Some random discussion on evolution...

[xianghua]

we can't observe or model macro evolution, we can only try to imagine it

we need to remember the antenna was made by design and not by a natural process. so its not realy "evolution" or something that support evolution.

 

[SLP]

like orphan genes?-

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...95791/Evolutionary-Origin-of-Orphan-Genes.pdf

 

[xianghua]

Yet we don't have examples of those things in nature.

so if we will find such example (say a gene in 2 far species but not in some species between them) evolution will be false?

 

[xianghua]

Show me an example and I'll tell you.

here is one from wiki:

say that its real for the sake of the argument. design or not?

 

[xianghua]

How about we establish a clear definition of what criteria need to be met to satisfy the claim "designed", and then if we find any gears that DON'T meet those criteria, we can use them as an example of gears that aren't designed?

you are welcome.

 

[Speedwell]

we need to remember the antenna was made by design and not by a natural process. so its not realy "evolution" or something that support evolution.

The antenna was made by the process of random variation and selection, a process you denounce. Whether the circumstances in which the process acted were contrived or not is besides the point. In fact you and other IDists here have been quite offensively nasty about the possibility that the process of evolution was itself designed rather than its individual products.

 

[Speedwell]

here is one from wiki:

say that its real for the sake of the argument. design or not?

A real what? An inanimate object falling from outer space? Some kind of a flying machine? A naturally evolved flying creature?

 

[pitabread]

so if we will find such example (say a gene in 2 far species but not in some species between them) evolution will be false?

We've had this discussion before. I'm not going into this again with you. Just review your conversation history here for our prior discussions on this.

 

[pitabread]

here is one from wiki:

say that its real for the sake of the argument. design or not?

That's likely a hubcap, lamp shade or other human manufactured object that was common in fake flying saucer photography back in the mid 20th century.

You've posted this before and been through all this already. Why are you posting this again?

 

[xianghua]

A watch is always evidence of human design, and that is precisely BECAUSE we know 'how it was produced' - by humans.

actually you dont know. someone can made a watch by a different way than any other man. and yet you will conclude design. right?

 

[xianghua]

That's likely a hubcap, lamp shade or other human manufactured object that was common in fake flying saucer photography back in the mid 20th century.

so you conclude design base on the object alone. thanks.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

such as "Automated Antenna Design?" tell me, is this antenna evolved by a natural process or by human design?

The point is that it uses the same underlying principle of repeated selection from a reproducing population that has heritable variation. It demonstrates that a system implementing this principle can produce effective design-like products. Biological evolution is a process that is also an implementation of this principle.

How such systems originate is a different debate, but you're at liberty to start a thread on that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

we need to remember the antenna was made by design and not by a natural process. so its not realy "evolution" or something that support evolution.

It was produced by implementing a process using the same principle as biological evolution.

 

[pitabread]

so you conclude design base on the object alone. thanks.

No. Once again you appear to be forgetting all the previous discussions about this.

The conclusion is based on knowledge of how flying saucer photos were faked back in the mid 20th century coupled with recognition of that particular photo.

 

[pitabread]

a real UFO.

What is a "real UFO"?

 

[pitabread]

again: we dont need to know how gears were designed in order to know they were designed.

You need at minimum a plausible mechanism. You don't even have that. Therefore you can't suggest that the gears in issus coleoptratus are the result of deliberate design. You simply have no basis for that claim.

 

[sesquiterpene]

sorry- can you rephrase?





the overwhelming majority of random errors are deleterious to the function of any design- and observations of life support this- generally come from a loss of function, not a new feature- just as anyone can create a faster race car by throwing out the spare tire and back seat...

There is a problem with this - it's simply not true. The majority of mutations in humans are neutral, not deleterious. Why don't you try learning more about the actual properties of living systems, rather than inventing strained analogies?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a problem with this - it's simply not true. The majority of mutations in humans are neutral, not deleterious. Why don't you try learning more about the actual properties of living systems, rather than inventing strained analogies?

where they have any impact at all- they are overwhelmingly more likely to be deleterious than beneficial- that's hardly controversial

yes it is true many are seemingly neutral- but that gets into what was functional code or not in the first place- and the degree to which errors are fixed by DNA- a wash either way

Same again in our own digital systems- errors in code can often appear in unused portions of memory, and/or be corrected by error checking systems- which are uncannily similar in DNA and our own software.

The substantive point here is that it's very difficult to create new functional digital information systems by throwing random mistakes at existing ones- you are infinitely more likely to fail than to succeed.

 

[pitabread]

The substantive point here is that it's very difficult to create new functional digital information systems by throwing random mistakes at existing ones- you are infinitely more likely to fail than to succeed.

With respect to biology though this is exactly how things like new functional proteins come about; genetic mutations of previous ones.

 

[Speedwell]

The substantive point here is that it's very difficult to create new functional digital information systems by throwing random mistakes at existing ones- you are infinitely more likely to fail than to succeed.

If that's all that was happening you would probably be right. I think the point is that you really don't know quite enough yet to be looking for "gotchas." I'm not saying there aren't any, but that your search for them has been superficial.