Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
I, Mr. Intelligent Designer, can construct an army of photosynthesizing alchohol-burning armed robots that unleashed will eradicate all animalia. Or at least more than hold their own. (I'll call them zylons.) Why hasn't evolution? The evo hypothesis is that designer-free evolution can produce organizational entities as complex as me, as complex as mammalia -- why not plants that complex, when I -- with my intelligence -- can?
I don't even know where you are coming from, much less where you are going!
I think I hear your mother calling ...
Becasue there's only a limited number of ways to make a living. The same was true in the past. The players change, the game remains the same.
Yet plants never seem to have evolved into any niche that required independently directed motion.
Because they have evolved superb adaptations to fill the niches they fill. As have animals. Any open niche requiring independent movement would be first filled by an animal because it has a head start in the game. If you were to pose the question, "why don't animals fill niches that require photosynthesis?" the answer is the same, but reversed. Because plants are highly evolved organisms especially adapted to fill that niche.
And sexless organisims never seem to have evovled much at all -- yet they have avoided erradication by animals or plants competeing for their niche.
I am not sure what "sexless organisms" you refer. If you mean asexual organisms, such as bacteria, you are mistaken. They have clearly evolved. Futher, they are some of the most successful organisms on earth. Except for human bias and the accident of our lineage, we would instinctively know that the history of life on earth is the history of bacteria.
There seems to be a general favoring of sexual reproduction among multi-cellular organisms above a certain size. However, whether that is the result of competative pressure, a relic of history, or some combination of the two is still open to debate.
There is one HYPOTHESIS -- hard to raise it to the level of theory -- that the random mix of natural physical processes operating under strict darwinistic evolution would for complex and subtle reasons unknown at this time result in such a current state. That is a HOPE, a FAITH, a BELIEF SYSTEM.
This statement does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could restate it. Religion is about hope, faith and belief. Science is not. Evolution is about science.
It is unproven. It is not a reasonable projection of more proven and evidenced theory either -- not reasonable, that is, if it is asserted as the ONLY reasonable projection.
Not really. The science of biology and especially evolutionary biology is often the study of why certain organisms fit certain ecological niches in the manner that they do.
This does not follow. All algorithmically finite systems (like our universe) have this property, and there are an infinite number of possible universes with this property. Anyone expecting isotropic probability distributions is naive.
I don't know how to embed audio in a post, or I would probably get banned.
I don't think you can here, but you can put a .wav file on the web and link ....
Is there something about home schooling that produces selective math aphasia? I see lots of cutting and pasting of sums from creationist sites, but not a whit of understanding.
Left unattended, these post make Freepers look like the yahoos charactured on DU.
The probability for getting 50 heads in a row is the same as the probability of getting any predefined sequence. For example the following sequences have the same probability:
HHHHH HHHHH HHHHH HHHHH HHHHH HHHHH HHHHH HHHHH HHHHH HHHHH
HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH
There used to be freepers who posted embedded audio. It was very annoying after the third encounter.
They are not orthogonal sets. Science ALSO employs -- esepcially in biology and paleontology -- considerable amounts of hope, faith and belief. Likewise "religion" employs far less of them than you might thing. Both are about organizing things, how best to organize things. Nor need they be competitive.
I think it started when he slept through his HS classes.
You must make an overly strong assumption about the coin and toss to say that. Here we don't see the toss, nor are we able to subject to coin to any scrunity -- just the result of the toss. Fifty heads in a row means the coin or toss is rigged -- almost a complete certainty.
Probability estimates applied to evolution are invalid, because evolutionary outcomes are not predefined. The outcomes of change are not predicted or known in advance. There is no bet, therefore no relevant odds.
An isotropic probability distribution means that the probability of all possible outcomes is identical. For example, games of chance often use a device that has an isotropic probability distribution, at least in theory. A six-sided dice has six possible outcomes, all of which are supposed to be equally probable and with no discernable statistical variation even after accumulating statistics over a trillion rolls. Note that this is also the definition of "random".
The problem with this assumption is that even good "random" number generators have subtle anisotropies that we get better at detecting every year, and just about every real system has gross anisotropies in outcome probability that are quite evident. The cumulative odds change dramatically when playing with a loaded dice.
Why should it have done so? I mean, I was just outside on my lunch break, and I don't know if you've noticed, but those plants are literally everywhere. You can't swing your arms without hitting a plant, so they sure look pretty successful to me - they already appear to be holding their own fairly well, despite the fact that they don't walk or talk or shoot lasers from their slimy man-killing tentacles...
The only assumption is that the tosses are random in result and not biased or controlled by ID!
Assuming randomness, what is the probability of obtaining the following sequence?
HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH HTHTH
A little language lesson. Often what the "a" in front of terms is derived from latin -- many times it means "absense", less frequently it means "to". (Ad infinitum). In "asexual" it means "absent of sex", or "sexless".
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.