Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Earlier farmer gave the evolution of a pump from a simple lever to an internal combustion engine running a pump. But every analogy he gives is the evolution of something through intelligent design. There's no way that somebody's kid that had no idea how engines work, messed around with the steam engine one day and turned it into an internal combustion engine by chance.

Your concept of intelligent design involves humans with intelligence?

It had NOTHING to do with 'evolution' of a pump through to an internal combustion engine. It had only to do with the connections that derived things have with earlier things. If you dont want to accept that fine, just do NOT attempt to try to insert your meaning into what I think is a clearlymqde point.

Everything is derivative of something earlier. Thats true for artificial as well as natural selection.

You need to expand your frames of reference.

Actually, in math modelling we talk of the models being stochastic V deterministic and then theres always hybrid.



Evolution makes us consider the total bag of random genotypes possible in each generation. The aspects of natural selection of these random genotypes is fairly well understood for each evolutionary step. (ya cant have wings usable for flight, until ya have feathers and then raches and asymmetric feathers).
Gungasnake tries to argue (waay unsuccessfully might I add), that these features must occur simultaneously. You dont think that way do you?

So if I crossed out the word stochastic and replaced it with random or randomly everywhere you use it, can I assume it wouldn't really change the meaning of what you are saying?

ID.
It's human design from what already exists on our planet.

Surely you're not saying that human design isn't intelligent? Well, sometimes, I mean.

I don't know Rog, there really was an Edsel!!!!!!! That causes me pause.

You keep trying to perpetrate the myth that ID advocates are somehow opposed to or refute science. They are not and do not.

To answer your question, ID brings some badly needed perspective to what science discoveres.

I find it interesting that we both see each other in need of broadening our views. I can't comment on your families religious views, but any view that seems like a 'tunnel' is missing the needed broad view of existence. That would include pseudo scientific views.

Human design is trial and error. Some times it can be disasterous or not in demand.

I do not disagree with natural selection. I can run a model of natural selection today using an auto factory as a model. This model seems like a logical one to use for a real time test to compare different versions of biological evolution. The auto factory is very similar to biological evolution in many ways. Both models use living organisms to guarantee that the system will run or exist for generations, so that complexity can be added in a step by step way, over a long period of time, from simplicity to complexity.

Both exist in an environment or marketplace where natural selection can be tested as a guiding force in which direction the evolution will go.

Both have ways to record the additional information as it evolves and adds complexity to future generations in DNA or blueprints.

In both the evolution of say the eye of an eagle, and the evolution of the backup camera on a car, there are multiple parts added to each system. In both models, systems completely different purposes are combined for the final more complex systems to work. All the parts don't have to be added at once and some parts are already there and just need to be modified. There was already a wiring harness running to the back of the car that could be modified to carry the signal from a digital backup camera, to the front where the driver can see it in a digital monitor. And, there are some nice chrome pieces to mount a camera to, and the car has a computer chip in the radio that can be programmed to accept the information from the camera and put it on the radio screen. Likewise, an animal does have a nervous system and a body. Likewise an animal does have a body to support the different living cells of the eye, it has a nervous system that can be modified to carry the new picture sensed by the eye, it does have some sort of brain that can be programmed to receive the signals from the eye and turn them into something the can use to determine color depth perception, and all other comparisons so something like an eagle can tell the difference between a floating log and a fish, and then catch it and snatch it out of the water. The technology for the camera was added over time to blueprints in camera factories, till a digital camera small enough was designed to fit in on the car and provide a clear digital picture to a digital monitor in the stereo. I think it is logical to assume that information can be store similarly in DNA.

The only difference between the factory model and the biological model is how the new information is stored for later use and then pulled out of archive for use when needed for the jump in evolution. The factory uses decisions by intelligent managers in multiple factories. The biological model uses random mutations of DNA to provide new genetic information to be selected naturally by attrition or death The fossil record and model changes of cars, shows big new functioning devices being added over very short periods of time (gaps in the fossil record). I don't think it is necessary or possible for all the steps in the evolution of the eye or the camera to happen in either the factory or biological model to happen simultaneously. But there are some things that must happen in both models.

1. There must be storage of unnecessary information so it can be used later when it is necessary.

2. Both need an explanation of why all unused information wasn't stored.

3. Both models need an explanation of how unused information was stored but not used.

4. Both models require an explanation of how the new information for the addition of the camera or eye, was created.

5. Both need an explanation of how all this stored information was later selected, arranged used correctly, and suddenly added over a short period of time, to match the fossil record. Because in both models incomplete nonworking additions do not survive.

I think you have provided sufficient scientific evidence to answers how biological evolution has fulfilled the first three requirements but, in my mind, only the factory model provides a logical solution to the last two requirements which is,"somebody intelligent created and managed the new information".

If random mutations are sufficient to create the information, store it, and manage the storage and retrieval for later use, then the factory model should be able to be adjusted to mirror it. That would, in my mind, make natural selection of random mutations as the driver behind biological macroevoultion a logical theory for me.

That could be done by removing all human creative intelligence when making changes to the blueprints and any computer programs that mange any system in the factory or in the car. (I would like to discuss adding some constraints to how the random changes are added to the DNA here, to match a type of grammar or system that is required for DNA operate. But, that seems to be cheating because, we are now reintroducing intelligence into the system.)

