GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

07-04-2004, 10:04 PM

(jrh) wrote in news:UfZcc.1656$qV6.628@fed1read04:

In article ,
says...

Falacy 1.

A mutation in an HOX gene can result in new structures.

If the code for the structure is already there, a mutation could
activate it, but it would not the the cause of the structure.

False.

Falacy 2

The designers only have to design the program because
computers require programs to be designed.
Nature doesn't work that way.

The laws of information apply to everything. Once the need
for design is established, it applies to nature.

False again.

Question 1.

Then why do genetic algorithms work?

Genetic code is designed to work, that is why it works.

False again.

They don't require "oversight" to design new functions,
the only "oversight" required is to build the
simulation of natural processes.

This is a gross simplification with a faulty conclusion.

There is no "Carnot's Law" for information science.

But there is law just a deadly to ME (Mindless Evolution).

False again.

The genetic copying mechanism can not convert random
errors into complex working structures, because

information has a quantified value.

This is a true statement.

If the error is one bit, the most information
that can be added is one bit.

This is also a true statement.

If the new structure requires 1000 bits of information, that
information has to come from some where.

This is also a true statement.

It could be transfered from another species by a virus but
it could never come about by mutation or chance.

The speculation is from evolutionists trying to
explain evidence of sudden complex change.

Nonsense.

it contradicts "evolutionist" belief.

Don't be so stupid.

The AIDS virus uses
mutations as a defense, but that does not create anything.

It creates new, functional AIDS viruses.

Same virus, same disease, different outer covering which makes it
extremely difficult to develop a vaccine.

Oh, so there is a difference and they're still functional.

The virus may have more "intellegence" than evolutionists.

And insulting.

What "facts" are you refering to?

How it works, what the results are, what kinds of
inputs are required to get those results.

The above statement contains no facts!

Facts are facts.

It works because it was designed to work.
The results are ususlly as expected, but sometimes surprising.
The imputs are designed to get the desired results.
(out of range inputs could cause overflow errors and chaos)

Without direction it would just go in circles.

Spirals. The "direction" comes from the environment.

Spirals and circles both move around a point. If the
point, established by forces in the environment, is a
dead end, the directon needed for positive change
will be away from the point.

A lot of intellegent work is necessary for "evolution" to be of
any use solving problems.

The only thing that has to be designed for an evolutionary
algorithm to work is a simulation of the natural processes of
genetics.

Which is a task that requires a lot of creativity.

False again.

The need for creativity to resolve complex problems
associated with the origin of life is not made less
complex by assuming it is the result of more primitive
processes.

False again.

The initial state of an automation is as important as the
rules for the automation. If you make the "cell" smart
enough, you can remove the need for intellegent intervention
at the level of species. And if you make the atoms smart enough
you can remove the need for intellegent cells, etc. This shifting
transfers complexity from the intial state to more fundemental
properties and would cause great programing difficutlies.

Life from it's subatomic foundation to consciousnesses is not
the result of a mindless random process.

Dogmatic conclusion, reached without intelligence, from a whole series
of falsehoods.

jrh

It does not lessen the need for an intellegent designer, it
makes it greater, and all the evidence shows without a doubt
that physics has not evolved since the Universe was Created.

No, it doesn't show that at all.

The only reason life survives is because the genetic code has
many different ECC's operating that correct damaged
information, and make it "perfect". When the damage can not
be corrected, illness or death follow.

Most "errors" in the copying of DNA result in protein products
that still work, though with perhaps less efficiency.

I am sure there are many ways the genetic code corrects errors,
and if they can not be corrected, the organism usually dies.

*Usually* is the point here. When they don't, they pass on the
changes.

Which *Usually* cause defects in future generations.
etc.

And which *usually* get weeded out so that the *beneficial* changes
propagate.

Variations are not really *changes* in terms of new features, and
they may or may not be *beneficial* depending on the environment,
and in large population they are most likely redundant.

Then a breast isn't really a *change* from a sweat gland. And a heart
isn't really a *change* from a lung.

clip

Random processes can solve certain classes of problens, but
those processes have to be designed to use randomness,
if the random variables go out of bounds, the process crashes!

Once cells acquire the ability to support intellegence, the
attributes of God can enter into any cellular system and
control the process from within. The manifistation of
consciousness and intellegence within the biosphere is an
established fact.

Consciouness and intelligence are processes that execute on
(for now) biological computing systems (aka brains).

snip gibberish

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?