Why are there girls in the world?

[The Barbarian]

The first 3 related more to abiogenesis. Current biology maintains that abiogenesis and evolution are separate. i.e. falsifying any particular hypothesis or theory for abiogenesis won't falsify evolution (so it's another important precept to get out there). However, starting with a few propositions on genesis events helps set the stage. So, here we go:

1. Suppose multiple independent genesis events produce life. How probable is it all of these events would converge on the same (or similar) physics-based mechanisms: 20-some amino acids, RNA/DNA-like self-replication, and a cellular structure? (+2 to -2)

Quite likely convergent evolution would occur. And it has. On the other hand, if there were multiple independent origins of life, it's astonishingly unlikely that DNA would turn out to be as though the different taxa evolved from a common ancestor. Which is what we see. So this evidence is strongly against multiple origins of life for any of the life forms currently known. As you suggest, the difference between analogous organs like bird, pterosaur, and bat wings, would not show common descent, but the biochemical and genetic data from those organisms certainly would show common descent.

A similar case involves fish, whales and penguins, all of which have similar shapes and appearance in water. But (for example) the horizontal flukes of whales compared to the vertical fins of fish are explained by the ancestry of whales from land animals. Again, the distinction between analogy and homology makes the hypothesis of multiple origins so unlikely as to be out of the question.

2. Suppose multiple independent genesis events occur at different times. How probable is it conditions would have been suitable for these events during the Cambrian,
Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous radiations? (+2 to -2)

Depends on whether or not you invoke magic to do it. A natural origin of life from the earth(edit: in a world with existing life) as described in the Bible would be highly unlikely because any high-energy compounds would quickly be used up by existing bacteria, before they could form living systems. If one imagined new life was poofed into existence, than any conditions would be sufficient.

3. How probable is it different genesis events would produce different expressions (phenotypes)? (-2 to +2)

About as likely as common descent would do that. But of course, different genesis events would not produce the common genetic data known to form a family tree for all known living things. And we know this is valid, because we can test the idea by comparing DNA from creatures of known descent.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?

Worms don't have near the fun we do.
Old guy --
I live for Saturday morning.
M-Bob

 

[The Barbarian]

The definition of chaos is a system whose activity at a later time t > 0 is dramatically and sometimes entirely a consequence of the initial conditions. That implies a creator, or at least a condition we are overlooking that drives the entire system to this very point.

If so, it's a very subtle argument. Chaotic systems have their own order, and can be mathematically described. Are you familiar withe Feigenbaum number?

 

[The Barbarian]

Worms don't have near the fun we do.

They have twice the fun:
Earthworms are hermaphrodites where each earthworm contains both male and female sex organs. The male and female sex organs can produce sperm and egg respectively in each earthworm. Although earthworms are hermaphrodites, most need a mate to reproduce.
Earthworms

 

[Kaon]

If so, it's a very subtle argument. Chaotic systems have their own order, and can be mathematically described. Are you familiar withe Feigenbaum number?

Chaotic systems do have their own order, and by definition are non-linear dynamical systems. A chaotic system is tremendously driven by initial conditions, so if the map, connection and Schwarzian are appropriate, the the Feigenbaum constant is the limit of the driven system. But, this constant is not necessarily universal save for special conditions.

In general, a chaotic system needs to have a defined initial condition that analytically drives the entire system (more or less.) That is why the butterfly effect is often used (erroneously) to describe certain aspects of chaos theory: the initial condition of stepping on a butterfly in New York drives the dynamical system of the earth to a time t > 0 for which a Typhoon is formed off of the coast of Taiwan. In fact, this has more to do with field theory and non-locality (another subject,) but this is a popular example of chaos theory in laymen terms.

If the universe is chaotic, that means there must be an initial condition that is *currently* driving the system.

Psalm 104:1-5:

Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.

Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

​

Because humans qualify our lives in relation to what our belief systems are, even Christians tend to scoff at this passage. However, as a mathematician this speaks to "chaos theory" to me. God is saying exactly what He meant and did. It shouldn't be subtle that a designer or a supplier of an initial condition that could drive a non-linear dynamical system would need to be nearer intelligence than not.

 

[Resha Caner]

I wouldn't know how to score your propositions without relating it to mathematically analytical demand.

OK. When I did this previously I had somewhere around 3-5 biologists who were gracious enough to answer my questions. From that I extracted a list of paradigms, and then tried to determine if I would be able to express any of them mathematically. I was trying to define a postulate that I could alter to produce an alternative.

