Lack of evolution in computers and living things
Seanpit
at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
Stanford University, where Susumu Ohno was the scheduled keynote
speaker. Only two of six reviewers recommended accepting it. Maybe
that's not bad for a paper that questions the possibility of achieving
one of Genetic Programming's highest goals.
http://www.panspermia.org/computr2.htm
Yes, the paper is over 10 years old, but the questions raised by this
paper have yet to be answered by any new relevant demonstration(s).
_______________________________
Chandra Wickramasinghe has compared the Darwinian account of evolution
to saying that all of world literature came from the book of Genesis
by occasional typos and paragraph swapping. The mechanism discussed
here is analogous to stipulating that every text along the way was
viable as literature. Such gradualistic series have not been shown to
be possible in written text or computer programs. Nor have they been
shown to exist in biology. If this is how new genes are supposed to
evolve, the mechanism remains to be demonstrated.
Computer Programs
1) One well-known computer program that purports to mimic evolution is
the one by Richard Dawkins that creates "biomorphs". The program
generates stick figures that resemble insects, trees, bats, spiders,
etc. The figures show a certain amount of variety as they evolve. But
the evolution is by artificial selection, and nothing like gene
duplication occurs. Instead, only nine or sixteen variables (in
different versions) are allowed to wander within narrow ranges. These
few variables occupy a tiny fraction of the "genome" that generates
the biomorphs, which includes Dawkins's application program and the
necessary parts of the computer's operating system. The sequence space
explored by Dawkins's program is tightly confined and every member of
it is functional. Saying that this process represents evolution is
like saying that the song "Happy Birthday" evolves whenever it is sung
for a different person. Certainly, nothing analogous to a new gene is
created by Dawkins's biomorphs.
2) The program by Tom Ray called Tierra is also well-known. It starts
with a species that originally has 80 instructions. The creatures
multiply and evolve until the computer's storage capacity is full.
From then on the population is controlled by killing off creatures
ranking lower on a fitness scale. One common outcome is the evolution
of parasitism. Parasitism is known to be important in biological
evolution. But the evolution of parasitism does not necessarily
require any new genes — the genes of the parasites and hosts already
exist beforehand. True, biological genomes that become related in this
way may in fact require new genes to make them compatible with each
other. But in Tierra, nothing suggests that anything analogous to a
new gene is ever created.
3) John Koza's models of evolution, called Genetic Programming, start
with selected algorithms that are shuffled and duplicated to create
new subroutines. The subroutines are bred for their ability to solve a
basic problem. While it is possible for an evolved subroutine to
contain more algorithms than its parent, there is no suggestion that
any new algorithms are created in Koza's process. All of the necessary
algorithms — and some that may be unnecessary — are supplied from the
outset. Therefore, this evolutionary process more nearly mimics Cosmic
Ancestry than Darwinism!
4) The fourth computer program is different from the other three
because it was intended not to model evolution but to automate the
updating of software — and it was never implemented. At the Second
Artificial Life Conference held February 5 - 9, 1990, in Santa Fe, New
Mexico, Harold Thimbleby of Scotland proposed that updates to existing
computer programs could be distributed and installed automatically by
computer viruses (Kelly). Such a virus would contain code that would
a) recognize a host needing the upgrade, b) provide and install the
upgrade, and c) from there, infect other computers also needing the
upgrade. Here the computer analog of new genes for evolutionary
improvements would be inserted from elsewhere by viruses, as in Cosmic
Ancestry. That this process could work in computers was not disputed
at the Santa Fe conference. And in biology, that viruses can spread by
infection and insert their own genes into their hosts' genome,
including the germline, without harm, is already known. Ohno himself
mentions that viruses are a possible mechanism behind biological
evolution and he says viruses would be the only way to transform whole
populations at once (Ohno, p 55).
Discussion
We have believed since before Darwin that biology does not have a
different set of rules from the rest of science. If Darwinian
evolution works, it should be possible to mimic the process in
software. By whatever mechanism, Ohno's or other, computers should be
able to mimic what biological evolution has done. In the discussion
above, we have focused on the creation of new genes that code for new
functions.
More broadly, if a software model of evolution is possible, ordinary
personal computers should be able to evolve wholly new, unexpected
features that are somehow advantageous to them or their software. For
example, computers might acquire the ability to activate other helpful
programs, network with other computers, use the telephone, identify
and disarm harmful viruses, automatically backup themselves, survive
crashes, etc. All of these improvements would require new computer
code. Since computer programs are transferred constantly, and
duplicated, and mistakes are inserted occasionally, just as in
biology, the opportunity for existing computer programs to evolve by
the Darwinian method is already in place.
Of course, in the marketplace, computers have acquired these and many
other new abilities, but not in a closed system. To mimic Darwinian
evolution, they would have to evolve improvements without input from
programmers, starting with only programs already available. To suggest
that computers ever might evolve significant improvements this way
seems farfetched. Why? Can computers, without the input of new code,
write for themselves any programs with fundamentally new meaning? Is
there any example of an improvement to personal computers that was
written by the unguided random duplication, mutation and recombination
of existing code? Or, is the Darwinian account of the evolution of
biological improvements equally farfetched?
Returning to the narrower original question, can any computer model of
Darwinian evolution produce the analog of new genes? If not, perhaps
we should wonder if the Darwinian mechanism is sufficient to produce
new genes on Earth, or whether another source for them is necessary.
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
> We have believed since before Darwin that biology does not have a
> different set of rules from the rest of science. If Darwinian
> evolution works, it should be possible to mimic the process in
> software. By whatever mechanism, Ohno's or other, computers should be
> able to mimic what biological evolution has done. In the discussion
> above, we have focused on the creation of new genes that code for new
> functions.
To expect a computer program to mimic evolution in all its complexity is
asking a tad much, even after 10 additional years of advances. The
programs in question were likely only as demonstrations to show certain
aspects of evolution. Sort of like using cartoons to depict evolution.
The only thing you'll get out of it is what gets put into it. We
don't know everything about evolution or anything else to fully model in
computers. Even with all the studies made in simulating non-living
systems such as weather and nuclear physics, we are still struggling
against the limits of our knowledge and we're applying the most powerful
computers ever made towards those problems. Biology is a lot more
complex and as such is going to require more than some demonstration
programs to fully simulate it. I think this particular objection is
unfair and unrealistic.
--
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-
bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the
road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. - Douglas
Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Seanpit
> On 6/12/2008 11:58 AM, Seanpit went clickity clack on the keyboard and
> produced this interesting bit of text:
>
> > We have believed since before Darwin that biology does not have a
> > different set of rules from the rest of science. If Darwinian
> > evolution works, it should be possible to mimic the process in
> > software. By whatever mechanism, Ohno's or other, computers should be
> > able to mimic what biological evolution has done. In the discussion
> > above, we have focused on the creation of new genes that code for new
> > functions.
>
> To expect a computer program to mimic evolution in all its complexity is
> asking a tad much, even after 10 additional years of advances. The
> programs in question were likely only as demonstrations to show certain
> aspects of evolution. Sort of like using cartoons to depict evolution.
> The only thing you'll get out of it is what gets put into it. We
> don't know everything about evolution or anything else to fully model in
> computers. Even with all the studies made in simulating non-living
> systems such as weather and nuclear physics, we are still struggling
> against the limits of our knowledge and we're applying the most powerful
> computers ever made towards those problems. Biology is a lot more
> complex and as such is going to require more than some demonstration
> programs to fully simulate it. I think this particular objection is
> unfair and unrealistic.
Not when the same limitations that are seen in computer evolution
programs are also seen in living systems.
Living systems, like computer systems, simply do not evolve novel
beneficial systems of function if the novel system requires more than
a few hundred protein building blocks (amino acid residues) working
together at the same time. There seems to be a threshold limitation
to what is evolvable in observable time. This threshold is well shy of
functionally beneficial systems that require 1000aa. This threshold
has never been observed to be crossed in either computer systems or
living things. In fact, the evolutionary mechanism of random mutation
and function-based selection stalls out, in an exponential manner, as
this threshold is approached.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
John Harshman
> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
> Stanford University, where Susumu Ohno was the scheduled keynote
> speaker. Only two of six reviewers recommended accepting it.
"Only"? I'm surprised that any of the reviewers recommended accepting
that nonsense. I'd argue with you, but you show a tendency to wander off
when you're having problems, only to surface later having conveniently
forgotten there was any argument at all. This is a trait you share with
Tony Pagano, and it's not an attractive one.
[snip]
Rodjk #613
I am shocked that two reviewers thought this was worthy of anything.
Rodjk #613
Seanpit
wrote:
Whatever John. I've discussed your notions of common descent with you
at nausium. I'm just not interested in your position on that topic
any more since I don't find anything you've said in all the large
number of your responses very convincing - sorry. I'm just more
interested in other topics. If you're not, no one is twisting your
arm here . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Mark VandeWettering
It's hardly surprising, since that's not what it is supposed to illustrate.
> 2) The program by Tom Ray called Tierra is also well-known. It starts
> with a species that originally has 80 instructions. The creatures
> multiply and evolve until the computer's storage capacity is full.
> From then on the population is controlled by killing off creatures
> ranking lower on a fitness scale. One common outcome is the evolution
> of parasitism. Parasitism is known to be important in biological
> evolution. But the evolution of parasitism does not necessarily
> require any new genes — the genes of the parasites and hosts already
> exist beforehand. True, biological genomes that become related in this
> way may in fact require new genes to make them compatible with each
> other. But in Tierra, nothing suggests that anything analogous to a
> new gene is ever created.
I don't believe this is true. But the question is perhaps subtle. What
do you think "something analogous to a new gene" would look like in the
Tierra universe? If you don't know what you are looking for, it seems
odd to complain that you can't find them.
> 3) John Koza's models of evolution, called Genetic Programming, start
> with selected algorithms that are shuffled and duplicated to create
> new subroutines. The subroutines are bred for their ability to solve a
> basic problem. While it is possible for an evolved subroutine to
> contain more algorithms than its parent, there is no suggestion that
> any new algorithms are created in Koza's process. All of the necessary
> algorithms — and some that may be unnecessary — are supplied from the
> outset. Therefore, this evolutionary process more nearly mimics Cosmic
> Ancestry than Darwinism!
Koza's Genetic Programming isn't a model of evolution: it's an
optimization technique that is inspired by biological evolution. And
the assertion that "While it is possible for an evolved subroutine to
contain more algorithms than its parent, there is no suggestion that
any new algorithms are created in Koza's process" would appear to be
self-contradicting. If the evolved subroutine contains "more algorithms"
than its parents, why can this be achieved without creating new ones?
> 4) The fourth computer program is different from the other three
> because it was intended not to model evolution but to automate the
> updating of software — and it was never implemented. At the Second
> Artificial Life Conference held February 5 - 9, 1990, in Santa Fe, New
> Mexico, Harold Thimbleby of Scotland proposed that updates to existing
> computer programs could be distributed and installed automatically by
> computer viruses (Kelly). Such a virus would contain code that would
> a) recognize a host needing the upgrade, b) provide and install the
> upgrade, and c) from there, infect other computers also needing the
> upgrade.
We have plenty of examples of this kind of program. We call them
'viruses'.
> Here the computer analog of new genes for evolutionary
> improvements would be inserted from elsewhere by viruses, as in Cosmic
> Ancestry. That this process could work in computers was not disputed
> at the Santa Fe conference.
It would seem silly, given all the examples that we have.
> And in biology, that viruses can spread by
> infection and insert their own genes into their hosts' genome,
> including the germline, without harm, is already known. Ohno himself
> mentions that viruses are a possible mechanism behind biological
> evolution and he says viruses would be the only way to transform whole
> populations at once (Ohno, p 55).
Of course computer viruses have relatively little to do with the biological
kind.
Of course it can.
> If not, perhaps
> we should wonder if the Darwinian mechanism is sufficient to produce
> new genes on Earth, or whether another source for them is necessary.
If there were other mechanisms, what is to keep computers from modelling
_those_ sources?
Mark
Rodjk #613
wrote:
I was wondering the same about the reviewers.
Rodjk #613
Vernon Balbert
Novel beneficial systems do not spring to being overnight. It takes a
long time with gradual developments to produce new structures. Witness
a new study based on e. coli which produced a sub-species that can
consume citrate for nutrition. It took over 44,000 generations to do
this, but it's been repeated.
(http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php)
Computer programs can only do what they've been written to do.
Bacteria, on the other hand, are not entirely predictable.
--
When the Bogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks under his bed for
Chuck Norris.
David Canzi
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.panspermia.org/computr2.htm
>_______________________________
>
>Chandra Wickramasinghe has compared the Darwinian account of evolution
>to saying that all of world literature came from the book of Genesis
>by occasional typos and paragraph swapping. The mechanism discussed
>here is analogous to stipulating that every text along the way was
>viable as literature. Such gradualistic series have not been shown to
>be possible in written text or computer programs. Nor have they been
>shown to exist in biology. If this is how new genes are supposed to
>evolve, the mechanism remains to be demonstrated.
Let's see... A natural language text is a finite sequence of
symbols taken from a finite alphabet. A computer program is
a finite sequence of symbols taken from a finite alphabet.
A DNA sequence is a finite sequence of symbols taken from a
finite alphabet.
F = finite seqeunce from finite alphabet
C = can be changed greatly by a series of point substitutions
and swapping of subsequences, with all intermediate versions
being functional.
t = natural language text
p = computer program
g = DNA sequence
F(t) and ~C(t) and F(p) and ~C(p) and F(g) therefore ~C(g)
I think there are some steps missing from your argument.
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
Mark VandeWettering
Indeed. It's a dreadful paper, which practically screams complete
ignorance of the field.
> Rodjk #613
Greg G.
Does anybody actually propose that evolution ever crosses your
barrier?
Here is a new example of rapid evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wall_Lizard
This lizard is often used in scientific studies so it is well known. A
small population was moved to a nearby island near Croatia just before
war broke out. When the scientists returned twenty years later, the
island's lizard population had been replaced by the lizards that were
brought there. The lizard was larger, slower, with shorter legs,
different behavior and had become more of a vegetarian rather than
insectivorous. What's more, in 20 years, it evolved cecal valves in
its digestive tract to slow down the process and allow fermentation of
the cellulose. The mitochondrial DNA was indistinguishable from the
parent population.
