In Harmony?

I don't think it is all that easy. The evolutionary "algorithm" as applied in nature is demonstratably very powerful. However, it depends on something else; a changing environment.I wonder what organic life would look like on a world that didn't have climatic shifts, asteroid strikes, tectonics etc. If we want really interesting (scary?) results form GP then we need to figure out how to construct a suitable environment for it. One which isn't constant.Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to digging into that article. You've gotten me very interested.

Wow thats a blast from the past...It was an article on Thompson that led to my interest in E v's C, via a co worker who when I told him about it said (and I quote) "Well thats all right if you believe in evolution...."There was a moment when I didn't know what the hell he meant and then the band struck up dueling banjos in my head.....

I've been hunting around to find what the state of the art is with evolvable hardware, but it sems that everyone's playing their cards very close to their chests - to be expected I s'pose, given the potential for megabucks.You know, there's a certain part of me that thinks because EH will soon turn into big business, that the whole conceptual edifice of evolution will somehow become more palatable to creationists ("if big business is actually making money out of the concept then there must be at least some basis for it"). But then I tell that part of me to shut up, and get real.PEedited to add: 250! woohoo![This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-29-2003]

quoteThis is called the God of the Gaps fallacy[/quote]There is no such thing as the God of the Gaps Fallacy. That is a LIE and PE knows it. For petessake, the belief in a "Primordial Egg" is a true fallacy!This was a term made up by people insecure with their own beliefs in God, and didn't know how to explain the utter LACK OF EVIDENCE in the matter being discussed. So they call other people stupid. Par for the course.Lack of evidence means one will have REASONABLE DOUBT as to whether the proffered theory (evolution) is true. And there is all the reasonable doubt in the world based of the enormous LACK OF EVIDENCE for the very beginning of evolution.

quote:

---

This was a term made up by people insecure with their own beliefs in God

---

Are you a closet atheist?PE

quote:

---

There is no such thing as the God of the Gaps Fallacy

---

Odd statement. You might say this particular case isn't a GotG case or that it isn't a fallacy but to say there is not such thing is at least odd.Of couse there is such a fallacy. The idea is that you can prove the existance of something just by saying you don't know the cause for some other particular thing. This is obviously a logical fallacy. Isn't it? If not why not?And this particular gap isn't all that great any more. We understand a lot about the differences between us and close relatives and are even starting to understand why we are different.

quote:

---

Are you a closet atheist?

---

Huh, are there people who don't believe in closets?

quote:

---

Huh, are there people who don't believe in closets?

---

LOL!....the phrase "closet homosexual" will never mean the same to me again.PE

ROFL!!! It took me about 30 seconds to twig to what you meant.

And I thought "throwing a hot dog down a hallway" was supposed to be metaphorical....

Only one of us sounds insecure right now.

Maybe I can help with this.According to population genetics, in order for a population to split off into two species you need something called "reproductive isolation". All this means is that the population is split into groups that don't breed with each other. This happens in a couple of ways; the most obvious is geographic isolation - a barrier in between the populations prevents them from meeting. Other ways include behavioral (i.e. they do different mating dances or whatever and don't recognize each other as mates) or structural (they're no longer able to physically mate due to size or other differences). When this happens, genetic differences in the two populations accumulate to the point that they're no longer genetically compatible - voila, a new species.Anyway, humans (as you may have noticed) are really good at traveling. Also, we live a long time, so our generations are long, so it takes a long, long time for genetic differences to accrue. Also, for the past couple of generations we've been able to travel to any part of the earth, so any genetic differences are being normalized. While we may have had reproductively isolated human populations for a lot of our history (the probable origin of human racial groups), the fact that now those populations can meet and interbreed has halted that racial divergence.Arguably, the different races of people were the start of human speciation. But the majority of people have no problem with interracial coupling, so those racial differences are shrinking. Because we can travel to any part of the earth, humans have been re-united in a global population, with gene flow throughout every part. We've basically reversed human speciation.

That's only half the answer. That explains the lack of new species in the Homo genus.But I think the question was about the others that used to be around. We've had a moderately "bushy" lineage for most of the last few million years.Here's a completely made up answer with no references at all.All of the Homo species and our nearer relatives included all the primates have always been pretty restricted in their range and numbers. It seems we've been comparitively slow breeders too.This sounds like a receipe for extinction. We may think we are a big deal now and so very important. But if we hadn't gotten going on evolving bigger brains we probably wouldn't be here either by now. It's a bit of luck I'd say.The question isn't why is there only one species left by why is there even one left.

quote:

---

Odd statement. You might say this particular case isn't a GotG case or that it isn't a fallacy but to say there is not such thing is at least odd.

​

Of couse there is such a fallacy

---

Cite please? And, what fairy tale are you living in? I've never seen, unlike other valid logical principles in the voluminous expositions on what constitutes real logic, the official deliniation of the precise phrase "God of the Gaps Fallacy". You therefore lie and are making up your own rules as you go along. That's just par for the course from the evo camp and expected.Hint: "God of the gaps" was made up by insecure atheists and is indigenous to evolution. That YOU personally and quite subjectively believe God is a fallacy, illogical, unreasonable, and could never exist is not disputed. That you believe in fallacious rules of logic to further your argument is the issue.And YOU bought it hook, line, and sinker!Why am I not surprised you come off as the thought police when someone actually uses their brain to consider the extraordinary lack of evidence for evolution? (Hint#2: it might have something to do with the "microbe to man" canard you also believe in which you fail miserably at proving, although I would like to see you try to prove microbe to man with the evidence you believe is contained in the countless gaps)Friggin' moron.

The original statement:

quote:

---

If life was not formed by intelligent design then how can we explain the vast gaps between the cognitive willful species of humans and the rather reactionary animal kingdom?

---

This is a logical construction. It can be transformed into:If we don't have an explaination for the difference between us and other animals then there must be an intelligent designerIs that a correct transformation, capturing the original content?