Originally posted by @proper-knobI pointed out a few times I can write a program to do specific things, to get specific
You are making no sense whatsoever. What does this have to do with what you've been asking over the last few posts?
outcomes. I can weight it to have the outcomes I want to arrive right away or get there
through some longer drawn out process. The point being I can make sure I never fail to
get the outcome I want if I'm writing the code.
Evolution, as described cannot fail, because it only takes the good mutations, and uses
them over time, building with the other good mutations. Strange thing about these
random mutations the way they react to one another, that they all seem to want to build
upon previously random mutations! I find it amazing that after a while in several
generations we could find very complex organs, or systems as circulatory or respiratory
has been made. What a wonder that at some time there were none of these things, but
now they are in several different and unique life forms.
Evolution is like a card game; each player/lifeform can only play with the cards/mutations
dealt to them, some cards help, some kill, others harm, some do nothing now. When the
cards are dealt out the Cards/Mutations are not called for and delivered, so a player must
play with just the cards/mutations they were dealt. That means that each life gets a hand
and hopes to avoid harm and death cards. There isn’t any mechanism in play that can
ask the dealer to get what is wanted, like a 10 of hearts/mutation to fill an inside straight,
complete a flush, help grow an eye that isn’t blind. Which means if a specific mutation is
required getting one on cue isn’t going to be the norm, all the while hoping none of the
bad cards show up.
Now a program can deal out cards/mutations taking out random chance, or a cheat
dealer, but on a level playing field what would happen if more cards in the deck were
harm, death cards, and the game lasted millions of years? How long before all lives are
lost? Natural selection also would be limited, it too could only play with the
cards/mutations dealt, it doesn’t call for a card it doesn’t have, and if it gets dealt a death
or harm card, well survival of the fittest.
In your opinion does evolution reflect a computer game designed to never lose?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeWhy? Exactly why was it a feature right from the start? Seems to me handy yes, needful,
Well no kidding.
Reproduction had to have been a self existing feature right from the start... nothing mystical about that, oh great and wise Swami.
yes, but what part of this mixture in abio-genesis not only started a life form, but also had
built into the life the need to eat and reproduce. I know computer games give the various
participants basic abilities to start a game, how did life get those?
Originally posted by @proper-knobYep, and whatever that animal was, it remains the same with longer fur or not. I agree
A scenario for you.
We have an animal which has fur, it also has a mutation within its genome which means that it has longer fur. This means the animal will be warmer. If this animal lives in a cold environment then that mutation is beneficial, ie good, as it will improve that animals chances of survival. That mutation will then be given to its chil ...[text shortened]... her it's 'good' or 'bad' depends on the environment the animal lives in. Are you with me so far?
and have no issues with this type of change.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIf a life form had those additional features, they would draw away resources from the
The significant difference rendering my analogy useless is that the act of storing and keeping (unused, unusable) parts in a box is a directed (not random) process. The parts did not [b]by themselves collect and store themselves because of any perceived potential possibility of future usefulness.
This would be analogous to evolution develop ...[text shortened]... ture early on, and in so doing able to take advantage of any future potential usefulness.[/b]
rest of the life, expending energy not required. Say there is this life that does not have
any eyes, it gets a light sensitive spot, but there isn't any means to convey any
information from that spot to any other part of the life form that would make that
information useful. What would then be needed, a means to receive light information and
a way to translate that information into something useful not harmful. These types of
things can be programmed into what is needed if it is just coding, but random mutations
don't take into account anything, which is why we call them random. If they were
assessing features and realized what was needed, they would not be random, and we
would be talking about a completely different process.
-Removed-I prefer pebble and bug for aesthetic purposes.
Nevertheless, my question was not rhetorical. I was asking to see what other people might say. If working this out is beneath you, or too silly for you to waste your valuable time then don't bother yourself with it. I'm not demanding an answer or explanation from anyone.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhen compared to your brain, perhaps.
I'm sure we can all agree that an umbrella exhibits intelligent design.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeRight on cue with the ad hominems.
When compared to your brain, perhaps.