Directed Evolution

Bradskii said:

From an evolutionary perspective? None.

Click to expand...

Predators seem to be opportunists.
It may be the lion catches the fastest and most alert.
Whoever happens to be closest.

Estrid said:

Predators seem to be opportunists.
It may be the lion catches the fastest and most alert.
Whoever happens to be closest.

Click to expand...

It's a numbers game.

I think this is indicative of the problem you arrive at, when you refuse to model agency, as part of the Evolutionary change.

Agency is what takes advantage of the irreducibly complex, and gives it a function that doesn't cause to survive, once, but many times.

If you are a predator and you overlook agency, successful hunts are few and far between.

This needs to be addressed at the level of attraction too, if your mating ritual doesn't account for agency, your mate isn't going to understand your intent.

In short, it is not productive at all, in any qualifiable way, to proceed without adding "agency" to the model (of life).

Gottservant said:

I think this is indicative of the problem you arrive at, when you refuse to model agency, as part of the Evolutionary change.

Agency is what takes advantage of the irreducibly complex, and gives it a function that doesn't cause to survive, once, but many times.

If you are a predator and you overlook agency, successful hunts are few and far between.

This needs to be addressed at the level of attraction too, if your mating ritual doesn't account for agency, your mate isn't going to understand your intent.

In short, it is not productive at all, in any qualifiable way, to proceed without adding "agency" to the model (of life).

Click to expand...

First problem is that irreducible complexity doesn't exist. It's been repeatedly proposed but never demonstrated.

Secondly evolutionary change happens on the scale of populations and over generations so agency does not apply. Pointing out that agency doesn't exist on that scale doesn't mean that agency isn't important on other scales and in other contexts.

Shemjaza said:

First problem is that irreducible complexity doesn't exist. It's been repeatedly proposed but never demonstrated.

Secondly evolutionary change happens on the scale of populations and over generations so agency does not apply. Pointing out that agency doesn't exist on that scale doesn't mean that agency isn't important on other scales and in other contexts.

Click to expand...

IC might exist, the Quest is a perfectly good sport for those so inclined.
Claiming its been demonstrated , though, is definitely premature.

Estrid said:

IC might exist, the Quest is a perfectly good sport for those so inclined.
Claiming its been demonstrated , though, is definitely premature.

Click to expand...

I think that is giving the creators of IC far too much credit. It's origin is bad faith arguments and logical fallacies.

Shemjaza said:

I think that is giving the creators of IC far too much credit. It's origin is bad faith arguments and logical fallacies.

Click to expand...

Its being awfully generous but your absolute does not work

Estrid said:

Its being awfully generous but your absolute does not work

Click to expand...

How so?

The loose concept of Intelligent Design of either life or the Universe in general may well be a goal for people who want to find a scientific styled explanation for creation.

IC is different, it was specifically proposed by Discovery Institute members and declared to be evidence to justify ID.

Shemjaza said:

How so?

The loose concept of Intelligent Design of either life or the Universe in general may well be a goal for people who want to find a scientific styled explanation for creation.

IC is different, it was specifically proposed by Discovery Institute members and declared to be evidence to justify ID.

Click to expand...

sorry ah, i mean to say the idea that there could be
examples of intelligent design is possible.

Aussie Pete said:

Irrelevant. I know what God has to say on the subject.

Click to expand...

It is very relevant when you pretend to be able to discuss science.
Thanks for admitting yet again that you have no business doing so.

tas8831 said:

It is very relevant when you pretend to be able to discuss science.
Thanks for admitting yet again that you have no business doing so.

Click to expand...

Evolution is not science. So I can discuss the subject logically and reasonably, unlike people that start with an unproveable assumption that life just somehow spontaneously appeared. What part of that is scientific? Evolution cannot be demonstrated, OOL is floundering still after 70 years of research, vast amounts of evidence suggests that evolution is impossible, yet that does not shake the faith of pro evolutionists. The only argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened because it happened. If that's what you call science, sorry, I don't agree.

Aussie Pete said:

Evolution is not science. So I can discuss the subject logically and reasonably, unlike people that start with an unproveable assumption that life just somehow spontaneously appeared. What part of that is scientific? Evolution cannot be demonstrated, OOL is floundering still after 70 years of research, vast amounts of evidence suggests that evolution is impossible, yet that does not shake the faith of pro evolutionists. The only argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened because it happened. If that's what you call science, sorry, I don't agree.