If that much evolution can happen in twenty years, why is 1000 a.a.
such a barrier? That's 1 a.a. per generation over 1000 generations.
Variation from the starting point could get you half way to 100 a.a
difference where there might be another optimum, and so on. Do you
have an example where it seems that evolution ever made the 1000 a.a.
jump and that there were no viable intermediate positions? If not, you
may be correct that evolution can't do it, but you have to show that
it had to have been a necessary evolutionary pathway.
--
Greg G.
Family. Friends. Integrity.
The three demons one must slay to become all that one can be.
John Harshman
> On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Seanpit wrote:
>>> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
>>> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
>>> Stanford University, where Susumu Ohno was the scheduled keynote
>>> speaker. Only two of six reviewers recommended accepting it.
>> "Only"? I'm surprised that any of the reviewers recommended accepting
>> that nonsense. I'd argue with you, but you show a tendency to wander off
>> when you're having problems, only to surface later having conveniently
>> forgotten there was any argument at all. This is a trait you share with
>> Tony Pagano, and it's not an attractive one.
>
> Whatever John. I've discussed your notions of common descent with you
> at nausium.
The term is "ad nauseam".
> I'm just not interested in your position on that topic
> any more since I don't find anything you've said in all the large
> number of your responses very convincing - sorry. I'm just more
> interested in other topics. If you're not, no one is twisting your
> arm here . . .
True. And in fact I'm not interested in this topic. Still, it seems odd
that you're uninterested in the basic fact of common descent. And are
you still claiming that, according to mitochondrial data, some humans
are more closely related to chimps than to neanderthals?
Mark Evans
But what a program does and what the programmer thought he wrote it to
do are not always the same thing, especially if there is a bug in the
compiler, a flaw in the copy, etc.
Mark Evans
Bodega
> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
> speaker.
The only message I get is that if life cannot be duplicated on a
comouter, life must not exist.
Why do people waste their time on such silly stuff?
The Enigmatic One
<bf9e8842-1854-48e3...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
sea...@gmail.com says...
>Living systems, like computer systems, simply do not evolve novel
>beneficial systems of function if the novel system requires more than
>a few hundred protein building blocks (amino acid residues) working
>together at the same time. There seems to be a threshold limitation
>to what is evolvable in observable time.
You do realize that you're a fucking moron, right?
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
<f9b0fabf-ba9f-4eb0...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
michael...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>
>On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
>> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
>> Stanford University, where Susumu s the schOhno waeduled keynote
>> speaker.
>
>The only message I get is that if life cannot be duplicated on a
>comouter, life must not exist.
You almost got it. The message is that if life cannot be duplicated on
a computer, then life cannot exist unless goddidit.
-Tim
Ron O
They are the only arguments that they have left?
Ron Okimoto
Cheezits
[etc.]
> The only message I get is that if life cannot be duplicated on a
> comouter, life must not exist.
>
> Why do people waste their time on such silly stuff?
What else can they do? Biological systems keep on stubbornly insisting
on doing things that creationists don't want them to do, like *evolving*.
So they turn to other things - like lame analogies with language, or
their own version of something called information theory, or backspace's
endless babbling about semantics - to try to prove that evolution is
impossible.
Sue
--
Convinced that they sport intellectual D-cups, the creationists will
stuff in whatever Kleenex they can find to maintain the illusion.
- Grandbank
Seanpit
wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >>> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
> >>> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
> >>> speaker. Only two of six reviewers recommended accepting it.
> >> "Only"? I'm surprised that any of the reviewers recommended accepting
> >> that nonsense. I'd argue with you, but you show a tendency to wander off
> >> when you're having problems, only to surface later having conveniently
> >> forgotten there was any argument at all. This is a trait you share with
> >> Tony Pagano, and it's not an attractive one.
>
> > Whatever John. I've discussed your notions of common descent with you
> > at nausium.
>
> The term is "ad nauseam".
>
> > I'm just not interested in your position on that topic
> > any more since I don't find anything you've said in all the large
> > number of your responses very convincing - sorry. I'm just more
> > interested in other topics. If you're not, no one is twisting your
> > arm here . . .
>
> True. And in fact I'm not interested in this topic. Still, it seems odd
> that you're uninterested in the basic fact of common descent. And are
> you still claiming that, according to mitochondrial data, some humans
I've already discussed this concept with you at great length. I've
presented my position and considered yours. Your arguments just
aren't convincing to me . . . Sorry. I've listed links to your
arguments on my website where I present this argument. I think that
is more than enough to provide a reader with both sides of the debate.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > Not when the same limitations that are seen in computer evolution
> > programs are also seen in living systems.
>
> > Living systems, like computer systems, simply do not evolve novel
> > beneficial systems of function if the novel system requires more than
> > a few hundred protein building blocks (amino acid residues) working
> > together at the same time. There seems to be a threshold limitation
> > to what is evolvable in observable time. This threshold is well shy of
> > functionally beneficial systems that require 1000aa. This threshold
> > has never been observed to be crossed in either computer systems or
> > living things. In fact, the evolutionary mechanism of random mutation
> > and function-based selection stalls out, in an exponential manner, as
> > this threshold is approached.
>
> Novel beneficial systems do not spring to being overnight. It takes a
> long time with gradual developments to produce new structures. Witness
> a new study based on e. coli which produced a sub-species that can
> consume citrate for nutrition. It took over 44,000 generations to do
> this, but it's been repeated.
> (http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php)
This is not significantly different than a host of other such examples
of evolution in action – such as lactase evolution in E. coli or
nylonase evolution and many other examples of the evolution of novel
single-protein enzymatic functions that do not require more than a few
hundred amino acid residues working together at the same time.
You have to ask yourself why evolution works so well and often so
easily when only a few dozen residues are required at minimum, much
less commonly when hundreds are requires (tens of thousands of
generations in a large colony of individuals) and not at all when more
than 1000aa are required at minimum? Why is there this exponential
stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
ladder of functional complexity?
> Computer programs can only do what they've been written to do.
> Bacteria, on the other hand, are not entirely predictable.
Bacteria, like all living things, are computer programs. What are not
entirely predictable are the random mutations that affect the
bacterial program. The very same thing (random mutations) can be set
up to affect computer programs in exactly the same way. Where is the
real fundamental difference?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > Not when the same limitations that are seen in computer evolution
> > programs are also seen in living systems.
>
> > Living systems, like computer systems, simply do not evolve novel
> > beneficial systems of function if the novel system requires more than
> > a few hundred protein building blocks (amino acid residues) working
> > together at the same time. There seems to be a threshold limitation
> > to what is evolvable in observable time. This threshold is well shy of
> > functionally beneficial systems that require 1000aa. This threshold
> > has never been observed to be crossed in either computer systems or
> > living things. In fact, the evolutionary mechanism of random mutation
> > and function-based selection stalls out, in an exponential manner, as
> > this threshold is approached.
>
> Does anybody actually propose that evolution ever crosses your
> barrier?
Every living thing has many systems that require a minimum of well
over 1000aa working together at the same time. A bacterial flagellum,
for example, requires over 10,000 specifically coded residue positions
(i.e., over 10,000 codons of DNA).
> Here is a new example of rapid evolution:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wall_Lizard
>
> This lizard is often used in scientific studies so it is well known. A
> small population was moved to a nearby island near Croatia just before
> war broke out. When the scientists returned twenty years later, the
> island's lizard population had been replaced by the lizards that were
> brought there. The lizard was larger, slower, with shorter legs,
> different behavior and had become more of a vegetarian rather than
> insectivorous. What's more, in 20 years, it evolved cecal valves in
> its digestive tract to slow down the process and allow fermentation of
> the cellulose. The mitochondrial DNA was indistinguishable from the
> parent population.
>
> If that much evolution can happen in twenty years, why is 1000 a.a.
> such a barrier? That's 1 a.a. per generation over 1000 generations.
> Variation from the starting point could get you half way to 100 a.a
> difference where there might be another optimum, and so on. Do you
> have an example where it seems that evolution ever made the 1000 a.a.
> jump and that there were no viable intermediate positions? If not, you
> may be correct that evolution can't do it, but you have to show that
> it had to have been a necessary evolutionary pathway.
The interesting point is the argument that these lizards experienced
"fast track evolution of an entirely new intestinal system".
I suggest that this statement is just a bit wishful. What happened is
that they evolved a larger cecal valve. Almost certainly they already
had the underlying genetics for a cecal valve (which isn't a very
complicated structure by the way) but it wasn't very large in the non-
vege lizards. All that had to happen is a bit of selection for larger
cecal valves over time.
It is the very same sort of evolution that produces different sizes of
finch beaks and different colored moths in different environments. It
is basically Mendelian genetics. Nothing really new is evolving into
the gene pool here that wasn't already there. The gene pool remains
the same. It is just that different portions of its potential are
expressed. This sort of "evolution" can and does happen very rapidly
all the time since nothing really new as far as genetic information or
potential is actually introduced into the gene pool. This is nothing
new or dramatic. It is essentially the same as selection for the
enhancement of certain desired traits via breeding - like for cows
that produce more milk or horses that run faster etc.
More specifically in the paper, the authors note that <1% of all
currently known species of squamates have cecal valves, and that:
"These valves are similar in overall appearance and structure to those
found in herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards and are not
found in other populations of P. sicula or in P. melisellensis."
Herbivory explains why cecal valves are useful to these lizards. Also,
"along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite
harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider." All these
changes came in a 36 year time window."
The genus Podarcis is in fact included in the Lacertidae, which means
that even though none of the related species in Podarcis, nor in
closely related genera have cecum or cecal valves, at least some
genera do indeed have that capability.
In short, the genetic information for cecal valves was already
there . . . It just wasn't turned on. What evolved here wasn't the
information for cecal valves, but a reduction in the suppression of
expression of the cecal valve information in the gene pool.
> Greg G.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> In article
> <bf9e8842-1854-48e3-81f7-ebccaa7c4...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,sean...@gmail.com says...
>
> >Living systems, like computer systems, simply do not evolve novel
> >beneficial systems of function if the novel system requires more than
> >a few hundred protein building blocks (amino acid residues) working
> >together at the same time. There seems to be a threshold limitation
> >to what is evolvable in observable time.
>
> You do realize that you're a fucking moron, right?
Compared to some . . . ; )
> -Tim
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
What cannot be duplicated on a computer is random mutation and
function-based selection producing anything beyond very low levels of
functional complexity. That's very interesting since computers can be
programmed to mutate randomly and to undergo function-based
selection. Yet, nothing novel evolves beyond very low levels - why?
Beyond this, biosystems are computers. Even the genetics of viruses
are computers. Think about it . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
I am curious about your ability to critique evidence. You appear to be
quite willing to believe any old nonsense for ID/Creationism, no matter
how totally without supporting evidence the claim is, but find ever
smaller nits to pick about all scientific evidence. Can you see how
completely biased you are?
Mark VandeWettering
> On Jun 12, 9:07 pm, Bodega <michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
>> > at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
>> > Stanford University, where Susumu s the schOhno waeduled keynote
>> > speaker.
>>
>> The only message I get is that if life cannot be duplicated on a
>> comouter, life must not exist.
>>
>> Why do people waste their time on such silly stuff?
>
> What cannot be duplicated on a computer is random mutation and
> function-based selection producing anything beyond very low levels of
> functional complexity.
Upon what basis do you make this claim?
There is an entire field of computer science dedicated to exactly the
question "what can computers do, and what can't they do?". They don't
assert claims like the one above: they prove what they can and can't do.
Where is the analogous work to support your claim?
Whatever fine qualities Brig Klyce might have, he simply doesn't
understand any of what he's citing above, and frankly, neither do you.
> That's very interesting since computers can be programmed to mutate
> randomly and to undergo function-based selection. Yet, nothing novel
> evolves beyond very low levels - why?
There are two issues at least you might wish to consider:
1. Programs like Dawkins' biomorph program _aren't themselves very
complicated, and aren't capable or intended to model evolution,
but rather to illustrate elements of evolution_. In the case
of biomorphs, the power of repeated selection.
2. Your claim that "nothing novel evolves" below "very low levels"
is just a claim, and despite its deliberate vagueness, it's
simply wrong.
> Beyond this, biosystems are computers. Even the genetics of viruses
> are computers. Think about it . . .
It's just this kind of wooly-headed thinking that leads people to think
that Brig Klyce knows what he's talking about.
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
Sapient Fridge
<bb00e8ea-e92e-4be6...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes
>Why is there this exponential
>stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
>ladder of functional complexity?
There isn't. It's a baseless assertion you make, without evidence.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Vernon Balbert
I beg to differ on this point. Clones may not behave the same as the
original parent organism or each other. This has been shown not only in
clones of complex creatures such as cats but also in bacteria. For
example, clones of the same parent bacterium may or may not produce
flagella, they may differ in behavior to the same stimuli, etc. For a
good article on this, check out:
It's an adaptation of Carl Zimmer's book Microcosm (adaptation written
by Mr. Zimmer) He discusses several different behaviors of genetically
identical e. coli bacteria under the identical conditions. Quite an
interesting read and I'm highly tempted to get the book.
--
Apu, you got any Skittle Brau? Never mind, just give me some Duff and a
pack of Skittles.
_Arthur
wrote:
>
> There is an entire field of computer science dedicated to exactly the
> question "what can computers do, and what can't they do?". They don't
> assert claims like the one above: they prove what they can and can't do.
But, Mark, there's an even better program, written in FORTRAN by
Granville Sewell, which replicate the entire Earth, down to atomic and
even quantum level, and in which life utterly failed to appear,
despite several multi-billion years simulations on his laptop. The
Pitmann should use Sewell wonderful program as further proof that life
cannot evolve in computer programs.
John Harshman
Really? This bears investigation. Your site is large, and I couldn't
fine any links to my arguments in your discussion of mitochondrial data,
though I see you're still claiming that some humans are more closely
related to chimps than to neandertals. Could you tell me where those
links are?
