Some random discussion on evolution...

[Jimmy D]

But there is nothing in a bird's wing which is not present in the forelimb of the reptile from which the bird's wing evolved--the same bones, muscles, veins and arteries, etc. Only the relative shapes and proportions of these components are different. What is "too complex" about that?

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that birds were around for millions of years before this bird “Big Bang”.

 

[Speedwell]

can you calculate the chance for a non-living watch to evolve by a natural process?

Which has nothing to do with the question at hand. We are talking about the evolution of a bird's wing from a reptilian forelimb.

have you heard about feathers? a reptile dont have feathers.

Modern reptiles do not. However, there is fossil evidence earlier reptilian ancestors had feathers. In other words, that the feather evolved before birds.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[

Complexity is a mathematical concept. Any argument from complexity which does not have math backing it up is just an argument from incredulity.

Even a simple mobile organism is too complex even for mathematicians. Even a simple motion requires incredible complexity, thus no math formula for motion.

But there is nothing in a bird's wing which is not present in the forelimb of the reptile from which the bird's wing evolved--the same bones, muscles, veins and arteries, etc. Only the relative shapes and proportions of these components are different. What is "too complex" about that?

Both are very complex. I think evolutionists are the authors of 'division of labor', whereas very complex engineering projects are broken down into many simple single tasks, thus masquerading the real complexity of the project. Thus a simple evolutionary change here, followed by another simple change, then another, and soon a fantastically complex critter appears that was the product of trillions of 'simple' evolutionary changes over gazillions of years.

 

[Ophiolite]

Even a simple mobile organism is too complex even for mathematicians. Even a simple motion requires incredible complexity, thus no math formula for motion.

If this is true then creationists cannot claim that complexity rules out evolution. As Speedwell noted the argument then becomes a logical fallacy based on personal or group incredulity. Congratulations, you have just refuted your own argument!

 

[pitabread]

Thus a simple evolutionary change here, followed by another simple change, then another, and soon a fantastically complex critter appears that was the product of trillions of 'simple' evolutionary changes over gazillions of years.

This is how recursive processes work. It's possible to generate incredibly complex patterns from relatively simple recursive algorithms. The key is to understand the principle of recursion.

This is also why arguments that life forms are too complex to have been formed by evolution fall flat. There is nothing inherently prohibitive about evolution forming such organisms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If this is true then creationists cannot claim that complexity rules out evolution. As Speedwell noted the argument then becomes a logical fallacy based on personal or group incredulity. Congratulations, you have just refuted your own argument!

I'm not talking about 'odds', I'm talking about applying a math formula to each needed evolutionary change.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is how recursive processes work. It's possible to generate incredibly complex patterns from relatively simple recursive algorithms. The key is to understand the principle of recursion.

This is also why arguments that life forms are too complex to have been formed by evolution fall flat. There is nothing inherently prohibitive about evolution forming such organisms.

What would be a simple algorithm for a horse galloping at full speed while processing terrain and surroundings and commands from it's rider?

 

[pitabread]

What would be a simple algorithm for a horse galloping at full speed while processing terrain and surroundings and commands from it's rider?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

I'm talking about evolution as a recursive process to produce an output. I'm not talking about the output in and of itself.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not talking about 'odds', I'm talking about applying a math formula to each needed evolutionary change.

I never mentioned odds. You seem to think odds and complexity are the same. Who knows? Your posts are rarely incisive, focused or clear. Muddy thinking produces inconsequential results.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not talking about 'odds', I'm talking about applying a math formula to each needed evolutionary change.

I showed you the math once and you said it made your head hurt.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I never mentioned odds. You seem to think odds and complexity are the same. Who knows? Your posts are rarely incisive, focused or clear. Muddy thinking produces inconsequential results.

They have some relationship to each other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

I'm talking about evolution as a recursive process to produce an output. I'm not talking about the output in and of itself.

In examining past research are the gaps still there?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I showed you the math once and you said it made your head hurt.

If you could show me the math I ask for my head would probably explode.

Actually there is no math that accounts for evolution.

 

[pitabread]

In examining past research are the gaps still there?

Huh? You're going to have to clarify what you are talking about.

 

[Speedwell]

I've not heard that term here before.
You're asking a lot of any process outside of special creation when you consider the complexity of organisms.

It's a term describing a certain class of the stochastic processes I tried to explain to you before. One of the perceptual mistakes you may be making is to regard complex biological structures as a long term target for the evolutionary process. But evolution has no long term targets and so if complexity arises it is purely contingent and the "odds" of achieving it are meaningless.

A simple analogy is this: Everyone knows that the odds against a particular ticked holder winning the lottery are astronomical, but no one supposes that means nobody can win it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Huh? You're going to have to clarify what you are talking about.

Is evolution a complete science, no questions, missing parts, that might cast doubt on the process?

 

[Speedwell]

Is evolution a complete science, no questions, missing parts, that might cast doubt on the process?

No, it is not complete--no science is--but no doubt has been cast on it so far.

 

[pitabread]

Is evolution a complete science, no questions, missing parts, that might cast doubt on the process?

Nothing in science is complete, so I'm not sure why you would wonder if the science related to evolution would be. There is always more to learn and likely always will be.

Insofar as doubt, there is nothing I am aware of that casts doubt on the diversity of life on Earth being the result of biological evolution. Certainly nothing to reinforce the creationist view, if that's what you are wondering.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's a term describing a certain class of the stochastic processes I tried to explain to you before. One of the perceptual mistakes you may be making is to regard complex biological structures as a long term target for the evolutionary process. But evolution has no long term targets and so if complexity arises it is purely contingent and the "odds" of achieving it are meaningless.

A simple analogy is this: Everyone knows that the odds against a particular ticked holder winning the lottery are astronomical, but no one supposes that means nobody can win it.

Your analogy begins with the existence of the winning ticket. Evolution is just reverse engineering of something that already exists.