Replies

But the debate needs to be constructive:

It is constructive -- I have already corrected several of your misconceptions. Unless you don't consider learning to be constructive.

I said: Remove the "happenstance" from evolution theory and either model could support either ID or Evolution.

You replied: False. Remove the "happenstance" (random variation) from the "Weasel" applet, and the endpoint will never be achieved.

I never said to remove "happenstance" from the applet,

We were discussing the applet as a model of evolution. Thus my interpretation of your comment.

I said to remove it from evolution theory.

My statement still stands: Remove the "happenstance" from evolution itself, and evolution will not occur (without direct and constant intervention).

I said: Thus both this applet and the Schneider model are more supportive of Intelligent Design than Evolution by happenstance.

You replied: Nonsense. The fact that the applet itself is "designed" is no more an indication that the modeled process "requires" design than does the fact that Galileo purposely built ramps in order to study the effects of gravity upon rolling objects indicates that "intelligent design" must be involved for objects to roll down inclines.

I never even mentioned that the applet was designed.

That is the most common objection leveled against such models in an attempt to deny the lessons they provide. Thus my interpretation of your remark. I'm glad to hear that's not your objection after all.

My point had to do with the logic in the source code vis-a-vis Schneider's evolution model. Both of them have a starting point and apply rules, i.e. an algorithm - and both of them use replacment scenarios.

And so does natural Darwinian evolution. Thus the value of the applet as a model.

That is not randomness, that is directed. Randomness has a strict meaning in mathematics.

By that hairsplitting, then so is natural Darwinian evolution "directed".

Direction however would not necessary speak in favor of Intelligent Design

Nor does it.

were it not for the original formulation of "random mutations + natural selection > species". The issue is the freedom of movement - the boundaries. All mutations were not created equal, or conversely some genes are resistent to mutation.

I fail to see any significance in this observation. Darwinian evolution does not require "pure" randomness in a "strict" mathematical sense. Nor does it require the complete absence of any "boundaries", nor equal mutation rates in all genes, or any of the other issues you raise. So what might your point be?

Moreover, if you look at links provided elsewhere wrt to eyeness (Weiss, Gerhling) and the work of many others - naturally including the mathematicians (Rocha, etc.) - you will notice a strong shift away from "randomness" and towards other explanations - such as autonomous biological self-organizing complexity.

i.e., selection. And if you think I've missed your point or am oversimplifying it by encompassing it in "selection", then I ask you to pause and reconsider for a while before responding.

Thank you for your reply!

This is the point, Ichneumon.

Where there are boundaries, differences in mutability (and particularly, immutability) - as the continuum of life proceeds forward in time, the resulting speciation is not random at all. What the fossil evidence suggests happened is a quantization within a range of possibilities - but not all possibilities.

Natural selection culls after-the-fact, not before a mutation.

In sum, this speaks to a rise of complexity in biological systems which is yet to be explained in evolution theory. There is not even agreement on which type of complexity applies.

There are two types:

least description - Kolmogorov, self-organizing, physical complexity.

least time - functional complexity, irreducible complexity, metatransition (i.e. punctuated equilibrium).

The applet model sets initial conditions and applies rules as does the Schneider model, directed but without complexification. The Wolfram models are all cellular automata, complexity without direction.

None of these satisfy - not yet.

In terms of what it means: absent a plausible natural explanation for the rise of a directing algorithm (Kolmogorov) at inception (abiogenesis) which unfolds by self-organizing complexity (von Neumann) - the very things you mention - boundaries, differences in mutability - suggest Intelligent Design over unguided natural processes (evolution by happenstance).

I know you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Semiosis in biological systems is complex - it requires autonomy, encoding and decoding and of course, the message itself (DNA, RNA).