Vernon Balbert
Just as a point of curiosity, do we have Neanderthal DNA to examine?
I'm no chemist so I don't know how long DNA is viable for such tests.
Would 30,000 years be too long to test it? But then we've been able to
get snippets of dino DNA. But would snippets be enough to compare to
the human genome to determine the degree of consanguinity?
--
Keep an open mind but remain skeptical.
Vernon Balbert
Ah, yes, FORTRAN. Wonderful language, that. I haven't actually written
any FORTRAN code since about '78, but I understand it's still being
used. Sorta like COBOL for science, isn't it?
In any case, I didn't know about this particular simulation and so I
decided to look it up. Imagine my surprise when I found that Sewell is
a signatory to Disco'tute's petition against evolution (more accurately
titled, _A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism_.) What a surprise!
Thanks for pointing me to that one. BTW, did he publish the source code
so that others can try to examine and duplicate his experiment?
--
Rule of Acquisition number 239: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.
John Harshman
Apparently we do.
> I'm
> no chemist so I don't know how long DNA is viable for such tests. Would
> 30,000 years be too long to test it?
Apparently not. There are what appear to be real neandertal
mitochondrial sequences, and even more surprisingly there are neandertal
nuclear sequences. There's even a neandertal genome project.
> But then we've been able to get
> snippets of dino DNA.
Doubtful. What gives you that impression?
> But would snippets be enough to compare to the
> human genome to determine the degree of consanguinity?
That depends on the size and number of the snippets, and just what parts
of the genome they come from. It would be nice to have several snippets
of a few hundred bases each, adding up to a couple of thousand bases
total. That should be enough for anyone. But much less would allow for
an estimate.
Victor Eijkhout
> "Only"? I'm surprised that any of the reviewers recommended accepting
> that nonsense.
Conferences often have a scale "absolutely must accept", "strongly
accept", "weakly accept", "weakly reject", et cetera. Some conferences
also get so few submissions that even "weakly accepted" papers get in
the door.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Mark Isaak
> http://www.panspermia.org/computr2.htm
> [...]
Aha! No computer has ever evolved into a cow, therefore evolution is
false. I'm convinced.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Seanpit
wrote:
> In message
> <bb00e8ea-e92e-4be6-8f83-c1b244a4e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Why is there this exponential
> >stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
> >ladder of functional complexity?
>
> There isn't. It's a baseless assertion you make, without evidence.
Ok, show me an example of observable evolution in action producing a
novel beneficial system of function that requires a minimum of at
least 1000aa working together at the same time in specific
orientation.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Seanpit
>
> >> Computer programs can only do what they've been written to do.
> >> Bacteria, on the other hand, are not entirely predictable.
>
> > Bacteria, like all living things, are computer programs. What are not
> > entirely predictable are the random mutations that affect the
> > bacterial program. The very same thing (random mutations) can be set
> > up to affect computer programs in exactly the same way. Where is the
> > real fundamental difference?
>
> I beg to differ on this point. Clones may not behave the same as the
> original parent organism or each other. This has been shown not only in
> clones of complex creatures such as cats but also in bacteria. For
> example, clones of the same parent bacterium may or may not produce
> flagella, they may differ in behavior to the same stimuli, etc. For a
> good article on this, check out:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5tv3uz
>
> It's an adaptation of Carl Zimmer's book Microcosm (adaptation written
> by Mr. Zimmer) He discusses several different behaviors of genetically
> identical e. coli bacteria under the identical conditions. Quite an
> interesting read and I'm highly tempted to get the book.
Yep. You're right. Epigenetic differences are present even within
individuals in a colony that have identical DNA. There is a certain
amount of randomness programmed into the program of all organisms.
Yet, this same sort of randomness can also be programmed into self-
replicating computer programs. Again, there doesn't have to be any
fundamental difference between the two. Also, this sort of epigenetic
difference has very little to do with Darwinian-style evolution of
novel genetically-based functionally unique systems.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Seanpit wrote:
> >>> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
> >>> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
> >>> Stanford University, where Susumu Ohno was the scheduled keynote
> >>> speaker. Only two of six reviewers recommended accepting it.
> >> "Only"? I'm surprised that any of the reviewers recommended accepting
> >> that nonsense. I'd argue with you, but you show a tendency to wander off
> >> when you're having problems, only to surface later having conveniently
> >> forgotten there was any argument at all. This is a trait you share with
> >> Tony Pagano, and it's not an attractive one.
>
> > Whatever John. I've discussed your notions of common descent with you
> > at nausium.
>
> The term is "ad nauseam".
My point exactly . . .
>
> > I'm just not interested in your position on that topic
> > any more since I don't find anything you've said in all the large
> > number of your responses very convincing - sorry. I'm just more
> > interested in other topics. If you're not, no one is twisting your
> > arm here . . .
>
> True. And in fact I'm not interested in this topic. Still, it seems odd
> that you're uninterested in the basic fact of common descent. And are
> you still claiming that, according to mitochondrial data, some humans
> are more closely related to chimps than to neanderthals?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seanpit
> On 2008-06-13, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 9:07 pm, Bodega <michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
> >> > at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
> >> > Stanford University, where Susumu s the schOhno waeduled keynote
> >> > speaker.
>
> >> The only message I get is that if life cannot be duplicated on a
> >> comouter, life must not exist.
>
> >> Why do people waste their time on such silly stuff?
>
> > What cannot be duplicated on a computer is random mutation and
> > function-based selection producing anything beyond very low levels of
> > functional complexity.
>
> Upon what basis do you make this claim?
>
> There is an entire field of computer science dedicated to exactly the
> question "what can computers do, and what can't they do?". They don't
> assert claims like the one above: they prove what they can and can't do.
> Where is the analogous work to support your claim?
In all language systems, to include computer codes, written languages
like English, and biosystem information, low-level information can and
does indeed evolve via random mutation and function-based selection.
However, with each step up the ladder to higher and higher level
systems, the rate of evolution decreases exponentially until
observable evolution completely stalls out well before the 1000-
character level is reached in living things.
Evidence? Try presenting any example of evolution in observable
action producing any novel beneficial system that requires at least
1000aa working together at the same time. Evolution happens all the
time at lower levels, but not at all beyond this 1000aa threshold.
Why not?
> Whatever fine qualities Brig Klyce might have, he simply doesn't
> understand any of what he's citing above, and frankly, neither do you.
Ok, please do explain them yourself . . . I'd be most interested.
> > That's very interesting since computers can be programmed to mutate
> > randomly and to undergo function-based selection. Yet, nothing novel
> > evolves beyond very low levels - why?
>
> There are two issues at least you might wish to consider:
>
> 1. Programs like Dawkins' biomorph program _aren't themselves very
> complicated, and aren't capable or intended to model evolution,
> but rather to illustrate elements of evolution_. In the case
> of biomorphs, the power of repeated selection.
We all agree that if selectable steppingstones are all clustered
together in sequence space with no more than one or two mutational
steps between each steppingstone that evolution from one steppingstone
to the next to the next is not only easily achievable, but very
quickly achievable as well.
These sorts of "demonstrations" of the obvious simply aren't helpful
in explaining how evolution is able to get from one steppingstone the
next at higher and higher levels of functional complexity where the
distances between potentially beneficial steppingstones in sequence
space grows in a linear manner with each step up the ladder of
functional complexity. The distances simply do not remain the same
size as they were at lower levels. If they did, evolution at higher
levels would happen at the same rate as evolution happens at lower
levels.
The fact that this is not what is actually observed should tell you
something about the fallacy of Dawkins' implication here – that low-
level distances between steppingstones are remotely similar to the
distances at higher and higher levels.
> 2. Your claim that "nothing novel evolves" below "very low levels"
> is just a claim, and despite its deliberate vagueness, it's
> simply wrong.
>
> > Beyond this, biosystems are computers. Even the genetics of viruses
> > are computers. Think about it . . .
>
> It's just this kind of wooly-headed thinking that leads people to think
> that Brig Klyce knows what he's talking about.
Ok then, please do explain to me the fundamental difference between
genetically coded information and the information coded into
computers . . . ?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
John Harshman
> On Jun 12, 2:05 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Seanpit wrote:
>>> On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Seanpit wrote:
>>>>> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
>>>>> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
>>>>> Stanford University, where Susumu Ohno was the scheduled keynote
>>>>> speaker. Only two of six reviewers recommended accepting it.
>>>> "Only"? I'm surprised that any of the reviewers recommended accepting
>>>> that nonsense. I'd argue with you, but you show a tendency to wander off
>>>> when you're having problems, only to surface later having conveniently
>>>> forgotten there was any argument at all. This is a trait you share with
>>>> Tony Pagano, and it's not an attractive one.
>>> Whatever John. I've discussed your notions of common descent with you
>>> at nausium.
>> The term is "ad nauseam".
>
> My point exactly . . .
Your point is that you can't spell Latin?
>>> I'm just not interested in your position on that topic
>>> any more since I don't find anything you've said in all the large
>>> number of your responses very convincing - sorry. I'm just more
>>> interested in other topics. If you're not, no one is twisting your
>>> arm here . . .
>> True. And in fact I'm not interested in this topic. Still, it seems odd
>> that you're uninterested in the basic fact of common descent. And are
>> you still claiming that, according to mitochondrial data, some humans
>> are more closely related to chimps than to neanderthals?
Hey, what about that? It turns out that you still are claiming this.
Would you care to defend that claim?
Richard Smol
> On Jun 13, 9:05 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2008-06-13, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 9:07 pm, Bodega <michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
> > >> > at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
> > >> > Stanford University, where Susumu s the schOhno waeduled keynote
> > >> > speaker.
>
> > >> The only message I get is that if life cannot be duplicated on a
> > >> comouter, life must not exist.
>
> > >> Why do people waste their time on such silly stuff?
>
> > > What cannot be duplicated on a computer is random mutation and
> > > function-based selection producing anything beyond very low levels of
> > > functional complexity.
>
> > Upon what basis do you make this claim?
>
> > There is an entire field of computer science dedicated to exactly the
> > question "what can computers do, and what can't they do?". They don't
> > assert claims like the one above: they prove what they can and can't do.
> > Where is the analogous work to support your claim?
>
> In all language systems, to include computer codes, written languages
> like English, and biosystem information, low-level information can and
> does indeed evolve via random mutation and function-based selection.
What makes you think subjecting totally different problems to the same
set of your made-up rules will accomplish?
RS
Richard Smol
> On Jun 13, 10:02 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <bb00e8ea-e92e-4be6-8f83-c1b244a4e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
> > >Why is there this exponential
> > >stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
> > >ladder of functional complexity?
>
> > There isn't. It's a baseless assertion you make, without evidence.
>
> Ok, show me an example of observable evolution in action producing a
> novel beneficial system of function that requires a minimum of at
> least 1000aa working together at the same time in specific
> orientation.
What's with these totally arbitrary and senseless limitations?
RS
Vernon Balbert
I was under the impression that we got some DNA fragments from the soft
tissue that was obtained from T. Rex bones. Not very substantial ones,
certainly not enough to start a real Jurassic Park, but some.
>> But would snippets be enough to compare to the human genome to
>> determine the degree of consanguinity?
>
> That depends on the size and number of the snippets, and just what parts
> of the genome they come from. It would be nice to have several snippets
> of a few hundred bases each, adding up to a couple of thousand bases
> total. That should be enough for anyone. But much less would allow for
> an estimate.
>
--
Chuck Norris clogs the toilet when he pees.
robert...@gmail.com
<snip typical confused creationist mix of incredulity/credulity ("I
can't believe something so far-fetched could happen so I'll believe in
something even more far-fetched")>
Sean, although you suffer from your own irrational devotions you
usually are capable of answering direct questions honestly so I'm
going to ask you one:
What do you think is the proper response to someone who thinks that
between the following options,
a) there is a deficiency in the ability of computers to accurately
model (X)* so we should presume the problem lies either in the
sophistication of the technology or the operator or both, and
b) there is a deficiency in the ability of computers to accurately
model (X) so we should presume the influence of a non-natural entity
(*X = some natural phenomenon)
...the most parsimonious, most reasonable conclusion is 'b'?
Why is it even the more intelligent creationists can't see how most of
their assertions reduce to gap arguments? (Yes, that's a rhetorical
question)
RLC
John Harshman
There was a rumor about that a while ago, but it turned out to be human
sequence; in other words, contamination. If there's any other dinosaur
sequence that wasn't contamination, I don't know of it.
Ernest Major
<vbal...@gmail.nospam.com> writes
>On 6/13/2008 11:38 AM, John Harshman went clickity clack on the
>keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
>> Vernon Balbert wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2008 10:35 AM, John Harshman went clickity clack on the
>>>keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
>>>> Seanpit wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 12, 2:05 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Seanpit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Seanpit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for
>>>>>>>>>presentation
>>>>>>>>> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16
>>>>>>>>>
They got some protein (collagen) from a dinosaur bone.
>
>>> But would snippets be enough to compare to the human genome to
>>>determine the degree of consanguinity?
>> That depends on the size and number of the snippets, and just what
>>parts of the genome they come from. It would be nice to have several
>>snippets of a few hundred bases each, adding up to a couple of
>>thousand bases total. That should be enough for anyone. But much less
>>would allow for an estimate.
>>
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Bacteria, like all living things, are computer programs.
<boggle> <thud> Whaaaaat?? Did he really say that? Not "a bacteria
shares some features of a computer program" or even "A bacteria is sort
of like a computer program".
Does this guy have the faintest idea what a computer program is? Or a
bacteria?
> Where is the
> real fundamental difference?
Holy crap.
I give up. He really can't tell the difference.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Vernon Balbert
Thank you for the clarification.
>>
>>>> But would snippets be enough to compare to the human genome to
>>>> determine the degree of consanguinity?
>>> That depends on the size and number of the snippets, and just what
>>> parts of the genome they come from. It would be nice to have several
>>> snippets of a few hundred bases each, adding up to a couple of
>>> thousand bases total. That should be enough for anyone. But much
>>> less would allow for an estimate.
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp."
