Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[js1138]

1801?

[gore3000]

No. It means computers can model reality.

No they cannot. Reality is too complex to be put into a computer program. Only a fool would think that Sim-City or the Sims are simulations of reality. They are abstractions modeled according to the thinking of the DESIGNERS as to what they wish to prove.

BTW - do you believe that virtual sex can be the same as real sex?

[longshadow]

Double Secret Encrypted placemarker -- to keep Darwin Central "marching orders" from prying paranoid eyes! Set decoder Ring to Funk-49/Orange/Zed-stroke-B, authenticator = THORAZINE. "John has a long moustache...." "John has a long moustache...." "John has a long moustache...." "John has a long moustache...." "John has a long moustache...." Oogety-boogety!

message terminates.

[gore3000]

Even though this argument is only tangentially related to evolution

I did not say it was. This was regarding the issue of abiogenesis and the claim by some atheists here that matter can self assemble and thus create life.

We have seen the mechanism of self-assembly.

Only in living things. And they do not really self assemble anyway. They follow the program set out by the parents. G3K: "The DNA in the simplest organism however, the arrangement of it is not only not due to any natural forces, but it cannot be due to it. Otherwise we would not be able to find all the possible ways in which 3 different bit pairs with 3 possible values (64 in all) appear in the DNA sequences of all species. Such self assembly is totally unknown anywhere in the natural world. For anything even close, one must go and look at humanly designed things."

First, DNA is not an organism.

Seems you need some reading comprehension classes. I did not say that, I said ""The DNA in the simplest organism ". Kindly read what was said before you attempt to refute.

Second, there is no need for anyone to "find all the possible ways" to make a certain sequence to exist in all species. In fact, with evolution you would expect to find common sequences among organisms with common ancestors.

Continuing to discuss what is not being discussed and to create confusion. The post is about abiogenesis. It is pretty clear from the post what it is about. You are attempting to refute something to which the post does not apply.

For bookkeeping purposes, we're still waiting for your definition for what passes as self assembly since you've rejected so many examples.

Actually I made it quite clear in the post you responded to. Inert matter assembling itself together to produce a complex system which is not created by known natural forces. Which indeed could not have been created by known natural forces such as chemical reactions, nucler reactions, wind, etc. This is what had to have happened for DNA to self assemble to create a living thing. Materialists cannot provide an example of anything even a thousand times simpler assembling itself in such a manner. The reason is that matter cannot self-assemble itself in complex ways. Only intelligent designers can assemble matter in ways which have nothing to do with naturally known forces.

[bondserv]

Hopefully the Grim Reaper will not have his way before they stop denying the obvious.

Continue your fight to keep back the gates of hell. We aren't the only ones who deem their souls are a worthy use of our time.

Thanks

[null and void]

No. It means computers can model reality.

No they cannot. Reality is too complex to be put into a computer program. Only a fool would think that Sim-City or the Sims are simulations of reality. They are abstractions modeled according to the thinking of the DESIGNERS as to what they wish to prove.

Do you read your own posts?

[AndrewC]

Well, what about the 4-layer diode. It is a diode that is "in a sense" two transistors back-to-back.

[donh]

Yup, they mark the place to stop discussing and start insulting. They mark the place to start spamming the thread with irrelevancies.

For you, in particular, to make this claim takes a lot of gall. Tell us again what the largest possible number is. Tell us again how a circle is not an ellipse.

I asked a question, relevent to a long repetitive main chain of challenges, and insults you've produced here, which you did not answer, busy as you were with other diversions: Since, as you say, life cannot arise from non-life, with what did God form prokariotes?

[donh]

Actually I made it quite clear in the post you responded to. Inert matter assembling itself together to produce a complex system which is not created by known natural forces. Which indeed could not have been created by known natural forces such as chemical reactions, nucler reactions, wind, etc. This is what had to have happened for DNA to self assemble to create a living thing. Materialists cannot provide an example of anything even a thousand times simpler assembling itself in such a manner. The reason is that matter cannot self-assemble itself in complex ways. Only intelligent designers can assemble matter in ways which have nothing to do with naturally known forces.

