Replies

Selection can indeed "cut down the tries that must occur for a favorable outcome" because it works like this:

random change -> select -> random change -> select -> random change -> select (etc.)

The above is a fallacy similar to the gambler's fallacy. Let's say one is trying to change a gene with 300 bit pairs and one needs 5 mutations to achieve a favorable outcome. The first try has one in 4^300 chances (1.15 10^180). The 2nd would have the same chances as would the 3rd 4th and 5th they would not have 1 in 4^299, 4^298, 4^297, and 4^296 chances because random processes have no memory.

However this is the problem for evolution - the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and fifth tries may very well replace the first change. The problem is even more complicated than that in actuality. Mutations in the wrong place will be harmful and destroy the organism. Therefore, aside from the 5 which will be beneficial, the others changes which are likely to happen due to the randomness of the process would most likely be destructive and thereby the whole process would have to start over again. This is one of the many reasons for the total impossibility of evolution.

Er, I was eavesdropping again and wanted to mention something with regard to the discussion of random mutations.

Earlier on the thread Freepers tortoise and Nebullis had a most excellent sidebar discussion, which I decided to summarize on-thread with a few comments - and will include in the above article in the next draft. Basically, my summary is this:

The current “issue” is that genetic mechanisms for development and adaptation of functional biological systems, such as eyes, are evidently virtually identical across phyla, indicating that either:

they were present in a common ancestor (evolution biology) or

they are pre-programmed in ancestors (intelligent design) or

they are a common building block (creationism.)

Notably, if they were present in a common ancestor, it would indicate that the mechanism, such as eyeness, existed long before it would be used.

This runs contrary to the classical evolution hypothesis that the branches of the “tree of life” developed as a result of random mutations. It may however be explained by automata – autonomous self-organizing complexity (tortoise, Wolfram, Rocha, Pattee.)

IMHO, the automata alternative hypothesis is not otherwise counter-indicative to any of the three viewpoints: evolution, intelligent design, creationism. For that reason, I expect it to become the most widely accepted view in the future.

I also predict that the significance of "random mutation" will survive but will become more narrowly construed to virology and bacteriology.