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Ok then, please do explain to me the fundamental difference between
> genetically coded information and the information coded into
> computers . . . ?
I'd kind of like to see *you* explain just what information is "coded
into computers", and what it has to do biology. I'd like to see some
evidence that you have the remotest idea what a computer program actually
does. I'd also like to have a couple million dollars spontaneously
appear in my bank account.
Sue (ever hoping for the impossible)
Prof Weird
> On Jun 13, 10:02 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <bb00e8ea-e92e-4be6-8f83-c1b244a4e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
> > >Why is there this exponential
> > >stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
> > >ladder of functional complexity?
>
> > There isn't. It's a baseless assertion you make, without evidence.
>
> Ok, show me an example of observable evolution in action producing a
> novel beneficial system of function that requires a minimum of at
> least 1000aa working together at the same time in specific
> orientation.
Atrazine degradation requires 3 enzymes :
AtzA is 473 amino acids
AtzB is 481 amino acids
AtzC is 403 amino acids
Total of 1357 amino acids producing a novel beneficial system of
function.
Bacteria must have access to all three enzymes to survive on just
atrazine as a food source; therefore, not ONLY was your hallucinatory
'barrier' shattered, an irreducibly complex system evolved within a
few decades.
[Begin frantic hand-waving to 'explain' why this example doesn't
count .... As would be done with any system anybody could produce ...
Without explaining why anyone should take your arbitrary limitations
seriously ....]
How many systems in living things REQUIRE 1000 aa 'working together'
that are NOT aggregates (1000 copies of a 115 aa subunit would produce
a structure of 115,000 amino acids 'working together', and thus smash
through your 'limit' like it didn't exist) or pathways ? Do you know
of ANY biological systems that actually MEET your criteria ?
_Arthur
Here is Granville Sewell own account of his best failure:
Failed Simulation on Creation
by Granville Sewell
"So I wrote the program -- in Fortran, naturally -- and we tried it.
It took several hours, and at the end of the simulation we dumped the
final coordinates of all the particles into a rather large data file,
then ran MATLAB to plot them. Some interesting things had happened, a
few mountains and valleys and volcanos had formed, but no computers,
no encyclopedias, and no cars or trucks. My friend said, let me see
your program. After examining it, he exclaimed, no wonder, you treated
the Earth as a closed system, order can't increase in a closed system.
The Earth is an open system, you need to take into account the effect
of the sun's energy. So I modified the boundary conditions to simulate
the effect of the entering solar radiation, and reran it. This time
some clouds and rivers had formed, but otherwise Earth still looked a
lot like the other planets, and still no libraries or computers or
airplanes.
[...]
So I completely re-wrote my simulator, I used an IMSL random number
generator with a user-supplied probability distribution to simulate
this randomness, and computed the required probability distributions
by solving the Schrodinger equations with my own partial differential
equation solver, PDE2D. Still no luck -- no space ships, no TV sets,
no encyclopedias, not even a cheap novel."
----------------
See? Even the best creationist minds cannot write computer programs
that replicate evolution.
I guess that settle the question once and for all. Evilution is un-
possible without a bearded God.
_Arthur
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25030
It was cross-posted on Uncommon Dissent; UDists were thrilled.
Mark Chu-Carrol take on Granville Sewell failed simulation would be
at:
Granville Sewell: Genius or Liar?
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/09/granville_sewell_genius_or_lia.php
see also,
Creationist tries to simulate earth, hilarity ensues
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13575
William Morse
> stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
> ladder of functional complexity?
And the answer is clear. There is no exponential stalling out effect.
The evolution that you describe as working "so well and often so easily"
is the evolution we have observed over the last tens of years. Give that
same evolution hundreds of years, and it will produce more change. Give
it thousands of years, and it will produce even more change. Give it
tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years, and it will
produce the kinds of "macro" changes that we observe in the fossil
record and in the DNA record. There is not a shred of evidence to think
otherwise, and there are mountains of evidence to show that this is
exactly what has occurred.
Let's try a slightly different example. Say we have a drip of water that
has produced a six centimeter depression in a limestone shelf over fifty
years. Your argument is that the observed twenty meter deep depression
in an adjacent shelf could not have been produced by water dripping,
since we have only observed during our lifetimes the creation of a six
centimeter depression.
>> Computer programs can only do what they've been written to do.
>> Bacteria, on the other hand, are not entirely predictable.
>
> Bacteria, like all living things, are computer programs. What are not
> entirely predictable are the random mutations that affect the
> bacterial program. The very same thing (random mutations) can be set
> up to affect computer programs in exactly the same way. Where is the
> real fundamental difference?
Yours,
Bill Morse
William Morse
> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
> Stanford University, where Susumu Ohno was the scheduled keynote
> that's not bad for a paper that questions the possibility of achieving
> one of Genetic Programming's highest goals.
>
> http://www.panspermia.org/computr2.htm
>
> Yes, the paper is over 10 years old, but the questions raised by this
> paper have yet to be answered by any new relevant demonstration(s).
> _______________________________
>
> Chandra Wickramasinghe has compared the Darwinian account of evolution
> to saying that all of world literature came from the book of Genesis
> by occasional typos and paragraph swapping. The mechanism discussed
> here is analogous to stipulating that every text along the way was
> viable as literature. Such gradualistic series have not been shown to
> be possible in written text or computer programs. Nor have they been
> shown to exist in biology. If this is how new genes are supposed to
> evolve, the mechanism remains to be demonstrated.
>
> Computer Programs
> 1) One well-known computer program that purports to mimic evolution is
> the one by Richard Dawkins that creates "biomorphs". The program
> generates stick figures that resemble insects, trees, bats, spiders,
> etc. The figures show a certain amount of variety as they evolve. But
> the evolution is by artificial selection, and nothing like gene
> duplication occurs. Instead, only nine or sixteen variables (in
> different versions) are allowed to wander within narrow ranges. These
> few variables occupy a tiny fraction of the "genome" that generates
> the biomorphs, which includes Dawkins's application program and the
> necessary parts of the computer's operating system. The sequence space
> explored by Dawkins's program is tightly confined and every member of
> it is functional. Saying that this process represents evolution is
> like saying that the song "Happy Birthday" evolves whenever it is sung
> for a different person. Certainly, nothing analogous to a new gene is
> created by Dawkins's biomorphs.
>
> 2) The program by Tom Ray called Tierra is also well-known. It starts
> with a species that originally has 80 instructions. The creatures
> multiply and evolve until the computer's storage capacity is full.
> From then on the population is controlled by killing off creatures
> ranking lower on a fitness scale. One common outcome is the evolution
> of parasitism. Parasitism is known to be important in biological
> evolution. But the evolution of parasitism does not necessarily
> require any new genes — the genes of the parasites and hosts already
> exist beforehand. True, biological genomes that become related in this
> way may in fact require new genes to make them compatible with each
> other. But in Tierra, nothing suggests that anything analogous to a
> new gene is ever created.
>
> 3) John Koza's models of evolution, called Genetic Programming, start
> with selected algorithms that are shuffled and duplicated to create
> new subroutines. The subroutines are bred for their ability to solve a
> basic problem. While it is possible for an evolved subroutine to
> contain more algorithms than its parent, there is no suggestion that
> any new algorithms are created in Koza's process. All of the necessary
> algorithms — and some that may be unnecessary — are supplied from the
> outset. Therefore, this evolutionary process more nearly mimics Cosmic
> Ancestry than Darwinism!
>
> 4) The fourth computer program is different from the other three
> because it was intended not to model evolution but to automate the
> updating of software — and it was never implemented. At the Second
> Artificial Life Conference held February 5 - 9, 1990, in Santa Fe, New
> Mexico, Harold Thimbleby of Scotland proposed that updates to existing
> computer programs could be distributed and installed automatically by
> computer viruses (Kelly). Such a virus would contain code that would
> a) recognize a host needing the upgrade, b) provide and install the
> upgrade, and c) from there, infect other computers also needing the
> upgrade. Here the computer analog of new genes for evolutionary
> improvements would be inserted from elsewhere by viruses, as in Cosmic
> Ancestry. That this process could work in computers was not disputed
> at the Santa Fe conference. And in biology, that viruses can spread by
> infection and insert their own genes into their hosts' genome,
> including the germline, without harm, is already known. Ohno himself
> mentions that viruses are a possible mechanism behind biological
> evolution and he says viruses would be the only way to transform whole
> populations at once (Ohno, p 55).
>
> Discussion
>
> We have believed since before Darwin that biology does not have a
> different set of rules from the rest of science. If Darwinian
> evolution works, it should be possible to mimic the process in
> software. By whatever mechanism, Ohno's or other, computers should be
> able to mimic what biological evolution has done. In the discussion
> above, we have focused on the creation of new genes that code for new
> functions.
For those who are seriously interested in the topic, I suggest looking
up the Avida Project at Michigan State University. This has shown
that computers can mimic biological evolution.
> More broadly, if a software model of evolution is possible, ordinary
> personal computers should be able to evolve wholly new, unexpected
> features that are somehow advantageous to them or their software. For
> example, computers might acquire the ability to activate other helpful
> programs, network with other computers, use the telephone, identify
> and disarm harmful viruses, automatically backup themselves, survive
> crashes, etc. All of these improvements would require new computer
> code. Since computer programs are transferred constantly, and
> duplicated, and mistakes are inserted occasionally, just as in
> biology, the opportunity for existing computer programs to evolve by
> the Darwinian method is already in place.
The above paragraph would tend to indicate that you don't understand
evolution by natural selection. Personal computers do not exhibit excess
reproduction or heritable variation. There are some interesting
parallels between computer networks and evolution, but the expectation
that they should evolve under current conditions is unrealistic.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Vernon Balbert
I found the article that you mentioned and it seems the Mr. Sewell did
this on his "new laptop". The article was written back in February of
this year. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, he was running a
state of the art laptop, he was using something with a dual-core Intel
processor running about 2.8 GHz (assuming that this was available on
laptops back in February, which is likely.) He ran the simulation over
several hours. (No more specificity was given.)
Now considering the task he was asking his new laptop to perform and the
length of time he asked it to run, it seems highly doubtful that he
could simulate anything with any accuracy over a simulated period of 4.5
billion years. The best supercomputers we have today cannot simulate
weather with any accuracy beyond ten days, let alone the entire
biological history of a planet.
This guy is either deluded to think that a simulation running for a few
hours on a laptop can possibly produce the complexity of life or he's
completely dishonest about this. Considering he's a mathematics
professor at UTEP, I'm going to have to assume the latter.
I hope this guy never gets tenure.
--
Pluto is actually an orbiting group of British soldiers from the
American Revolution who entered space after the Chuck gave them a
roundhouse kick to the face.
Greg G.
> On Jun 12, 1:58 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Not when the same limitations that are seen in computer evolution
> > > programs are also seen in living systems.
>
> > > Living systems, like computer systems, simply do not evolve novel
> > > beneficial systems of function if the novel system requires more than
> > > a few hundred protein building blocks (amino acid residues) working
> > > together at the same time. There seems to be a threshold limitation
> > > to what is evolvable in observable time. This threshold is well shy of
> > > functionally beneficial systems that require 1000aa. This threshold
> > > has never been observed to be crossed in either computer systems or
> > > living things. In fact, the evolutionary mechanism of random mutation
> > > and function-based selection stalls out, in an exponential manner, as
> > > this threshold is approached.
>
> > barrier?
>
> Every living thing has many systems that require a minimum of well
> over 1000aa working together at the same time. A bacterial flagellum,
> for example, requires over 10,000 specifically coded residue positions
> (i.e., over 10,000 codons of DNA).
That's a different claim. Constructing a flagellum from multiple
existing parts is not the same as jumping a 1000aa gap in a single
bound. If a 1000aa barrier is crossed in several stages, it is not a
barrier. Do you have an example of the barrier you say cannot be
crossed?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here is a new example of rapid evolution:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wall_Lizard
>
> > This lizard is often used in scientific studies so it is well known. A
> > small population was moved to a nearby island near Croatia just before
> > war broke out. When the scientists returned twenty years later, the
> > island's lizard population had been replaced by the lizards that were
> > brought there. The lizard was larger, slower, with shorter legs,
> > different behavior and had become more of a vegetarian rather than
> > insectivorous. What's more, in 20 years, it evolved cecal valves in
> > its digestive tract to slow down the process and allow fermentation of
> > the cellulose. The mitochondrial DNA was indistinguishable from the
> > parent population.
>
> > If that much evolution can happen in twenty years, why is 1000 a.a.
> > such a barrier? That's 1 a.a. per generation over 1000 generations.
> > Variation from the starting point could get you half way to 100 a.a
> > difference where there might be another optimum, and so on. Do you
> > have an example where it seems that evolution ever made the 1000 a.a.
> > jump and that there were no viable intermediate positions? If not, you
> > may be correct that evolution can't do it, but you have to show that
> > it had to have been a necessary evolutionary pathway.
>
> The interesting point is the argument that these lizards experienced
> "fast track evolution of an entirely new intestinal system".
>
> I suggest that this statement is just a bit wishful. What happened is
> that they evolved a larger cecal valve. Almost certainly they already
> had the underlying genetics for a cecal valve (which isn't a very
> complicated structure by the way) but it wasn't very large in the non-
> vege lizards. All that had to happen is a bit of selection for larger
> cecal valves over time.
>
> It is the very same sort of evolution that produces different sizes of
> finch beaks and different colored moths in different environments. It
> is basically Mendelian genetics. Nothing really new is evolving into
> the gene pool here that wasn't already there. The gene pool remains
> the same. It is just that different portions of its potential are
> expressed. This sort of "evolution" can and does happen very rapidly
> all the time since nothing really new as far as genetic information or
> potential is actually introduced into the gene pool. This is nothing
> new or dramatic. It is essentially the same as selection for the
> enhancement of certain desired traits via breeding - like for cows
> that produce more milk or horses that run faster etc.
>
> More specifically in the paper, the authors note that <1% of all
> currently known species of squamates have cecal valves, and that:
> "These valves are similar in overall appearance and structure to those
> found in herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards and are not
> found in other populations of P. sicula or in P. melisellensis."
