New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Woodgate on 20 Aug 2006 03:42 In message <44E7C128.48069E3E(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> There are thousands, millions, of astonishing biological structures, >> many deeply interlocked such that no part of a complex system could >> function until all of it is in place. And there are people who >> continue to insist that these structures resulted from random mutation >> and natural selection. >> >> Just consider how a worm might decide to only be able to reproduce in >> the form of a butterfly. > >What puzzles me even more is that anyone could imagine how a 'supreme >being' could have come up with all of this in a week too ! It's a poem; it was not intended to be taken literally. Using a literal interpretation to devalue it isn't playing fair. Of course, the creationists don't play fair, but we have to live with that. If you take Genesis 1 literally, you must accept that 'Jerusalem' is an incitement to holy war. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: John Larkin on 20 Aug 2006 10:25 On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:38:38 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <16efe2p06v5c70n2rvo9iaveu1nd69ic5b(a)4ax.com>, dated Sat, 19 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes > >>There are thousands, millions, of astonishing biological structures, >>many deeply interlocked such that no part of a complex system could >>function until all of it is in place. > >Not true. SYSTEMS evolve as well as creatures. Exactly. And why wouldn't DNA itself evolve as a system? To incorporate higher-level mechanisms than random mutation? > >> And there are people who continue to insist that these structures >>resulted from random mutation and natural selection. > >For extremely good reasons. If you pre-emptively close your mind to >them, of course you will never understand and accept them. I have this discusion with my older daughter, who is a PhD biologist, and I think I'm gradually convincing her that I'm not a lunatic. As I say to her, "the problem here is that I believe in evolution more than you do." >> >>Just consider how a worm might decide to only be able to reproduce in >>the form of a butterfly. > >That's just silly, and I'm sure you know it. So, a worm decides to create a silk organ, wrap itself into a coccoon, dissolve into jelly, reorganize itself as a beautiful flying machine with folded wings, legs, antennae, all that stuff, then emerge, unfold and dry the wings, *knowing how to fly*, and go looking for mates who have done the same thing. Seems sorta improbable to me. As in *very* improbably. The Neo Darwinians sort of wave their hands and declare that this is the result of random spot mutations. Hell, you can't design simple electronic circuits through random mutation, much less butterflies. John
From: John Woodgate on 20 Aug 2006 11:01 In message <emrge25e73kjbecv1al8jj28h2rfvo0amk(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 20 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes >So, a worm decides to create a silk organ, wrap itself into a coccoon, >dissolve into jelly, reorganize itself as a beautiful flying machine >with folded wings, legs, antennae, all that stuff, then emerge, unfold >and dry the wings, *knowing how to fly*, and go looking for mates who >have done the same thing. I'm quite sure you know the obvious fallacy in that, and it's a bit of an insult to put it forward. Your implicit assumption is that all those things happened in one 'giant leap for wormkind'. They didn't; it took many millions of years; 'one small step for caterpillar-kind' at a time. The metamorphosis thing is very ancient indeed; many sea-creatures, especially those which are sessile in later life go through the process. It seems mysterious and improbable to us because we apparently go through it, or something like it, when we are only a small number of cells, in going from a 'blob' to a more structured form. > >Seems sorta improbable to me. As in *very* improbably. The Neo >Darwinians sort of wave their hands and declare that this is the result >of random spot mutations. The mutations are random, yes, but what very much ISN'T random is the subsequent filtering. This selection process weeds out millions of random mutations that are damaging or confer no relevant advantage; the ones that survive can no longer be described as 'random'. >Hell, you can't design simple electronic circuits through random >mutation, much less butterflies. Well, actually it has been done. An array of semiconductor devices (in simulation) was allowed to self-organize to produce specific outputs when presented with signals of differing frequencies. It took a while, but it did. It isn't at all obvious how. I can't find the right keyword to get a reference through Google, I'm afraid. Evolution can actually be observed going on; it isn't something that necessarily takes huge amounts of time. It can be directly observed in any organism that reproduces fast enough compared with observation periods that are compatible with our life-span. How do you think bacteria develop drug-resistance? And there are many other examples. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Don Bowey on 20 Aug 2006 11:25 On 8/19/06 6:55 PM, in article 44E7C128.48069E3E(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:28:18 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:42:33 +0100, John Woodgate wrote: >>> >>>> In message <j329e2t9dc055hbcl7iip1lp8j43fo9fnp(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 17 >>>> Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> >>>> writes >>>>> I certainly am confused. I've been informed that one or more comets >>>>> killed off everything over a few kilograms, and that all available >>>>> ecological niches were filled a few million years later. So giraffes >>>>> and walruses and mastadons evolved from rabbit-sized critters in a few >>>>> million years. >>>>> >>>>> Have I got it right at last? >>>> >>>> Yes, for sometimes quite large values of 'few'. >>> >>> Well, would all of the sea critters have got wiped out too? >>> >>> I've never been able to grasp how cetaceans evolved from land critters - >>> when did their nose move to the back of their neck? ?:-/ >> >> There are thousands, millions, of astonishing biological structures, >> many deeply interlocked such that no part of a complex system could >> function until all of it is in place. And there are people who >> continue to insist that these structures resulted from random mutation >> and natural selection. >> >> Just consider how a worm might decide to only be able to reproduce in >> the form of a butterfly. > > What puzzles me even more is that anyone could imagine how a 'supreme being' > could have come up with all of this in a week too ! > > Graham > What was the length of a week at the time of the big bang, compared to the length of a week as we define it now? No problem. Don
From: John Fields on 20 Aug 2006 12:26
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:55:52 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: >> There are thousands, millions, of astonishing biological structures, >> many deeply interlocked such that no part of a complex system could >> function until all of it is in place. And there are people who >> continue to insist that these structures resulted from random mutation >> and natural selection. >> >> Just consider how a worm might decide to only be able to reproduce in >> the form of a butterfly. > >What puzzles me even more is that anyone could imagine how a 'supreme being' >could have come up with all of this in a week too ! --- Time, and its restrictions as we know them, don't exist for a supreme being. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |