Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[Junior]

I'd read about that. I don't know why it skipped my mind ... I must be getting a bit doddery in my old age.

[balrog666]

Does anybody know why "Gore" or "3000"?

Is he/she/it a liberal buffoon or a AlGore supporter?

[Junior]

It is an "it" -- a very simple computer algorythm (hence the "gore" part).

[whattajoke]

I asked that once myself and was lambasted for my supposed inability to discern "sarcasm." I guess that means Gore will run again in the year 3000 because he is a robot or something.

I'm not a dumb guy and I've never understood it... then again, my moniker is stupid, but it's too late to change it now.

[PatrickHenry]

PLACEMARKER Look, look! He's doing it again!

[longshadow]

My response was more concise...

I concede; you win the "brevity" award.

;-)

[Junior]

I hear and obey [8-|]

[longshadow]

All these lapses of hostility have one thing in common -- the absense of g3k.

Funny how that works..... you win the insightful observation award of the day.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Slap-ass time again, I see. Cute.

[balrog666]

Slap-ass time again, I see. Cute.

Funny, how you always seem to have that on your mind.

[longshadow]

slap-*ss placemarker

[Lurking Libertarian]

Non-insulting placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Innocent placemarker. Important directive from Darwin Central at midnight on MTV. Oook, Oook!

[null and void]

I concede; you win the "brevity" award.

*blush* Thank you...

Charm wit and levity
will win you in the start
but in the end it's brevity
that keeps the public's heart...

[freeper4u]

G3K: "Only in living things. And they do not really self assemble anyway. They follow the program set out by the parents."

Lets see how much of a creationist/evolutionist you are. Since the topic has branched into three parts, I want you to answer with an honest yes or no to each independant argument...

1) The first self-replicating machinery arose due to natural chemcial processes and without the guidance of an intelligent entity.

2) Once the first self-replicating machine was in place, the execution of that machinery required no outside intelligent agent.

3) The improvement of that machinery with respect to its environment occurred by solely by natural evolution.

Do you believe that outside intelligence is required for all three steps? My guess is that you would say No to #1 and #3 -- but will at least concede that there are no little invisible angles moving molecules around once all the machinery needed to execute are in place -- hence "self assembly".

--

freeper4u: "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."

G3K: "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."

I must have misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Please restate or explain why you think our ability "to find all the possible ways in which 3 different bit pairs... appear in the DNA sequence of all species" proves that "the arrangement [of DNA]" "cannot be due to [natural forces]" and I'd be happy to try again.

--

Bookkeeping: Still waiting for reasons why sexual reproduction prohibits speciation.

[balrog666]

Ook!

[gore3000]

Were/are prokaryotes "designed?"

Of course they were. That is why the atheist/materialist/evolutionists insult me. Because they cannot respond to the question of how life could have arisen from inert matter. Mind you, I am only asking for a theoretical explanation of how it could have happened according to what we scientifically know about life and what it requires. So yes, abiogenesis is impossible and the first life, likely bacteria (prokariotes as you call them in order to seem knowledgeable to lurkers, but really just an attempt to confuse the issue) was designed by our Creator.

[gore3000]

Were/are prokaryotes "designed?"

Of course they were. That is why the atheist/materialist/evolutionists insult me. Because they cannot respond to the question of how life could have arisen from inert matter. Mind you, I am only asking for a theoretical explanation of how it could have happened according to what we scientifically know about life and what it requires. So yes, abiogenesis is impossible and the first life, likely bacteria (prokariotes as you call them in order to seem knowledgeable to lurkers, but really just an attempt to confuse the issue) was designed by our Creator.

[gore3000]

I have often challenged you to show a single post from you on this thread which is not an insult. A single post from you discussing the subject at hand. There are none such because you do not discuss, you insult and encourage your friends to do the same and turn threads into shouting matches so that they will be pulled. 1,799 posted on 05/21/2003 11:28 PM EDT by gore3000

Yes Patrick, I have asked you and your minions several times on this thread to show a single post where you discuss the subject at hand. All your posts are either nasty placemarkers or insults.

Therefore, since neither you nor your fellow thugs can show a single post where you act like people are supposed to act on a thread, which is discuss the subject, my statement is absolutely true. Now I know the truth hurts, but nevertheless my statement is the truth and not an insult.

[gore3000]

What you mean to suggest,

No, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Computer programs cannot approximate reality. They are selective by necessity. This allows the programmer to use the code to promote whatever agenda they wish to promote. The present one, as I have already shown, conveniently fails to punish for useless and non-working functions which should normally be destroyed in real life by 'natural selection'. It is therefore just more evolutionist garbaaaage.

Oh, and (as Columbo would say) just one more thing. If evolution is science, how come evolutionists cannot prove their theory from real life? Science requires observable facts. Therefore evolution cannot be science since it cannot prove itself through observable evidence.