A
Aloysium
Guest
Your comments have been noted.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I think I will have to agree with you that the large crystalline structure pictured way above is not a good example of complexity arising spontaneously. What it is a good example of is a very non-random structure arising from seemingly random processes. This is also what happens in evolution. A very non-random structure of a particular species arises partly through a seemingly random process of mutations. In both cases the initial randomness is selectively played out only in the direction of furthering a non-random outcome.
There is another instance of something like this in manufacturing. There is something called a shaker machine that employs a very old technology to align a batch of parts for subsequent handling in automated assembly. Initially a box of hundreds of parts are dumped randomly in the bowl where the whole bowl is shaking. This bowl has cleverly-placed ramps and obstructions that guide the parts uphill (due to the shaking) toward their eventual exit. If any part is not in the correct orientation on the ramp, it meets an obstruction that runs it off the ramp and back to the bottom of the bowl to try again later. Meanwhile, the exit ramp is filled with a nice line of correctly-oriented parts where they can continue into the automated assembly machine. This device has no computer, no electronics of any sort, save the one simply shaker motor. It is all done with fixed mechanical construction. It uses the random shaking of the parts in the bowl to produce a very non-random line of parts.
I see the random shaking motor as analogous to genetic mutations, and the ramps and obstructions along the sides of the bowl as analogous to natural selection in evolution.
E
edwest
Guest
No real comparison. The example uses Intelligent Design.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Of course it does. Like all analogies, they are not meant to illuminate every single aspect of a thing. My analogy, for example, is only meant to illustrate how order can come from chaos through nothing more than selection. There was no intelligence placing the parts in the correct orientation on the shaker ramp. Some were randomly in the correct orientation and some were not. There was no intelligence involved in their initial orientation. The obstructions along the way did not “fix” the orientation of the incorrectly-oriented parts. The obstructions only selected the ones that were right, allowing only those to proceed up the ramp.
Now if you want to argue that the kind of selection that takes place in evolution is actually “intelligent” selection (as opposed to “natural” selection) that would be a different argument, and if you want to take up the cause, I would gladly debate you on that.
A
Aloysium
Guest
That is the problem with evolutionary theories, that except for true believers, it is untenable.
A living being is a complex system, not merely a complicated one. The sum of the parts far excedes and cannot predict the outcome, which is the over-riding reality of the independent organism, which in turn is also a constituent part of the larger system, the whole of the environment.
This may point to the essential problem, that concepts having to do with the workings of matter, utilized in the production of goods like this computer have been misappropriated in the understanding of life. It is all well and good to research anatomy and physiology and develop new treatment modalities in surgery and medicine, but we have to remember the unity that is the person, who exists and was created as a whole, beginning with one man.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
I think I would like to be a “Bag-like sea creature” - sounds like fun!
T
Techno2000
Guest
Until you get eaten…then it’s a whole new different ball game.rossum:
I think I would like to be a “Bag-like sea creature” - sounds like fun!
R
rossum
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
E
Edgar
Guest
Speaking of Jonah, I think there’s good theological reasons to believe that Jonah actually died inside the “whale” and was later resurrected - both from the original OT account and the fact that Jesus referred to “the sign of Jonah” in response to the Pharisees, which specifically referred to HIs own Resurrection.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
I know for a fact that a large drug company in America gave $100 million to a research institute based in New York whose scientists regularly use the theory of Darwin’s tree of common descent to formulate “techniques” designed to fight disease (this information came from the horse’s mouth - a senior genetics scientist employed by said institute).
And surprise, surprise … it seems that none of these Darwin-based “techniques” have yet proven successful in fighting any disease at all, or in proving useful in any way in any form of applied science.
It actually kinda scary to know to what extent Darwin’s tree has cast a spell over the mentality of scientists and their fundamental approach to not just theoretical biology, but applied biology as well.
And surprise, surprise … it seems that none of these Darwin-based “techniques” have yet proven successful in fighting any disease at all, or in proving useful in any way in any form of applied science.
It actually kinda scary to know to what extent Darwin’s tree has cast a spell over the mentality of scientists and their fundamental approach to not just theoretical biology, but applied biology as well.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Francis H. Arnold won the Nobel Prize this year. From the Wiki article…
Arnold is credited with pioneering the use of directed evolution to create enzymes (biochemical molecules—often proteins—that catalyze, or speed up, chemical reactions) with improved and/or novel functions.[17] The directed evolution strategy involves iterative rounds of randomly mutating proteins’ genes and screening for proteins with improved functions and it has been used to create useful biological systems, including enzymes, metabolic pathways, genetic regulatory circuits, and organisms. In nature, evolution by natural selection can lead to proteins (including enzymes) well-suited to carry out biological tasks, but natural selection can only act on existing sequence variations (mutations) and typically occurs over long time periods.[18] Arnold speeds up the process by introducing mutations in the underlying sequences of proteins; she then tests these mutations’ effects. If a mutation improves the proteins’ function she can keep iterating the process to optimize it further. This strategy has broad implications because it can be used to design proteins for a wide variety of applications.[19] For example, she has used directed evolution to design enzymes that can be used to produce renewable fuels and pharmaceutical compounds with less harm to the environment.[17]
Arnold is credited with pioneering the use of directed evolution to create enzymes (biochemical molecules—often proteins—that catalyze, or speed up, chemical reactions) with improved and/or novel functions.[17] The directed evolution strategy involves iterative rounds of randomly mutating proteins’ genes and screening for proteins with improved functions and it has been used to create useful biological systems, including enzymes, metabolic pathways, genetic regulatory circuits, and organisms. In nature, evolution by natural selection can lead to proteins (including enzymes) well-suited to carry out biological tasks, but natural selection can only act on existing sequence variations (mutations) and typically occurs over long time periods.[18] Arnold speeds up the process by introducing mutations in the underlying sequences of proteins; she then tests these mutations’ effects. If a mutation improves the proteins’ function she can keep iterating the process to optimize it further. This strategy has broad implications because it can be used to design proteins for a wide variety of applications.[19] For example, she has used directed evolution to design enzymes that can be used to produce renewable fuels and pharmaceutical compounds with less harm to the environment.[17]
E
Edgar
Guest
Don’t be fooled by the words “evolution” and “directed evolution” - you will find that they refer here to microevolution only, based on mutations and natural selection. In other words, the technique it is not dependent in way on Darwin’s tree of common descent.
Remember Edgar’s Axiom:
Nothing in applied biology makes sense in the light of Darwin’s tree of common descent.
Remember Edgar’s Axiom:
Nothing in applied biology makes sense in the light of Darwin’s tree of common descent.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Well, actual work still gets done by trial and error.
E
Edgar
Guest
Yes, I’m not disputing that at all. My point is that approaching applied science with Darwin’s tree has proven utterly fruitless and has wasted God knows how much time, effort, money and talent.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Let’s look at it like this. Researchers may believe evolution has a role to play but they do their work regardless. They would be out of a job, and funding, if they did not solve the problems put in front of them. Investors expect results. Sure, there have been dead ends, but research is, as far as I can tell, accelerating.
E
Edgar
Guest
I agree with all you’ve said. Thankfully, it is evident that a great deal of research is not based on the theory of Darwin’s tree! I’m not aware of any research based on the D-tree that has proven practically useful.
B
buffalo
Guest
The tree is gone and is now a tangled bush.
E
Edgar
Guest
It’s my understanding that the SIFTER tool has proven useful, but as far as I know it’s not dependent in an way on the theory of Darwin’s tree.
Last edited:
- Status