« Links Mentioned on the 3/03/15 Show | Main | You Can’t Get Western Morality from Science »

March 04, 2015

Comments

It is painful to see over and over this same misrepresentation of the evolutionary model. It has been stated so many times now that I'm having a hard time being charitable in giving evolution deniers the benefit of the doubt. So one more time...

While it is true that chance events play a significant part...evolution is not the result of random events, there is a force that works on those chance events to filter out those that are best suited to their environment - "Natural selection is a rigorous testing process that filters out what works from what doesn't, driving organisms to evolve in particular directions." (`- newscientist)

The biological "purpose" is always that which works best within its environment. It's not a purpose as in something or someone wanted it that way so they just created it that way. It's a purpose as in why was this way more beneficial than any other so that natural selection resulted in this particular configuration. That's what they were investigating and what they discovered makes sense of it.

Please stop using the tornado in a junkyard argument, that is not how any scientist claims evolution works. To continue to use it is dishonest.

Francis, you say "there is a force at work" that "filters out" particular traits. This force you reference, would it be a natural energy found in the physical world? Or you say it is more metaphysical and perhaps is transcedent?
It seems that in trying to eliminate the Christian perspective of "purpose" from the topic, you have introduced another term or idea that may, too, possibly borrow from theology.

Hi Maria. The force that I'm talking about is Natural Selection. It's not an energy it's a process. The main driving process that causes evolution to occur. There are others (genetic drift etc) but that is the main one and yes, it is natural and works within the physical world.

Random = Intentional

Francis, that fact that something works in a way that enhances survival in no way leads to the conclusion that we should expect it to work in the best way possible. It's merely an accident that it happens to work in a helpful way. After all, if evolution is ongoing, nothing is ever "the best design," it's merely constantly changing and "improving" to fit the environment. An accident may at times work, but there's no reason to think anything has arrived anywhere.

This is exactly why atheists have pointed to things like the eye (see the Dawkins quote linked to above) as an example of sub-optimal "design." They expect to see sub-optimal structures result from evolution. The "best suited" of possible random mutations that have occurred in no way implies "the best possible." Dawkins would never try to find out why the eye is the way it is because there is no why it should be one way or the other, nor is there any reason to think it's better this way than another. It's just an accident. Random mutations happened to come together that ended up with the ability to see. The fact that it happened backwards (or what Dawkins assumed was backwards) is merely an accident of mutations. There's no reason to assume that's the best configuration. In fact, atheists like Dawkins have assumed the opposite: It was a random configuration that gave rise to sub-optimal seeing.

Atheists wouldn't be citing this if they didn't believe sub-optimal structures exist because there was no purpose guiding their development. It was simply the case that it happened to function in a way that was helpful. It would only make sense to ask why it developed this way instead of the other if it were the case that eyes developed both ways and this one won out (and I don't think anyone thinks that). These mutations happened to happen, and they happened to create a kind of seeing. There's no reason to think it would work better this way than another.

The natural forces pushing upon and weighing in on streaming water eon after eon after eon force it to go in a particular direction and are not "entirely" unintentional but are in *some* small way intentional. That is why the Grand Canyon now has the form it now has. Conflation amid A and B and mixed with a little equivocating amid such sloppy semantics gets us to such final causes.

Even worse - eliminative materialism claiming its own shadow as the measure of what shadows must look like as it makes its claim on the very ends of Ontological Design. As if patterns of the irrationally conditioned can justify - by demanding this or that X reflect its own ontic-slice - such a reach to the very ends of the psychology of Ontological Intention. A Galaxy has the form it has and such form is ascribed to the means and ends of God. Should such form dissatisfy man's eye - well such dissatisfaction is itself of no help to the metaphysical claim of the materialist claiming no fingerprint of God. To think otherwise is to have little or no understanding of Theism's metaphysical paradigm.

Wow! Such an optimal design! It's funny, though, how God only used this design for the eyes of animals with backbones, pharyngeal gill slits, and a few other characteristics. You only get the 100% optimized eye if you're a member of the phylum Chordata, with all of those characteristics. Arthropods, cephalopods, you're out of luck; God sticks you with a stupid, sub-optimally designed eye, in which there are no nerve cells in front of the photoreceptors.