I am a mathematician ...

Then maybe we can approach this somewhat differently than I did with the biologists. I expect you'll quickly surpass me. I can give you what I have, and if it piques your interest, and you decide to use it - publish it - I'd appreciate an acknowledgement. That would be my only request. I won't be able to take it any farther than I have, and it's not doing anyone any good rotting away on my computer.

I do not like the term [evolution]; I think it is a misnomer and misleading.

I agree.

Usually, that would be a clear mathematical problem - seeing as evolution is extrapolated over a very small percentage of observed pattern (and assumes many constant factors in physics and chemistry as well over time.) Multiplying errors produces more error.

I like how you think. I'm tempted to add some philosophical commentary, but I guess that can come later if anything of value results from the discussion.

So, until I can gauge your interest, I'll just make a simple comment for a simple beginning: A fundamental paradigm for evolution is a set of rules that direct self-assembly.

 

[Kaon]

OK. When I did this previously I had somewhere around 3-5 biologists who were gracious enough to answer my questions. From that I extracted a list of paradigms, and then tried to determine if I would be able to express any of them mathematically. I was trying to define a postulate that I could alter to produce an alternative.

Like induction?

Then maybe we can approach this somewhat differently than I did with the biologists. I expect you'll quickly surpass me. I can give you what I have, and if it piques your interest, and you decide to use it - publish it - I'd appreciate an acknowledgement. That would be my only request. I won't be able to take it any farther than I have, and it's not doing anyone any good rotting away on my computer.

"I'd appreciate an acknowledgment..."

Of course, if it got to that point you would be at least acknowledged. I really have no biology knowledge except a semi-eidetic memory of biology and O-chem. So, my contribution would, overall, be small anyway; I'd hope if we share notes you would acknowledge me should you use any of my notes. I think that is academic courtesy.

I agree


I like how you think. I'm tempted to add some philosophical commentary, but I guess that can come later if anything of value results from the discussion.

So, until I can gauge your interest, I'll just make a simple comment for a simple beginning: A fundamental paradigm for evolution is a set of rules that direct self-assembly.

If you use this, I can work with that. If the basis of an evolution set is direct self-assembly, then that certainly puts a concrete foundation for (dis)proving evolution.

Now, we need to define self-assembly in terms of energy and transport phenomena.

Self-assembly is reversible and spontaneous.

• The first distinction for self-replication is order - which presents several thermodynamic problems. That is, unless you provide an [activation] energy - which begins the process. This, of course, requires some outside influence that would need to be further defined.
• The second distinction requires this order to be made of building blocks which are, by themselves, the foundation for separate replication iterations (that could be built from other more basic building blocks.)
• The third distinction requires these building blocks order themselves such that the potential that arranges them is electrochemically weak, comparatively.
  
  
  

The third distinction makes it a probabilistic nightmare to find a way to arrange the elements of the universe in a way that satisfies potentials strong enough to stay together in arrangement, but weak enough to undergo reversible reactions in the appropriate solvent. As a very crude model, picking the right 25 elements out of the 100 known naturally occurring elements of the universe that make up the human body (assuming there are only 100) has 10^23 combinations that could occur with the elements (disregarding stoichiometric parameters.) If order matters (which it does,) we have 10^48 arrangements that could occur. Stoichiometry exponentiates the possibilities, and when we account for the subtleties that must occur for distinction 3 (hydrogen bonds/van der waals), you must have a very long time (10^17 s) interval for the possibility of this self-replicating process to occur.

The math blows up after a while - either toward the kernel, or divergent - which makes evolution through spontaneity highly, highly unlikely. Possible, I suppose, but highly unlikely. And, this is if we start with your foundation of the necessity of self-replication (one believe is a good start.)

​

 

[The Barbarian]

The math blows up after a while - either toward the kernel, or divergent - which makes evolution through spontaneity highly, highly unlikely. Possible, I suppose, but highly unlikely. And, this is if we start with your foundation of the necessity of self-replication (one believe is a good start.)

Once a mathematician did an analysis, and proved that bumblebees can't fly. If an analysis shows that reality, such as observed evolution, cannot exist, then the problem is not with reality.

Oh, and the bumblebee? Turns out, the levers operating the wings use tiny pads of resylin (an extraordinarily elastic subtance) to recover nearly 100% of the energy in the upstroke.

Evolution has a lot of those surprises.

 

[Resha Caner]

Of course, if it got to that point you would be at least acknowledged. I really have no biology knowledge except a semi-eidetic memory of biology and O-chem. So, my contribution would, overall, be small anyway; I'd hope if we share notes you would acknowledge me should you use any of my notes. I think that is academic courtesy.

You needn't worry. I'd happily list you as a co-author. As I suspected, and based on the remainder of your post, you'll quickly outrun me, so it's more likely you would be the primary author of anything that might come of this. I've mentioned in other places that I did make some attempts at publication, but certain aspects of both the math and the biology are beyond me. I would have to go back to school, and that is highly unlikely at this point in my life. I'm already too far down other paths.

If the basis of an evolution set is direct self-assembly, then that certainly puts a concrete foundation for (dis)proving evolution.

Cool. I'm glad you think there's some potential here. I will make one clarification in my use of terms. Though the rule set directs the assembly, I utilized a random stirring process so that the outcome, though ordered, was non-deterministic.

The third distinction [electrochemically weak] makes it a probabilistic nightmare to find a way to arrange the elements of the universe in a way that satisfies potentials strong enough to stay together in arrangement, but weak enough to undergo reversible reactions in the appropriate solvent. As a very crude model, picking the right 25 elements out of the 100 known naturally occurring elements of the universe that make up the human body (assuming there are only 100) has 10^23 combinations that could occur with the elements (disregarding stoichiometric parameters.) If order matters (which it does,) we have 10^48 arrangements that could occur. Stoichiometry exponentiates the possibilities, and when we account for the subtleties that must occur for distinction 3 (hydrogen bonds/van der waals), you must have a very long time (10^17 s) interval for the possibility of this self-replicating process to occur.

The math blows up after a while - either toward the kernel, or divergent - which makes evolution through spontaneity highly, highly unlikely. Possible, I suppose, but highly unlikely. And, this is if we start with your foundation of the necessity of self-replication (one believe is a good start.)

See, you're already way ahead of me. I like your enthusiasm. Still, I think we need to slow down and back up a little. All I've really proposed at this point is a paradigm. I was headed toward a "fundamental theorem of biology" of sorts. As I've said, I don't think biology has ever had its "Newtonian moment" the way physics did. It doesn't have a fundamental theorem like F=ma, or like the fundamental theorems of arithmetic, algebra, and calculus. But be warned that those who have replied to me here don't like my approach. They either think I'm in error or that biology is too complex to allow such a thing. So, if you build off my ideas, be prepared for some to strongly object.

Next, I'm not creating this structure in order to calculate a probability that makes evolution look impossible. That's not what I'm after. In short, I think that as we build on these fundamentals, it will become obvious that evolution (or, more properly, common descent) is only one of several possible processes that emerge. So, under my structure, evolution will remain a possibility. The point is to show other possibilities, i.e. that when biologists assume evolution, they're working with an underdetermined problem.

Now, we need to define self-assembly in terms of energy and transport phenomena ... provide an [activation] energy

This is awesome. However, based on where I'm going, I'm willing to concede the energy is available. You may want to develop that further, but I didn't go that direction.

building blocks

This is where I went: What are the building blocks? As a background reference, I'll point you to Winfree's aTAM. I didn't strictly follow aTAM, but many of my ideas come from it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's a good start; show us what processes, necessary for evolution are too improbable to occur.

Do you think that is possible?

 

[Resha Caner]

Here's a good start; show us what processes, necessary for evolution are too improbable to occur.

I'm not creating this structure in order to calculate a probability that makes evolution look impossible. That's not what I'm after.

 

[Kaon]

Once a mathematician did an analysis, and proved that bumblebees can't fly. If an analysis shows that reality, such as observed evolution, cannot exist, then the problem is not with reality.

Although I am a mathematician, I try very hard not to be an academic. And, the idea of bumblebees flying is an issue of physics - which is applied mathematics.

You are right, the problem is with academia, not in the math. Physics would have you disbelieve your own eyes about bumblebee flight; not the math.

Oh, and the bumblebee? Turns out, the levers operating the wings use tiny pads of resylin (an extraordinarily elastic subtance) to recover nearly 100% of the energy in the upstroke.

Evolution has a lot of those surprises.

That is just a discovery of a mechanism once thought to be impossible by the postulates, axioms and laws of (bio)physics. That isn't so much about evolution as it is a highlight into the folly of academia and its attempt to found truth, as it were. This is why I became a mathematician so that I wouldn't be at the mercy of academics and their ever-changing theories that demand observance, but feign humility in discovery.

Never-mind the alleged 100% energy efficiency of the wings, the probability of the exact right chemicals coming together in the exact arrangement, with the exact dispersion/chemical potentials necessary for continuity - as well as the chemical instruction to pass this information down to progeny instead of leaving it in the generation - is ridiculous. And, I mean it is literally an absurdity to believe this happened randomly, or without direction (whether you call it design or a god.)

 

[Resha Caner]

Although I am a mathematician, I try very hard not to be an academic. And, the idea of bumblebees flying is an issue of physics - which is applied mathematics.

Of course you and Barbarian are free to go down whatever rabbit holes you choose, but I hope we can continue to develop our conversation.

 

[Kaon]

You needn't worry. I'd happily list you as a co-author.

Thanks.

Cool. I'm glad you think there's some potential here. I will make one clarification in my use of terms. Though the rule set directs the assembly, I utilized a random stirring process so that the outcome, though ordered, was non-deterministic.

Now, this makes things a bit more interesting. I would be interested in seeing the modelling for the process. It is hard to self organize and increase order, but it is mathematically insane to believe it is not "driven" i.e. non-deterministic.

See, you're already way ahead of me. I like your enthusiasm. Still, I think we need to slow down and back up a little. All I've really proposed at this point is a paradigm. I was headed toward a "fundamental theorem of biology" of sorts. As I've said, I don't think biology has ever had its "Newtonian moment" the way physics did. It doesn't have a fundamental theorem like F=ma, or like the fundamental theorems of arithmetic, algebra, and calculus. But be warned that those who have replied to me here don't like my approach. They either think I'm in error or that biology is too complex to allow such a thing. So, if you build off my ideas, be prepared for some to strongly object.

The strong objections would be no difference from my experience in academia, so I am fine with it. I am more interested in seeing your justifications (a novel approach to "evolution," as it were,) because as you can probably tell I am vehemently against the idea of a well defined, ordered evolution. But, again I am only coming from the mathematical POV, which could be a handicap as said before.

Next, I'm not creating this structure in order to calculate a probability that makes evolution look impossible. That's not what I'm after.

I see. Honestly, neither am I. However, I find mathematical proof by contradiction to be one of the more easier proof methods, so that is a default intellectual method I use to (dis)prove things. I have to throw away modern evolution theory when I find the mathematics is extrapolated over assumed constants, and a third of the universe's time scale - yet no one entity or object has definitively measured the parameters beyond 6000 years ago (a geological inhalation, comparatively.) This is also ignoring the fact that mass, charge, radioactivity and other fundamental properties of matter are not constant for any particle, and depend on energy scaling. There is tremendous error innate in the mainstream model - I cant ignore it (likely because I have no academic obligation to accept it.)

In short, I think that as we build on these fundamentals, it will become obvious that evolution (or, more properly, common descent) is only one of several possible processes that emerge. So, under my structure, evolution will remain a possibility. The point is to show other possibilities, i.e. that when biologists assume evolution, they're working with an underdetermined problem.

It wouldn't be hard to believe design and evolution work hand in hand. For example, a creator does 99% of the work, and allows "evolution" (coded into the genetics) to take over to maintain the work. It would be easier to believe "evolution" is the mechanism that preserves generations, rather than it being the mechanism for life in totality. Then, we can break it up into macro/micro, temporal, seasonal and biochemical qualifications. This would have to be, of course, much more qualified than current classifications of similar monikers.

This is why I am, now, attracted to evolution from the point of self-replication and self-assembly, because these mechanisms may be the foundation of real evolution in living entities. If, as you said, there was a way to relate the theory of evolution to the perspective of self-assembly through algebra/analysis, there may be something promising there. I like that you are willing to consider evolution as part of a chain of processes that make up life.

This is awesome. However, based on where I'm going, I'm willing to concede the energy is available. You may want to develop that further, but I didn't go that direction.

Definitely, because I would constantly want to know where we got the activation/threshold energy to begin the process - even if it comes from the internal energy of the building block itself (and how).

This is where I went: What are the building blocks? As a background reference, I'll point you to Winfree's aTAM. I didn't strictly follow aTAM, but many of my ideas come from it.

Building blocks are likely the best place to start. aTAM seems it is related to algebra and analysis, but (as you said,) is willing to concede certain things. Likely I would have more of an affinity toward kTAM - simply because it relates the physical chemistry to the theory, and I would better be able to quantitatively analyze it. But, I need to read the entire paper so I will reply later when I have done that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Although I am a mathematician, I try very hard not to be an academic. And, the idea of bumblebees flying is an issue of physics - which is applied mathematics.

The fun part is nature has a way of tossing surprises at mathematical "proofs" about the real world. Like Kelvin's "proof" of an Earth only ten million years old or so, we often later find that facts not in evidence at the time, make the numbers irrelevant.

Never-mind the alleged 100% energy efficiency of the wings, the probability of the exact right chemicals coming together in the exact arrangement,

We know the probability: 1.0.

with the exact dispersion/chemical potentials necessary for continuity - as well as the chemical instruction to pass this information down to progeny instead of leaving it in the generation - is ridiculous.

We see similar events happening all around us. As Hall's bacteria, in less than a year, managed to make the exact dispersion/chemical potentials and instructions for a new enzyme system, this is the sort of thing biology is capable of doing. It stuns us, because we are used to the idea of "design" being required for this.

Engineers know better; they have begun using evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too difficult for design. Would you like to learn about that?

And, I mean it is literally an absurdity to believe this happened randomly

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

 

[Resha Caner]

Building blocks are likely the best place to start. aTAM seems it is related to algebra and analysis, but (as you said,) is willing to concede certain things. Likely I would have more of an affinity toward kTAM - simply because it relates the physical chemistry to the theory, and I would better be able to quantitatively analyze it. But, I need to read the entire paper so I will reply later when I have done that.

OK. Take your time. I may, however, throw out a little more information just to finish up some of the introductory thoughts.

Now, this makes things a bit more interesting. I would be interested in seeing the modelling for the process. It is hard to self organize and increase order, but it is mathematically insane to believe it is not "driven" i.e. non-deterministic.

Well, here's where the rubber meets the road. Maybe I've made a mistake somewhere, which is very possible. However, at the moment it seems more likely we just need to clarify terms because it seems quite easy to make it non-deterministic.

Suppose we have 3 tiles: P, Q, and R. Suppose the probabilities of these tiles bonding with each other are non-zero, and that there are 2 combinations that will produce a viable organism (say PQP and PQRQ). As we stir a mixture containing these tiles, we'll produce a lot of non-viable junk. But it's not determined whether the viable organisms will be PQP or PQRQ.

- - -

Next, I want everything on the table. Biology does have a few theorem's that have been proposed as "fundamental". One is Fisher's and one is Price's. I'm not denying the importance of those theorem's, nor do I deny my rudimentary familiarity with biology. However, to call those "fundamental" seems improper to me - it would seem to make the conclusion part of the premise. So, here was my starting point - a bit loose, but hopefully it can get the idea across.

Fundamental question of biology: What produces a viable biological system?

Definition 1: Fibers are m-dimensional, n-faceted indivisible structures.

Definition 2: A facet is any mechanism that connects two or more fibers.

Definition 3: Fabrics are connected sets of fibers.

Definition 4: Biological systems are self-replicating, self-assembled nested fabrics which emerge from those fabrics and which can interact to affect heiritable properties.

Fundamental Theorem of Biology: The probability a set of fabrics will produce biological systems is the product of the number of nested levels and the probability of the fiber least likely to assemble. Note: I don't have a proof of this statement. It's one of the things I was working on.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not creating this structure in order to calculate a probability that makes evolution look impossible. That's not what I'm after.

Perhaps you could show the likelihood of each of the basic principles of evolutionary theory, which describes what must happen for it to work.

That would actually address the issue.

 

[Kaon]

The fun part is nature has a way of tossing surprises at mathematical "proofs" about the real world. Like Kelvin's "proof" of an Earth only ten million years old or so, we often later find that facts not in evidence at the time, make the numbers irrelevant.

That wasn't a proof, it was an academic pressure to produce something groundbreaking at the time. Thermodynamics was at the precipice of quantum mechanics (through statistical analysis of macro/microstates.) Once you leave pure math, you sacrifice some accuracy for paradigms and postulates.

I won''t be naive enough to say that mathematicians and physicists do not fudge their numbers. That is why I chose to become a mathematician myself - so that I don't have to rely on Kelvin, or anyone else. If I need to, I can derive the physics for determining temperature (according to thermodynamic postulates) of a body - and then vindicate my process through meticulous mathematical analysis. I also have no obligation to academia, and I am not deterred or threatened by scoffing, political alignments and money.

These are things that prevent, for example, academia from technologically advancing the world past 100 years of crude oil energy use.

We know the probability: 1.0.

No, the fact that we observed this (because it is our reality) makes it 100% - not the actual process that could bring about self-assembly. In fact, you cannot attribute the reality as we see it to anything except reality. Evolution requires me to ignore the 4.2 Billion years humans have allegedly been absent from this planet - providing none of the hard data needed to make such extrapolations about such a dynamic body as Earth.

Evolution is a model of common sense for some people, and that is fine. But, to say it is categorically true (and treat others who disagree as intellectual derelects) is categorically wrong.

It works as a model; it isn't true.

We see similar events happening all around us. As Hall's bacteria, in less than a year, managed to make the exact dispersion/chemical potentials and instructions for a new enzyme system, this is the sort of thing biology is capable of doing. It stuns us, because we are used to the idea of "design" being required for this.

Engineers know better; they have begun using evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too difficult for design. Would you like to learn about that?



Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

It is common sense that this entire creation isn't random. What the problem is is that we are expected to ignore the fact that this theory is based on a majority of Earth evolution that none of us were a part of, for which we have no proof of. We do not know what happened in the Jurassic age, because we were not there. We make assumption, and extrapolate from axioms and postulates while compounding the error of it.

DARPA has already made self-assembling robots; the idea of self-assembly isn't novel, but it is asinine if we assume self-assembly happens in a vacuum without activation/threshold energy.

That an "engineer" or an intelligence is always suggested should also be common sense - from a philosophical and thermodynamic point of view.

EDIT: it isn't necessarily asinine if we assume self-assembly happens without activation/threshold energy. However, it is "highly improbable" that self-assembly happens without this (particularly because of thermodynamic constraints.)

 

[Resha Caner]

It works as a model; it isn't true.

I think I said that same thing in this same thread.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the probability of evolution:
We know the probability: 1.0.

No, the fact that we observed this (because it is our reality) makes it 100% - not the actual process that could bring about self-assembly.

Evolution isn't about self-assembly. However, we can directly observe self-assembly in cells. So a moot point.

In fact, you cannot attribute the reality as we see it to anything except reality. Evolution requires me to ignore the 4.2 Billion years humans have allegedly been absent from this planet

Don't see why. It's not anywhere in the theory.

Evolution is a model of common sense for some people, and that is fine. But, to say it is categorically true (and treat others who disagree as intellectual derelects) categorically wrong.

Denying an observed phenomenon seems more than merely wrong-headed.

It works as a model;

And it observably functions in nature.

it isn't true.

It's observably true.

Barbarian suggests:
We see similar events happening all around us. As Hall's bacteria, in less than a year, managed to make the exact dispersion/chemical potentials and instructions for a new enzyme system, this is the sort of thing biology is capable of doing. It stuns us, because we are used to the idea of "design" being required for this.

Engineers know better; they have begun using evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too difficult for design. Would you like to learn about that?

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

It is common sense that this entire creation isn't random. What the problem is is that we are expected to ignore the fact that this theory is based on a majority of Earth evolution that none of us were a part of, for which we have no proof of.

Two major errors there.
1. Darwin's theory doesn't predict common descent, although the evidence now demonstrates that common descent of all organisms on Earth is true.

2. Science never "proves" anything. It's inductive and merely accumulates enough evidence to make dissent unreasonable.

We do not know what happened in the Jurassic age, because we were not there.

Sorry, I don't buy the "if we weren't there to see it, we can know nothing about it." Obviously, there's a huge amount of evidence available, and it tells us a great deal about that period. Would you like to learn about it?

We make assumption, and extrapolate from axioms and postulates while compounding the error of it.

You might, but scientists use evidence. Would you like to learn about the evidence for things that happened in the Jurassic?

DARPA has already made self-assembling robots; the idea of self-assembly isn't novel, but it is asinine if we assume self-assembly happens in a vacuum without activation/threshold energy.

Since living things already have sell-assembly, it's a moot point. Reality trumps anyone's reasoning. You're confusing abiogenesis with evolution, again. However, God agrees with abiogenesis, saying that the earth brought forth living things. Not part of evolutionary theory, though.