> Herbivory explains why cecal valves are useful to these lizards. Also,
> "along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite
> harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider." All these
> changes came in a 36 year time window."
>
> The genus Podarcis is in fact included in the Lacertidae, which means
> that even though none of the related species in Podarcis, nor in
> closely related genera have cecum or cecal valves, at least some
> genera do indeed have that capability.
>
> In short, the genetic information for cecal valves was already
> there . . . It just wasn't turned on. What evolved here wasn't the
> information for cecal valves, but a reduction in the suppression of
> expression of the cecal valve information in the gene pool.
Are you saying that all the lizards in Lacertidae have the genes for
cecal valves but none of the lizards have ever evolved them in the
whole world until the last two decades? Wouldn't it be more likely
that some of the muscles involved in peristaltis changed their
function slightly? Do you have any evidence that the genes were there
besides decree?
Why don't other Lacertids that have modifications for digesting plant
material have cecal valves if Lacertids have the genes for them? Why
would primarily insectivorous lizards have latent genes for cecal
valves when lizards that eat plants not have them?
http://ieg.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/Valido-NogalesdigestiveecologyGallotiaAmpRep03.pdf
Abstract. Omnivorous endemic Canarian lacertids (Gallotia
atlantica and G. galloti) do not present any specific
digestive and physiological adaptations to herbivorous diet,
compared to species and populations with a different degree
of herbivory in the Canarian archipelago. The only
characteristics that could be related to the type of diet
were the number of cusps per tooth (between species) and the
number of small stones contained in droppings (between
species and populations). The rest of measured traits were
correlated with lizard size and for this reason G. galloti
has longer intestines, heavier stomachs and livers, more
teeth and cusps, and longer gut passage. These data suggest
that body size is a major determinant of the reliance on
plant food (mainly fleshy fruits) in these lizards and
facilitates mutualistic interactions with fleshy-fruited
plant species.
--
Greg G.
Whoever owes the most money when he dies, wins!
Vernon Balbert
Just adding my two cents here: It seems that the purpose of the Avida
project is not "a simulation of evolution; is merely an instance of it."
- Robert Pennock, part of the Avida team as quoted in the 2/05 issue of
Discover magazine. Apparently it's not to simulate evolution so much as
it is to teach how evolution and the scientific method work. Among some
of the limitations mentioned is that the simulation (at least three
years ago) does not simulate metabolism.
Suffice to say, this is a useful tool, but it is /not/ an attempt to
simulate evolution in any complete manner.
--
Even barbarians like chocolate chip cookies.
_Arthur
Well, after a few days debate on the marvelous negative results of his
"FORTRAN computer program", Granville reluctantly acknowledged that
the whole thing was a "thought experiment".
So, Sewell listens to the voices in his head, and he conclude that IF
he was able to simulate the whole prebiotic biosphere, Life would fail
to appear. He further listens to his imaginary friend, and writes
quantum effects into his unprogram. Still no results. So that proves
what he thought all along: either he cannot program such a
simulation, or Life doesn't exist, or God exists and He created Life.
Take your pick.
_Arthur
1000aa ? Where does that number comes from, and why is it a
treshold ?
er...@swva.net
> On Jun 12, 12:18 pm, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6/12/2008 11:58 AM, Seanpit went clickity clack on the keyboard and
> > produced this interesting bit of text:
>
> > > different set of rules from the rest of science. If Darwinian
> > > evolution works, it should be possible to mimic the process in
> > > software. By whatever mechanism, Ohno's or other, computers should be
> > > able to mimic what biological evolution has done. In the discussion
> > > above, we have focused on the creation of new genes that code for new
> > > functions.
>
> > asking a tad much, even after 10 additional years of advances. The
> > programs in question were likely only as demonstrations to show certain
> > aspects of evolution. Sort of like using cartoons to depict evolution.
> > The only thing you'll get out of it is what gets put into it. We
> > don't know everything about evolution or anything else to fully model in
> > computers. Even with all the studies made in simulating non-living
> > systems such as weather and nuclear physics, we are still struggling
> > against the limits of our knowledge and we're applying the most powerful
> > computers ever made towards those problems. Biology is a lot more
> > complex and as such is going to require more than some demonstration
> > programs to fully simulate it. I think this particular objection is
> > unfair and unrealistic.
>
> Not when the same limitations that are seen in computer evolution
> programs are also seen in living systems.
>
> Living systems, like computer systems, simply do not evolve novel
> beneficial systems of function if the novel system requires more than
> a few hundred protein building blocks (amino acid residues) working
> together at the same time. There seems to be a threshold limitation
> to what is evolvable in observable time. This threshold is well shy of
> functionally beneficial systems that require 1000aa. This threshold
> has never been observed to be crossed in either computer systems or
> living things. In fact, the evolutionary mechanism of random mutation
> and function-based selection stalls out, in an exponential manner, as
> this threshold is approached.
>
But at least evolution really happens, while creationism stalls out
whenever it is expected to come up with actual evidence.
Eric Root
Tim Tyler
wrote:
> Seanpit wrote or quoted:
> > More broadly, if a software model of evolution is possible, ordinary
> > personal computers should be able to evolve wholly new, unexpected
> > features that are somehow advantageous to them or their software. For
> > example, computers might acquire the ability to activate other helpful
> > programs, network with other computers, use the telephone, identify
> > and disarm harmful viruses, automatically backup themselves, survive
> > crashes, etc. All of these improvements would require new computer
> > code. Since computer programs are transferred constantly, and
> > duplicated, and mistakes are inserted occasionally, just as in
> > biology, the opportunity for existing computer programs to evolve by
> > the Darwinian method is already in place.
>
> The above paragraph would tend to indicate that you don't understand
> evolution by natural selection. Personal computers do not exhibit excess
> reproduction or heritable variation [...] the expectation
> that they should evolve under current conditions is unrealistic.
Personal computer *designs* do exhibit reproduction and heritable
variation -
and since the designs evolve, and personal computers are part of their
phenotype, personal computers do indeed evolve.
Indeed, they /have/, in point of fact, developed abilities to use the
telephone, identify and disarm harmful viruses, automatically
backup themselves up, etc. in the process.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.
Sapient Fridge
<1f25f177-6c7a-48ef...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes
>Evidence? Try presenting any example of evolution in observable
>action producing any novel beneficial system that requires at least
>1000aa working together at the same time.
There are countless examples of 1000aa systems out there which have
evolved. They evolve gradually over millions of years from smaller
system - they don't just appear overnight.
If you don't think they evolved then it's up to you to show some
evidence, not just assert it.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
<5a2427d2-818b-4c95...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jun 13, 10:02 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <bb00e8ea-e92e-4be6-8f83-c1b244a4e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
>> >ladder of functional complexity?
>>
>
>Ok, show me an example of observable evolution in action producing a
>least 1000aa working together at the same time in specific
>orientation.
There are countless examples of 1000aa systems out there. If you don't
think they evolved then it's up to you to show that it was not possible,
you can't just assert it.
Rolf
news:57e8af50-4dcc-4e7d...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Wickramasinghe? I am afraid I am suspcious about anything that has his name
on it.
> Returning to the narrower original question, can any computer model of
> Darwinian evolution produce the analog of new genes? If not, perhaps
> we should wonder if the Darwinian mechanism is sufficient to produce
> new genes on Earth, or whether another source for them is necessary.
>
>
First of all, isn't "Darwinian Evolution" rather limited in scope? Or, do we
really know all about evolution, to the extent that we can - (given that it
is possible, something we do not know, do we?) make a representative,
reliable model?
Why should we have 'production of new genes'? We can do a lot simply by
teaching old genes new tricks, do computer models handle that? What about
gene duplication and mutations? I simply do not believe in computer models
of life except maybe to investigate some limited concepts.
What 'other sources' except natural sources are there? is there any reason
why we are justified in postulating anything but natural forces for all of
biology, like for everything else in the universe? Is there anything else
besides nature at work in nature?
Steven L.
> 1000aa working together at the same time. Evolution happens all the
> time at lower levels, but not at all beyond this 1000aa threshold.
>
>> Whatever fine qualities Brig Klyce might have, he simply doesn't
>> understand any of what he's citing above, and frankly, neither do you.
>
> Ok, please do explain them yourself . . . I'd be most interested.
>
>>> That's very interesting since computers can be programmed to mutate
>>> randomly and to undergo function-based selection. Yet, nothing novel
>>> evolves beyond very low levels - why?
>> There are two issues at least you might wish to consider:
>>
>> 1. Programs like Dawkins' biomorph program _aren't themselves very
>> complicated, and aren't capable or intended to model evolution,
>> but rather to illustrate elements of evolution_. In the case
>> of biomorphs, the power of repeated selection.
>
> We all agree that if selectable steppingstones are all clustered
> together in sequence space with no more than one or two mutational
> steps between each steppingstone that evolution from one steppingstone
> to the next to the next is not only easily achievable, but very
> quickly achievable as well.
>
> These sorts of "demonstrations" of the obvious simply aren't helpful
> in explaining how evolution is able to get from one steppingstone the
> next at higher and higher levels of functional complexity where the
> distances between potentially beneficial steppingstones in sequence
> space grows in a linear manner with each step up the ladder of
> functional complexity. The distances simply do not remain the same
> size as they were at lower levels. If they did, evolution at higher
> levels would happen at the same rate as evolution happens at lower
> levels.
>
> The fact that this is not what is actually observed should tell you
> something about the fallacy of Dawkins' implication here – that low-
> level distances between steppingstones are remotely similar to the
> distances at higher and higher levels.
>
>> 2. Your claim that "nothing novel evolves" below "very low levels"
>> is just a claim, and despite its deliberate vagueness, it's
>> simply wrong.
>>
>>> Beyond this, biosystems are computers. Even the genetics of viruses
>>> are computers. Think about it . . .
>> It's just this kind of wooly-headed thinking that leads people to think
>> that Brig Klyce knows what he's talking about.
>
> Ok then, please do explain to me the fundamental difference between
> genetically coded information and the information coded into
> computers . . . ?
I think someone else already alluded to a major difference: Software
applications don't have a "metabolism"--in simulation projects like
Avida, metabolism is faked and isn't representative of the organism.
What is the point of genetic information anyway, besides to reproduce
itself? In living cells, RNA directs the synthesis of proteins which
build and rebuild the cell's structure, using food from the environment.
The genetic information is therefore used to help the cell carry out
its *internal* life functions. Evolution helps increase the organism's
efficiency and fitness to do that, so as to outcompete its neighbors.
In a simulation project like Avida, the organism is rewarded with new
food based on how well its genetic information is satisfying some
*external* goal of interest to the researcher. Such as synthesizing a
new instruction like EQU. That's of absolutely no use to the organism's
life function, because the organism doesn't really have a "life." Any
uninteresting operations it generates that we're not interested in, get
no such evolutionary feedback because they're not useful to us.
Metabolism is measured only in an extremely oversimplified way, by
length of the organism, not in terms of its ability to deal with its
environment as in living things.
If you want to see a software application that really does have a
"metabolism," look at the computer game SimCity. The simulated city
really is acting like a living thing: It's consuming resources
(electricity, water, etc.), and it is using those to synthesize and
assemble new structure into itself: Larger buildings are automatically
constructed, neighborhoods are populated, traffic increases on the
thoroughfares. It is doing to that to satisfy an *internal* need: Keep
its simulated citizens (the Sims) happy. And sure enough, it tends to
evolve quickly in complex ways that the gamer never predicted. It's
also adaptive and self-healing; destroy a few buildings and new ones
will be constructed there to take their place, sometimes better ones
than the original.
So before you can talk about a software organism that really evolves
like living organisms, you have to talk about a software organism with a
real metabolism with real life functions: Consuming resources to build
and rebuild its own internal structure. Then the organism can evolve to
find ways to do that more efficiently so it can outcompete its neighbors.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Martin Kaletsch
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:58:10 -0700, Seanpit wrote:
>
>> http://www.panspermia.org/computr2.htm
>> [...]
>
> Aha! No computer has ever evolved into a cow, therefore evolution is
> false. I'm convinced.
>
From the noises my computer's cooling fan makes recently, I think it is
trying to evolve into bullfrog!
--
Martin Kaletsch
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Vernon Balbert
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:58:10 -0700, Seanpit wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.panspermia.org/computr2.htm
>>> [...]
>> Aha! No computer has ever evolved into a cow, therefore evolution is
>> false. I'm convinced.
>>
> From the noises my computer's cooling fan makes recently, I think it is
> trying to evolve into bullfrog!
It seems like sometimes my computer fans are trying to evolve into
cicadas. When that happens I just open the case and adjust the
placement of the cables and wires.
--
Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect. - Stephen Wright
Seanpit
wrote:
>
> > I've already discussed this concept with you at great length. I've
> > presented my position and considered yours. Your arguments just
> > aren't convincing to me . . . Sorry. I've listed links to your
> > arguments on my website where I present this argument. I think that
> > is more than enough to provide a reader with both sides of the debate.
>
> Really? This bears investigation. Your site is large, and I couldn't
> fine any links to my arguments in your discussion of mitochondrial data,
> though I see you're still claiming that some humans are more closely
> related to chimps than to neandertals. Could you tell me where those
> links are?
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html#Hierarchy
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> In message
> <1f25f177-6c7a-48ef-a9cc-b81f349dd...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Evidence? Try presenting any example ofevolutionin observable
> >action producing any novel beneficial system that requires at least
> >1000aa working together at the same time.
>
> There are countless examples of 1000aa systems out there which have
> evolved. They evolve gradually over millions of years from smaller
> system - they don't just appear overnight.
The question is why are there many examples of evolution that we can
actually see in action when the evolving systems require a minimum of
only 300-400aa, but no examples are seen just a bit higher up the
ladder at the 1000aa threshold level? Why do you think this level
requires millions of years to evolve while functional systems that are
just a bit lower on the informational scale evolve quickly and
rapidly? What is it that makes this gap in evolvability grow in such
an exponential manner? hmmmmm?
> If you don't think they evolved then it's up to you to show some
> evidence, not just assert it.
