phs program did what it appears to have done?
You can see the output for yourself. Or do you just not want to see?
As I explained, not he hasn'tJ C wrote:Wicknight, sorry to ‘burst your bubble’ – but pH has just proved that the appliance of intelligence IS required to reduce combinatorial space to the point where complex specified outcomes become statistically POSSIBLE!!!!!
There is no intelligence at work when natural selection selects an outcome. It is simply a matter of if the outcome provides benefit or advantage to the oraganism that produced the outcome.
pH modeled this in is genetic algorithm by telling the algorithm what outcomes produce benefit (ie which outcomes match the sentence), because you have to in a computer program, you don't have nature to do that for you, but in nature itself this would be handled simply but the circumstances and enviornment that the population group find themselves in.J C wrote:Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that ALL 1E+180 sequences COULD potentially produce a 'functional protein', it would be impossible for an undirected system to 'discover' a 'functional protein' for blood clotting WHEN IT NEEDED IT because nearly all of the 1E +180 of the protein sequences 'out there' would certainly be in the 'useless combinatorial space' for blood clotting agents
Who said it found it WHEN IT NEEDED IT. Who said blood came first. It is much more probably that blood didn't evolve until the necessary process had been discovered to allow it to function.
Seriously, the more you talk the clear it is that you don't understand the theory of neo-darwin evolution.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Son Goku
Either that or he **** two ******** **** Prussian *** to all nine of them.
At points creationists would get so unintelligible that we could only demonstrate to them how nonsensical their posts were by responding with statements concealed by the censoring function for which no conjoining words could be imagined.
The ‘unintelligible ones’ on this thread are the EVOLUTIONISTS!!!!:D
Scofflaw
JC. pH just understands evolution, and you don't…………….
Also, please note that pH has intelligently "modelled" evolution, that is to say, he has applied his intelligence to recreating what Nature does without intelligence. I am sure you need not be told which end of this stick you should grasp...
IF pH does understand Evolution, he certainly HASN’T modelled it in his computer exercise.
What he actually did was to constrain the computer into retaining the specific letters “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” as each letter was randomly generated.
He IMMEDIATELY ‘locked in’ the letter E in the first position, as soon as it was randomly generated and D in the 69th position as soon as it was randomly generated. He also did the same with each ‘correct letter’ once the ‘correct letter’ was generated in each of the other 69 positions.
Materialistic Evolution wouldn’t ‘know’ what a ‘correct’ letter was and certainly wouldn’t work up to a PRE-DETERMINED outcome like “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”
A truly undirected programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the ‘correct’ first letter or that V was the ‘correct’ second letter, etc. Only something with intelligent ‘overview’ (like pH himself) would know this. When he programmed the computer he was occupying the supposed role of God in Theistic Evolution by directing the programme to ‘lock in’ each letter as it occurred in a PRE-DETERMINED SPECIFIED sequence – so as to eventually produce the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”
Which part of the word IMPOSSIBLE do you not understand?
It is IMPOSSIBLE to develop and manufacture computers without an intelligent input.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to develop and manufacture cars without an intelligent input.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to develop and manufacture wheelbarrows without an intelligent input.
Why is it POSSIBLE to develop and manufacture LIFE without an intelligent input?
Scoffflaw
Which is an excellent demonstration of the unlikeliness of Creation or theistic evolution, given that we observe mutation and evolution in the modern world. An intelligent deity could also "do it in one", but, even according to JC, didn't (the "radiation of species" after the Flood).
An Intelligent Deity could indeed “do it in one”.
In fact, an Intelligent Deity DID “do it in one” – and you can read all about it in Genesis 1-3!!!.:D
The speciation within Created Kinds is just an example of one aspect of amazing genetic diversity that was originally Created by God.
Wicknight
Just as pHs program selected a desirable letter, natural selection selects a desirable outcome based on if the outcome provides benefit to the organism.
PH’s programme selected a letter that was desirable to HIM – in order to complete the sentence.
It operated along pre-programmed lines to reach an EXACT solution that was determined IN ADVANCE by HIM.
It was pH’s programme and he was the ‘God' of all he surveyed!!!:D
A truly ‘blind’ programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the correct first letter, V the correct second letter, O the correct third letter, etc. and it wouldn’t have any mechanism to ‘lock them in’ in any event.
A truly ‘blind’ programme would start ‘undoing’ any of the words that might form early on in the process, like the words ‘BEEN’ and ‘THREAD’ in the example – and it wouldn’t matter how ‘useful’ they were – random mutation is no respecter of ‘utility’. In fact, it usually degrades functionality!!!!
So, pH’s programme is actually a demonstration of INTELLIGENCE in action – and shows HOW a rational agent (like himself) was able to programme a computer to constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind, to the point where the odds of something specific happening was reduced from 5.8 E+98 down to 9,339.
As I have said (and Brian Calgary also spotted) it would have been simpler if pH had simply written down the words “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” – and saved his brain and his computer a lot of bother.
Scofflaw
JC. pH just understands evolution, and you don't.
Fair enough.
Well then would pH be kind enough to explain how the following tightly specified biochemical cascade ‘evolved’ – or indeed how any of the thousands of other equally specific and equally complex cascades that are present in living organisms ALSO evolved:-
“When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP).
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (cGMP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers it’s concentation by acting as an ‘absorber’.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of Sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows Sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein ‘pumps’ them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and the ‘pump’ keeps the level of Sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentrations of positively charged Sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and Sodium ions would be depleted quickly. Several mechanisms turn off the proteins that were turned on, in order to restore the cell to it’s original state. Firstly, the ion channel also lets Calcium ion in as well as Sodium ions. The Calcium is ‘pumped’ back by a different protein so that a constant Calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, Calcium concentrations also decrease too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP slows down at lower Calcium ion concentrations. Second, a protein called guanlate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when Calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. And this is how the cell limits the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin and is reconverted to 11-cis-retinal which is again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, transretinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol – a form containing two more Hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retionol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added Hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal and one cycle is completed (in about one nanosecond).”
Could I suggest that if the undirected production of the sequence for a simple protein is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY the production of the above biochemical sequence for sight is also IMPOSSIBLE.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that ALL 1E+180 sequences COULD potentially produce a 'functional protein', it would be impossible for an undirected system to 'discover' a 'functional protein' like Rhodopsin WHEN IT NEEDED IT because nearly all of the 1E +180 protein sequences 'out there' would certainly be in the 'useless combinatorial space' for sight generation agents - so 'finding' the ACTUAL protein sequence to incorporate into the sight cascade at a specific point in time and space would defeat any 'blind' system like Macro-Evolution.
It would be like a spare parts company, randomly searching it's enormous warehouse of 1E+180 spare parts for a particular spare part for your car. You would end up with a pile of useless supplied spare parts the size of the Universe - and still no statistical chance of ever getting the spark plug (or the Rhodopsin) that you required!!!
Wicknight
There is no intelligence at work when natural selection selects an outcome.
That may indeed be the case – but there certainly WAS an intelligently designed computer programme at work in pH’s demonstration of Intelligent Design in action.
The problem for NS isn’t it’s ability to select – it is its ability to obtain quality raw-material from which to select.
NS is basically a ‘filter’ and like all filters it’s resultant product is only as good as the raw material supplied to it. The principle of ‘rubbish in – rubbish out' applies.
Because of the enormous useless ‘combinatorial space’ involved, random systems like mutation can ONLY degrade information and produce ‘rubbish’ for NS to select.
Intelligently Designed systems, on the other hand, can provide quality information and quality traits for NS to select – and this is yet ANOTHER proof of the Intelligent Design of living systems. :cool: 0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
JC. pH just understands evolution, and you don't…………….
Also, please note that pH has intelligently "modelled" evolution, that is to say, he has applied his intelligence to recreating what Nature does without intelligence. I am sure you need not be told which end of this stick you should grasp...
IF pH does understand Evolution, he certainly HASN’T modelled it in his computer exercise.
What he actually did was to constrain the computer into retaining the specific letters “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” as each letter was randomly generated.
He IMMEDIATELY ‘locked in’ the letter E in the first position, as soon as it was randomly generated and D in the 69th position as soon as it was randomly generated. He also did the same with each ‘correct letter’ once the ‘correct letter’ was generated in each of the other 69 positions.