Now that we've explained how the Muller cells actually help transmit light through the retina, it should be short work uncovering the rest of God's optimal design, including what the heck is going on will all the other junk in the way, including bipolar cells, amacrine cells, blood vessels, nerve fibers...

Since Darwinian evolution is supposed mutations + Natural selection, evolution does not operate for any purpose, not even survival.

Mutations (the supposed driving force of evolution) are independent of natural selection completly. They are simply copying mistakes in DNA. This means that evolution does not occur for any purpose, not even survival.

Natural selection is simply a restraint on evolution. It is simply the fact or phenomena that anything that is not suited to its environment will die. Hence the notion that fittest will be able to compete better for food or resourses does not direct mutation or give any guidance to it, since copying mistakes don't perceive danger. In the overall however it supposedly shapes long evolutionary adaptions and explains the shape of evolutionary change.

Since mutations themselves are not directed by natural selection, not even survival can be considered a purposes of evolution. Its just a mistake that eventually overcomes or is felled by death. Not that it has ever been observed.

Evolution faces a huge number of strong problems:
1. The overall general theory has never be observed
2. Evidence is interpreted through falty abduction
3. It cannot explain irreducibly complex functions
4. It cannot explain genomic information, since mutations don't produce complex functional information
5. It lacks a mechanism that actually explains how and why it happens.
6. It cannot explain the origin of life(first cell, let alone one that can replicate)
7. And many many more.

Phillip A, first your comment ignores the fall and its effects. Secondly, God didn't give us wings, which he gave to birds, or photosynthesis which He gave to plants. We were made with particular features that suit our intended environment. Claiming that the best features belong to other creatures and animals does not serve as evidence against design. This article only refutes the claim made by Dawkins. It does not claim that we were given the best of features and it doesnt claim that all features of our biology are what God originally made them, since years of degradation and genetic decay have occurred through DNA mutations post fall.

Oh and since one part of DNA often complements another part, a postive mutation in one place will destroy informion in another place. That's simply too much in information for that.

Evolution is not a good explanation for the diversity or origin of life.

Francis, natural selection is not a thing in itself but rather the observation that things that aren't best fit into their environment will die out. Conversly that which is most adept to its environment will survive most effectly.

Natural selection does not necessitate evolution and was not invented by Darwin (he merely borrowesd it), it was observed by Carl Linnaeus, James hutton, Matthew, and Blyth.

Nature selection is infact independent of the reproduction of DNA and therefore does not guide or direct mutations. Mutations are mistakes in DNA replication. Mutations might meet Natural selection down the tract, but they will have already occurred, hence there is not purpose or direction in evolution.

Neither individually nor together do either mutations or natural selection offer mechanism for evolutionary change on the scale of microbes to man. They do not account for the huge amount of functionally specific complexity (information).

"Please stop using the tornado in a junkyard argument, that is not how any scientist claims evolution works. To continue to use it is dishonest."

No one says that Evolutionary believers think that. Its just a fitting analogy for random copying mistakes (murations) to give rise to functionality and information, which they do claim. Natural selection is not a thing in jtseld , but rather an observation that biological life cannot survive if it lacks the means to (ie can't swim but is in the ocean).

Remember mutations are independant of natural selection. Mutations randomly occur then they either overcome or are destroyed by death, depending on whether they suit the environment.

By the way the fallacy that all "scientists" believe evolution is rediculous. I know many that do not. Evolution is unscientific because it uses abductive rather than inductive reasoning. Induction is the reasoning of science. Abduction is a 'guess' or inference to a 'best' explanation. While deduction and induction give rise to knowledge, abduction merely gibves rise to 'reason' to believe but not know.

Sorry about my spelling and typos. I'm not used to typing on the device I'm using.

andy:

So, every good thing in the genome is part of God's perfect design, and any flaws are due to the Fall? You should remember that any theory that can explain anything explains nothing.

Flaws?

There is no such thing.

Funny how the Materialists employ words which are unintelligible in their own paradigm.

Like "purpose" and "flaw".

Such sloppy semantics grant the Materialists their hope.


A theory which employs a language which its own metaphysical regressions cannot justify in order to either describe or explain X has not told us anything about X. Not "really". Perhaps some useful fictions have been foisted. But *knowledge* remains elusive.

That this nebulae, and that galaxy, and Man's psychology are ascribed what form and essence they have by God's Psychology is the claim of the Christian's metaphysical paradigm. With what means will the materialist refute such? The materialist comes to the table with the irrationally conditioned bundle of reflexes inside our skulls (on the one hand) and a fated eliminative materialism on all utterances thereof (on the other hand) and claims to employ that Ontological End as his means to ascribe the express terms and conditions of the Ontological End that is Design.


Comically unintelligible.

Well, scbrownlhrm, that is one of the best and most concise analyses I have read on the topic. Hear, hear!

What exactly is this process of natural selection? The tendency of those things to survive that are fittest to survive? And what is fitness to survive other than the tendency to survive?

So things that have a tendency to survive, tend to survive.

Is that what natural selection is supposed to be?

If not, what then?

Right James...why am I reminded of:

 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.” - Luke 6:46-49

scblhrm brought the torrent.

WL,
What's your point?

Neo-Darwinian?

Really?

Long after evolutionary biologists have essentially left the neo-Darwinian paradigm (a gene mutates, a gene gets selected) behind - on the grounds it lacks enough power to do the *work* needed of it - some still cling to it.

A growing awareness of the inadequacy of genetic mutation and natural selection alone to do the necessary work is touched on in this quote:

“Darwin appealed to natural selection operating on random variations in living things in order to explain the adaptedness of organisms to their environment. With the development of modern genetics, genetic mutations came to supplement the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection by supplying an explanation for the variations on which natural selection works. Accordingly, we can call this hypothesis “neo-Darwinism….”

“If, as a result of methodological naturalism, the pool of live explanatory options is limited to naturalistic hypotheses, then, at least until recently, the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution driven by the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection was, as Alvin Plantinga puts it, the only game in town. Rival naturalistic hypotheses could not equal its explanatory power, scope, and plausibility. No matter how improbable it seems, no matter how enormously far the explanatory power of its mechanisms must be extrapolated beyond the testable evidence, no matter the lack of evidence for many of its tenets, it has to be true because there isn’t any other naturalistic theory that comes close…..”

“Indeed, there are very good grounds for skepticism about the neo-Darwinian mechanisms behind evolutionary change. The adequacy of these mechanisms is today being sharply challenged by some of the top evolutionary biologists. In fact, I was intrigued recently to learn that Ayala has apparently since given up on the adequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Lyn Margulis, one of the so-called Altenburg 16, a group of evolutionary biologists who met in 2008 at a conference in Altenburg, Austria, to explore the mechanisms behind evolutionary change, reported, “At that meeting [Francisco] Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism, but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism’s now dead” (Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16 [Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2010], p. 285).”


“Now it needs to be clearly understood that Ayala is not about to embrace some sort of creationism. Rather additional natural mechanisms will be sought to supplement genetic mutation and natural selection. These are already being suggested in the scientific literature. I have every expectation that during the course of this century the neo-Darwinian mechanisms, which have been long challenged by creationists of various stripes, will come to be recognized as inadequate, and new mechanisms will be recognized. The irony will then be that the community of evolutionary biologists, rather than admitting that the criticisms of the creationists were justified, will say, “Oh, well, we knew all along that the neo-Darwinian mechanisms were inadequate!” – this despite the public posturing that goes on now in the name of neo-Darwinism…”


Professor Margulis is anything but a creationist of any kind, and like many of her kin she is declaring that the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic mutation plus natural selection is, well, “dead”. Despite the posturing of our PN friends in this thread, Neo-Evo-Devo-Neo is both unavoidable and forever, tragically, fated to scientism. And why? Well, simply because facts matter, simply because the paradigm of genetic mutations and selective pressure as an explanation is, well, in the atheist’s own words, “dead”, and simply because of the end of true reason which they must inevitably concede as their PN-induced variety of methodological naturalism commits them, ultimately, to the analytical insult of scientism.


