(June 20, 2017 at 1:40 am)Astreja Wrote:

(June 18, 2017 at 11:50 pm)snowtracks Wrote: In the book - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker = “The Blind Watchmaker” Richard Dawkins demonstrated that natural selection requires intelligence; thereby completely invalidating the theory that the universe is not directed.
He uses a computer program to generate the Shakespeare phase “Me thinks it is like a weasel” to simulate how random mutations and natural selection could generate new functional information...

Snowtracks, I think you missed the point of Dawkins' computer programming experiment. IIRC (it's been a while since I read the book), he demonstrated two different algorithms.  One was completely random, and the other operated under an additional constraint:  If the correct letter lands in a slot, it stops changing while incorrect letters continue to mutate until they, too fit.

Similarly, evolution does not cause everyone's genes to randomly change to something else with each reproductive cycle.  Perhaps in the early days of DNA there was a lot of trial and error, and a lot of "experimental" genomes that appeared for a single generation before dying out, but over many generations the genomes that achieved a good fit with their environments achieved stability and a decreasing number of mutations, evolving into distinct and relatively unchanging forms.

(Disclaimer:  I am not a geneticist but I occasionally hang out with one.    This is strictly my own interpretation of what Dawkins was trying to say in The Blind Watchmaker, and is subject to correction and elaboration by real geneticists.)

The computer program was to demonstrate how natural pathway could result in pathways leading to greater complexity, but his involvement unwittingly demonstrated that intelligence was required.  Same thing is involved in attempting to create life-in-the-lab.
Has anyone noticed that the evolutionists never get around to the problem that when dead-end pathways are encounter, that the original less complex life form has to keep functioning while millions of failed pathways are attempted awaiting a 'go or no-go' signal back to the original life?

(June 20, 2017 at 11:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(June 20, 2017 at 1:40 am)Astreja Wrote: Snowtracks, I think you missed the point of Dawkins' computer programming experiment.... [snip]

The computer program was to demonstrate how natural pathway could result in pathways leading to greater complexity, but his involvement unwittingly demonstrated that intelligence was required.  Same thing is involved in attempting to create life-in-the-lab.

Has anyone noticed that the evolutionists never get around to the problem that when dead-end pathways are encounter, that the original less complex life form has to keep functioning while millions of failed pathways are attempted awaiting a 'go or no-go' signal back to the original life?

The only thing that is actually required is chemistry.  Stable organic molecules will be in a better position to aggregate into increasingly complex structures than unstable ones.

A biochemistry experiment on abiogenesis, properly set up, merely makes an educated guess at what chemical conditions may have been present in the early days of the Earth, creates a variety of chemical environments, puts safeguards in place to prevent contamination, and then leaves them alone to see what happens.  The objective is to determine the initial conditions and subsequent events, to refine theories on how life could have arisen from non-life once a proper chemical milieu was in place.  No gods required.

Could you please clarify your second paragraph?  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.  If you're asking something to the effect of "What happened to the amoebas when their offspring hit a wall trying to evolve into something bigger," the answer is simple:  An ancestral genetic line can just keep going if its environment permits.  It doesn't matter how many dead ends the offspring hit; as soon as a successful, viable combination is produced it will become a second ancestral line (and in the meantime, the original ancestor might produce additional successful descendants that are different from the first successful offspring).

(June 20, 2017 at 11:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The computer program was to demonstrate how natural pathway could result in pathways leading to greater complexity, but his involvement unwittingly demonstrated that intelligence was required.  Same thing is involved in attempting to create life-in-the-lab.

Next thing you'll tell us is that because a lab tech has to pour water in a bucket and put it in a freezer to turn it to ice....ice is not naturally occurring, and requires "intelligence".  Just no, and jesus h christ?  Those demonstrations show that specific conditions give rise to specific effects.  However those conditions are arrived at, via a lab tech, blind luck, or the turning wheels of the natural machine....those conditions will be sufficient.

(June 21, 2017 at 12:43 am)Astreja Wrote:

(June 20, 2017 at 11:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The computer program was to demonstrate how natural pathway could result in pathways leading to greater complexity, but his involvement unwittingly demonstrated that intelligence was required.  Same thing is involved in attempting to create life-in-the-lab.

Has anyone noticed that the evolutionists never get around to the problem that when dead-end pathways are encounter, that the original less complex life form has to keep functioning while millions of failed pathways are attempted awaiting a 'go or no-go' signal back to the original life?

The only thing that is actually required is chemistry.  Stable organic molecules will be in a better position to aggregate into increasingly complex structures than unstable ones.

A biochemistry experiment on abiogenesis, properly set up, merely makes an educated guess at what chemical conditions may have been present in the early days of the Earth, creates a variety of chemical environments, puts safeguards in place to prevent contamination, and then leaves them alone to see what happens.  The objective is to determine the initial conditions and subsequent events, to refine theories on how life could have arisen from non-life once a proper chemical milieu was in place.  No gods required.

Could you please clarify your second paragraph?  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.  If you're asking something to the effect of "What happened to the amoebas when their offspring hit a wall trying to evolve into something bigger," the answer is simple:  An ancestral genetic line can just keep going if its environment permits.  It doesn't matter how many dead ends the offspring hit; as soon as a successful, viable combination is produced it will become a second ancestral line (and in the meantime, the original ancestor might produce additional successful descendants that are different from the first successful offspring).

The parent cell dies out after replication. The new divided cell has been changed but unproven to replicate successfully. To have replication capabilities, complex systems need to be operational with DNA coding completely functional.

(June 21, 2017 at 11:11 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The parent cell dies out after replication. The new divided cell has been changed but unproven to replicate successfully. To have replication capabilities, complex systems need to be operational with DNA coding completely functional.

Well, many cell lines have died out, and only the ones that can continue to replicate have made it through to the present day.  DNA doesn't have to be completely functional in the early stages; it's just nucleotide soup until a winning combination shows up, but once there is a pool of stable DNA sequences and successful organisms there's something to build on.

This thread got really sciencey since the last time I checked in

I suppose on an atheist forum, the 2 lowest common denominators are fantasy vs reality.
The bible is the engine room for fantasy and science the engine room for reality.

And never the twain shall meet.

I liked the Harry Potter books, myself. The bible makes a crappy fantasy book.

I also enjoyed the Lord of the Rings way better than the bible. For starters, Sauron doesn't even care if I masterbate in the privacy of my own home! How's that for freedom!

(June 22, 2017 at 4:16 am)Losty Wrote: I liked the Harry Potter books, myself. The bible makes a crappy fantasy book.

The hell it does!

The Bible is a freaking awesome read if you skip all the Behoozebab begat Jehosaboo pages.

And the NT-- dude is changing water into wine, magically making fish and bread, walking on water and. . . coming back from the freaking dead!   
Then his followers start eating bread and pretending it's human flesh. Oh yeah, and how about Exodus? Raining frogs? Plagues and pestilence? Firstborn sons killed except those who make a magical circle of blood around their doors? I mean, how is this not the best D&D adventure you've ever read about?



Goddamn! that's some entertaining shit, right there.

---

(June 22, 2017 at 4:02 am)ignoramus Wrote: I suppose on an atheist forum, the 2 lowest common denominators are fantasy vs reality.
The bible is the engine room for fantasy and science the engine room for reality.

And never the twain shall meet.

. . . until you realize that science IS magic.  We just do it really well, now.