Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[gore3000]

Even more important, there have not been any new animal phyla since the Cambrian (the last missing phyla known at present, vertebrates, were recently found. A fish, with eyes and very much looking like any fish around nowadays).-me-

Please try to make some sense... Since when were vertebrates a "missing phyla" at all

Showing your ignorance again. They were missing from the Cambrian fossils until just a few years ago.

"It indicates also that the rates of evolution in the oceans during the Cambrian period must have been exceptionally fast. Not only do we see the appearance of the fish, but also a whole range of different animal types."
From: BBC News, November 4, 1999

Lies, insults, doubletalk, and complete ignorance of what you are speaking about. Keep up the good work in showing everyone that not only is evolution not science, but evolutionists are not scientists.

[gore3000]

And speaking of "going off the deep end", I find it... interesting that you would assert that there were no pre-Cambrian multi-cellular animals "aside from sponges and perhaps worms".

The following supports my statement, and from an EVOLUTIONIST site:

the "Vendian biota" or "Ediacara fauna." The question of what these fossils are is still not settled to everyone's satisfaction; at various times they have been considered algae, lichens, giant protozoans, or even a separate kingdom of life unrelated to anything living today. Some of these fossils are simple blobs that are hard to interpret and could represent almost anything. Some are most like cnidarians, worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods.
From: Vendian Animals

You keep displaying your ignorance and lack of ability to support your statements.

[gore3000]

Oh, one more thing about the Cambrian. Seems I am not the only person that says that it is unexplainable by Darwinian evolution. Here is the atheist hero S.J. Gould (a paleontologist by education) on the Cambrian:

"The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Evolution of Life," in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)

You will not, but others will note that I back up my statements while you do not.

[Doctor Stochastic]

WHERE ARE THE EXAMPLES OF MATTER ASSEMBLING ITSELF WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION????

Even if you have lapsed into cap-shouting, there are examples.

[null and void]

LISTER: Those planet engineers really screwed up in a big way here, didn't they? Playing god. The evolutionary process threw up a life force so much stronger and more deadly than any other species -- damn near wiped out everything on the entire planet. Spreading despair and destruction wherever it stuck its ugly mush.
KRYTEN: Hmm, that sounds rather reminiscent of a species sitting not a million miles away from me now. Ha ha ha! (He laughs alone.)
KRYTEN: You probably have to be a mechanoid to fully appreciate that one.
RIMMER: Kryten, no one likes a smart-alec android. Hit the retros.
KRYTEN: We're on our way, sir.

[Ichneumon]

Interesting that these threads usually die out early. But here, where there is actual proof that an evolutionary process works, It's deny reality city.

You noticed that too, eh? :-)

I've exchanged a few more emails with Matt Streeter, one of the authors of the "evolved circuits" research. He asked what kind of forum I was discussing his work on, and I gave him a brief rundown on the arguments that have been given here. He responded:

However, this [the quibbling about whether hardware performance might differ from simutor performance -- Ich.] hardly changes anything in terms of whether or not evolution is exhibiting intelligence. The fact is, it requires intelligence to get something to work in a simulator! This makes arguments 1-5 [the "only a simulation" arguments] in your list below irrelevant. Argument 6 ["it took human design to set up the computerized evolution"] is at least potentially relevant, but is easy to refute. None of the people who wrote the code we use or who designed GP know enough about electrical engineering to create this group of circuits. You could say the circuit simulator has intelligence in knowing which circuits are good or bad, but this is like saying that the laws of physics have intelligence because they implicitly determine the fitness of individual organisms.

I'd prefer the term "complex creativity" instead of "intelligence", but other than that minor quibble he makes an excellent point, and it's the one that the nitpickers have been frantically dodging all this time.

[Ichneumon]

Oh, one more thing about the Cambrian. Seems I am not the only person that says that it is unexplainable by Darwinian evolution. Here is the atheist hero S.J. Gould (a paleontologist by education) on the Cambrian:

You're fantasizing again. Nowhere does Gould say, or even imply, that the Cambrian explosion is, in your words, "unexplainable". Was it (at least apparently) surprisingly quick? Sure. But that's a far cry from "unexplainable". To demonstrate that Gould hardly agrees with your bizarre claim that it's "unexplainable by Darwinian evolution", here's another Gould quote for you which makes his position quite clear:

"Our modern view synthesizes these two opinions. Darwin, of course has been vindicated in his cardinal contention: Cambrian life did arise from organic antecedants, not the hand of God. But Murchison's basic observation reflects a biological reality, not the imperfections of geologic evidence: the Precambrian fossil record is little more (save at its very end) than 2.5 billion years of bacteria and blue-green algae."

S. J. Gould, "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History"

You will not, but others will note that I back up my statements while you do not.

I "note" what others are bound to note as well: posting a quote which doesn't actually support your extreme assertion is hardly the same as "backing up your statements".

[Ichneumon]

[Ichneumon wrote: And speaking of "going off the deep end", I find it... interesting that you would assert that there were no pre-Cambrian multi-cellular animals "aside from sponges and perhaps worms". Oh, really? How about Cyclomedusa? Neither a worm nor a sponge. How about Eoporpita? Pteridinium? Arkarua? Kimberella? Or good old Spriggina:

]

The following supports my statement, and from an EVOLUTIONIST site:

the "Vendian biota" or "Ediacara fauna." The question of what these fossils are is still not settled to everyone's satisfaction; at various times they have been considered algae, lichens, giant protozoans, or even a separate kingdom of life unrelated to anything living today. Some of these fossils are simple blobs that are hard to interpret and could represent almost anything. Some are most like cnidarians [not a worm or a sponge -- Ich.], worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods [not a worm or a sponge either -- Ich.].
From: Vendian Animals

Okay, let's have a show of hands -- is anyone in this thread besides Gore3000 unable to see that his quoted material not only *contradicts* his assertion, but actually supports *mine*?

You keep displaying your ignorance and lack of ability to support your statements.

I did support my statement, actually (I listed many pre-Cambrian animals which were neither worms *nor* sponges, and even showed you a photo of one), but I do thank you for providing *additional* support for the correctness of my statement. Thanks.

[Ichneumon]

You certainly are since I already backed up my statement about there being at least 40 new phyla in the Cambrian in the post you just responded to

...and I already explained why the clear *speculation* in that quote was a very poor substitute for your claiming to have stated established *facts*.

Your reposting the quote all over again hardly gives it any more validity.

[Ichneumon]

[Gore3000: Even more important, there have not been any new animal phyla since the Cambrian (the last missing phyla known at present, vertebrates, were recently found. A fish, with eyes and very much looking like any fish around nowadays).]

[Ich.: Please try to make some sense... Since when were vertebrates a "missing phyla" at all]

Showing your ignorance again. They were missing from the Cambrian fossils until just a few years ago.

That doesn't make them a "missing phylum", son. There are plenty of other phyla which haven't been traced back to the Cambrian, and they're not "missing" either. Stop trying to make up silly new terms, you're not very good at it.

Furthermore, "vertebrates" are not a phylum. Perhaps you misspoke. Perhaps you meant the "chordate" phylum, of which vertebrates are just a part. Perhaps you really don't know what you're talking about.

Finally, you're flat wrong. The "vertebrate" (*cough*chordate*cough) phylum wasn't "missing" from the Cambrian "until a few years ago" when those fish were uncovered, since the chordate Pikaia was discovered in the Cambrian Burgess Shale fossil deposits and recognized for what it was at least as far back as the 1980's. The only thing the fish discovery changed was to move the earliest known chordate from the *mid*Cambrian to the *early* Cambrian. So what's that you were saying about them being "missing" from the Cambrian, bunky?

Strike three, you're out. Way out.

Say hello to Pikaia on your way out:

A fish, with eyes and very much looking like any fish around nowadays).]

Well, sure, if "any fish around nowadays" is jawless, possesses a cartilage skeleton and a notochord instead of a bony skeleton, has no swim bladder, and look something like this, you mean...

You have *really* got to stop mistaking your own jumped conclusions for facts.

Finally, you're probably not aware of it, but the creationist emphasis on the rapid arisal of *animal* phyla (conveniently for them, at a time in Earth's history when earlier fossils are quite hard to locate) is a sleight-of-hand attempt to distract attention from *plant* evolution, which took place during later eras than the Cambrian and is well documented as having happened in a manner consistent with that dratted "evolution".

So contrary to the "pay no attention to the man (plant?) behind the curtain" distraction, not all phyla of life "poofed" into view during the Cambrian after all, *and* the total scenario is a lot less like the creationists would try to paint it as.

They'd like you to believe that the (only relatively) "sudden" appearance of new animal types in the Cambrian "shows" that (apparently) God waved his hands and brought them forth. Never mind the fact that several Cambrian fossils have clear ancestors in pre-Cambrian fossils (the trilobites, for example)... But even if we buy the "rapid arrival" scenario (and there *are* other possible scenarios), the best the creationists will be able to argue for is, "God made all the animals. Well, he made primitive worm-like and jellyfish-like things (but no the trilobites, they were already there), which later evolved into modern life, and, um, he didn't really make the plants, because their gradual evolution from single-celled plants is pretty well established, and, this was half a billion years ago and *really* clashes with the tidy Genesis account we're trying to salvage, and, um..."

[PatrickHenry]

PLACEMARKER

[gore3000]

the "Vendian biota" or "Ediacara fauna." The question of what these fossils are is still not settled to everyone's satisfaction; at various times they have been considered algae, lichens, giant protozoans, or even a separate kingdom of life unrelated to anything living today. Some of these fossils are simple blobs that are hard to interpret and could represent almost anything. Some are most like cnidarians [not a worm or a sponge -- Ich.], worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods [not a worm or a sponge either -- Ich.].
From: Vendian Animals

Okay, let's have a show of hands -- is anyone in this thread besides Gore3000 unable to see that his quoted material not only *contradicts* his assertion, but actually supports *mine*?

The article FROM AN EVOLUTIONIST SITE clearly states that any claim that these vendian fossils are animals is pure desperation from atheist/evolutionists. 'Could be' is not a scientific term, and that is the only kind of proof that evolutionists give. Well 'could be' is nonsense. Some say that there 'could be' Martians, that does not mean that there are any.

[null and void]

Okay, let's have a show of hands -- is anyone in this thread besides Gore3000 unable to see that his quoted material not only *contradicts* his assertion, but actually supports *mine*?

[null and void]

Well, sure, if "any fish around nowadays" is jawless, possesses a cartilage skeleton and a notochord instead of a bony skeleton, has no swim bladder

Let's see, a shark has a cartilage skeleton, has a notochord instead of a bony skeleton (I think that should be spine), and no swim bladder.

That's 3 out of 4...

[ALS]

[f.Christian]

Fossil thumpers hate thinking -- philosophy ... pride themselves in their material obssessions--- mental 'freedom' !



(( how much ... can I rent your tagline ))

[slimer]

Sigh -- someday I hope to see "intelligent response".

Try this: www.iknoweverything.com

[donh]

Lying about my statements. It is your friend donh that supports abiogenesis

Huh? Whose my friend "donh"? Is there another one? At any rate, you remain the same old transparent nudge you have always been. Of course, the issue is that the you support abiogensis in the sense that you insist that that's the only way prokariotes could have come into being, other than by divine intervention, and then insist that others must prove otherwise, holding them to the phony requirement that they support YOUR theory of life's origins. Silly Rabbit, don't you know tricks are for kids?

[donh]

WHERE ARE THE EXAMPLES OF MATTER ASSEMBLING ITSELF WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION

What? Has our blue pet finally gone around the bend?

[donh]

You are not only according to your totally contorted definition. According to normal English speech you are.

When you want to talk about philosophy, I suggest you consult philosophers, not philologists. My definitions are plain vanilla.