If we suppose that this semantically correct word - "technology" is the pre-existing material, then random modification won't magically transform this material into new semantically correct word - "chemistry" for e.g., but into gibberish, something like this: "ttufwefjkl". This is the reality of things compossed of building blocks or particles - they exist as tiny clusters of meaning or function in a vast empty space of gibberish or non-function.
You're forgetting selection. Evolution is descent with modification and natural selection provided by the environment. For your analogy to be complete there would be selection pressures for "chemistry".
How does the selection pressure for "chemistry" reduces the resources needed to transform this gibberish: "ttufwefjkl" or this semantically correct word : "technology", into "chemistry"?
Your question makes no sense. I only pointed out that in order to have a valid analogy to evolution that you need selection pressure. How you include selection pressure in your analogy is your business, but you can't just ignore it.
I claimed that 10e43 resources are insufficient to find bio-functional solution. To backup my claim I provided the empirical evidence of structural niche which is filled with gamma repressor fold. Your response is this: your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong. Can you finally explain why my assumption is wrong?
I think it's been explained several times already. Evolution does not build new proteins from scratch with each new generation. It modifies pre-existing proteins in minor ways, and small changes gradually accumulate into large.
Selection works. Breeders prove it all the time, and nature is constantly employing natural selection.
Variation exists within all populations. Some have thicker fur, some have darker coloring, some are faster, some are bigger, some are smaller, etc. Selection is responsible for differential reproductive success operating upon normal variation. Over time any favorable mutations that happen to arise will also be selected for and gradually spread through the population.
Commercial fishing has an interesting example of selection. They only catch fish above a certain size, and so adult fish now grow smaller so as to escape capture.
You misunderstand how evolution works. Organisms do not evolve during their lifetime. Heritable changes happen when offspring are produced. If the changes are roughly benign or positive then the offspring survive, and if they are detrimental then they do not. Surviving offspring produce more offspring in the next generation.
The theory of evolution started with the concept of descent with modification and now is at the concept of populations with modification.
Focusing on sexual species, descent with modification occurs with every reproductive act where the genes from male and female are intermixed, and included in the mix is some number of errors. The gene intermixing and the errors is what is meant by descent with modification. Offspring are different from their parents not only in the mix of genes, but also in the precise sequences of some DNA where errors have occurred.
Changes originate in individuals, but they spread through a species population, and species is the lowest grouping of biological classification. A species is a population of individuals capable of interbreeding. Evolution is about change in species. Change in individuals of a population is just variation. Individuals do not evolve during their lifetimes.
If you want to disprove evolution then you need to know how it works first.
The theory of evolution started with the concept of divergence. When this concept was falsified...
If by divergence you mean speciation, the concept is the foundation of evolution and has not been falsified.
...the concept of convergence was produced.
Convergence happens when different species are confronted by the same survival challenges. Flight and sight have both evolved uniquely several times in completely unrelated lineages.
Re: There you go again writing checks the bank won't cash.
Well I am still waiting for a proper response to my first argument that talks about the lack of resources. All your responses were either red herrings or can be boiled down to this statement: "Evolution does not start from scratch but it builds on what already exists."
There were no red herrings, and the answer hasn't changed.
This statement is of course deeply flawed since it neglects one critical aspect of biological reality, and that is: in the context of new structural or environmental niches, the pre-existing functional bio-structures are - junk.
This is where you've gone wrong. Gradually changing ecological niches drive gradual evolutionary change. Over time the accumulated changes can become significant, but across consecutive generations the changes are minute.
Re: There you go again writing checks the bank won't cash.
There you go making truly stupid assertion, writing checks no one will cash. The pre-existing bio-structures are existing living things; hardly junk.
The rest of you post is simply word salad.
He *is* making a coherent argument, wrong as it is. He's saying that existing biological structures are useless when it comes to the needs of new environmental requirements. Though it's obviously not true, we can understand why he might think this since he seems unable to set aside his need for sudden change. Invasive species are an obvious counterexample to his views, where drastic environmental change causes a dramatic increase in success. The opposite also occurs, where a drastic environmental change causes death, but imported foreign species that are unsuccessful go largely unnoticed.
But the case we're typically thinking of (and that Foxexhr doesn't seem to grasp) is where environmental change, however small or great, however sudden or gradual, causes selection pressures that drive evolutionary change. As long as the result isn't extinction then the species will gradually become better and better adapted.
You're just repeating your original already-rebutted arguments. You have to address the rebuttals, for instance that your numbers are pulled out of context and don't show what you think they do. And for instance that similar environmental niches are often exploited in similar ways by unrelated lineages, called convergent evolution - the eye and flight are examples.
For example if this niche arises "The defender admits that he .......... all operations", then to fulfil the niche you need to search for the word "authorized".
"Authorized" is not the only word that fits. First there are synonyms like, "approved", "certified" and "sanctioned". Then there are other words that fit, like "understood", "implemented" and "nixed". Then there are many misspellings/misuses that are plenty close enough, such as "authurize", "aproval" and "cirtifide", that would serve very nearly as well. The target space is much larger than your sharpshooter fallacy.
A know that there are other words that fit, but the point of my previous post was not to define the functional landscape in the context of a specific niche, but to show that functions in biology are niche specific. So, you missed the point... again.
The point you're missing is the target space is far broader than you're imagining. One doesn't even need to hit the bulleye of one of the many workable targets.
We understand that you're trying to define the problem in this way: There is one and only one needle in this haystack, and it's going to be nearly impossible to find. But the reality is that there millions of needles in the haystack.
You're working with analogies. In the analogy it is understood that the target is analogous to selection pressure. The program could be improved to make the target more analogous to selection pressure, for instance by selecting for closeness to actual words and correct grammar, but that would be a very complex program. The value of the Weasel program was as a very simple illustrative analogy to evolution, not as a model of it.
Evolutionary programs are written by people, but they model evolution, not intelligent design. The programmer defines the "natural environment" so as to model the real world to the degree of accuracy necessary.
Just as an experimental biologist doesn't change selection into an intelligent process by manipulating an organism's environment, neither does a programmer by manipulating a program's "environment". The process modeled is still one of descent with modification and selection.
As we can see in this example, at each step of the simulation we have a communication between a solution(location of the right corner) and the current position of the individual. In other words, we have a priori knowledge of the location of the right corner before the right corner is reached. Without this a priori knowledge about the location of the right corner (active information - provided by an intelligent agent), our simulation is left with blind search.
This misunderstands how evolution works. Evolution, analogously, also knows where the right corner is. Adaptation might be served by longer fur or larger beaks or larger size, and each increment is better adaptation, just as in your analogy each step toward the right corner is better adaptation. In an evolutionary program the fitness function models the impact of the environment, which in the real world will have multiple adaptive forces.