Suzan Mazur interviewed practicing evolutionist Professor Margulis:


“While Eastman Professor Lynn Margulis clearly doesn’t have time on her hands at Oxford University’s Balliol College where she’s spending the year away from her other job as Distinguished University Professor of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst – I did actually run out of tape talking with her in round one of our conversation, barely scratching the surface on symbiosis (“new species evolve primarily through the long-lasting intimacy of strangers”), the evolutionary concept that brought her the Presidential Medal of Science in 1999. Margulis says that as far as “survival of the fittest” goes, it’s a “capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin” and that even banks and sports teams have to cooperate to compete. She sees natural selection as “neither the source of heritable novelty nor the entire evolutionary process” and has pronounced neo-Darwinism “dead,” since there’s no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species. Margulis takes a holistic view of evolutionary science, and her U. Mass. lab page notes that their work “seamlessly” involves microbiology, cell biology, genetics, ecology, “soft rock” geology, astronomy, astrobiology, atmospheric sciences, metabolic organic and biochemistry.”


And of course - today of late - we find just what was predicted. The posturing of, "Oh, well, actually you see, we always *knew* the neo-Darwinian paradigm wasn't anything close enough to do the *work* we said it could."

And so on.

Community cooperation amid cell-cell thus arises and Neo-Devo-Evo-melodies of the highest flavor of speculation come forward - moving ever further from anything the bench top can show us.

Which is unfortunate. Because we keep hearing about mutation + natural selection, as if that houses explanatory power for the question at hand.

All of this combined with Philosophical Naturalism's ontological inability to justify any claim on the ontic-end that is the abstraction we call design - or on the lack thereof - leaves the hubris of such overreaching exposed.

Ron-

If it's just what I said, then natural selection adds nothing to the argument.

Time + Chance + Tautology == Time + Chance.

Going back to Phillip A's comment:

"Now that we've explained how the Muller cells actually help transmit light through the retina, it should be short work uncovering the rest of God's optimal design, including what the heck is going on will all the other junk in the way, including bipolar cells, amacrine cells, blood vessels, nerve fibers..."

which seems to be a rehashed old attack against the Creator by men dressed in scientific lab coats.

A more modern opinion/critique of the optimum-ness of the human eye is available by a credible and respectable person also likely to be wearing a lab coat.

The Naturalist needs to define "optimum", and for this he must presuppose - and metaphysically demonstrate by coherence - the *power* or the *reach* within his own paradigm to actually go out and ascribe the express terms and conditions of the ontic-end that is the abstraction we call Ontological Design.


Unfortunately all abstractions are annihilated in eliminative materialism - the fate of all thought in any consistent Naturalism, any consistent Scientism.

The vocabulary therein just cannot do the work needed of it. It needs help.

Just as, the neo-Darwinian mechanism alone cannot do the work needed of it. [Mutation + Selection] as the workhorse cannot and does not get us there alone. It needs help. That is, according to the rising tide of non-theistic evolutionary biologists.

The models today of cell-cell cooperation are far more difficult to observe in any real sense on any real bench top. Unlike antibiotic resistance. Such highly speculative models are therefore even farther away from the reach of Science.

Sloppy semantics need to be avoided.

This is where Philosophical Naturalism's "variety" of methodological naturalism falls down - becomes static - and Theism's "variety" of methodological naturalism remains in motion.

I was addressing comments like these ones one Ron:

The force that I'm talking about is Natural Selection. It's not an energy it's a process. The main driving process that causes evolution to occur.
Or
While it is true that chance events play a significant part...evolution is not the result of random events, there is a force that works on those chance events to filter out those that are best suited to their environment - "Natural selection is a rigorous testing process that filters out what works from what doesn't, driving organisms to evolve in particular directions." (`- newscientist)

If the thesis of natural selection is simply the tautologous claim that things with a tendency to survive in a given environment tend to survive in that environment, then natural selection doesn't drive, cause, force or filter a blessed thing.

In a given environment, some things may have a tendency to survive. And, of course, if there are any such entities, then they will tend to survive.

In other news, if a thing is a circle, then it is circular.

But why, in a given environment are there any entities in the first place that have a tendency to survive? Natural selection is not the answer to that and cannot be the answer to that.

You use the word 'filter'.

Do you this problem with filtration too?

Random = Filtration = Intentional = Non-Random.

Yeah.

Sure.

With such semantic sloppiness we can say Nature intended, chose, decided, to design the Grand Canyon. But hey, if that sort of epistemic/ontic unintelligibility is what is needed to ascribe the nuance of the rational to Naturalism's accounting...... useful fictions haven't been a problem thus far.....

