Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[nmh]

"If ya can't find the fossils, rig a computer program to "prove" your theory."

You've got it! Rigging is the ONLY way this theory could continue to evolve. Honestly, it's scary to know that some really buy into evolution. Then again, what else is there for an atheist to belive in? Nothing but godless evolution with absolutely NO evidence to support it. Fossils don't show ANY transitional species but maybe this computer program with fix that too.

[AmericanAge]

Ever been to talkorigins.org? All of those godless atheists over there have spent a long time putting together documents trying to explain their "theory" of evolution. To be fair, they are pretty good at filtering out the hoaxes.

There's a pretty good debate forum too, and some people who've gone to college for years on this stuff are there, and met with the people who know better, at about a 50/50 mix.

[nmh]

Nebullis doesn't care to hear or acknowledge the word "artificial" since it would destroy his fantasy of evolution. For him, an atheist, evolution must be true, despite NO evidence to support it, since it is godless.

[Carlucci]

Can someone point me to a scientific article that attempts to explain how Sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual) evolved and why?

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

I've struggled with this for years. First being fully indoctrinated on young earth creationism (before it had that name), then being fully indoctrinated with evolutionary naturalism.

Never have fully sorted it out, but I have reached a few conclusions.

I. The Bible is open to some limited interpretation. Day-age, for starters. Which hebrew words are used for "made"? For that matter, look at what leading Jewish theologians say about it, its vastly different that what they teach in mainstream protestant sunday school.

II. Science itself is not anti-God. It is a study of that which God has made, and can provide a multitude of lessons about the nature of God.

III. Science is limited to naturalistic assumptions. Meaning, being based on repeatable experiments, it [i]a priori[/i] excludes the miraculous. Some misunderstand this and conclude miracles are impossible. No, they are just not subject to investigation by science, because they are by their very nature non-natural, non-repeatable.

IV. The Theory of Evolution is a mixture of good and bad science, and advocated zealously by the naturalists. The naturalists seem to think that the T-of-E removes the need for a God. Ignoring the whole question of where did the universe come from in the first place.

V. The two single biggest problems for the T-of-E are macroevolution and abiogenesis.

A) Abiogenesis, that life arose from inorganic material, is, scientifically, a discipline in shambles. A lot of time and energy spent, a lot of speculations made, and so far, nothing but some impossible speculations to show for it.

Oddly ... the impossibilities are suppressed --- the cleverness of the speculation trumpeted, and in some quarters people think its already proven.

B) Macro-evolution - perhaps a bad term. I mean to say, descent with change is proven - children differ from their parents, over time this can lead to changes in a species.

But, the assumption or speculation that this accounts for the grand diveristy of all life on the planet has not been proven, and in fact, scientifically, is a huge and largely unsupported leap. Put another way: the fossil record supports this theory very poorly.

7 posted on 04/28/2003 8:03 AM PDT by FactQuest

[PatrickHenry]

Ping.

[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[Moonman62]

I guess we won't have to worry about coming up with new uses for more and more powerful computers.

[js1138]

Common sense says the earth is flat and the stars are holes in the sky. Common sense says that living things too small to see can't possibly cause widespread death and destruction. What does common sense have to do with the object of this discussion?

[AmericanAge]

Most of those atheists over there on talkorigins say that it's related to the dual-helix nature of DNA which as a somewhat fragile molecule that has long been observed in bacteria to occasionally absorb DNA fragments from destroyed organisms (in the way that some diseases can get a resistance to a drug from another disease) simply proceeding through a more orderly path.

Can you believe that??!? What nonsense.

[The_Reader_David]

Of course if one designs a sufficiently rich digital environment, with a designed in notion of "fitness" one can use stochastic processes to evolve more fit digital configurations from less fit ones. The process can surely be modeled by a classical dynamical system in which 'more fit' is embodied as minimizing free energy, in which case this is no more surprising that that random perterbations will cause a book standing on end in the middle of a table to fall over. (Of course, the book was purposefully placed there to demonstrate the effect. . .)

If evolutionary biology really embraces these computer models and manages to shape itself into a more predictive theory as a result, the result will be a stronger scientific theory, but one far less apt as a iron with which atheistic polemeicists can brand theists as obscurantist, retrograde and anti-scientific. After all the computer runs take place inside one of the most magnificent artifacts of human craft: a computer!

[js1138]

Can someone point me to a scientific article that attempts to explain how Sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual) evolved and why?

Don't touch that dial. I can't, but it has been done many times on these threads. I might add that there are many intermediate modes of reproduction that are neither completely sexual or completly asexual.

[f.Christian]

g3 ...

evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE.

The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species.

This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions.

Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries.

In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism.

That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists.

It is ... pseudo-science (( link // source )) --- for morons.

With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.

We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.

sop ...

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.

g3 ...

It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'. Such is not science.

539 posted on 03/13/2003 8:59 PM PST by gore3000

[donh]

statistics, a "science" long since disproven.

Really? You know where I can find this proof?

[AmericanAge]

1. Why should we trust them? They're not Christian. They're more our allies than, say, the Muslims, but they don't believe in the saving love of Jesus Christ.

2. Science *Is* anti-God. It seeks to disprove His existance every day!

3. See 2.

4. There is nothing good about evolution. Nothing evolves - period. Even diseases. It's all nonsense, as I just mentioned.

[AmericanAge]

Yeah, look at how accurate polls are, for one.

[null and void]

Nothing evolves - period. Even diseases. It's all nonsense, as I just mentioned.

I think your reality check just bounced...

[RonF]

I have a question. Is there a conservative position on evolution?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'd love to watch a discussion divided into three discreet segments:

1. First segment, where YECs get to propound their principles of cosmology, universal age, and the size of the universe without resorting to any scripture, and without making any any attempt to specifically discredit evolution (and if they are offering up principles which require changing constants such as a shifting speed of light, clearly stating the scientific principles which buttress that belief, the amount of change, and the names and credentials of the scientists who postulate it).

2. Second segment, where YECs detail their criticisms of evolutionary theory, without resorting to scripture.

3. Third, YECS will get to defend their beliefs in an inerrant and short timeline of scripture by offering up their absolute proof of the events referenced in the books of Genesis and Exodus.

[donh]

Most of those atheists over there on talkorigins say that it's related to the dual-helix nature of DNA

hmm. Where do most of them say this? Fungi have a multitude of perverse sexual practices, including up to 19, at last count, observed genders with distinct roles in a single species. Ameba can be observed having three way sex, and more, and there is a regular saturday night party where various species of microorganisms have been observed to pass around usefully altered DNA so everyone can take a toke.

Bi-sexuality is just one hugely successful variation from a population of competing DNA-exchange schemes. Think of it as a living fossil.

[Right Wing Professor]

Next this person is going to start using statistics, a "science" long since disproven.

Oh boy, just what we need, some more idiocy posted with complete assurance.