Posted on 02/14/2005 1:50:46 AM PST by mc6809e
After more than a decade of development, Avida's digital organisms are now getting close to fulfilling the definition of biological life. “More and more of the features that biologists have said were necessary for life we can check off,” says Robert Pennock, a philosopher at Michigan State and a member of the Avida team. “Does this, does that, does this. Metabolism? Maybe not quite yet, but getting pretty close.”
[snip]
The researchers set up an experiment to document how one particularly complex operation evolved. The operation, known as equals, consists of comparing pairs of binary numbers, bit by bit, and recording whether each pair of digits is the same. It's a standard operation found in software, but it's not a simple one. The shortest equals program Ofria could write is 19 lines long. The chances that random mutations alone could produce it are about one in a thousand trillion trillion.
To test Darwin's idea that complex systems evolve from simpler precursors, the Avida team set up rewards for simpler operations and bigger rewards for more complex ones. The researchers set up an experiment in which organisms replicate for 16,000generations. They then repeated the experiment 50 times.
Avida beat the odds. In 23 of the 50 trials, evolution produced organisms that could carry out the equals operation. And when the researchers took away rewards for simpler operations, the organisms never evolved an equals program. “When we looked at the 23 tests, they were all done in completely different ways,” adds Ofria. He was reminded of how Darwin pointed out that many evolutionary paths can produce the same complex organ.
(Excerpt) Read more at carlzimmer.com ...
Sorry about the incorrect verse. However, how does this make a difference. I'm sorry, but it still seems that if the earth is moving that the foundations of the earth are being removed. As far as the "pick a verse" game goes, I am only doing what I have learned from the Biblical literalists who do so all the time to argue against points that I have tried to make. Keep in mind that I only have a problem with a LITERAL interpretation of this verse. Don't give me any symbolism-type arguments here. My argument here is only with those who say that every word in the Bible must be understood literally.
Sorry, didn't see your earlier response. However, this isn't the only place where the Bible mentions the motions of either the sun or the earth. In the story of Joshua (I don't know a specific book, chapter, and verse, sorry), the Bible says that God made the sun stand still. According to relativity, this is really no feat at all. Relativity states that the sun is standing still, at least in one reference frame. So was this then not a miracle or is relativity wrong? Don't try to tell me that the Bible really meant that God stopped the rotation of the earth. If that's the case, why doesn't it just say that? Again, I only am arguing with people who are Biblical literalists.
Sorry, but are you saying that "If God created... the earths foundation must be fixed positionally"? There are other verses that used to be used, that talked about the sun following its circuit through the heavens. Which we were told is obvious that the bible is incorrect scientifically, since we know that the sun doesn't travel around the earth. Of course the bible never said that, and we now know that we are in a spiral Galaxy, and the sun makes its circuit once every 25,000 years or so.
To me, you are making modern re-interpretations of verses that meant something completely different to readers 500 or 2000 years ago. At one time, verses like this would have been used by Biblical literalists as scriptural justification of rejecting modern astronomical ideas. No-one until fairly recently knew anything about the sun going round our island galaxy.
My point is that the Bible cannot be 100% literally true unless relativity is also false. The Bible says that the sun moves Relativity says that it's equally correct to say that the sun doesn't move. Any Biblical reference to motion of the earth or other astronomical bodies serves to designate a preferred reference frame. Relativity says that there's no such thing as a preferred reference frame. Why then don't Biblical literalists fight against relativity in the same way that they do against evolution?
Point well taken.
The Bible says that the sum moves through a circuit - reference point outside the galaxy. The Bible says that the earth is fixed in its orbit - reference point solar system. The Bible says that the earth rises in the east and sets in the west - reference point earth.
I don't know, it seems like relativity confirms the Bible's perspective. Funny how a book written between 3000 and 2000 years ago can fit with modern physics, isn't it?
great post
Well, the evolutionary testing of ionic bonding of valence electrons fails because it never reintroduces the source of energy into the recently bonded atoms, don't ya think?
Just because two atoms that just formed by chance and have open valence electrons in their outer shells come along, there is no guarantee that they are close enough to even act upon the attractive forces based on the missing electrons in their shells to begin with, let alone that these two atoms that are floating along in the ether...what was that ether again? Factually?... guarantee that there IS any open valences in them, either...
Nor is there any guarantee that cosmic rays from the Sun didn't destroy them as soon as they were formed...
So, right from the start, your argument is based on a total fiction, not science nor is it based on fact. So, for you to mention cellular biology, you are speaking of step 100 in the formation of life, when in reality you cant even get back to step 3, which is the fiction where we began, after a single atom formed on it's own in a state where it has open valences to allow for any cellular action.
And you said YOUR argument was better?? Huh?
My reply in post 29 points out lightheartedly that a truly random outcome is indeed possible by men, using a man made machine. This is most evident where money is involved as in lottery number selection.
Your truly random account of the lottery is a nonsense argument because of the points I raised above but were too lazy to expand upon by excessive typing before, but I shall explain it again.
Just because you have a cellular action once, does not mean you will have it again. Nor does the random accumulation of bosons, leptons, and electrons cause attractive forces to create a proton/neutron bond with an electron orbiting it, just because you can create numbers in random order from a CLEARLY DEFINED SET of numbers, which the evolutionist CANNOT use in ANY of his/her arguments.
The Lottery is a CLEARLY DEFINED SET of numbers already in existence, of which 40 or 48 or 56 or whatever are used to generate a 6 or 5 or 8 sequence, of which the same 48 or 56 or 40 numbers are used again and again.
EVOLUTION CAN MAKE NO SUCH CLAIM, for Evolution must start FROM ZERO, with NO CLEARLY DEFINED SET of atoms or electrons or attractive forces to begin with at all!
Evolution has NOTHING to base their beginning on at any time on any subject!
Evolution CANNOT claim any cellular mechanism to be used because THERE WAS NONE TO START WITH.
Evolution CANNOT use ANY atomic matrix of any kind because THERE WAS NOTHING for Evolution to start with!
All of these processes are only complete with DESIGNED AND ORDERD INFORMATION.
The simple accumulation of atoms and the electrons necessary to fill valences to allow for ionic bonds DOES NOT DEFINE A CELL nor does it COMPLETE the cell NOR does it make the cell alive!
NOR does any accumulation of atoms and electrons account for the mechanical actions of cellular mechanisms, ONLY the orderly processing of information done in a beneficial manner account for this, and NONE of that can happen just due to any arrangement of atoms regardless of whether they look like, act like any cellular device or action of any kind.
Said once again, the Lottery is based upon a finite set of numbers with a finite set of results that can be determined.
Evolution HAS NO SUCH FINALITY, and THAT means there is NO CHANCE that it can be proved that any of the atomic actions necessary for ionic bonding (Which you mentioned I left out before, so I will use it this time, surely) ever took place, ever stayed in place once occurring, or ever expanded upon themselves once occurring, instead of using the very same random chance atomic processes to describe the destruction of these same small atomic particles which is not only just as likely, but MORE likely due to the exchange of energy and lack of control of any atomic particle floating around wherever!
Subsequent banter in posts 32 and 33 seek to dismiss me as some kind of dullard and I assure you sir that this is not the case. I run a 4.2 Forty in the intelligence race and I doubt that you could run a 5 or better
I have no idea what that means, my last IQ test was about 141 or so, does that compare? And, I am a perpetual college student, and I am quite glad to be FOURTY-FIVE! :)
Stand back, gain a perpective, take a deep breath and relax...What's your point?
I was wondering what the race analogy meant...I have too much gravity to run anything except a resturant bill up....
My response directly related the insanity of you defending the random chace argument of evolution and your defense of intelligent humans proving they can randomly choose...and how none of that is related to the open system that evolution demands.
I guess it was above your head or something.
This sentence, aside from being grammatically incorrect, seeks to imply that the hand of man, or the use of a complex machine somehow taints a truly random or “chance” happening. I see no mention of cellular biology or ionic bonds in the above statement do you? I thought not.
Mentioning cellular processes in the light of defending random chance events is the argument of an evolutionist.
If your point was, that you weren't defending evolution and that was the reason you didn't mention cellular biology or ionic bonds, then your sentence structure was certainly not clear at all on that, your previous posts were single sentences, then followed with the mentioning of the defense of random chances that I clearly said were different because of their human controls.
It was you who used the terms of cellular biology and such, and without any expansion on your implied meaning.
Based on what you previously posted on this thread, there was no way I could envision anything other than a defense of evolution from your own posted statements.
It is only NOW, that you started to expand on what you meant that it MIGHT be implied in your statements.
And I am still fourty-five. :)
Truce accepted. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.