The evidence is clear. Evolution happens very quickly and commonly at
lower levels but exponentially less and less commonly as one moves up
the ladder of functional complexity until there simply is no
observable evolution at all well before the 1000aa threshold is
reached. That observation is quite interesting. What is your
explanation for this observation?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
gregwrld
This is not evidence or an observation-
it is just another of your unsupported
claims.
gregwrld
Seanpit
> On Jun 13, 3:57 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Why is there this exponential
> > > >stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
> > > >ladder of functional complexity?
>
> > > There isn't. It's a baseless assertion you make, without evidence.
>
> > Ok, show me an example of observable evolution in action producing a
> > novel beneficial system of function that requires a minimum of at
> > least 1000aa working together at the same time in specific
> > orientation.
>
> Atrazine degradation requires 3 enzymes :
>
> AtzA is 473 amino acids
> AtzB is 481 amino acids
> AtzC is 403 amino acids
>
> Total of 1357 amino acids producing a novel beneficial system of
> function.
Good try, but you forget the requirement that all the parts of the
system have to work together at the *same time* in a specific 3D
arrangement relative to each other to produce the function in
question. What you present here is an enzymatic cascade where the
individual parts work in sequence and are not required to be in a
specific orientation with each of the other protein parts.
Statistically, such a cascading system is no more functionally or
informationally complex than its most complex single part that does
require both size and specific orientation requirements (as all of the
individual proteins in your system do).
For example, a bacterial flagellum requires that all of its protein
parts be specifically arranged with each other at the same time in
order for the flagellar motility function to be realized (totaling
over 10,000 specifically coded amino acid residue positions or codons
of DNA). Statistically, it is much much harder to achieve this degree
of sequence specificity for a given number of structural building
blocks in a given pool of options than it is to achieve an equal
number of parts where such specificity of arrangement of all parts is
not required.
For illustration, consider a million dice rolled at once laid out in a
line. What are the odds that you will find 10 different sets of 5
sixes in a row somewhere at 10 different non-specified positions in
that pool of dice? Compare this to the odds of finding 50 sixes in a
row. See the difference?
Cascading systems just don't compare to the unlikely nature of finding
a novel system of function that requires ALL of its parts to be
specifically arranged with each other to achieve a given beneficial
function.
> Bacteria must have access to all three enzymes to survive on just
> atrazine as a food source; therefore, not ONLY was your hallucinatory
> 'barrier' shattered, an irreducibly complex system evolved within a
> few decades.
Try again . . . cascading systems do not meet the specificity
requirements I'm talking about.
> [Begin frantic hand-waving to 'explain' why this example doesn't
> count .... As would be done with any system anybody could produce ...
> Without explaining why anyone should take your arbitrary limitations
> seriously ....]
There are a lot of examples of multiprotein cascading systems evolving
in real time - dozens of them. However, there isn't a single example
of a system of equivalent size evolving where the system has the
additional requirement that all the parts must be specifically
arranged with each other at the same time, working together at the
same time, to produce the function in question. Such a specified
system has NOT been shown to evolve beyond the 1000aa threshold.
> How many systems in living things REQUIRE 1000 aa 'working together'
> that are NOT aggregates (1000 copies of a 115 aa subunit would produce
> a structure of 115,000 amino acids 'working together', and thus smash
> through your 'limit' like it didn't exist) or pathways ? Do you know
> of ANY biological systems that actually MEET your criteria ?
Every living thing has many specified systems like this that go well
beyond the 1000aa threshold. Examples include transcription and
translation, intracellular vesicle transport, phagocytosis,
pinocytosis, mitosis, meiosis, amoeboid motility, flagellar motility,
etc . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> In message
> <5a2427d2-818b-4c95-9d1e-5dc2ed4cd...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 13, 10:02 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> >wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <bb00e8ea-e92e-4be6-8f83-c1b244a4e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >> >Why is there this exponential
> >> >stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
> >> >ladder of functional complexity?
>
> >> There isn't. It's a baseless assertion you make, without evidence.
>
> >novel beneficial system of function that requires a minimum of at
> >least 1000aa working together at the same time in specific
> >orientation.
>
> There are countless examples of 1000aa systems out there. If you don't
> think they evolved then it's up to you to show that it was not possible,
> you can't just assert it.
It's actually up to you to show an example of one of these evolving -
just one. There are lots of examples of 300 or 400aa systems
evolving. There just isn't an example of evolution beyond the 1000aa
level is all where all the parts are specifically arranged relative to
each other and work together at the same time to produce the function
in question. Why not?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Vernon Balbert
I would say, "I hate to say this," but I don't hate what I'm about to
say. This particular argument in favor of design due to irreducible
complexity was debunked a long time ago. It was used in the trial
/Kitzmiller v Dover/ and was successfully shown that that flagellum
could be simplified even further to a structure which shot out a stinger
to obtain food. It didn't require that the stinger move around in a
mode with which to propel the organism. The structures are similar
enough to each other, but the stinger is less complex than flagella and
is shown to be the evolutionarily ancestor of flagella.
The argument you give has been proven wrong time and time again.
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but isn't a cucumber that small called a gherkin?"
Seanpit
>
> > For example, a bacterial flagellum requires that all of its protein
> > parts be specifically arranged with each other at the same time in
> > order for the flagellar motility function to be realized (totaling
> > over 10,000 specifically coded amino acid residue positions or codons
> > of DNA). Statistically, it is much much harder to achieve this degree
> > of sequence specificity for a given number of structural building
> > blocks in a given pool of options than it is to achieve an equal
> > number of parts where such specificity of arrangement of all parts is
> > not required.
>
> I would say, "I hate to say this," but I don't hate what I'm about to
> say. This particular argument in favor of design due to irreducible
> complexity was debunked a long time ago. It was used in the trial
> /Kitzmiller v Dover/ and was successfully shown that that flagellum
> could be simplified even further to a structure which shot out a stinger
> to obtain food. It didn't require that the stinger move around in a
> mode with which to propel the organism. The structures are similar
> enough to each other, but the stinger is less complex than flagella and
> is shown to be the evolutionarily ancestor of flagella.
>
> The argument you give has been proven wrong time and time again.
Ah yes, the famous TTSS toxin injector that only uses around 10 of the
50 or so flagellar proteins. You do realize that the flagellar
motility function is indeed irreducibly complex. You reduce the part
requirement below the minimum threshold of around 30 proteins and the
motility function disappears. It doesn't matter if a different
subsystem with a different function still remains intact. That has
absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the flagellar system
itself requires a higher-level minimum specified part requirement.
Beyond this, many scientists believe that the TTSS system evolved from
the flagellar motility system, not the other way around. Also, none
of the proposed steppingstones for flagellar motility evolution have
ever been shown to evolve in observable time - not one step.
Good try though. For more information on this whole scenario see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 2:05 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Seanpit wrote:
> >>> On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Seanpit wrote:
> >>>>> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for presentation
> >>>>> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16 July at
> >>>>> speaker. Only two of six reviewers recommended accepting it.
> >>>> that nonsense. I'd argue with you, but you show a tendency to wander off
> >>>> when you're having problems, only to surface later having conveniently
> >>>> forgotten there was any argument at all. This is a trait you share with
> >>>> Tony Pagano, and it's not an attractive one.
> >>> Whatever John. I've discussed your notions of common descent with you
> >>> at nausium.
> >> The term is "ad nauseam".
>
> > My point exactly . . .
>
> Your point is that you can't spell Latin?
sure ; )
> >>> I'm just not interested in your position on that topic
> >>> any more since I don't find anything you've said in all the large
> >>> number of your responses very convincing - sorry. I'm just more
> >>> interested in other topics. If you're not, no one is twisting your
> >>> arm here . . .
> >> True. And in fact I'm not interested in this topic. Still, it seems odd
> >> that you're uninterested in the basic fact of common descent. And are
> >> you still claiming that, according to mitochondrial data, some humans
> >> are more closely related to chimps than to neanderthals?
>
> Hey, what about that? It turns out that you still are claiming this.
> Would you care to defend that claim?
You want to add to the nauseam? I've gone around with you on this
topic as much as I care to for now. I'm sorry. I just don't find
your arguments all that convincing . . . Repeating yourself over and
over again isn't going to change that.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html#Debate
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Vernon Balbert
Considering that I do not agree with any of the assertions made by those
who promote intelligent design or creationism, based on the URLs alone
I'm not going to be going to those sites since they're already biased in
favor of a concept that's not even scientific, much less a theory. Try
something less biased, grounded in science and I'll look at it. Or
perhaps you have scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design? If
so, you'd be the first to come up with any.
--
Chuck Noris' tears are worth more than diamonds due to their rarity. One
is still yet to be found.
Sapient Fridge
<2415f275-9af6-4923...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jun 14, 2:14 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <1f25f177-6c7a-48ef-a9cc-b81f349dd...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >Evidence? Try presenting any example ofevolutionin observable
>> >action producing any novel beneficial system that requires at least
>> >1000aa working together at the same time.
>>
>> There are countless examples of 1000aa systems out there which have
>> evolved. They evolve gradually over millions of years from smaller
>> system - they don't just appear overnight.
>
>The question is why are there many examples of evolution that we can
>actually see in action when the evolving systems require a minimum of
>only 300-400aa, but no examples are seen just a bit higher up the
>ladder at the 1000aa threshold level?
There are countless examples of protein systems which have more than
1000aa in their sequence.
> Why do you think this level
>requires millions of years to evolve while functional systems that are
>just a bit lower on the informational scale evolve quickly and
>rapidly? What is it that makes this gap in evolvability grow in such
>an exponential manner? hmmmmm?
Yet another of your assertions.
You have shown neither evidence nor reasoning that the longer sequences
are exponentially, rather than linearly, less likely to evolve. Until
you produce evidence it's just speculation on your part so is worthless
as the basis of any other argument you try to make.
>> If you don't think they evolved then it's up to you to show some
>> evidence, not just assert it.
>
>The evidence is clear.
Oops, You forgot to include this clear evidence in your post. All that
remained were the following baseless assertions:
>Evolution happens very quickly and commonly at
>lower levels but exponentially less and less commonly as one moves up
>the ladder of functional complexity until there simply is no
>observable evolution at all well before the 1000aa threshold is
>reached. That observation is quite interesting. What is your
>explanation for this observation?
Cite?
The observation does not exist so there is no need for an explanation.
Sequences over 1000aa are as subject to evolution as any other sequence.
Mutations happen in *all* DNA sequences (proportion to their length)
and if those mutations change the phenotype they will be subject to
natural selection, so evolution will happen. Actually, the longer a
piece of DNA then the more mutations it will pick up per generation.
How do you think evolution is *prevented* from happening? Do you think
these longer sequences suddenly become mutation proof or do you think
that they can no longer change the phenotype once the sequence reaches a
certain length? Or maybe you think natural selection stops working?
Let's try your argument in another context. I'd be interested to know
how you think your logic differs from this:
I declare that there is a barrier which stops trees growing over 100m
tall. Any tree which is found to be over 100m tall was been created by
the tree fairy at its current height. Therefore the existence of trees
over 100m tall prove that the tree fairy exists.
To prove me wrong all you have to do is find me a new tree, in a place
where one did not previously exist, and which is over 100m tall.
Ron O
detectingdesign is Sean's bogus site. You can go there to see what
he's got on the subject, but as you indicate the name of the site
pretty much tells it all.
Sean doesn't have a viable alternative, he knows that he doesn't have
the science to back up intelligent design, so all he can do is blow
smoke. Smoke is all you are going to find at the site.
Just ask him for his alternative to the scientific explanation and the
scientific evidence to back up that alternative. You get a big fat
zero from Sean.
Sean has claimed that he has an alternative to common descent, and the
evidence to back it up that is just as good as the scientific evidence
for common descent, but he keeps running and pretending instead of
putting up what he claimed to have. He claimed to have the science of
intelligent design to teach to school kids, but the name of his site
must be bogus because he just runs and pretends from that claim too.
No viable alternative, and no scientific evidence backing up
intelligent design. Nothing to do but blow smoke and pretend to be
doing something constructive. That is all Sean is.
Ron Okimoto
Vernon Balbert
Sean sounds like an articulate Ray in this regard.
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain. But what if the Earl of Essex doesn't like burlap
pantaloons?"
John Harshman
Charming of you to give yourself the last word, as if your claims were
unanswerable. Typical, though. However, that link doesn't address the
question I asked you above. Which is also typical.
John Harshman
I find nothing here that is any argument by me about mitochondrial data.
I will grant that on the same page there is a mention of mitochondrial
data, and an argument by me. But can you see that's not at all the same
thing? The two are widely separated and not particuarly relevant to each
other.
And there is nothing there about some humans being more closely related
to chimps than to neanderthals.
Ron O
Just smoke. What is your alternative? What evidence do you have for
your alternative? Not only that, but what you are claiming doesn't
even have to happen very often in the history of life on this planet.
You probably can't even point to a single example of this type of
thing (beyond your 1000aa whatever limit, and doesn't this jump to
10,000 whenever you want it to?) that had to occur in the evolution of
humans from the human chimp common ancestor. Just put up an example.
That is probably over 5 million years of evolution and not a single
example that I can think of, but maybe you have one. Your flagellum
example happened how many times in the evolution of life on earth?
Two, maybe three times in different lineages in the last 3.8 billion
years, so what chance is anyone going to have of observing such a
phenomena in the last 50 years or so?
How often do you expect such structures to evolve and what is the
chance that anyone will observe such an example in the next 100
years? Where should we be looking? The human chimp example
demonstrates that quite a lot of evolution can happen without such
structures being necessary, so shouldn't you be able to tell us how
many such structures should be evolving at any given time, and how you
would determine if they were or not evolving at this time? It isn't
surprising that we don't observe your 1000 aa bull pucky very often
for the simple reason that the vast majority of evolution doesn't
involve it. If you only expect such structures to evolve every
billion years or so, why put so much stock in not observing any in the
last few hundred years?
In an earlier post you blew off the blood clotting example as a
cascade that could obviously evolve in steps, so that type of IC
system is out the window so how many do you have left and how often do
they have to evolve to create the diversity of life that we see today?