Fine then. Got it.

Related perusing with defining the term randomness in evolutionary biology.

(I was talking to WL)

Yes, but I had addressed the same semantic concern earlier, in the March 4th,3:21 post which begins with, "The natural forces pushing upon and weighing....."

And even earlier than that with "Random = Intentional".

The nuance of "not entirely random" which was implied brings in the question of the specific definition of "random". It seemed like conflation, or equivocation, the way it reads. It is not obvious that dirty water filtering through a sand-filter clears up that question of definition, especially in the arena of biological evolution.

Yes, but I had addressed...

You may think so. But I have no idea what you're talking about.

Whether some thing is 'random' or 'intentional' is of no interest to me here.

However, if you can (clearly) critique the analogy between filtration and natural selection, I'd be interested in that.

Over the years, I have often heard young engineers, who did not design a particular [integrated circuit], criticize the design of that IC by saying it is sub-optimal, that they could do a better job. I have then seen these same engineers eat crow when they finally talk to the original designer and discover the constraints that original engineer was under when he designed the IC and the purposes for which he designed the IC.

This is a puzzling argument (or probably better, analogy) in support of intelligent design / creationism. Under what "constraints" was the omnipotent god of Christianity?

Filters remove big objects because they make the substance being filtered pass through small holes.

"Big" is not defined as "that which tends to be removed by the filter". Nor is "small" defined as "that which tends to be passed by the filter."

Natural selection 'filters' by tending to weed out for extinction unfit things and tending to confer survival on fit things.

But the problem is that, again, "fitness" is just the tendency to survive.

Why do some things tend to survive and others tend to die out?

"Natural Selection" isn't the answer to that question. It's just the repetition of the claim that some things tend to survive and others tend to die out.

Probably, if you really want to answer this, the answer is something like "because the particular conditions that exist right now in the environment are lethal to creatures with such-and-such attributes, but not to creatures with so-and-so attributes"

In other words, the magic third ingredient to time + chance is not natural selection, but what are sometimes called "selective pressures". And in fact, that's not a third ingredient at all. As soon as you say that there are selective pressures at work, you are saying that things aren't happening by chance at all. These pressures create a definite, non-random, direction to events.

Of course, at a higher level, you may want to say that there's an element of randomness to the sequence of selective pressures. Or at least an element of unguidedness. The fact that the atmosphere used to be methane, but then becomes oxygen and finally chlorine (or whatever) is no one's doing, you want to say. But such changes definitely kill off some things and allow others to thrive.

What I find remarkable (and by that I mean prohibitively improbable) is the idea that such selective pressures just happen to have acted unguided over time to produce an eye...any eye.

Random vs. Intentional vs. Filter:

Now that all intention is removed from the equation, we're left with water, sand, and blind cascades reverberating off of one another's forces.

Filter, Genome, Grand Canyon, spilling chemicals onto a floor and watching what happens over time .... whatever... it's all the same.


The link adds semantically important context to all of that, particularly on presuppositions behind how (some, not all) Naturalists employ the word "random" in reference to Natural Selection.


"Under what "constraints" was the omnipotent god of Christianity?"

When you want to create chickens, you can't give them fur instead of feathers and wings, long snouts with sharp teeth instead of beaks, and four powerful legs and a tail instead of chicken legs. That's just creating a fox. So God is under those sorts of constraints.

Sometimes, and this is true even for God, if you want to have A, you also have to accept B. Sometimes the simple logic of the case places that constraint.

Filters remove big objects because they make the substance being filtered pass through small holes.
That's just one meaning of 'filter' or one kind of filter.
As soon as you say that there are selective pressures at work, you are saying that things aren't happening by chance at all.
No, you aren't saying that. You are saying one kind of individual will produce more fertile offspring than another. The chance part is typically associated with the fact that the offspring vary from the parents. Chance is not essential to natural selection: some variations are fatal 100% of the time, for example.
What I find [prohibitively improbable] is the idea that such selective pressures just happen to have acted unguided over time to produce an eye...any eye.
.You calculated a probability? Please show your work.

an eye...any eye

Fine tuned for life from the Skeptic?

Now divide that by magnitudes to get to eye......

RonH

Fine tuned for life.

