Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote in message <news:email@example.com>...Oh really? Hmmmmm . . . Do you really think that the chicken egg was
> It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
> process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
> process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
forming of Hamlet? For example, a computer can be programmed to do
fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
"intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
cannot do. Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
create automatically. An egg or a computer program cannot create new
things that they were not already programmed to create. A chicken egg
cannot make anything except for a chicken. Shakespeare, on the other
hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet or Macbeth or the Taming of
the Shrew. Though these creations are admittedly not as functionally
complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
>You areThis conclusion happens to be my hypothesis. That is what the
> merely presuming your conclusion when you say that "no such mindless
> process can give rise to a greater level of complexity... that goes
> very far beyond what its original programming allowed it to do".
scientific method is all about. You observe a given phenomenon and
then make a conclusion/hypothesis to explain this phenomenon. This is
a valid scientific process as long as the hypothesis makes a testable
prediction that can in fact be disproved or "falsified". This is what
I have done. I have predicted that no mindless process will ever be
able to create anything new within a given level of complexity or
beyond in real time. I have drawn this line at several thousand amino
acids working at the same time. So far, the highest level of
functional complexity that has been observed to evolve in real time
requires less than a few hundred amino acids at minimum for that type
of function (i.e., the lactase or nylonase functions). Nothing beyond
such levels of complexity have ever been shown to evolve in real time
and even many life forms seem to be incapable of evolving much of
anything requiring only a few hundred amino acids working at the same
time. For example, many types of bacteria, to include Hall's double
mutant E. coli bacteria, cannot evolve the relatively simple lactase
function in over a million generations of positive selection pressure.
Hall himself referred to these bacteria as having, "limited
evolutionary potential." Now I find that most interesting . . .
> TheBiological development certainly involves pre-established information
> statement itself attempts to confuse the issues by using a term which
> we normally associate with human effort (namefly 'programming') with
> something that seldom does (namely biological development).
systems of extraordinary informational complexity. Without this
information being there fully formed, random organic matter doesn't
turn into much of anything besides amorphous ooze, much less a
chicken. The pre-established information system is vital to the
functional organizational ability of the chicken egg . . . and all
other biological activities. For example, the parts of a flagellum,
if added to solution suddenly or randomly, will not self-assemble. A
very specific order and concentration of part additions is required in
order for the flagellum to form in such a way that its motility
function will be realized. This specific order requires a
pre-established information system and physical apparatus to decode
this information before a motile flagellum can be built. Information
systems at such levels of complexity simply do not self-assemble
without outside input from some higher information system or
> This may be what you think the problem is in a nutshell, but itWhat would you call the fact that there is a ladder of complexity
> unfortunately has no evidence to back it up at all.
where evolution works very well on the lowest rungs, but less and less
well as it tries to move up the ladder to higher levels of functional
complexity (involving more and more amino acids at minimum)?
For example, very simple functions, such as many forms of antibiotic
Some in this forum, such as Von Smith and a few others, have suggested
The problem is that at increasing levels of minimum amino acid
> Your conclusion ofActually that is exactly what the theory of evolution suggests.
> an intelligent designer is based upon the improbability of long chains
> of amino acids forming randomly, but that's rather silly and bears no
> resemblance to any modern theory of evolution/abiogenesis/genetics.
Random mutations are supposed to find new beneficial functions, which
can be selected in a positive way by Mother Nature.
> The truth is that long chains of amino acids in very specific sequencesActually they do not form with great frequency outside of the
> DO form, form with great frequency.
pre-established information system in the DNA of that creature which
codes for their formation.
> If you are to claim that they areActually it is sufficient. The detection of intelligent activity at
> somehow designed, it is up to you to present evidence that they are
> designed. Merely asserting that some particular model of random formation
> makes them exceptionally unlikely is not sufficient.
the level of humans or beyond is based on two things: 1) That such
levels of intelligence are capable of producing a given phenomenon,
and 2) that no lesser intelligence or other mindless process is
capable of producing anything even close. Once these two things are
known, intelligent design can be reasonably inferred with a very high
degree of predictive value.
Also, I've done a lot more than just assert than the success of a
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.