Yet another law of nature invented at the Gore3000 Academy of Sciences.

The Solar system does not strike you as a regularly constrained, complex assembly of matter displaying marked regularities of behavior? You're not the teesiest bit thrown off of this thesis by the fact that the matter in the universe is mostly confined to a few pinpoints of stars? And you think this compares unfavorably to an acidophilis bacteria in complexity, constrained interactivity and morphological regularity?

This is what had to have happened for DNA to self assemble to create a living thing.

Which is, of course, why no such thing ever likely happened. Something else assembled DNA. As is presently the case--RNA machinery assembles DNA.

[donh]

I have often challenged you to show a single post from you on this thread which is not an insult.

Oh, come now, you earned your insults with your continuous rudeness stretched over posts going back almost 2 years. Unlike you, most of the rest of us do not start each new thread with our memories wiped clean of what went before, so that our deponents have to repeat their arguments over and over until they drop out from ennui.

[donh]

Well, what about the 4-layer diode. It is a diode that is "in a sense" two transistors back-to-back.

Good grief. How many ways are there to kick a dead horse?

[donh]

Only a fool would think that Sim-City or the Sims are simulations of reality. They are abstractions modeled according to the thinking of the DESIGNERS as to what they wish to prove.

Only a fool would think that trigonometric proofs are simulations of reality. They are abstractions modeled according ot the thinking of the mathematicians as to what they wish to prove.

[Junior]

Ah, commentary from the paranoid peanut gallery. You might consider mylar; it's lighter than aluminum foil and far more stylish.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker. All is well at Darwin Central, but your report is late.

[gore3000]

Do you read your own posts?

Yup, I sure do and your semantic nit-picking does not change the fact that you cannot simulate reality, that computer models are abstractions designed to prove what the designer wishes.

[gore3000]

I have often challenged you to show a single post from you on this thread which is not an insult. -me to patrick henry-

Oh, come now, you earned your insults with your continuous rudeness

Aaah defending the slimer by attacking the victim. How Clintonian of you.

[AndrewC]

You might consider mylar; it's lighter than aluminum foil and far more stylish.

Expert's advice?

Mylar® Dupont

[whattajoke]

What makes an atheist virulent? Is it a recognized sect of the church of Darwin that we so often hear about?

Are you denying that Gould was an atheist? This is the typical doubletalk garbage from you and your friends. That Gould was an atheist is well known and well documented. Like the Clintonites you attack people for telling the truth because you do not like to hear the truth.

For those who can comprehend english, nowhere did I deny what Gould's personal beliefs were. I simply wondered what made him "virulently" atheist. Since you hate "doubletalk" so much, I'll ask you a clear, simple question you've refused to answer for about 6 months now:

How old is the earth?

[whattajoke]

Sigh... Once again you show your incredible ability to miss the point.

You stated water/lakes/snowflakes are "obviously" not "designed," they all come together through "simple" natural forces. Fair enough. You went on, though, to virtual-fellate Behe yet again by injecting your opinion that "no way did DNA 'self-assmeble,' implying that it is simply 'too complex'."

My question to you, Dear Man-of-many-font-colors3000, was how you determined the delineation between what is designed and what is not. Were/are prokaryotes "designed?" Viruses? Why or why not? How can you make that determination? Was the sun "designed?" (and all its, ahem, "chemical reactions?")

Once again, simply because you can't fathom the beauty, complexity, and intricacies of nature, doesn't mean nature is not complex and intricate. THAT'S what I meant by your "personal opinion," (Or Behe's, to be exact.)

Now would be the time when you or AndrewC posts that cool Flagellum picture again.

[null and void]

Yup, I sure do and your semantic nit-picking does not change the fact that you cannot simulate reality,

Then there are hundreds of thousands engineers and scientists who model everything from chemical processes to hydrogen bombs, buildings to bearings, electronics to automobiles who don't exist in your mind...

Ever hear of ANSYS? SUPREM? Spice?

No? Didn't think so...