fred writes:
And again? I *never offered* an alternative scenario, because I can clearly see the genetics and math, let alone information science, do not support one!
To be honest fred, doesn't our current knowledge of math, genetics, and information "science" simply not support the current simplistic version of evolution. That is the abstract theory for which scientists admit is not fully fleshed out as far as mechanisms go?
I'm not sure how anyone gets anything out of mathematically modelling evolution when it is known that we don't have positive assessments of variables or rates of change within variables. All it seem we could test is whether our current knowledge of mechanisms is adequate. It's not, go figure.
Gould's theories have already suggested changes in rates, which alters any plausible mathematical models. I mean how do you calculate in exact numbers of radically changed environments in which change can occur? According to Gould, this would be a massive rate determining step. But we do not know exactly how many global catastrophic change events have occurred, much less regional catastrophic change events.
Then there is Margulis' theories. That really puts the kabosh on information theory saying anything, much less building true mathematical models. Or maybe I'm not up to speed. How many have included endosymbiosis in their formulations?
The best your calculations can do is say we don't know everything in detail yet. It does not offer direct criticism of the overall theory, which is very flexible, much less exclude it as an improbability.
And here's the rub, bub...
fred writes:
Evolution differs from a frog-to-prince fairytale only in the millions of years that were added to the story.
Wrong. It may still be a bit "mythic" in that some portions are known not to be completely accurate, but all the story's major elements are real and if improbable, certainly not impossible.
And if your assessment of evolution is the above, where lies creation theory, or IDC theory?
It would simply be a fairytale.
Where in math and information "science" does anything beyond natural mechanisms become plausible. You have ducked my post to you regarding this issue elsewhere, but I'll keep reminding you as long as you mention math and information "science" as some kind of weapon against evolution.
Much less probable to either profession, is what we see in the physical world getting put together by something wholly fabricated in someone's mind.
I can see chemicals, I can see changes in biochemical units. I don't see fairies, especially Huge fairies creating bodies out of pure information from some cloud filled fantasyland.
fred writes:
How did the immune *program* itself evolve?
What are the problems you see with our immune system, that prevent it from having evolved by a combination of genetic mutation and some form of endosymbiosis?
I actually see no hurdling blocks at all. It is a complex structure in its present form, but just as bacteria constantly adjust to their surroundings, including adjustments to prevent invasion/predation by other life forms, why would this capacity diminish as the simple prokaryote adapted into it's more complex lifestyle as a conglomerated eukaryote?
If anything the immune system "grew out of" bacterias learning how to handle living with other bacterias, and their products. How can our bodies handle so many biological situations, including new ones? Maybe because they are built upon a vast history of organisms which could handle many of the situations we are going to encounter, and the flexibility to try and meet most new forms of invasion/predation.
What is your explanation if this is not the most logical one?
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2
