Quote:Systems are made of subsystems and components.

Wrong 

Quote:Also, maybe the redundancy isn't necessary for these molecular machines in the designer's eyes although there is redundancy found everywhere in nature. For instance, the human body plan. Look at all the redundancy built in.

Which didn't answer his question

(December 2, 2018 at 6:36 am)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:Systems are made of subsystems and components.

Wrong 

Quote:Also, maybe the redundancy isn't necessary for these molecular machines in the designer's eyes although there is redundancy found everywhere in nature. For instance, the human body plan. Look at all the redundancy built in.

Which didn't answer his question

What's his question?  Whether I am here to preach?  No, I am not.

Ah, CDF...
Microevolution happens, but no macroevolution, huh?

You say you're an engineer, so I'm going to assume that you have the ability to write a computer program, even if just a simple one in a simple language, like Python.
Let's play god and create life. Create a class which you will call Lifeform.
This class needs only the ability to replicate itself and to survive. Each of these have a certain probability of happening at a given time.
Both for survival and replication, it needs materials from the outside, it needs to feed itself.
Generate a "world" with many such lifeforms and add some sources of materials. For your simplicity, you can make this world in 2D and restrict everything to a square or circle.
These Lifeforms will also need some meta information, like their position, speed, ability for locomotion, protection, size, etc.... you're god, you dream up their necessities.

Since Lifeform material is easier to integrate into each other than the other material lying around in the world, Lifeforms will find it easier to extract materials from other Lifeforms. So, when they come together, there will be a certain probability that a Lifeforms eats another Lifeform. This probability will depend on the locomotion and protection meta info. Size should also play a role, as it's easier for a larger Lifeform to eat a smaller one.

As time goes by, those Lifeforms with materials to spare above their survival requirements, can replicate.
With each time such replication, you need to add a random "mutation". This mutation causes the meta information details to change.

Let the system run for a while and then peek inside and see how those details have changed from the ones you started with.
Of course, in your system only the metadata you allow to change will change, but do try to figure out by how much it changes and try to see if that could be considered a different species from what you began with.

(December 2, 2018 at 6:58 am)pocaracas Wrote: Ah, CDF...
Microevolution happens, but no macroevolution, huh?

You say you're an engineer, so I'm going to assume that you have the ability to write a computer program, even if just a simple one in a simple language, like Python.
Let's play god and create life. Create a class which you will call Lifeform.
This class needs only the ability to replicate itself and to survive. Each of these have a certain probability of happening at a given time.
Both for survival and replication, it needs materials from the outside, it needs to feed itself.
Generate a "world" with many such lifeforms and add some sources of materials. For your simplicity, you can make this world in 2D and restrict everything to a square or circle.
These Lifeforms will also need some meta information, like their position, speed, ability for locomotion, protection, size, etc.... you're god, you dream up their necessities.

Since Lifeform material is easier to integrate into each other than the other material lying around in the world, Lifeforms will find it easier to extract materials from other Lifeforms. So, when they come together, there will be a certain probability that a Lifeforms eats another Lifeform. This probability will depend on the locomotion and protection meta info. Size should also play a role, as it's easier for a larger Lifeform to eat a smaller one.

As time goes by, those Lifeforms with materials to spare above their survival requirements, can replicate.
With each time such replication, you need to add a random "mutation". This mutation causes the meta information details to change.

Let the system run for a while and then peek inside and see how those details have changed from the ones you started with.
Of course, in your system only the metadata you allow to change will change, but do try to figure out by how much it changes and try to see if that could be considered a different species from what you began with.

Yeah, I took FORTRAN at the university.  I thought about your scenario.  What are you getting at with it though?

(December 2, 2018 at 7:09 am)CDF47 Wrote: Yeah, I took FORTRAN at the university.  I thought about your scenario.  What are you getting at with it though?

FORTRAN? Damn... that will take forever and you'll give up before the thing even runs.
Try Python. It's worth it. There's a free development environment that I use called PyCharm, community edition.
Give it a go. Use google to learn how to write a class and a program that uses this class to generate many of those Lifeforms and see them evolve.

Then, based on your results, you can ascertain for yourself if macroevolution is something to be accepted or not.
So far, you seem to reject it based on nothing. I'm asking you to see how microevolution works and whether a lot of micros do yield a macro.

(December 2, 2018 at 7:14 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 7:09 am)CDF47 Wrote: Yeah, I took FORTRAN at the university.  I thought about your scenario.  What are you getting at with it though?