The saddest thing is for your argument to be at all valid you have to
determine that every single possible pathway to producing a structure
such as the flagellum is impossible or such a low probability that it
probably didn't happen. Your own fellow ID perps admitted that. The
other ID perps couldn't even discount a single possible biologically
relevant pathway. The only pathway that the ID perps ever discounted
was the random assembly of the structure from nothing, and that was as
far from biologically relevant as special creation. We all know that
it probably didn't happen that way because the flagellum is obviously
made up of parts that were already around and doing something else in
the cell. So you have to try to discount all possible biologically
relevant pathways, but you can't even discount a single one.
What about that alternative to common descent and the evidence to back
it up that you claimed to have? What about that science of
intelligent design that you claimed to have to teach to school kids?
Why blow smoke if you really have something worth talking about? Why
keep running?
Ron Okimoto
Sapient Fridge
<22be6520-bff7-43a9...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes
>> >> >Why is there this exponential
>> >> >stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
>> >> >ladder of functional complexity?
>>
>> >> There isn't. It's a baseless assertion you make, without evidence.
>>
>> >Ok, show me an example of observableevolutionin action producing a
>> >novel beneficial system of function that requires a minimum of at
>> >least 1000aa working together at the same time in specific
>> >orientation.
>>
>> There are countless examples of 1000aa systems out there. If you don't
>> think they evolved then it's up to you to show that it was not possible,
>> you can't just assert it.
>
>It's actually up to you to show an example of one of these evolving -
>just one.
Most systems of that size (over 1000aa) will have variation throughout
the population and those variation will change in both type and
frequency over time due to natural selection. So they are evolving.
Do you really think that all systems over 1000aa are identical over
their populations, or that the variations don't affect the phenotype?
Those would be the only way to stop evolution from happening.
Which are you suggesting?
>There are lots of examples of 300 or 400aa systems
>evolving. There just isn't an example of evolution beyond the 1000aa
>level is all where all the parts are specifically arranged relative to
>each other and work together at the same time to produce the function
>in question. Why not?
There are plenty examples of 1000aa systems out there which have
evolved. I'm not sure what you think the problem is.
Strange Creature
> We have believed since before Darwin that biology does not have a
> different set of rules from the rest of science. If Darwinian
> evolution works, it should be possible to mimic the process in
> software. By whatever mechanism, Ohno's or other, computers should be
> able to mimic what biological evolution has done. In the discussion
> above, we have focused on the creation of new genes that code for new
> functions.
>
> personal computers should be able to evolve wholly new, unexpected
> features that are somehow advantageous to them or their software. For
> example, computers might acquire the ability to activate other helpful
> programs, network with other computers, use the telephone, identify
> and disarm harmful viruses, automatically backup themselves, survive
> crashes, etc. All of these improvements would require new computer
> code. Since computer programs are transferred constantly, and
> duplicated, and mistakes are inserted occasionally, just as in
> biology, the opportunity for existing computer programs to evolve by
> the Darwinian method is already in place.
>
> other new abilities, but not in a closed system. To mimic Darwinian
> evolution, they would have to evolve improvements without input from
> programmers, starting with only programs already available. To suggest
> that computers ever might evolve significant improvements this way
> seems farfetched. Why? Can computers, without the input of new code,
> write for themselves any programs with fundamentally new meaning? Is
> there any example of an improvement to personal computers that was
> written by the unguided random duplication, mutation and recombination
> of existing code? Or, is the Darwinian account of the evolution of
> biological improvements equally farfetched?
The problem is that computers are not produced in a closed system
to begin with.
To enable computers to be produced in a closed system, basically
extracting all of their energy requirements from sunlight or
something
else to that effect, and then gradually assemble themselves from the
stored energy intake, is a severe innovation that itself would have
to
evolve. Maybe in the distant future some self replicating machines
on
Mercury might be though of as some sort of life that might exist in a
closed system that might evolve as an offshoot of our own minds and
then
later evolve independently.
Right now, computers however, are an offshoot of our own biology.
Our bodies extract energy from our environment, which supports
the biological neural networks in our brains, and then our brains
can use other forms of energy to generate computers. It would
require an act of 'creationism' to generate these self-building,
self-programming, auto-energy extracting computers now, since
they do not exist now.
Evolution needs to explain nothing, since these theoretical
computers do not exist. No scientific theory is needed to
describe a non-existent phenomenon.
Iain
> Bodega <michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [etc.]
>
> > The only message I get is that if life cannot be duplicated on a
> > comouter, life must not exist.
>
> > Why do people waste their time on such silly stuff?
>
> on doing things that creationists don't want them to do, like *evolving*.
> So they turn to other things - like lame analogies with language, or
> their own version of something called information theory, or backspace's
> endless babbling about semantics - to try to prove that evolution is
> impossible.
I sometimes use language evolution as an analogy for the graduality of
divergent evolution -- but it goes no further than that.
As for "information theory". The flagrantly dishonest thing about
Creationists using this argument is that they always introduce it
without even mentioning which of the four or five main definitions
there are for information. They also recklessly confuse their own
side. Many Creationists just assume that "information" means "data".
They're not even interested in disambiguating.
In Creationist-land, "information" means "kind of interesting shapes"
~Iain
TomS
<80342281-3bfb-47b7...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Iain
stated..."
>
>On Jun 13, 1:03 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Bodega <michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> [etc.]
>>
>> > The only message I get is that if life cannot be duplicated on a
>> > comouter, life must not exist.
>>
>> > Why do people waste their time on such silly stuff?
>>
>> What else can they do? Biological systems keep on stubbornly insisting
>> on doing things that creationists don't want them to do, like *evolving*.
>> So they turn to other things - like lame analogies with language, or
>> their own version of something called information theory, or backspace's
>> endless babbling about semantics - to try to prove that evolution is
>> impossible.
>
>
>I sometimes use language evolution as an analogy for the graduality of
>divergent evolution -- but it goes no further than that.
I think that there is more to the analogy than that.
Just to mention one thing: Language change is undirected.
Which is to say that the result of millenia of language
change is *not* a better, or more complex, language. Just
another language. And it also means that language change
is based on "random variations" - there is really no point
to pronunciations changing, just to take one example.
And just as some people think that without direction,
biological evolution will lead to "downward" evolution,
not realizing that "random variations and natural selection"
can account for "complexity" without the need for "design"
(whether by an "intelligent designer" or by a eugenicist) -
so too there are the "language police" who think that they
have to control the changes in language, lest we end up
with an inferior language.
>
>As for "information theory". The flagrantly dishonest thing about
>Creationists using this argument is that they always introduce it
>without even mentioning which of the four or five main definitions
>there are for information. They also recklessly confuse their own
>side. Many Creationists just assume that "information" means "data".
>They're not even interested in disambiguating.
>
>In Creationist-land, "information" means "kind of interesting shapes"
>
>~Iain
>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Cheezits
>> What else can they do? Biological systems keep on stubbornly
>> insisting on doing things that creationists don't want them to do,
>> like *evolving*. So they turn to other things - like lame analogies
>> with language, or their own version of something called information
>> theory, or backspace's endless babbling about semantics - to try to
>> prove that evolution is impossible.
>
> I sometimes use language evolution as an analogy for the graduality of
> divergent evolution -- but it goes no further than that.
But that is an analogy that illustrates something. A creationist will
claim that DNA *is* a language, then go on to conclude that evolution
couldn't have happened because you can't turn _Green Eggs and Ham_ into
_War and Peace_ by means of random changes of one letter at a time (with
each intermediate step making a well-formed book).
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Rupert Morrish
Sean is to be commended for at least drawing a line in the sand and
saying "past here is the gap where my god lives". I don't know that
he'll ever be proved wrong, since evolution by and large does not
proceed by making huge jumps, but much smaller changes that have effects
that are unpredictable with our current level of understanding.
>
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Rupert Morrish
> Vernon Balbert wrote:
>> On 6/13/2008 10:35 AM, John Harshman went clickity clack on the
>>>> On Jun 12, 2:05 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Seanpit wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Seanpit wrote:
>>>>>>>> This technical paper [excerpts below] was submitted for
>>>>>>>> presentation
>>>>>>>> at the Genetic Programming 1997 Conference (GP-97) held 13-16
>>>>>>>> July at
>>>>>>>> Stanford University, where Susumu Ohno was the scheduled keynote
>>>>>>>> speaker. Only two of six reviewers recommended accepting it.
>>>>>>> "Only"? I'm surprised that any of the reviewers recommended
>>>>>>> accepting
>>>>>>> that nonsense. I'd argue with you, but you show a tendency to
>>>>>>> wander off
>>>>>>> when you're having problems, only to surface later having
>>>>>>> conveniently
>>>>>>> forgotten there was any argument at all. This is a trait you
>>>>>>> share with
>>>>>>> Tony Pagano, and it's not an attractive one.
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> at nausium.
>>>>> The term is "ad nauseam".
>>>>>
>>>>>> any more since I don't find anything you've said in all the large
>>>>>> number of your responses very convincing - sorry. I'm just more
>>>>>> interested in other topics. If you're not, no one is twisting your
>>>>>> arm here . . .
>>>>> True. And in fact I'm not interested in this topic. Still, it seems
>>>>> odd
>>>>> that you're uninterested in the basic fact of common descent. And are
>>>>> are more closely related to chimps than to neanderthals?- Hide
>>>>> quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> I've already discussed this concept with you at great length. I've
>>>> presented my position and considered yours. Your arguments just
>>>> aren't convincing to me . . . Sorry. I've listed links to your
>>>> arguments on my website where I present this argument. I think that
>>>> is more than enough to provide a reader with both sides of the debate.
>>>
>>> Really? This bears investigation. Your site is large, and I couldn't
>>> fine any links to my arguments in your discussion of mitochondrial
>>> data, though I see you're still claiming that some humans are more
>>> closely related to chimps than to neandertals. Could you tell me
>>> where those links are?
>>
>
> Apparently we do.
>
>> I'm no chemist so I don't know how long DNA is viable for such tests.
>> Would 30,000 years be too long to test it?
>
> Apparently not. There are what appear to be real neandertal
> mitochondrial sequences, and even more surprisingly there are neandertal
> nuclear sequences. There's even a neandertal genome project.
>
>> But then we've been able to get snippets of dino DNA.
>
> Doubtful. What gives you that impression?
I would imagine that you could get dinosaur DNA from any of the millions
of dinosaurs kept in cages all around the world. Or is there a
particular interest in the DNA of extinct dinosaurs?
[snip]
John Harshman
There is. And you should know that birds are not dinosaurs, because the
English language is fixed for all time.
Rupert Morrish
> "Seanpit" <sea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:57e8af50-4dcc-4e7d...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> Wickramasinghe? I am afraid I am suspcious about anything that has his name
> on it.
>
>> Returning to the narrower original question, can any computer model of
>> Darwinian evolution produce the analog of new genes? If not, perhaps
>> we should wonder if the Darwinian mechanism is sufficient to produce
>> new genes on Earth, or whether another source for them is necessary.
>>
>>
>
> First of all, isn't "Darwinian Evolution" rather limited in scope? Or, do we
> really know all about evolution, to the extent that we can - (given that it
> is possible, something we do not know, do we?) make a representative,
> reliable model?
>
> Why should we have 'production of new genes'? We can do a lot simply by
> teaching old genes new tricks, do computer models handle that? What about
> gene duplication and mutations? I simply do not believe in computer models
> of life except maybe to investigate some limited concepts.
Right. You only need to look at the computing resources used by a
project like Folding@Home (http://folding.stanford.edu/) to realise that
even just modelling coding sequences (and ignoring the regulatory
sequences and other "junk") gives us little information about what will
actually happen in a cell with any given change in the genome.
>
> What 'other sources' except natural sources are there? is there any reason
> why we are justified in postulating anything but natural forces for all of
> biology, like for everything else in the universe? Is there anything else
> besides nature at work in nature?
Rupert Morrish
> On Jun 14, 2:27 am, William Morse <wdNOSPAmo...@verizonOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> Seanpit wrote or quoted:
>
>>> More broadly, if a software model of evolution is possible, ordinary
>>> personal computers should be able to evolve wholly new, unexpected
>>> features that are somehow advantageous to them or their software. For
>>> example, computers might acquire the ability to activate other helpful
>>> programs, network with other computers, use the telephone, identify
>>> and disarm harmful viruses, automatically backup themselves, survive
>>> crashes, etc. All of these improvements would require new computer
>>> code. Since computer programs are transferred constantly, and
>>> duplicated, and mistakes are inserted occasionally, just as in
>>> biology, the opportunity for existing computer programs to evolve by
>>> the Darwinian method is already in place.
>> evolution by natural selection. Personal computers do not exhibit excess
>> reproduction or heritable variation [...] the expectation
>> that they should evolve under current conditions is unrealistic.
>
> Personal computer *designs* do exhibit reproduction and heritable
> variation -
> and since the designs evolve, and personal computers are part of their
> phenotype, personal computers do indeed evolve.
>
> Indeed, they /have/, in point of fact, developed abilities to use the
> telephone, identify and disarm harmful viruses, automatically
No, they haven't. Those abilities were designed into them by intelligent
designers.
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
> reply.
Seanpit
You are the one who brought up the TTSS system as an example of how
evolution could produce a system as complex as the flagellar motility
system. The fact of the matter is, you haven't got the first clue as
to how the TTSS system helps to explain the evolution of the flagellar
motility system, and neither does anyone else since the gap between
the TTSS toxin injector system and the flagellar motility system is
absolutely enormous. The gaps between the other proposed
steppingstones in the evolutionary pathway toward flagellar motility
are just as enormous. I list these problems out in the links to my
own website I provided you on these topics - arguments that you refuse
to even consider. How lame is that?
> >> detectingdesign is Sean's bogus site. You can go there to see what
> >> he's got on the subject, but as you indicate the name of the site
> >> pretty much tells it all.
>
> >> Sean doesn't have a viable alternative, he knows that he doesn't have
> >> the science to back up intelligent design, so all he can do is blow
> >> smoke. Smoke is all you are going to find at the site.