Show your work.

Forget about the eye.

Heck.

That's magnitudes of orders away from step one.

Background information:

"I suspect that what lies behind Tyson’s objection is the common error of thinking that the term “fine-tuned” means “designed.” Because vast regions of the universe are hostile to life, it is inferred that the universe was not designed for life. Even that inference doesn’t follow, but never mind. The more important point is that “fine-tuned” doesn’t mean “designed.” That would make the inference to design a mere tautology. Rather, fine-tuning is the neutral fact that in order for the universe to be life-permitting the fundamental constants and quantities must fall into an incomprehensibly narrow life-permitting range. That fact is not negated by the fact that vast regions of the universe do not exhibit the additional conditions sufficient for life. The question will then become how that fine-tuning is best to be explained."

scbrownlhrm

You need to calm down. I've read back through the thread twice and cannot for the life of me work out how you got from RonH's post to going off on a tangent about 'fine tuning'. RonH says nothing about fine tuning - you have put words in his mouth/created a strawman.

And none of your posts make any sense. Your dirge about materialism and the Altenburg 16 distort the main issues and lack rigour.

So at the heart of this lies this point - if you are claiming living organisms (or parts thereof like eyes) are designed, on what basis do you claim that?

Your claim - your evidence required

"Fine tuned for life from the Skeptic?

Now divide that by magnitudes to get to eye......"

What does this even MEAN?!? Utter nonsense.

I vote dunning-kruger

"Please show your work."

This is a comment in a blog you know.

It's simple -

If probability is going to be an arguing point about an eye... well then.. we need a universe with life first. That in itself is often a sticking point in that it is extraordinarily improbable to have such a universe - making chance less plausible.

But we need that universe to get the show going.

Then a-bio-genesis.

Then the eye.

And so on.

"Show your work" was asked by one party - But surely such is applicable in both directions?

The earlier quote of evolutionary biologists giving up on "Mutation + Selection" alone of late as "enough by itself", is on target since all we've seen by our naturalist friends so far is Mutation / Selection. But nobody thinks that alone is sufficient to explain what we see today.

If such challenges are unwelcome perhaps one ought to read a thread about a topic other than chance, mutations, selection, and evolution etc...

Clarification:

As specified earlier - the definition of "neo-Darwinian" is "a gene mutates, a gene gets selected". It is "that" which is - alone - under-powered as per more and more non-theists.

Phillip A

"So, every good thing in the genome is part of God's perfect design, and any flaws are due to the Fall? You should remember that any theory that can explain anything explains nothing"

That last sentence could be said of evolution. But really, just because the Bible happens to explain what we're talking about doesn't make it false. That doesn't make sense at all.

Turning to your first sentence.

Mutations, copying mistakes, are the cause of all flaws. Such mistakes clealy are from the fall. These copying mistakes do not cause information, but rather a degradation of it. Contrastingly, mutations, as copying mistakes, do not explain the incredible sophistication of functionality in the flight of birds, the human eye (whichever way it's wired), or any other function in biology.

Natural selection too, is not thing in itself. Its not a force of nature. It is just the fact that things without suitable capability to their environment fail to survive.

Mutations, those damaging copying mistakes, occur independently of 'natural' selection. Therefore, natural selection does not guide the driving force (mutations) of evolution. If mutations did give rise to genomic information, then it would take generations for natural selection to occur. But here is the point: mutations do not increase functional information of the genome, and rather they damage and degrade functional informion in the genome.

Mutations only drive destructive change. They eventually die after a few generations if passed on. Mutations and 'natural selection' only explain why life will one day end nowpt how it all bagan and spread. We're devolving not evolving. Functional complexity is being supplanted by disfuctional complexity (mess).

We're devolving not evolving.

Sorry for those typos, but can you see how these mistakes (mutations) do not increase but rather degrade the information in my statements. Mistakes cause a mess and disfunctionality, just look at 'bagan' and 'nowpt'which were meant to say 'began' and 'not'. Neither of those mistakes caused information but rather destroyed the information carried in those words.

Mistakes in typing this just as mistakes in copying coded DNA, served only to destroy rather than build information.

it is extraordinarily improbable to have such a universe - making chance less plausible.
Care to outline your calculations here?

The comments to this entry are closed.