Check the speeds on new computers. They haven't changed much in the last 10 years
First, that is incorrect. A pc from 2017 is more powerfull then a pc from 2007. If it weren't, there would for example be no need for so-called "next generation consoles" like the Xbox One or the Playstation 4. To name just two examples.
My state-of-the-art machine from 2008 also isn't able to properly run a recent game, like GTA5 for example. Especially not in "full detail". I'll require a recent machine to do that. A machine much more powerfull then what was available back in 2008.
Secondly, the comment you are replying to, isn't talking about increasing speed, but about getting hardware smaller.
, after they hit about 3GB.
Third, "3 gigabyte" isn't a measure of speed, it's a measure of volume/size of a set of data. The chunk of addresses it occupies on disc or in memory.
Since then, what has changed has been HD and board speeds.
Speeds, you say? So which is... did speed improve or not? Make up your mind.
The point being, there are always limits, and limits take intelligence to discover and overcome.
There sure are physical limits for any physical technology. But, as I said, we haven't hit that wall yet. Also, when that wall is hit, it will be a wall for the CURRENT incarnation of x86 or ARM architecture chips. There is no reason to assume that by then, we won't have other models/architectures that allow for fufther improvement of speed or how small we can get them. Quantum computing comes to mind.
And yet, supposedly for over 4 billion years, evolution has been consistently toward higher complexity and more information.
That's not exactly correct either.
There is no necessity for evolution to increase in complexity or information. Certainly not "consistently".
A mutation might increase complexity/amount of data, sure. But it can just as easily (perhaps even more easily) reduce it.
For example... when a mole's eyes become non-functional and are even hidden away behind a layer of skin... wouldn't that constitute a decrease in complexity/information?
When a whale loses its "legs", isn't that equally a decrease in its complexity/information?
But sure, I'll agree that overall, in the big picture, there is a trend towards higher complexity, sure.
Why is that a problem? And why is it a problem in context of the overal process being blind, without intention and without planning?
I mean.... A LOT of chemical reactions result in increased complexity / information....
2 H atoms and an oxygen atom, by themselves, are less complex and represent less information then an H2O molecule.
But I hope you will agree that we don't need some "intelligent entity" to run around bonding individual hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms together to create water molecules, right? It's a spontanous, blind process with no intent or planning that does that, right? It's just "what happens" when certain conditions are met, right?
You do realise that chemistry simply happens all the time, correct?
Why should evolutionary processes by any different?
Sounds more like wishful thinking, magic or alien intervention.
Well, it doesn't really matter what it "sounds like" to you. After all, it's all based on demonstrable observation. It's all very testable and comprehensible. If you are ignorant on how it can work... perhaps that that is your responsability to cure it? Perhaps you should inform yourself? Read a book or two, maybe?
All the information is out there... It's not like it's hidden away or anything. If you don't like the internet, any proper library will carry an entire collection of books on biology and evolutionary biology.
If you think that's funny, there are kids dying all over the third world countries you can laugh at.
"A review of existing data estimates that supplementing food with vitamin D would prevent millions of cold and flu cases, and possibly save lives."
'Add vitamin D to food to prevent colds and flu', say researchers - National Library of Medicine - PubMed Health
I was laughing at your comment which implied that taking meds isn't your best bet to get a flu cured.
But your attempt at misrepresenting me, and insinuating that I apparantly enjoy watching people die, is noted.
