Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2018 2:38 AM
202 online now:
GDR, PaulK (2 members, 200 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,415 Year: 15,238/29,783 Month: 1,182/1,502 Week: 180/492 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?
Chronos
Member (Idle past 4148 days)
Posts: 102
From: Macomb, Mi, USA
Joined: 10-23-2005


Message 91 of 96 (292566)
03-05-2006 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


I guess it depends on what the designer is and what it's trying to do.

How much power does the designer have? How much forsight? How much control does it have over the universe? Was the universe designed by this designer, or is the designer simply a guest? How involved does it wish to be with its creations?

If we're talking about an all powerful God, it would be able to magick its creations to be perfectly adapted to the environment at any given time. Why would the designer make an environment that changed in the first place?

Personally, I think that the Darwinian algorithm for adaptation is extremely sloppy. Considering the amount of pain and death that goes into weeding out less adapted creatures, I'd say it's downright cruel as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 26 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 92 of 96 (292611)
03-06-2006 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by inkorrekt
03-05-2006 11:28 PM


Re: intelligently designing evolution
"The Designer May Have". Why cannot some one come and say with real proof that this is how it happened?

Because there is no evidence that a Designer did anything. However, if you quote the entire section of what I was saying, it will be plain that I was trying to clarify your position, not put one forwards myself...

quote:
I don't understand. The designer may well have designed one species (and designed it to be evolvable into the many we see today). Is that what you are saying?

The thing that I didn't understand, and was looking for clarification on was:

inkorrekt writes:

Why are we looking at lineage? Why cannot we design only one species? Is it because we want to prove Evolutionary scale?

So...could you shed some light on what it is you were trying to say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 11:28 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 93 of 96 (292758)
03-06-2006 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 3:27 PM


Re: adaptation
I will attempt to "preconstruct" this information, by showing the analogy between Chomsky's difference of surface and deep structure has mathmatical equivalences in biology.

This is kind of backwards from the way I think about adaptation, starting from populations as Modulous redacted, but it might be possible to communicate the difference of adaptation in the sense you questioned, either inborn or acquired, by working this way.

Start with the DNA sequence as a ChomskySurface-structure ==> find the deep structure (by higher orders of real numbers(A,B,C,D,..L(Quine does not recognize these, not because they have not been used but because he finds no apparent differences between use of Russell's type approach to ostentation, thus utility is the only requirement for existence)) dividing a newer biometry than is present currently) in terms of sets of photons and electrons. Show via Macrothermodynmaics or some other lawful constraint, that the deep structure is the surface itself (the form visible to the biologist)and reverse linguistically with a show, showing, that the DNA sequence itself was the surface grammatical structure similar to structures in other parts of linguistics not applications.

Adapation if so retained would be either inborn or acquired depending on the reverse transformation, which is actually the forward thought.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-06-2006 01:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:27 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4178 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 94 of 96 (292953)
03-07-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by RAZD
10-19-2005 8:31 PM


Ah. Not from evolutionary theory then. You realize that von Neuman was a theoretical mathematician that worked on game theory, right? And that he was likely discussing the Theory of Self Reproducing Automata - a self replicating computer {algorithm\machine} - and not biological or chemical reproduction?

Yes I did realize that and that's how the book presents it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2005 8:31 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 03-07-2006 12:07 PM Christian has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2017 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 95 of 96 (292955)
03-07-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Christian
03-07-2006 11:57 AM


Given that this book is not something we are all going to have on our bedside tables a quick precis of Wilder-smith's reasoning might help the discussion along. What exactly is his scientific alternative?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Christian, posted 03-07-2006 11:57 AM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Christian, posted 03-08-2006 5:01 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4178 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 96 of 96 (293393)
03-08-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Wounded King
03-07-2006 12:07 PM


Sorry Wounded King, I don't have time to get into this discussion with you at this time. I probably will, eventually, because I really liked his book, but not now.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 03-07-2006 12:07 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018