A working model should then be able to be observed evolving in real time, or simulated in a way that life spans of real time can be sped up. This model would then show random changes to the blueprints with no management of the information they provide, is all that is necessary to add the complexity to the DNA we are modeling to match what we observe as macroevolution in the fossil record. That would, in my mind, make natural selection of random mutations as the driver behind biological macroevoultion a logical theory for me.

Forgive my interruption, Brian, but I think you're missing something basic here. While there are similarities in the development of cars and biological organisms, i.e. those individuals that are defective don't survive. There is a fundamental difference.
A car that doesn't perform well or simply doesn't sell will be discontinued. Or it will be modified in the next year. The market acts as the selector, but the changes must be put in by the designers. Each individual car is exactly the same.
With a living thing, there is a tremendous amount of diversity within a species. Each individual is unique. Some variations will be favorable, some will be detrimental, some will make no difference. As the environment changes, it will favor certain traits with survival, some with death.
A mechanism is designed with a purpose in mind. It's design may be refined over time as feedback comes in or as conditions and requirements change.
An organism is not designed at all. It is the result of mutation and natural selection. Period. if you disagree, then tell me what was a rat designed to do? How about a frog?

When considering pseudo-science, one can not find a more striking example than so-called "intelligent design." The really disgusting part of that entire dodge, though, is the fundamental dishonesty. Absolutely no proponent of "intelligent design" that I've ever encountered, on-line or in person, is willing to name or even speculate on who the designer might be. Every one of them has also been a god-botherer. They're trying to slip their imaginary friend in by the back door, and they're willing to dissemble or even lie about it.

To destroy that analogy, a daddy mustang and a mama mustang get together and produce a baby mustang, through their DNA recombining. A daddy Mustang and a mama Mustang, no matter how hard they may want to reproduce will never produce a little tin baby Mustang. It takes a team of Ford designers to do that. There is nothing inherent in any Mustang that will breed true in another Mustang. Trying to analogize an entirely human-produced industrial product with a biological process that produces something new and different with no conscious thought needed to do it is simply invalid.

We need to focus the discussion here to a discussion about the addition of complex information to the DNA code to produce macroevolution from one species to the next or from an animal without eyes ears or legs to one that has them. There is a tremendous amount of diversity within a species, but all eyes, legs and ears work exactly the same way in all eagles, and all we observe is that eagle parents reproduce baby eagles.



I think we should quit discussing natural selection as the reason evolution moves in a certain direction. I think we all agree it is nearly a fact or law. What we need to discuss is how this tremendous amount of complex information is introduced in a way that provides the new information in such a precise way that natural selection causes macro evolution. We have not observed random changes providing the information for natural selection to cause macroevolution, but we have observed and agree that the changes have happened, and macroevolution is real.

Since we can't observe random mutations providing the complex information for natural selection to choose the traits for macroevolution, I think we should concentrate on my 4th and 5th statements from earlier and build a working model to observe random changes doing just that.



Since a working biological model is impossible to observe in real time, I suggest we simulate as best we can, by substituting our biology as the sustaining force to keep the system running for generations, and let a computer provide the random changes (mutations) to the DNA. I think we should be able to write a computer program that would simulate, if not exactly, a close representation of random mutations happening, being stored, and then being added in the correct sequence to provide macroevolution. We have to do this without intelligent intervention so, the computer programmer has to be careful to not write intelligent ideas or choices into the program.

Do you think this is possible?

We can take human thought out of the equation in the factory and just use our biology to sustain it over generations, just like a biological system.



We are not discussing reproduction here. We all agree biological reproduction happens. We all agree DNA randomly mutates.

We are not discussing natural selection. We all agree natural selection decides which random mutations survive and which don't. We are discussing where the information comes from that natural selection has to work with.

We are discussing simulating a process which introduces complex information to a blueprint or DNA code by a randomly driven process.

That discussion would assume a possible designer exists. Are we there? There is a process to this. You have to ask the question, "what are the characteristics of all designers, narrow the characteristics down to the one or many candidates that fit certain criteria necessary to be a possible designer behind biological evolution. Then you must do the research and then, provide some conclusive answers or candidates. Are we at that point? Are you willing to discuss it?

All living things acclimate to their environment, or they become distinct. It's that simple.

Agreed.



It comes from mutation. The changes happen in small increments.
The eye, for example, started as a cluster of light sensitive cells. Just enough for a primitive organism to sense the shadow of another organism. That tiny change would have been a tremendous advantage in a world where nothing could see. Those organisms would most definitely have survived. Now the prey in that environment would have been at a serious disadvantage. They were entirely at the mercy of the "sighted" predator. A similar mutation in the prey species would very quickly even the score. And so the arms race for good vision began.

Whether I disagree or not, if I want to figure out what something was made to do, I watch what it is doing, and assume that's what it was made to do.

Let's assume a rat or a frog has no purpose. Then why do we have an Enviormental Protection Agency(EPA). Who cares if an animal goes extinct, it has no designed purpose anyway. Who cares about global warming or climate change. The world wasn't created for man or life anyway. Let him kill himself. Let nature takes it course. Why do we even discuss such things. Live and let live. And when it comes to ethics and some sort of intrinsic value to human life, well. . .who cares. Survival of the fittest is the law of nature, and nature is all we have. So I think I'll sit back and let the neonazis and the black lives matter folks fight it out, while I go to the gym and get ready for my chance. Then I'll just jump on the "America first Trump band wagon." Don't fight it. Natural selection will take its course.