Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?

lmao. agreed! half the time when i address my computer, it's prefaced by the word "STUPID!"

---

אָרַח

How is it possible to infer the creationist's design in a computer and see the same signing on as a blue print for evolvability you ask, given that we could cite you as "personal observation" in the credits??Well look, I can philosophically assert that boolean operations are artificial selected biologically by perversions of one-way 1-Dsymmetriy SYMBOLS that a mathematician could manipulate logically but IS NOT MATH but an organonic whoduthunkthat but that what you observed failed to maintain the same proposition.The short cut of such a design only makes sense in an equibrated other 1-D symmetry series CONNECTING the irreversibility not contingent but that IS NOT a simple boolean operation despite its clear existence in any such current computer as a combination of visuals and moving electrons. I make the design final by associating the thickness of a volatic pile with the energy levels in an atom valenced and wa laaaaa I made a design that evolves IN THE FLESH.So that is what I think life would like if we could actually engineer the design but there is another level of control that must be worked OUT before biotechies could makes such a dingy. That is the effect of DOING the actual scaled object (as opposed to the blue print) and NOT causing a non-natural difference in the 1-D symmetries "living " in the class of objects so educed. This is where instead (because humans cant do this any way yet) where ethics comes in.So the reason you do not see the pc as designating any such ID design is simply that the divisions inherent boolean wise dont do math even if it was possible to rethink heritability boolean wise. Wolfram contends that if/once science gets THIS far my biological positioning of symmetry would mind meld with any probabilism of IT science. I have written papers after paper that were well graded at Cornell contending that Computer Science is NOT as diverse as biology and will NEVER be able to "copy and paste" life.Why do you think that Kant said there will never be a new Newton of a designed blade of grass? It was not because the computer came from a phone etc but because the forces in the phone's carbon would not be irrelevant to the parallel windows environment etc depending on the technology used.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2005 07:29 AM

I don't think that ninety-odd percent of all life on earth really have gone extinct. Could you please site your source for that?This message has been edited by Christian, 10-16-2005 06:44 PM

Glad you decided to post. Hope you enjoy your stay here.At the bottom of this message you'll find links to threads that can help make your stay here more enjoayable including info on formatting replies.While I think you'll find that the 90% figure is a gross understatement, that it probably should be more like 99.999999%, let's see what responses you get.

---

Ok, I think I got it. Thanks

Well, I've done a bit of research on this (the figure I've heard before is the 99.9999999...% one) and it seems like the method for arriving at that figure has nothing to do with finding actual fossils of animals which are non-existant today. Rather it's based on the rate at which things go extinct today multiplied by the supposed age of the earth (which I believe to be incorrect).

Not at all. I personally believe macro-evolution to be false, and that the adaptability programmed within us (micro-evolution) is evidence of intelligent design. Still that is beside the point. Even if a designer were only required for the first self-replicator, the complexity in anything that can self-replicate is enormous.

Rather than address this issue on this thread (which is about ID)Please take your comments on this to the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.} thread at:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.And we can discuss how you believe you can correct this matter.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But that enormous self-replication is evolution, "macro" and all, so you contradict yourself.ps - welcome to the fray.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*16*2005 08:42 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's a common mistake to assert that adaptability is somehow "programmed" within living organisms; the reason that this is a mistake is because it isn't individuals that adapt at all; only populations adapt via the differential survival and reproduction of their individuals.If adaptability were programmed, then all individuals would exhibit it, and selection would not occur. Instead what we observe is that some individuals, thanks to coincidence, exhibit congenital characteristics that allow them to survive where their peers do not; these individuals did not "adapt" to that new environment or situation, they were already born that way.Individuals do not adapt; populations do. Thus, we know for a fact that this outcome is not "programmed" behavior of individuals, and appeals to macro vs. microevolution are false. Actually it turns out that very simple self-replicators can be easily synthesized.