Click to expand...

Appears that you have been misled to believe that the ToE makes claims on OoL. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Creationists are the only group promoting OoL nonsense in an obvious attempt to discredit evolutiony science. If you want an intelligible understanding of OoL here are 10 Theories of Origin of Life, none of which have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

Frank Robert said:

Appears that you have been misled to believe that the ToE makes claims on OoL. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Creationists are the only group promoting OoL nonsense in an obvious attempt to discredit evolutiony science. If you want an intelligible understanding of OoL here are 10 Theories of Origin of Life, none of which have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

Belief despite evidence, and all that rot.

Aussie Pete said:

So I can discuss the subject logically and reasonably, unlike people that start with an unproveable assumption that life just somehow spontaneously appeared.

Click to expand...

It's very hard to hold a reasonable discussion with someone who confuses it with abiogenesis.

J_B_ said:

You're leaving me to infer a lot. My inferences would be:
* directed evolution is seen as a legitimate type of selection pressure
* directed evolution is selection pressure, not a model of selection pressure
* directed evolution does not model other selection pressures

Click to expand...

Your inferences are absent any actual implications from what was said. Any practical differentiation of artificial vs natural selection is as meaningless as dissecting "micro" vs "macro" evolution. But I am much more interested in hearing about illegitimate selection pressures, which I infer exist by your use of the word "legitimate".

Frank Robert said:

Appears that you have been misled to believe that the ToE makes claims on OoL. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Creationists are the only group promoting OoL nonsense in an obvious attempt to discredit evolutiony science. If you want an intelligible understanding of OoL here are 10 Theories of Origin of Life, none of which have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. OOL and evolution are inextricably entwined. It does not take a Mensa level intellect to work out that life had to appear if it was to evolve. Since most evolutionists dismiss God as Creator, there is only one other option as to how life formed. It is the principle of "just happened", hardly scientific. OOL and evolutionists are masters at making assumptions. Hoyle thought it came from space. OK, where did that life come from?

Anyway, enough. It's just a time waste trying to talk to evolutionists.

Aussie Pete said:

Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. OOL and evolution are inextricably entwined. It does not take a Mensa level intellect to work out that life had to appear if it was to evolve. Since most evolutionists dismiss God as Creator, there is only one other option as to how life formed. It is the principle of "just happened", hardly scientific. OOL and evolutionists are masters at making assumptions. Hoyle thought it came from space. OK, where did that life come from?

Anyway, enough. It's just a time waste trying to talk to evolutionists.

Click to expand...

Why couldn't God have caused life to appear and then designed a process whereby it would flourish? Why do you think that either of those denies the existence of God?

Bradskii said:

Why couldn't God have caused life to appear and then designed a process whereby it would flourish? Why do you think that either of those denies the existence of God?

Click to expand...

He could have. He did not. How do I know? He said so.

Aussie Pete said:

He could have. He did not. How do I know? He said so.

Click to expand...

Then it might be prudent to let everyone know that you understand Genesis to be taken as a literal explanation for life. It would save a lot of time discussing scientific aspects of evolution if we knew that you reject any science whatsoever that contradicts creationism.

As you said, 'It just happened' is hardly a scientifically valid comment. But it seems that it's sufficient for you from a theological perspective. So be it. But that's all that needs to be said.

Bradskii said:

Then it might be prudent to let everyone know that you understand Genesis to be taken as a literal explanation for life. It would save a lot of time discussing scientific aspects of evolution if we knew that you reject any science whatsoever that contradicts creationism.

As you said, 'It just happened' is hardly a scientifically valid comment. But it seems that it's sufficient for you from a theological perspective. So be it. But that's all that needs to be said.

Click to expand...

That's a silly remark. If I wanted to know everything about say, an electric vehicle, I would speak to the designer. He could tell me why he chose AC or DC systems, what decided the choice of batteries and everything else that I wanted to know. God is Creator. I've checked out what He has to say about His creation.

I was a technician by trade, mostly electronic with electrical and mechanical training as well. I know how difficult it is to make comparatively simple systems function. Just the temperature regulation system for a mammal is astonishing. And somehow reptiles, that must physically control their body temperature, evolved into mammals? How can anyone say that with a straight face? Don't start me on live birth, milk as food and all the other distinctions that "just happened". The truth is that they did not "just happen".