Materialistic Evolution wouldn’t ‘know’ what a ‘correct’ letter was and certainly wouldn’t work up to a PRE-DETERMINED outcome like “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”
A truly undirected programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the ‘correct’ first letter or that V was the ‘correct’ second letter, etc. Only something with intelligent ‘overview’ (like pH himself) would know this. When he programmed the computer he was occupying the supposed role of God in Theistic Evolution by directing the programme to ‘lock in’ each letter as it occurred in a PRE-DETERMINED SPECIFIED sequence – so as to eventually produce the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”
Sigh. Exactly, JC. To slightly better model evolution, pH could, rather than specifically choosing which letter to retain at what position, give each letter a "fitness value" at each position, so that it would not definitely retain the specific letter. Better yet, we could assign a fitness (or calculate a fitness) for each full string, that would determine how well it survived.
The fact that you don't understand what is happening here is just that - the fact that you don't understand it. By failing to understand it, you render your comments on evolution entirely meaningless sequences of letters and exclamation marks, because you don't understand what you have undertaken to disprove.J C wrote:Which part of the word IMPOSSIBLE do you not understand?
I used to think it was impossible for one person to be so incredibly and regularly wrong as you are, but I see now, through repeated observation, that you are indeed capable of it.J C wrote:It is IMPOSSIBLE to develop and manufacture computers without an intelligent input.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to develop and manufacture cars without an intelligent input.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to develop and manufacture wheelbarrows without an intelligent input.
Why is it POSSIBLE to develop and manufacture LIFE without an intelligent input?
You are confused, because life is not "developed and manufactured". You are unable to comprehend process without agency - a not uncommon failing.J C wrote:Scoffflaw
Which is an excellent demonstration of the unlikeliness of Creation or theistic evolution, given that we observe mutation and evolution in the modern world. An intelligent deity could also "do it in one", but, even according to JC, didn't (the "radiation of species" after the Flood).
An Intelligent Deity could indeed “do it in one”.
In fact, an Intelligent Deity DID “do it in one” – and you can read all about it in Genesis 1-3!!!.:D
The speciation within Created Kinds is just an example of one aspect of amazing genetic diversity that was originally Created by God.
Nice. Unfortunately it means that the plants and animals we see today are not the ones originally created by God. They are, by your claim, those resulting from adaptive radiation after the Flood.J C wrote:Wicknight
Just as pHs program selected a desirable letter, natural selection selects a desirable outcome based on if the outcome provides benefit to the organism.
PH’s programme selected a letter that was desirable to HIM – in order to complete the sentence.
It operated along pre-programmed lines to reach an EXACT solution that was determined IN ADVANCE by HIM.
It was pH’s programme and he was the ‘God' of all he surveyed!!!:D
A truly ‘blind’ programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the correct first letter, V the correct second letter, O the correct third letter, etc. and it wouldn’t have any mechanism to ‘lock them in’ in any event.
Sigh. Once again you demonstrate your unwillingness or incapacity to understand this. pH could have simply given the comuter the rules of grammar, and let it generate anything it liked, as long as it was a correct sentence.
Life indeed does not attempt to generate anything specific - but that is your claim, not pH's. pH's demonstration was specifically chosen to fit the tiny piece of the puzzle you appear able to grasp.J C wrote:Wicknight
There is no intelligence at work when natural selection selects an outcome.
That may indeed be the case – but there certainly WAS an intelligently designed computer programme at work in pH’s demonstration of Intelligent Design in action.
The problem for NS isn’t it’s ability to select – it is its ability to obtain quality raw-material from which to select.
NS is basically a ‘filter’ and like all filters it’s resultant product is only as good as the raw material supplied to it. The principle of ‘rubbish in – rubbish out' applies.
Because of the enormous useless ‘combinatorial space’ involved, random systems like mutation can ONLY degrade information and produce ‘rubbish’ for NS to select.
Intelligently Designed systems, on the other hand, can provide quality information and quality traits for NS to select – and this is yet ANOTHER proof of the Intelligent Design of living systems. :cool:
Mutation provides both bad and good traits to select on - a simple matter of fact repeatably and repeatedly observed, and noted on this thread. A good example is the frame shift mutation that produced the nylon-digesting enzyme.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
-
J C wrote:IF pH does understand Evolution, he certainly HASN’T modelled it in his computer exercise.