The self-replication is not evolution. It's self-replication (reproduction). I was saying that in order for the self-replicator (I think it would be a cell, but perhaps there's something less than a cell that could self-replicate) to come into being in the first place, a designer is required. I don't think I'm contradicting myself.ps-thank you, it's nice to be here.

I didn't think that the actual individuals adapted. What is programed is the possibility for variation. If a bird is born with a slightly different beak than it's peers, thus better able to eat the food available, that's not a mutation, it was programmed in the genes and then natural selection takes over. It works for small differences between animals, not for large ones. You never see a frog, for instance, born with hair, or feathers. Really? Could you give me a few more details about how this is done?

As I've proven, it isn't "programmed." If it were programmed then all individuals would adapt.We know that no individuals really adapt - only populations do. There's nothing a population possesses that could be said to be "programmed"; only individuals are programmed with a genetic code.Because only populations adapt, and because populations cannot be programmed, we know that your remarks are false. Adaptation is not programmed. It's simply a natural consequence of the laws of physics. Here's an article on a very simple chemical peptide self-replicator: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2002/gross1_aug02.htmMaking things that self-replicate isn't that hard. Making useful self-replicators is another matter, I guess. My original point is that there's nothing inherent in self-replication that necessitates complexity.

You're dodging. If all life came from one self-replicating unit that has diversified to all the life forms that have been and are, there is no difference between that and evolution except possibly for the mechanism of the change from one life form to another.We know that mutation occurs and accounts for sufficient change to the replication process to create new life forms, you have accepted "micro" evolution, and hence mutation as a source of that change. We also know of no other mechanism to change existing life forms into new forms other than to change the DNA.That is all that is necessary. In fact if you look at the DNA - the record of all those changes - there is no distinction at any level that can distinguish "micro" DNA from "macro" DNA, thus there is no obstacle to "macro" other than time -- which is a different matter for a different thread - {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.}
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.(And which has been mentioned before: you need to substantiate your claim on the problem with time or withdraw that from the argument, and in which case there is then no problem with evolution.) Less has already been demonstrated for self-replication. You can see some of this information on a new topic that has not been released yet (being worked into a column) at {Building Blocks of Life - Minimum Requirements?}
http://EvC Forum: Building Blocks of Life - Minimum Requirements?You'll have to wait to discuss that (rather than tie up this ID thread with it). On what basis do you make this bare assertion? This is a science thread and that means giving evidence for your concepts, not just opinions.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't believe that all life came from one self-replicating unit. I'm only saying that if it DID, then a creator would still be required for the self-replicating unit. If it did, the changes into the various species would also be miraculous, my point, however, was that the self-replicating unit is itself a work of increadible ingenuity. When time allows I will do my best to substantiate my belief that the world is not billions of years old (if that is what you were referring to) For the time being, I think two threads is enough for me, so if we can just agree that the 99.999999% extinction is a theory based on the theory that the earth is old, rather than a fact based on actual fossils of extinct species (I think that's what you were talking about, correct me if I'm wrong) that will suffice. Then I guess that one will have to wait. Please be patient with me as my time is extremely limited and I can't always respond to everything. Also I am new here and learning to navigate the forums. It seems to me that someone said self-replicators have been easily synthesized, and I find that hard to believe but I think they posted a thread that dealt with it and I only skimmed it and didn't thoroughly understand it yet. The reason I find this hard to believe is because according to von Neumann, in order for any machine to self-replicate, it must also be able to self-diagnose and self-repair, so this would be a very complex machine that people are not capable of making.There's also the question of the environment which would allow amino acids to come together. Oxygen would've destroyed the amino acids. But if there were no oxygen, there would be no ozone to shield the earth and the sun's rays would've destroyed life.Then there's the problem of handedness. Let me quote Walt Brown here. From what I've heard, there isn't a lot of respect on this site for Mr. Brown, but he seems to make a pretty good case here: Handedness: Left and Right
Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always “right-handed.” (They are called “right-handed” because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. In fact, “mixed” genetic material cannot even copy itself.a

​

Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed”mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed.b No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.c

​

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called “sugars.” In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.P.S. my kids think you're cute