>
> >> Just ask him for his alternative to the scientific explanation and the
> >> scientific evidence to back up that alternative. You get a big fat
> >> zero from Sean.
>
> >> Sean has claimed that he has an alternative to common descent, and the
> >> evidence to back it up that is just as good as the scientific evidence
> >> for common descent, but he keeps running and pretending instead of
> >> putting up what he claimed to have. He claimed to have the science of
> >> intelligent design to teach to school kids, but the name of his site
> >> must be bogus because he just runs and pretends from that claim too.
> >> No viable alternative, and no scientific evidence backing up
> >> intelligent design. Nothing to do but blow smoke and pretend to be
> >> doing something constructive. That is all Sean is.
Ron Okimoto is the one who is full of nothing but bluster and hot
air. Ask Ron for any example of evolution in action beyond the 1000aa
threshold. He has no examples beyond his just-so stories - not a
single observable example of evolution actually happening even close
to this threshold. Ron doesn't even understand the difference between
a threshold requirement and a mutational gap distance (hint: they
aren't the same thing despite Ron's confusion on this key issue).
> > Sean sounds like an articulate Ray in this regard.
Ray Martinez? Come on now . . . I'm not seeing you do any better than
Ray here. Where are your examples to answer my challenge? Hmmmm?
I'm waiting . . .
> Sean is to be commended for at least drawing a line in the sand and
> saying "past here is the gap where my god lives". I don't know that
> he'll ever be proved wrong, since evolution by and large does not
> proceed by making huge jumps, but much smaller changes that have effects
> that are unpredictable with our current level of understanding.
I'm not asking for demonstrations of any large leap here. I'm asking
for a demonstration of evolution by any sort of step, small or large,
that produces a novel functional system that requires a minimum of at
least 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues working together
at the same time. It doesn't matter if this system is produced with a
single point mutation as long as it wasn't in the gene pool in
question prior to the demonstration.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> In message
> <22be6520-bff7-43a9-8774-46eed119f...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >Why is there this exponential
> >> >> >stalling out effect for evolutionary potential as one moves up the
> >> >> >ladder of functional complexity?
>
> >> >> There isn't. It's a baseless assertion you make, without evidence.
>
> >> >Ok, show me an example of observableevolutionin action producing a
> >> >novel beneficial system of function that requires a minimum of at
> >> >least 1000aa working together at the same time in specific
> >> >orientation.
>
> >> There are countless examples of 1000aa systems out there. If you don't
> >> think they evolved then it's up to you to show that it was not possible,
> >> you can't just assert it.
>
> >It's actually up to you to show an example of one of these evolving -
> >just one.
>
> Most systems of that size (over 1000aa) will have variation throughout
> the population and those variation will change in both type and
> frequency over time due to natural selection. So they are evolving.
Modifications of a system that has already evolved is not the same
thing as getting that system into the gene pool to begin with.
Evolution of further modifications after that point is not a problem
at all.
> Do you really think that all systems over 1000aa are identical over
> their populations, or that the variations don't affect the phenotype?
> Those would be the only way to stop evolution from happening.
>
> Which are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that there is a big difference between getting to the
edge of an island and getting to different places on the island once
the island is found. Finding the island to begin with is the hard
part. Moving around on it once it is found is easy.
> >There are lots of examples of 300 or 400aa systems
> >evolving. There just isn't an example of evolution beyond the 1000aa
> >level is all where all the parts are specifically arranged relative to
> >each other and work together at the same time to produce the function
> >in question. Why not?
>
> There are plenty examples of 1000aa systems out there which have
> evolved. I'm not sure what you think the problem is.
There are none that I know of that have been demonstrated to evolve in
observable time where all the 1000aa must work at the same time in a
specific orientation with each other to produce the function in
question. If you know of an example, by all means, present it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> Just smoke. What is your alternative? What evidence do you have for
> your alternative? Not only that, but what you are claiming doesn't
> even have to happen very often in the history of life on this planet.
> You probably can't even point to a single example of this type of
> thing (beyond your 1000aa whatever limit, and doesn't this jump to
> 10,000 whenever you want it to?)
You still don't seem to grasp the difference between the gap distance
and the minimum structural threshold requirements. The 1000aa is not
the gap distance. It is the minimum structural threshold requirement.
It doesn't matter what type of mutations you want to use (point
mutations, indels, translocations, etc). The 1000aa threshold has not
been crossed. The 10,000aa threshold is the level at which the
flagellar motility system is found - far far higher than any system
ever produced by evolutionary mechanisms in observable time.
> that had to occur in the evolution of
> humans from the human chimp common ancestor. Just put up an example.
> That is probably over 5 million years of evolution and not a single
> example that I can think of, but maybe you have one. Your flagellum
> example happened how many times in the evolution of life on earth?
> Two, maybe three times in different lineages in the last 3.8 billion
> years, so what chance is anyone going to have of observing such a
> phenomena in the last 50 years or so?
My point exactly. What is it about the level of functional complexity
exhibited by the flagellar motility system that makes it so hard to
evolve? Hmmmm? Please do explain this exponential decline in
evolutionary potential as one approaches the 1000aa threshold.
> How often do you expect such structures to evolve and what is the
> chance that anyone will observe such an example in the next 100
> years? Where should we be looking?
Statistically, the odds of observing evolution beyond the 1000aa
threshold in the next 100 years is essentially zero. That's the whole
point. Evolutionary potential stalls out exponentially until
trillions upon trillions of years aren't enough time beyond the 1000aa
threshold.
> The human chimp example
> demonstrates that quite a lot of evolution can happen without such
> structures being necessary, so shouldn't you be able to tell us how
> many such structures should be evolving at any given time, and how you
> would determine if they were or not evolving at this time? It isn't
> surprising that we don't observe your 1000 aa bull pucky very often
> for the simple reason that the vast majority of evolution doesn't
> involve it. If you only expect such structures to evolve every
> billion years or so, why put so much stock in not observing any in the
> last few hundred years?
You don't have any statistical basis for your mechanism doing any sort
of evolution beyond the 1000aa threshold. You only know it happens
because you believe it had to have happened. You have absolutely no
statistical support for this belief whatsoever when it comes to
understanding how your proposed mechanism could have done the job.
> In an earlier post you blew off the blood clotting example as a
> cascade that could obviously evolve in steps, so that type of IC
> system is out the window so how many do you have left and how often do
> they have to evolve to create the diversity of life that we see today?
Every living thing has lots of non-cascading systems of function that
goes well beyond the 1000aa threshold - - to include transcription,
translation, vesicle transport, mitosis, mieosis, amoeboid motility,
flagellar motility, etc.
> The saddest thing is for your argument to be at all valid you have to
> determine that every single possible pathway to producing a structure
> such as the flagellum is impossible or such a low probability that it
> probably didn't happen. Your own fellow ID perps admitted that. The
> other ID perps couldn't even discount a single possible biologically
> relevant pathway. The only pathway that the ID perps ever discounted
> was the random assembly of the structure from nothing, and that was as
> far from biologically relevant as special creation. We all know that
> it probably didn't happen that way because the flagellum is obviously
> made up of parts that were already around and doing something else in
> the cell. So you have to try to discount all possible biologically
> relevant pathways, but you can't even discount a single one.
None of your proposed pathways, not a single step, have been
demonstrated in real time - not one. Who is taking a blind leap of
faith here? Hmmm? Who has absolutely no statistical evidence to back
themselves up? Hmmmm? What are the odds that any one of your steps
will be crossed in a give span of time? Care to present any actual
calculations and statistical analysis? Hmmmm? I don't think
so . . .
> What about that alternative to common descent and the evidence to back
> it up that you claimed to have? What about that science of
> intelligent design that you claimed to have to teach to school kids?
> Why blow smoke if you really have something worth talking about? Why
> keep running?
Who's running here Ron? I've asked you over and over again for your
own statistical analysis of the odds of crossing even one of your
proposed steps in flagellar evolution or any other system of
equivalent complexity. I'm still waiting. Why run from this
challenge like you do over many years of my asking this simple
question?
In short, my version of ID Theory is not fundamentally different from
other mainstream theories of ID, to include forensic science,
anthropology and even SETI science.
> Ron Okimoto
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
There is no last word with you John. You will argue in circles until
the cows come home - - which is typical.
> However, that link doesn't address the
> question I asked you above. Which is also typical.
The links do address your questions and they also link to the entire
discussion on T.O.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ron O
You can say this if you support what you claimed instead of running.
It might also help if I ever claimed any such things that I would have
to support.
You on the other hand are just about nothing but bluster. Demonstrate
that I am wrong. Where is that science of intelligent design that you
claimed to have to teach to school kids? Why keep running instead of
putting up the ID science? Where is your alternative to common
descent and the evidence to back it up that is just as good as the
evidence that you claim isn't good enough that science has for common
descent? If you don't have these things, why keep blowing worthless
smoke when it doesn't impact the fact that you have nothing worthwhile
to put up on your side of the arguement? Sounds like nothing but
bluster to me.
I understand you better than you seem to understand yourself. You are
a pretender and a liar. You could demonstrate that I am wrong, but
all you ever do is run and pretend and then come up with bull pucky
like you wrote above. You don't even try to deny that you are running
and pretending, you just run and pretend. Want to deny that you ever
made those claims? If you do that, what does that make you? An
obvious liar, right? That seems to be too much for what moral
integrity that you have left, so what do you do instead? Why not try
to do the right thing instead of running and pretending so that you
can claim that you aren't really lying to yourself?
Why should anyone take you seriously when you run instead of admit
error or at least try to support your claims? Why should anyone dance
to your fantasies when you don't have the integrity to stand by your
claims or admit that you were wrong?
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
Seanpit
wrote:
Did you miss the part about convergent evolution?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> In message
> <2415f275-9af6-4923-9207-a2b5c3076...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 14, 2:14 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> >wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <1f25f177-6c7a-48ef-a9cc-b81f349dd...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >> >Evidence? Try presenting any example ofevolutionin observable
> >> >action producing any novel beneficial system that requires at least
> >> >1000aa working together at the same time.
>
> >> There are countless examples of 1000aa systems out there which have
> >> evolved. They evolve gradually over millions of years from smaller
> >> system - they don't just appear overnight.
>
> >The question is why are there many examples of evolution that we can
> >actually see in action when the evolving systems require a minimum of
> >only 300-400aa, but no examples are seen just a bit higher up the
> >ladder at the 1000aa threshold level?
>
> There are countless examples of protein systems which have more than
> 1000aa in their sequence.
Yep. It's just that not one of these has been shown to evolve its
novel function in observable time.
> > Why do you think this level
> >requires millions of years to evolve while functional systems that are
> >just a bit lower on the informational scale evolve quickly and
> >rapidly? What is it that makes this gap in evolvability grow in such
> >an exponential manner? hmmmmm?
>
> Yet another of your assertions.
It's a real observation, not just an assertion. If you think
otherwise, prove me wrong. Should be easy to do if I'm so far off
base here . . .
> You have shown neither evidence nor reasoning that the longer sequences
> are exponentially, rather than linearly, less likely to evolve. Until
> you produce evidence it's just speculation on your part so is worthless
> as the basis of any other argument you try to make.
The gap distance grows linearly. The random walk distance grows
exponentially. That is why the examples of evolution in action drop
off exponentially as one approaches the 1000aa threshold. If you think
otherwise, prove me wrong.
> >> If you don't think they evolved then it's up to you to show some
> >> evidence, not just assert it.
>
> >The evidence is clear.
>
> Oops, You forgot to include this clear evidence in your post. All that
> remained were the following baseless assertions:
>
> >Evolution happens very quickly and commonly at
> >lower levels but exponentially less and less commonly as one moves up
> >the ladder of functional complexity until there simply is no
> >observable evolution at all well before the 1000aa threshold is
> >reached. That observation is quite interesting. What is your
> >explanation for this observation?
>
> Cite?
>
> The observation does not exist so there is no need for an explanation.
> Sequences over 1000aa are as subject to evolution as any other sequence.
Yes, they are. You're right. They are subject to random mutation and
function-based selection. It is just that this mechanism hasn't
produce any novel system sof function at this level in observable
time. That's very interesting . . . don't you think?
>
> Mutations happen in *all* DNA sequences (proportion to their length)
> and if those mutations change the phenotype they will be subject to
> natural selection, so evolution will happen. Actually, the longer a
> piece of DNA then the more mutations it will pick up per generation.
Mutations do happen more commonly in longer stretches of DNA. The
problem is that mutations, by themselves, don't produce novel
beneficial functions that have the same 1000aa minimum part
requirement.
> How do you think evolution is *prevented* from happening? Do you think
> these longer sequences suddenly become mutation proof or do you think
> that they can no longer change the phenotype once the sequence reaches a
> certain length? Or maybe you think natural selection stops working?
Nope. Mutations and natural selection keep working. It is just that
natural selection doesn't work in a positive manner unless the
mutation(s) result in a beneficial change in function. Such changes
in function are usually detrimental and NS selects against such
changes. When then are beneficial, they usually are the result of a
loss of functionality, not a gain in a new functional system.
> Let's try your argument in another context. I'd be interested to know
> how you think your logic differs from this:
>
> I declare that there is a barrier which stops trees growing over 100m
> tall. Any tree which is found to be over 100m tall was been created by
> the tree fairy at its current height. Therefore the existence of trees
> over 100m tall prove that the tree fairy exists.
I'm talking about a mechanism here. If your mechanism of random
mutation and function-based selection demonstrably shows a stalling
out effect as one approaches the 1000aa threshold - a stalling out
effect that is clearly exponential in nature - what does that tell you
about the likely origin of higher-level systems? Hmmmm? At the very
least it suggests that your suggested mechanism is unlikely to have
been responsible for the origin of such systems - does it not?
> To prove me wrong all you have to do is find me a new tree, in a place
> where one did not previously exist, and which is over 100m tall.
Think about it just a bit . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
John Harshman
The links do not, as far as I can tell, address my major question, the
one about some humans being more closely related to chimps than to
neanderthals. The links do repeat the claim, but they offer no
justification for that claim. Perhaps you think they do, and I am too
knowledgeable to be able to tell what you think is justification?