Actually he has. The reason you don't recongise it is because (and pay attention, this is the important bit) ...
You don't know or understand what neo-darwin evolutionary theory is
No, actually you came up with the sentence.J C wrote:PH’s programme selected a letter that was desirable to HIM – in order to complete the sentence.
It wasn't pre-programmed. Do you understand what a genetic algorithim is JC?J C wrote:It operated along pre-programmed lines to reach an EXACT solution that was determined IN ADVANCE by HIM.
Natural selection isn't blind. Feedback is provide by the environment.J C wrote:A truly ‘blind’ programme wouldn’t ‘know’ that E was the correct first letter,
Once an benefitial outcome has been reached, through random mutation, nature itself will let natural selection know this, buy providing an advantage to the organism that spreads into the population group. This is the feedback stage, that allows the actual "selection"
Hell JC do actually understand ANYTHING about the theory of evolution.J C wrote:V the correct second letter, O the correct third letter, etc. and it wouldn’t have any mechanism to ‘lock them in’ in any event.
Yes it does, it is locked in by the fact that it spreads to the rest of the population better and faster than a non-benefitial outcome.
Again, do you actually understand ANYTHING about the theory of evolution.
I mean I'm explaining to you the very very basics of what neo-darwin evolutionary theory suggests happens and all this seem completely new to you.
What exactly did you learn when you thought you were learning about evolution?
Once a change has spread into the population at large the change is only mutated in individual organism. If further mutation is not benefitial then these further changes don't spread into the rest of the population.J C wrote:A truly ‘blind’ programme would start ‘undoing’ any of the words that might form early on in the process
Again JC, this is basic basic evolutionary theory.
Why does it need to discover it WHEN IT NEEDED IT?J C wrote:Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that ALL 1E+180 sequences COULD potentially produce a 'functional protein', it would be impossible for an undirected system to 'discover' a 'functional protein' like Rhodopsin WHEN IT NEEDED IT
The nylon bug mutated the ability to digest nylon long before nylon was even invented.J C wrote:That may indeed be the case – but there certainly WAS an intelligently designed computer programme at work in pH’s demonstration of Intelligent Design in action.
Groan ... like I said, our weather models in the Met service are intelligently designed models of the weather. The weather itself isn't intelligent.
That isn't the problem, considering life has been mutation constantly for about 4 billion years.J C wrote:The problem for NS isn’t it’s ability to select – it is its ability to obtain quality raw-material from which to select.
Are you saying that no mutation can ever produce a benefit? because mutations that produce benefit have been observed to happen. So you are wrong, the only question is do you already know you are wrong?J C wrote:NS is basically a ‘filter’ and like all filters it’s resultant product is only as good as the raw material supplied to it. The principle of ‘rubbish in – rubbish out' applies.
I have absolutely no idea what you are basing that statement on JC, beyond your own ignorance.J C wrote:Because of the enormous useless ‘combinatorial space’ involved, random systems like mutation can ONLY degrade information and produce ‘rubbish’ for NS to select.
Mutation does not only degrade information. We have been over this, and this is an observable fact. You keep harking on about science proving evolution through observation, yet you reject it when it does actualy prove something through observation. Mutation has been seen to increase the ability of an organism, and more importantly has been seen to increase the actual genetic structures, "information" as you like to call it.
I have to wonder what the point is of even continuing.
It is clear now that you don't actually know what the theory of evolution says. You greet quite simple basic evolutionary principles, like mutations being "locked in" due to spreading thought the population, with blank stares and nonsense questions.
You seem completely lost in a mess of your own ignorance, and you are now retreating to passed statements like "mutation can only degrade" which have been long ago (in this threads life time) provide completely wrong. Mutation can remove genetic structures, it can rearrange genetic structures and it can add genetic strutures. All this has been observed, and you have been told all this BEFORE.
Give it up JC, its over. You have nothing left to argue accept the nonsense going on in your own head, that has already been shown to be incorrect or lies over and over again.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
From the BBC, a report on an exhibition which hopes to counter the religious myth that homosexuality is "against nature" by pointing out that homosexual behaviour is well documented in at least five hundred species. Hardly needs to be said that the organizers have apparently been told that they'll "burn in hell"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement