Intelligent Design or Natural Evolution

[Guyver]

What?!!! No one else is enjoying the thread? What's with the reticence? OK....moving on?

The next example of order of magnitude increase comes from the evolution of the modern computer. Now, this may be more analogous to evolution than my hot rod example, although I'm sure that some of you will say it's most analogous to directed evolution or selective breeding.

The first programmable electronic computer was built in the mid-forties; it was called ENIAC. It was an enormous beast, comprised of over 17,000 vacuum tubes. It took up a whole room and required an inordinate amount of labor.

It wasn't long before engineers began to realize something had to be done about the vacuum tube.

It was just too inefficient, large, prone to breakdown, gave off too much heat. Next step in the evolution.....Introducing the transistor.

The transistor was a huge improvement over the vacuum tube. Electronics, but computers specifically could now become smaller, more efficient, more reliable, and less expensive. At first there was one transistor per circuit, but more trials, and eventually more and more. Next step, the integrated circuit.

Well, that's all I have time for. I'll be back to wrap-up these thoughts later.

[sysncm]

Psalm 145

All your works shall praise You, O Lord, and Your saints shall bless you. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom, and talk of Your power, to make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Your dominion endures throughout all generations.

The world we live in..chance or design? From the vastness of the universe (almost inconceivable really) to the inherent complexity of the smallest cell – amazing! The world is filled with wonder and pain. Let’s focus on the wonder for this thread.

I like science. I respect the scientific method. I’ll define the scientific method as..

Observation

Hypothesis

Data Collection

Testing

An additional aspect of scientific analysis is falsifiability. It is said that something that’s not falsifiable is not scientific. OK – fine. Does that mean that something that’s not falsifiable is not real or true? There are things that don’t lend themselves well to the scientific method that we all accept as true; like love and hate.

The world we live in is perfect for life; not just life, but intelligent life. Recent scientific investigation reveals the “specialness” of our planet. In their recent book and accompanying dvd The Privileged Planet, scientists have identified twenty parameters necessary for life.

These twenty parameters can be extrapolated to the entire universe, as the laws of physics are the same. They include; distance from the sun (Goldilock’s zone), liquid water, oxygen rich atmosphere, large moon, spectral type star, terrestrial planet, iron core, tectonic activity, crust regeneration, and many others. Not only do all twenty parameters have to exist for intelligent life to occur, but they have to work together at just the right time. The chance of all these parameters coming together to allow for intelligent life is one in 10 to the negative fifteen or; 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. At this time we live on the only planet in the universe known to encompass all these necessary parameters. That is amazing! The chances of us being here are magnitudes less than the chances of winning the lottery. Chance or design? This concludes part one.

For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 10 to the 11th to 10 to the 12th stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 10 to the 11th or 10 to the 12th galaxies.

With this simple calculation you get something like 10 to the 22nd to 10 to the 24th stars in the Universe. Using your argument above, that means that just by chance alone, there are billions of planets just like this one.

[Guyver]

OK - since I'm not getting the slightest positive feedback, I will proceed directly to my point. I will complete the example of order of magnitude increase as it relates to the development or evolution of the modern computer. In the posts that follow I will demonstrate that no complex system ever, no machine, and especially complex systems which demonstrate order of magnitude increase in function and form, could ever be the result of anything but directed, intelligence and effort.

I will not attempt to disprove evolution. I'm not saying that evolution isn't real or doesn't occur. Evolution does occur and it works to refine populations of organisms. When environmental pressures increase, evolution responds to refine populations and allows them to survive. When environmental pressures exceed the rate at which evolution can work to refine populations - populations go extinct. Those are the facts.

And now back to the computer.

[Guyver]

The first generation of computers had as a defining feature, the vacuum tube. The next generation of computers became smaller, more efficient, more capable, more reliable and less costly as a result of the invention of the transistor.

Computers are comprised of electrical components, and the primary components of electrical circuits are transistors, resistors, capacitors, and diodes.

In 1958, one Jack Kilby invented a way to include all those components in one circuit board - the integrated circuit was born. This led to the third generation of computers. And, the trend for less size, more reliability, reduced cost, and greater performance increased. In the first and second generation of computers, electrical circuits contained one transistor. With the invention of the integrated circuit, it was found that many transistors could be contained in one circuit - the integrated circuit. The number of transistors per circuit began to increase, rapidly.

This led to large scale integration, very large scale integration, and where we are now with fourth generation computers; ultra-large scale integration. One Dr. Gordon Moore made a prediction sometime in the late sixties, early seventies. This prediction has been proven true and has become known as Moore's Law. This law states that every two years the number of transistors contained per integrated circuit will double. This trend is exponential in nature and demonstrates an order of magnitude increase in both form and function of computer processing capability.

Whereas the first and second generation computers had one transistor per circuit; current integrated circuits contain somewhere around 2 billion. So, in fifty years of development we have seen an order of magnitude increase resulting in faster, less expensive, and more capable machines. We now have wonders like these as a result.

This technology would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago. How did this technological development and order of magnitude increase arise? Directed intelligence and effort. Period.

When I return; I will fit this argument to living systems and conclude my point.

[Guyver]

And now the moment all the evolutionists have been waiting for - the Watchmaker Analogy. In a tip of the hat to Paley, and giving credit to the only scientist that I know of who held three doctoral degrees, the brilliant and great to listen to because of his proper English accent; Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith. It was his hypothetical "Fonloyman" machine that was the inspiration for my order of magnitude increase argument.

Wait! Watches aren't living things, and organisms are; argument fails. Not so fast.

Evolution works on living populations of organisms. Individuals don't evolve - populations do. Now, even the simplest of cells is anything but simple. The simplest of cells are complex living organisms comprised of synergized systems. They follow the same basic form and function of every other known machine.

INPUT - PROCESS - OUTPUT

Now, let's say we want to create a machine - a living machine. First of all, no known machine ever - EVER - is the result of a conglomeration of components. A machine is a fashioned synergy of components; created by intelligence and directed force. The basic components of any machine - ANY MACHINE - that you can think of or even imagine; cannot assemble themselves. Assembly requires intelligence and directed effort.

How is it possible that the very first of any cell assembled itself from its basic components? It isn't. Let this first point sink in. It is physically impossible for a complex system like a living cell to have arisen as a chance assembly. Period.

To Be Continued.

[Guyver]

Now in addition to being a living system capable of energy input, process, and transfer we have some other aspects to consider which represent and Order of Magnitude Increase, that is impossible to arise from any other method besides directed force and planning or intelligence. The watchmaker direct comparison argument.

Let's say that we want to build a watch. This watch is comprised of a metal casing, a multitude of complex gears, the hands of the watch are designed through careful calculation and effort to correspond to the hours of the day. The watch must store and process energy so that it will run and fulfill it's purpose which is to indicate time. Let's say that all these components, the design and fabrication of these components, the skillful assembly of these components and their final form and function represent effort and planning equivalent to a number (n). Let's say hypothetically that this number is 10 to the fifth exponent. 10 exp 5.

Now, let's say that we also want this watch to be able to make other little watches. We want this watch to be able to replicate itself. In addition to the basic 10 exp 5 effort and design, we must now incorporate an order of magnitude increase to the engineering, planning and development of the watch. Instead of just being a time telling device, is has to have a miniature factory inside it which can create little watches. We must increase the complexity of the system. Let's say that this order of magnitude increase of this complexity represents a 10 exp 50 amount of data.

Further, in addition to being able to create little watches in our miniature factory; we want this "special" watch to be able to diagnose any problems which may arise during manufacturing and operation. This would absolutely be necessary; as the greater the amount of complexity in any ordered system; the greater to opportunity for a system failure. Let's say that the additional requirements of planning and effort represent an additional sum of 10 exp 25 which takes us up to 10 exp 75 increase in effort and manufacturing.

To be continued.

[Guyver]

And lastly; we want our special watch to not only create little watches, replicas of itself, and also want this watch to be able to identify any problems which may occur in itself or it's little watch-producing factory; but we want to build within the system the ability to fix any problems that may arise.

So, we must now plan for another order of magnitude increase in complexity. Any order of magnitude increase in complexity carries with it the necessary increase in information or planning as well as additional system components.

Now, we need another complex system inside of our watch that can function in synergy with the other internal systems, it must be able to communicate with the other systems, to receive information from the diagnostic system, and have the capacity to fix the problems which will inevitably arise. Let's say that this additional system requires a number representing information, complexity, and extra parts of 10 exp 25. We are now up to 10 exp 100 bits of information necessary to make our system work.

Now, this is a direct comparison to a living cell; because this is exactly what cells do.

It is the necessary intelligence that is required to synergize any complex system representing order of magnitude increase that necessitates a designer.

This is why all complex systems are proof of intelligent design. This concludes my argument for intelligent design.

[eight bits]

First of all, no known machine ever - EVER - is the result of a conglomeration of components.

A log raft is.

The example disposes of

How is it possible that the very first of any cell assembled itself from its basic components?

The log raft is an example of a boat that builds itself. In time, more complex boats came to exist. Navigenesis.

(The general relevant category to which the log raft belongs is self-assembling system, searchable.)

I also enjoyed your order-of-magnitude increase in the complexity of the watchmaker fallacy.

The fact remains that you wish to argue from the existence of human engineered machines to the impossibility of any other kind of machine. And you don't. You just keep saying "Behold, a watch." Yes, very nice watch.

I will also renew my objection to the conclusion you wish to draw from your analogy.

This watch is comprised of a metal casing, a multitude of complex gears, the hands of the watch are designed through careful calculation and effort to correspond to the hours of the day. The watch must store and process energy so that it will run and fulfill it's purpose which is to indicate time.

No single, individual watchmaker working alone has ever located a source of ore, mined it, refined the metal from it, made his or her own watchmkaing tools, ..., stayed with the watch to attend that it remains properly wound for the rest of its service life.

The single watchmaker does not even fashion the workbench seat that holds up his or her butt, a necessary condition for the watch to be made.

Obviously, however prominent a role the single self-designated "watchmaker" may play, he or she is one member of a vast society of makers who collectively bring it about that a watch gets made.

I conclude, then, that there must similarly be a society of intelligent designers, in order to account for the intelligently jury-rigged design we see all around us. The true gods are many; perhaps yours is one of them. Perhaps like the human "watchmaker," he takes credit for the contributions of the many gods, all of whose work comes together in an actual watch.

Arguments by analogy are ladydogs, Guyver. Four star ladydogs.

-

Edited March 3, 2010 by eight bits

[Guyver]

The log raft is an example of a boat that builds itself. In time, more complex boats came to exist. Navigenesis.

Obviously, however prominent a role the single self-designated "watchmaker" may play, he or she is one member of a vast society of makers who collectively bring it about that a watch gets made.

I conclude, then, that there must similarly be a society of intelligent designers, in order to account for the intelligently jury-rigged design we see all around us. The true gods are many; perhaps yours is one of them. Perhaps like the human "watchmaker," he takes credit for the contributions of the many gods, all of whose work comes together in an actual watch.

Arguments by analogy are ladydogs, Guyver. Four star ladydogs.

Well, I take some small comfort that someone as intelligent as yourself at least gives my argument four stars!

I do have to object to your log raft comparison. That's not a very good example of a self assembling machine at all. It has no complex systems whatsoever, and logs float. Without an intelligent agent to tie the logs together, you would not have a seaworthy craft, and you would be putting you life at great risk if you attempted to "ride" one of the natural ones. So, without the intelligent agent, you have nothing more than an accumulation of floating matter, much like the chemical elements of the primordial soup or pond.

[+Sherapy]

And lastly; we want our special watch to not only create little watches, replicas of itself, and also want this watch to be able to identify any problems which may occur in itself or it's little watch-producing factory; but we want to build within the system the ability to fix any problems that may arise.

So, we must now plan for another order of magnitude increase in complexity. Any order of magnitude increase in complexity carries with it the necessary increase in information or planning as well as additional system components.

Now, we need another complex system inside of our watch that can function in synergy with the other internal systems, it must be able to communicate with the other systems, to receive information from the diagnostic system, and have the capacity to fix the problems which will inevitably arise. Let's say that this additional system requires a number representing information, complexity, and extra parts of 10 exp 25. We are now up to 10 exp 100 bits of information necessary to make our system work.

Now, this is a direct comparison to a living cell; because this is exactly what cells do.

It is the necessary intelligence that is required to synergize any complex system representing order of magnitude increase that necessitates a designer.

This is why all complex systems are proof of intelligent design. This concludes my argument for intelligent design.

Guyv, Wow! I have to say at least you picked the argument that is inducted from a watch, (as opposed to 'pure reason') This 'gem' was first put forth by Ionian Greek philosopher's it has an interesting history, in a nut shell the understanding of causes becomes the prevailing thought, which was a far cry from forest sprites , lightening g-d's and Jupiter making mud pies after a rain storm.....

of course we know that Darwin and Lyelle would provide the alternative hypothesis that would account for this biological order..

generally the only time we see this argument used, is a defense trying to preserve/promote the literalism of Genesis.....

Or as 8ty said its an argument from analogy...

Edited March 3, 2010 by S♥ ♥ ♥

[eight bits]

Without an intelligent agent to tie the logs together, you would not have a seaworthy craft, and you would be putting you life at great risk if you attempted to "ride" one of the natural ones.

Not in the timber business, I see. People rode the rafts, Guyver. Yes, some people died doing so. We are talking about a primitive form of transport, not a regulated common carrier.

So, without the intelligent agent, you have nothing more than an accumulation of floating matter, much like the chemical elements of the primordial soup or pond.

First, that isn't factually true. The floating matter and medium organizes itself to achieve its minimum energy configuration, and does so reliably under a wide variety of initial conditions.

Second, I see you're still using the singular form of intelligent agent, after three conclusive arguments that the plural, and only the plural, is justified. To recap, those arguments were, in ascending order of theological merit:

[1] There is no evidence of unicity of intention in the design of even the simplest organism.

[2] The watchmaker argument clearly shows that a society of intelligent agents is needed to make even something as simple as a watch.

[3] I wrote a story, using a pseudonym, about having had a dream in which a god told me what happened.

I am surprised that the thread continues. Must be those pictures of hot rods.

[Raptor]

Now, let's say we want to create a machine - a living machine. First of all, no known machine ever - EVER - is the result of a conglomeration of components. A machine is a fashioned synergy of components; created by intelligence and directed force. The basic components of any machine - ANY MACHINE - that you can think of or even imagine; cannot assemble themselves. Assembly requires intelligence and directed effort.

Good set of posts there, Guyver. Unfortunately there's a fallacy tucked away in this one.

Life itself actually is a very good candidate for an entire range of machines that have assembled themselves. What you're doing here is taking it for granted that organisms didn't assemble themselves (#1), in order to back up your argument that no machines have ever assembled themselves (#2), in order to back up your argument that life couldn't have assembled itself (#3).

It's a circular argument, you might as well have just stopped at point #1 as that alone reaches the conclusion you tried to arrive at with point #3; but now I'm going to have to remind you that point #1 has not been validated. I'd go so far as to call it an entirely baseless assumption.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Raptor

[Superglobe]

I apologize if this has been brought up before, I don't currently have the time to read all eleven pages of this thread.

But isn't this a false dichotomy? (sp?) If there were an omnipotent God, I don't see why he couldn't (or wouldn't, it'd be easier than doing it all himself) set up an evolutionary system. Would that not be both Intelligent Design and Natural Selection?

[Guyver]

I apologize if this has been brought up before, I don't currently have the time to read all eleven pages of this thread.

But isn't this a false dichotomy? (sp?) If there were an omnipotent God, I don't see why he couldn't (or wouldn't, it'd be easier than doing it all himself) set up an evolutionary system. Would that not be both Intelligent Design and Natural Selection?

Yes! And that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. :]

[Guyver]

[1] There is no evidence of unicity of intention in the design of even the simplest organism.

[2] The watchmaker argument clearly shows that a society of intelligent agents is needed to make even something as simple as a watch.

[3] I wrote a story, using a pseudonym, about having had a dream in which a god told me what happened.

I am surprised that the thread continues. Must be those pictures of hot rods.

Well, I'm glad people liked the hot rods, but they sure weren't saying so. As to the bold. I did write this argument under a pseudonym, but I didn't claim God told me. I claimed I figured it out during sleep. But that's not true. I went to sleep thinking about it, and when I awoke, I had the idea that small changes do not account for Order of Magnitude Increases.

[Mainpoint]

I'm not criticizing your analogy, such much as highlighting the differences.

I'd certainly agree with you that only part of something need be analogous to help understand something else, but its important to be aware of the differences.

So Copasetic Answer me this

So you say Evolution is randomness right. Randomness implies no extroneous factors can play a role right there cannot be soemthing systemic that can effect the equation.

Agreed

What if I tell you there exists now a systemic error that can throw evolution awry. That systemic error is humans.

Humans have aquired the ability to manipulate DNA and RNA. Instead of evolution being random it can be systemically guided now.

If this is possible now? How cant it be possible beforehand?

[eight bits]

But isn't this a false dichotomy? (sp?) If there were an omnipotent God, I don't see why he couldn't (or wouldn't, it'd be easier than doing it all himself) set up an evolutionary system. Would that not be both Intelligent Design and Natural Selection?

Yes! And that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. :]

No, it isn't Guyver. You have been arguing that is necessary for there to be at least one intelligent designer. Natural selection holds that no intelligent designers are necessary.

So: welcome aboard, Spain Sun. The two hypotheses, intelligent design and natural selection, are mutually exclusive. Thus, there is no false dichotomy.

You are correct, of course, that the gods could have chosen to set up some other kind of "guided" evolutionary system, as opposed to a system of evolution by natural selection. Guyver agrees that evolution occurs, as do his opponents in debate. Thus, the disagreement in this thread concerns natural selection alone.

As to the bold. I did write this argument under a pseudonym, but I didn't claim God told me. I claimed I figured it out during sleep.

Not you, Guyver, me. Post # 96:

Theophany followed. My lord Wotan came to me in a dream and asked, "What kind of horse does the camel most resemble?'

"A horse designed by a committee, my Lord." I laughed.

"Why do you laugh? I chaired that committee."

So, there you have it. The word of one of the many true gods, as revealed to his prophet, according to the ordinary and usual manner in which religious knowledge is acquired.

Edited March 4, 2010 by eight bits

[Guyver]

No, it isn't Guyver. You have been arguing that is necessary for there to be at least one intelligent designer. Natural selection holds that no intelligent designers are necessary.

You are correct, of course, that the gods could have chosen to set up some other kind of "guided" evolutionary system, as opposed to a system of evolution by natural selection. Guyver agrees that evolution occurs, as do his opponents in debate. Thus, the disagreement in this thread concerns natural selection alone.

Not you, Guyver, me. Post # 96:

Theophany followed. My lord Wotan came to me in a dream and asked, "What kind of horse does the camel most resemble?'

"A horse designed by a committee, my Lord." I laughed.

"Why do you laugh? I chaired that committee."

So, there you have it. The word of one of the many true gods, as revealed to his prophet, according to the ordinary and usual manner in which religious knowledge is acquired.

OK - I think I see now - referring to the bold. I wasn't exactly sure where you were coming from there. I thought you were quoting a poem. I didn't ask about it because I felt like I was doing enough talking already and I had bigger fish to fry at the time.

As to your other points about the "gods." I haven't addressed that yet either because I wanted to hear people discuss my actual arguments before the thread morphs.

Your other points are pretty accurate. But, I'm not really arguing against evolution, or it's primary mechanism; Natural Selection. I'm granting that they do occur and probably function just as is theorized, and can be observed. It's hard to argue with that much data. But, I am saying that evolution or natural selection is insufficient as an explanation for the first complex organisms. Eventually, I would like to argue that the first populations were created by God, as the Bible says, and that evolution and natural selection are just simply natural forces that can be observed now, and after the first organisms were formed. This introduces an entire host of other problems with the fossile record, but I think they can be addressed.

Anyway, someone said "If you build it they will come" in one of my other threads. I think I've built a pretty good argument. If it can withstand the forces of skeptical criticism here; then maybe I'm on to something. So, I'm just waiting until all the skeptics have weighed in.

[Copasetic]

So Copasetic Answer me this

So you say Evolution is randomness right. Randomness implies no extroneous factors can play a role right there cannot be soemthing systemic that can effect the equation.

Agreed

What if I tell you there exists now a systemic error that can throw evolution awry. That systemic error is humans.

Humans have aquired the ability to manipulate DNA and RNA. Instead of evolution being random it can be systemically guided now.

If this is possible now? How cant it be possible beforehand?

What is the point of me responding, if you're not going to read it and simply make up what I'm saying-Then argue against it....?

At no point did I say evolution is random. I've corrected creationists, IDists and even gone out of my way to correct 'evolutionists'.

Evolution is not random, because random evolution would never be capable of building complexity, form and function. Evolution happens via selection and selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals in a population. Hence, the exact opposite of random...

As far as your 'point', humans have been manipulating DNA for thousands, even tens of thousands of years. What is your point. Again, evolution happens by selection-Whether this be artificial, sexual or natural selection evolution is still 'guided'.

[+Sherapy]

OK - I think I see now - referring to the bold. I wasn't exactly sure where you were coming from there. I thought you were quoting a poem. I didn't ask about it because I felt like I was doing enough talking already and I had bigger fish to fry at the time.

As to your other points about the "gods." I haven't addressed that yet either because I wanted to hear people discuss my actual arguments before the thread morphs.

Your other points are pretty accurate. But, I'm not really arguing against evolution, or it's primary mechanism; Natural Selection. I'm granting that they do occur and probably function just as is theorized, and can be observed. It's hard to argue with that much data. But, I am saying that evolution or natural selection is insufficient as an explanation for the first complex organisms. Eventually, I would like to argue that the first populations were created by God, as the Bible says, and that evolution and natural selection are just simply natural forces that can be observed now, and after the first organisms were formed. This introduces an entire host of other problems with the fossile record, but I think they can be addressed.

Anyway, someone said "If you build it they will come" in one of my other threads. I think I've built a pretty good argument. If it can withstand the forces of skeptical criticism here; then maybe I'm on to something. So, I'm just waiting until all the skeptics have weighed in.

I have never seen any one on here grow as intellectually as you have, with such lightening speed and I am rooting for you ..

but the teleological argument is a slippery slope guyv...

I'll keep checking back....Tee hee

[+Sherapy]

What is the point of me responding, if you're not going to read it and simply make up what I'm saying-Then argue against it....?

At no point did I say evolution is random. I've corrected creationists, IDists and even gone out of my way to correct 'evolutionists'.

Evolution is not random, because random evolution would never be capable of building complexity, form and function. Evolution happens via selection and selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals in a population. Hence, the exact opposite of random...

As far as your 'point', humans have been manipulating DNA for thousands, even tens of thousands of years. What is your point. Again, evolution happens by selection-Whether this be artificial, sexual or natural selection evolution is still 'guided'.

[Copasetic]

Now in addition to being a living system capable of energy input, process, and transfer we have some other aspects to consider which represent and Order of Magnitude Increase, that is impossible to arise from any other method besides directed force and planning or intelligence. The watchmaker direct comparison argument.

Let's say that we want to build a watch. This watch is comprised of a metal casing, a multitude of complex gears, the hands of the watch are designed through careful calculation and effort to correspond to the hours of the day. The watch must store and process energy so that it will run and fulfill it's purpose which is to indicate time. Let's say that all these components, the design and fabrication of these components, the skillful assembly of these components and their final form and function represent effort and planning equivalent to a number (n). Let's say hypothetically that this number is 10 to the fifth exponent. 10 exp 5.

Now, let's say that we also want this watch to be able to make other little watches. We want this watch to be able to replicate itself. In addition to the basic 10 exp 5 effort and design, we must now incorporate an order of magnitude increase to the engineering, planning and development of the watch. Instead of just being a time telling device, is has to have a miniature factory inside it which can create little watches. We must increase the complexity of the system. Let's say that this order of magnitude increase of this complexity represents a 10 exp 50 amount of data.

Further, in addition to being able to create little watches in our miniature factory; we want this "special" watch to be able to diagnose any problems which may arise during manufacturing and operation. This would absolutely be necessary; as the greater the amount of complexity in any ordered system; the greater to opportunity for a system failure. Let's say that the additional requirements of planning and effort represent an additional sum of 10 exp 25 which takes us up to 10 exp 75 increase in effort and manufacturing.

To be continued.

Hey Guyver, not trying to be grouchy or overly-critical here (just got back from the gym, so going to be brief), but there is a lot of problems I see with this-From a fundamentals of biology standpoint.

For instance, one thing you don't seem to be considering is that selection happens (mostly) at the level of the organism--However we may wish to define organism. Which means, these systems weren't/aren't built sequentially, necessarily. Selection works on all aspects of the organism at once and the 'averaged' weighting we give the organism (moreover it's genotype) we dub fitness.

Also, while I granted you the analogy of the 'biological machine', I believe you've taken it too far in this analogy. Sure cells are neat, but you can just as easily say cells suck. Because of the failure of these "wonderfully engineered" cells, we most often die or are put into great peril until the intervention of well designed modern medicine can interject.

Finally, you seem to make a lot of over generalized assumptions about cells and how they reproduce. Some cells certainly have proof-reading mechanisms, which I think you were referring too at one point. Other cells, more simple ones lack them. In the game of watches, some cannot even reproduce themselves without the aid of other watches. As in the case of many of the Mycobacteriums.

Finally, this analogy still doesn't seem to account for selection happening on genomes. Remember that, no one said the first watch had to have all those attributes you attribute to it. In fact, I've made it a point to say that something doesn't need to be 'living' to evolve.

Remember NS summed up;

1. Variation

2. Heritability

3. Competition

4. Differential survival and reproduction.

Going back to the dice game, one 6 is better than no 6's. So any change to the hereditary material which imparts the slightest, most immeasurable characteristic of a 'modern' beneficial system, will provide the basis for positive improvement to fitness.

You still seem hung up on wanting to roll all your 6's at once. Again, that's not the case. Did that dice analogy not help?

Edited March 4, 2010 by Copasetic

[Mainpoint]

[Mainpoint]

What is the point of me responding, if you're not going to read it and simply make up what I'm saying-Then argue against it....?

At no point did I say evolution is random. I've corrected creationists, IDists and even gone out of my way to correct 'evolutionists'.

Evolution is not random, because random evolution would never be capable of building complexity, form and function. Evolution happens via selection and selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals in a population. Hence, the exact opposite of random...

As far as your 'point', humans have been manipulating DNA for thousands, even tens of thousands of years. What is your point. Again, evolution happens by selection-Whether this be artificial, sexual or natural selection evolution is still 'guided'.

Evolution happens via selection and selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals in a population..........right

What if there is no longer selection you survive because of who you are. Selection pressure simply ceases to exist. Isnt thats what happening now a person who is different can or may have in future their genes manipulated to be brought back to "normalcy". Genetic diseases are now curable. The very crux of evolution the DNA is not allowed to evolve anymore? BActeria have DNA right put in certain environments they evolved into something right FIsh too has DNA but it is different same with simians. The buck seems to have stopped at homo sapiens.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mainpoint

[Copasetic]

Evolution happens via selection and selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals in a population..........right

What if there is no longer selection you survive because of who you are. Selection pressure simply ceased to exist. Isnt thats what happening now a person who is different can or may have in future their genes manipulated to be brought back to "normalcy". Genetic diseases are now curable. The very crux of evolution the DNA is not allowed to evolve anymore? BActeria have DNA right put in certain environments they evolved into something right FIsh too has DNA but it is different same with simians. The buck seems to have stopped at homo sapiens.

Ever hear of HIV/AIDs? Tuberculosis? Giardia? Corynebacterium diphtheriae? MRSA? Teen car wrecks?

Evolution still certainly happens to us. Sure some selection pressures, which may have been more prominent in the past have been lessened by our technology, but there is still many people dying before reproductive age and many people out reproducing others. The basic tenets of evolution by selection.

As far as 'curing' genetic diseases, which ones? Certainly we have medicines to treat diseases and their symptoms, but very few genetic diseases do we posses the necessary skill to 'cure'. Gene therapy is still new and treatments are very limited.

There was an interesting review done of some 700 plus genes in humans which have recent strong selective pressures (evolution), if your interested in it-I'm sure I can dig it out.