3 ms·
It is interesting that your dogma is gradualism, and you explain gradualism through gradualism. Then you appeal to the God of time, but many great paleothologis
by Tphil 4y ago
It is interesting that your dogma is gradualism, and you explain gradualism through gradualism.
Then you appeal to the God of time, but many great paleothologists and mathematician have demonstrated that it is not enough !
Please note that I am not a fixist creationnist, apparition (evolution ?) of species happened in history, but what is the engine of evolution ?
Where the new information to build new orders, reigns, branches, proteins, functions, organs, orders, species, came from ?
Chance applied to a code can by no way create new functions. It is easy to understand as any programmer will tell you. There is no computer science domain, neither developpers who use chance to create or improve a computer program.
Nevertheless, a computer can run more generations than nature had for many new species to appear.
If positive mutation happen, it is a build-in system, it cannot be pure chance (a lot of maths on the subject)
If it is a build-in system, it is one more mystery to explain how chance can create codes, coders, decoders, engines, pumps, pipes, organs, species, self-replicating systems, and also self-improving systems.
- ncmncm 4y agoYou argue that software is impossible, but here we are using it. Where did the ideas that went into the software come from? Were they all divinely inspired, or were they logical next steps upon what came before? Careful: claiming software you wrote is divinely inspired will not go over well at code review, particularly if you insist it doesn't need to pass tests.
- Tphil 4y agoI argue random mutations applied to software does not create any new fonctions, it breaks eveverything. Also that any usable software was designed by a mind. Where comes this mind from is another question. Which random mutated software are you using ?
- ncmncm 4y agoYou will acknowledge, I hope, that biological systems are much more forgiving of random mutations than software is. We don't need intelligent choice when Nature just tries everything, and keeps what works. Not efficient or quick, but Nature doesn't mind. Nature acknowledges no deadlines. Or goals. So, a series of not-excessively-harmful monkey-patches accumulate under stringent testing to significant improvement. We don't need to guess about that: it has been demonstrated by laboratory experiment, which you may read all about if you care to. Or don't, and continue parroting Behe's sterile talking points long after they have been thoroughly discredited.