(March 16, 2014 at 10:28 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 10:02 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Nonsense. In theory it could be as "simple" and unconscious that under specific conditions light causes different atoms to self-organize into molecules and given the pressures of the surrounding environment, they survive only by copying themselves, with the help of symbiosis. There's no reason, on the Darwinian account, or any for that matter, to invoke anthropomorphic designers. Nature does the trick well enough on "her" own using genes.

I patiently await your demonstration of what you claim could in theory be simple. Until then I gotta go with what I observe. I observe that in order to replicate a Darwinian like evolutionary system, selection mechanisms need to be contrived and judgments need to be made on what is and isn't beneficial.

Have you ever read a book on evolution? Or specifically, genetics? I'm shocked that you're unaware of the basic process by which nature selects. Your questions and subsequent presumptions about conscious judgments seem to run more along the lines of "why" or personal incredulity ("why do people have five digits on each hand instead of eight? Ah, it must have been an intelligent judgement that five is better!")

---

The only requirements you need for a "fitness paradigm" to emerge are self-replicators that are at the mercy of limited resources. Not exactly the type of design you'd expect from an intelligent engineer.

(March 16, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm)Alex K Wrote: I'm bored... Heywood, your speculations have become tedious. Did you get your concept of Evolution from Star Trek?

Alex, if you are going to engage me in this way you move down on my list of people who I try to always respond too. Don't be surprised if in future threads the questions you ask of me go unanswered.

As far as I'm concerned, you are trolling half the forum to explain evolution to you over and over again and just keep repeating the same misconception over and over again without really responding to anything. Probably are having a good laugh at the hours wasted by others in the process?

(March 16, 2014 at 11:11 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 5:42 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Do you have citations for your limit on DNA intelligence?

No its a conclusion I reached. DNA is contained in cells. The laws of physics limit the range of size a cell can be(there is a reason you don't see cells the size of your sofa for instance). Only so much DNA can be contained within a given size cell. A finite amount of DNA can only come in a finite number of configurations. Since DNA can only come in a finite number of configurations DNA can only code for a finite number of possible organisms. Do you see where this is going?

Well there's finite and there's finite. In terms of the number of possible DNA combinations in a given cell even granting its not infinite its such a huge number of possibilities that to all intents and purposes it may as well be infinite.

In other words there's probably a finite number of possible universes but the number being bandied around in string theory has gone from 6 (the first estimate) to 10^500 now.

Also - its not safe to equate complexity with DNA size. One of the amazing facts about genetic material is that the size of the molecule is not related to the complexity of the organism.

Human DNA is about 650 Mb - of which about 10 Mb actually defines the individual. That's a couple of MP3 files difference between any 2 individuals of our species.

The largest amount of DNA found in any organism today is actually in a species of amoeba. That amoeba has 100 times as much genetic material as we do.

In other words we fit onto a single CD. The amoeba needs 100 CD's for its genetic material.

Another argument, I think, against the idea of intelligence guiding the development. Why would God need 100 times as much genetic material for a single celled organism as he needs for us.

Of course, further muddying the waters is the fact that it appears we only actively use about 10% of our DNA. The rest appears to be carry-overs from our lineage.

All of this looks "good enough" for life to operate. Is your God a "good enough" deity? Is that how he rolls?

Kinda unique take on God for you if it is.

(March 16, 2014 at 4:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: You said he meant there was no conscious force guiding it....which is quite a bit different then there is no component of an evolutionary system which looks ahead.

If it's not conscious, what is there to look ahead? What predictive capabilities does nature have? You're not making any sense.

Quote:I should believe his assertion because it true? When fundies tell you to believe the bible because it is true do you still believe their assertion? This is poor argumentation on your part. In the video Dawkins makes an assertion, and goes on to state that his example fails to substantiate the assertion he makes. It isn't convincing.

Perhaps you can correct Dawkins' failure and produce an example of replicated cumulative selection that isn't "cheat".

Oh, I love this! You cut off the end of my quote, thus taking me out of context and ignoring the part where I provide evidence of there being no predictive potential in evolution, and then you take me to task for poor argumentation? Where do you get off?

This is the problem with you: you make this assertion that evolution can look ahead, while providing no mechanism through which that can happen. You're all bark and no bite; what process in natural selection "looks ahead" to you? What part of the natural world is making predictions and guiding evolution? For that matter, how does an unconscious environment guide anything?

Stop being so evasive, stop making up terms, and explain just what the hell you mean, because so far, it just looks like you have critically misunderstood evolution, Dawkins... pretty much everything.

(March 17, 2014 at 4:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: This is the problem with you: you make this assertion that evolution can look ahead, while providing no mechanism through which that can happen. You're all bark and no bite; what process in natural selection "looks ahead" to you? What part of the natural world is making predictions and guiding evolution? For that matter, how does an unconscious environment guide anything?

At this point xe'll probably go back to the Dawkins video and how he hides the fact that evolution needs guidance, because something. Goto 10. Either has a serious problem with reading comprehension, has not yet dared to switch on brain because afraid of consequences, or just trolling. I hope the latter for their sake.

I've been a bit out of this whole discussion.... because... well... it's been stupid.
Heywood seems to be claiming that evolution works like the program that Dawkins wrote... If it doesn't, then why did he use that program as an example?? Am-I-right?
As with most analogies, that program is a flawed analogy to the actual process of evolution. It's flawed because it is guided and that guidance is well exposed by Dawkins himself... as a way to make the program arrive at the desired outcome faster than if an actual evolutionary process was underway.

Heywood seems to be arguing that the hole in the ground was designed for the puddle so that the water would fit perfectly onto it...the pathway of the river was designed in such a way for the water to flow through it... The environment was setup in such a perfect way as to make plant, animal and fungal life on this planet evolve towards what we see today... inter-species symbioses included!
I can't see it like that, unless you say that physics (with it's subset known as chemistry) is the guiding "force"... albeit a non-sentient one.

Quote:Heywood seems to be arguing that the hole in the ground was designed for the puddle so that the water would fit perfectly onto it.

Great analogy - I am stealing it for sure!

(March 17, 2014 at 7:08 am)max-greece Wrote:

Quote:Heywood seems to be arguing that the hole in the ground was designed for the puddle so that the water would fit perfectly onto it.

Great analogy - I am stealing it for sure!

It's gotta be great, it's by Douglas Adams

(March 17, 2014 at 7:10 am)Alex K Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 7:08 am)max-greece Wrote: Great analogy - I am stealing it for sure!

It's gotta be great, it's by Douglas Adams

Ah Hitchhiker's Guide....its been years since I read it.

Pure genius - no wonder he said it.

(March 17, 2014 at 7:12 am)max-greece Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 7:10 am)Alex K Wrote: It's gotta be great, it's by Douglas Adams

Ah Hitchhiker's Guide....its been years since I read it.

Pure genius - no wonder he said it.

http://www.biota.org/podcast/#DNA
http://www.archive.org/download/biota2_a..._adams.mp3

Section with the quote starts 15 or 16 minutes in, but listen to all of it, it's brilliant