FORTRAN? Damn... that will take forever and you'll give up before the thing even runs.
Try Python. It's worth it. There's a free development environment that I use called PyCharm, community edition.
Give it a go. Use google to learn how to write a class and a program that uses this class to generate many of those Lifeforms and see them evolve.

Then, based on your results, you can ascertain for yourself if macroevolution is something to be accepted or not.
So far, you seem to reject it based on nothing. I'm asking you to see how microevolution works and whether a lot of micros do yield a macro.

Yeah, the program was ancient when I got there.  When I took it was the last semester it was offered.  After that they went to C as the required language to be taken.  

I will have to check that out.

(December 2, 2018 at 7:14 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 7:09 am)CDF47 Wrote: Yeah, I took FORTRAN at the university.  I thought about your scenario.  What are you getting at with it though?

FORTRAN? Damn... that will take forever and you'll give up before the thing even runs.
Try Python. It's worth it. There's a free development environment that I use called PyCharm, community edition.
Give it a go. Use google to learn how to write a class and a program that uses this class to generate many of those Lifeforms and see them evolve.

Then, based on your results, you can ascertain for yourself if macroevolution is something to be accepted or not.
So far, you seem to reject it based on nothing. I'm asking you to see how microevolution works and whether a lot of micros do yield a macro.

But only plants

---

Quote:What's his question?  Whether I am here to preach?  No, I am not.

Nope

(December 2, 2018 at 6:25 am)CDF47 Wrote: Systems are made of subsystems and components

Why didnt you tell us then, for example, before i just told you?

(December 2, 2018 at 6:25 am)CDF47 Wrote: Also, maybe the redundancy isn't necessary for these molecular machines in the designer's eyes although there is redundancy found everywhere in nature.

You just claimed that, while redundancy can be seen everywhere in nature, its also possibly not needed. What a comfortable way to never be wrong. If a redundancy is there, its a design, because....redundancy is a hallmark of ID. If a redundancy is not there, its maybe not needed, because...ID.


You just explained molecular machines are designed, because they are so complex that they fail if a component fails. Yet failure (lacking redundancy) you say is maybe acceptable. If redundancy is not necessary, if fail is acceptable, why make your design so complex. A simpler design, prone to fail equally, would also have been acceptable. If a bacterium does not need to move, why design a flagellum that is complex and prone to failure. Why not design a bacterium without flagellum at all? Why design sone bacteria with one flagellum and other bacteria with multiple ones?
Gods ways are mysterious, right?

Oh, and are you pretending to not ever have heared of Ken Miller or his video debunking your nonsense. I wont post it, because you wont watch it, and if oyu did, and if oyu understood it, you still, after 100 more pages would bring this up. Rinse and repeat, like a preacher.

(December 2, 2018 at 6:25 am)CDF47 Wrote: For instance, the human body plan.  Look at all the redundancy built in.

Yes, just have a look at the two hearts we have for the single most important function (next to mind, which is seated within our brain).
Or maybe the two kidneys........we dont actually need, evidenced by all the people who had one to be removed.
Or possibly the two spines, which protect us from getting completely paralysed by a single incident.
Or the two balls, so we still can procreate after our single spine is broken or our single heart failed.
Lets have a look at the extra-sturdy design of the human neck, protecting vital signal channels so well that complete paralysis (= severed communication of brain with actuation) is almost impossible.
5 toes, we need 5 toes, 4 is totally inacceptable, and 6 is absolutely no option, right?

You know what an unnecessary redundancy is? A waste of resources and an increased risk of failure, due to the increased number of parts. A competent designer would know.
You know what i call a system without any redundancy or degradation for its single most and central functions, but unnecessary redundancies where they arent needed? A lousy system, prone to fail often (which the human body easily does when you look at all the easy ways to get killed). A competent designer would know.

A good system also has something called "plausibility", a countermeasure for receiving wrong input within the specified signal range. Have you ever wonderd why the human senses are so prone to sensory illusions? Why is there not plausibility check to prevent the human body from harm? Why is it that high temperatures actually feel like *cold*, easily leading to be burned, one of the most dangerous conditions to the human body we know (skin violated, barrier between body and environment broken down, body is open to invasion of all kinda deadly stuff). A competent designer would know better.

While specified complexity may or may not be the result of a design (or evolution), if so, it certainly is testament to an incompetent system engineer. Give him my number, i may be able to help him out.

Like i said, its not like you are going to try and actually absorb anything presented to you....you are here to preach gods word with scientific and faith based arguments, dont you?

---

(December 2, 2018 at 6:39 am)CDF47 Wrote: What's his question?  Whether I am here to preach?  No, I am not.

Yes, you are.

CDF47 Wrote:So I agree that is a really good idea and opportunity to preach God's Word.

(December 2, 2018 at 7:59 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 6:25 am)CDF47 Wrote: Systems are made of subsystems and components

Why didnt you tell us then, for example, before i just told you?

(December 2, 2018 at 6:25 am)CDF47 Wrote: Also, maybe the redundancy isn't necessary for these molecular machines in the designer's eyes although there is redundancy found everywhere in nature.

You just claimed that, while redundancy can be seen everywhere in nature, its also possibly not needed. What a comfortable way to never be wrong. If a redundancy is there, its a design, because....redundancy is a hallmark of ID. If a redundancy is not there, its maybe not needed, because...ID.


You just explained molecular machines are designed, because they are so complex that they fail if a component fails. Yet failure (lacking redundancy) you say is maybe acceptable.  If redundancy is not necessary, if fail is acceptable, why make your design so complex. A simpler design, prone to fail equally, would also have been acceptable. If a bacterium does not need to move, why design a flagellum that is complex and prone to failure. Why not design a bacterium without flagellum at all? Why design sone bacteria with one flagellum and other bacteria with multiple ones?
Gods ways are mysterious, right?

Oh, and are you pretending to not ever have heared of Ken Miller or his video debunking your nonsense. I wont post it, because you wont watch it, and if oyu did, and if oyu understood it, you still, after 100 more pages would bring this up. Rinse and repeat, like a preacher.

(December 2, 2018 at 6:25 am)CDF47 Wrote: For instance, the human body plan.  Look at all the redundancy built in.

Yes, just have a look at the two hearts we have for the single most important function (next to mind, which is seated within our brain).
Or maybe the two kidneys........we dont actually need, evidenced by all the people who had one to be removed.
Or possibly the two spines, which protect us from getting completely paralysed by a single incident.
Or the two balls, so we still can procreate after our single spine is broken or our single heart failed.
Lets have a look at the extra-sturdy design of the human neck, protecting vital signal channels so well that complete paralysis (= severed communication of brain with actuation) is almost impossible.
5 toes, we need 5 toes, 4 is totally inacceptable, and 6 is absolutely no option, right?

You know what an unnecessary redundancy is? A waste of resources and an increased risk of failure, due to the increased number of parts. A competent designer would know.
You know what i call a system without any redundancy or degradation for its single most and central functions, but unnecessary redundancies where they arent needed? A lousy system, prone to fail often (which the human body easily does when you look at all the easy ways to get killed). A competent designer would know.

A good system also has something called "plausibility", a countermeasure for receiving wrong input within the specified signal range. Have you ever wonderd why the human senses are so prone to sensory illusions? Why is there not plausibility check to prevent the human body from harm? Why is it that high temperatures actually feel like *cold*, easily leading to be burned, one of the most dangerous conditions to the human body we know (skin violated, barrier between body and environment broken down, body is open to invasion of all kinda deadly stuff). A competent designer would know better.

While specified complexity may or may not be the result of a design (or evolution), if so, it certainly is testament to an incompetent system engineer. Give him my number, i may be able to help him out.

Like i said, its not like you are going to try and actually absorb anything presented to you....you are here to preach gods word with scientific and faith based arguments, dont you?

---

(December 2, 2018 at 6:39 am)CDF47 Wrote: What's his question?  Whether I am here to preach?  No, I am not.

Yes, you are.

CDF47 Wrote:So I agree that is a really good idea and opportunity to preach God's Word.

Yes, our systems are designed to fail and we are designed to die.  That is the way it is.

---

By the way, there are no intermediates based on the fossil record.  Just series of explosions of life.  That is why I do not believe in macroevolution at this level (humans, animals,...).

Quote:Yes, our systems are designed to fail and we are designed to die.  That is the way it is.

Which is indistinguishable from a system that's simple isn't designed and the second part is simply an assertion  

Quote:By the way, there are no intermediates based on the fossil record.  Just series of explosions of life.  That is why I do not believe in macroevolution at this level (humans, animals,...).

False we have tons of them and your maybe up goal post distinction it occurs if you like it or not