Moderator: Moderators
Question 1: Is it too improbable to believe that some complex natural phenomena do not require a designer?Complexity is special because it is a method by which we use to determine whether a phenomenon is random or designed.
How come? You said "Each of the digits represents an attribute of the creature, and the stronger that attribute the better its chance of survival. For example a 9 is more fit than a 2."olavisjo wrote:1. Man was a goal to be achieved.
2. All combinations of letters were viable, but the most viable were the ones that were closest to the goal.
So my simulation is better in that it has neither of those shortfalls.
The idea of that simulation is that each number represents an attribute of the animal, for example a cheetah may have a speed of 9 while a deer may have a speed of 8, so the cheetah can catch the deer because it is faster, but the deer may have another attribute that we can call endurance of 8 which is a higher number than the cheetah's 4, so if the cheetah does not catch the deer in a few seconds, it will get tired and become slower than the deer.Beto wrote: How come? You said "Each of the digits represents an attribute of the creature, and the stronger that attribute the better its chance of survival. For example a 9 is more fit than a 2."
How is this not setting a target for what you defined to be the "fittest" creature? Like I asked you before, do you think biological evolution "knows" what feature is better beforehand?
Give me a biological example.olavisjo wrote:The point that I was trying to make is that when something is good, it does not become something else because it is already the most fit and the process of becoming something else means it must first become less fit in order to evolve into something else.
Like in a game of poker if you are dealt 3 eights, a jack and a two, you are not going to keep the jack in hopes of getting a royal flush but rather you will discard the jack and the two in hopes of getting the last eight or a pair for a full house. So your chances of evolving a royal flush is zero, which is less than if you were dealt a hand that is so bad that you throw in all your cards.
Okay, take the lobster, it is perfectly suited to crawl around the bottom of the ocean and make it's living eating whatever it can catch. It has no need to evolve. All it needs to do is keep it's DNA the way it is. If the DNA were to mutate, for example, to form an internal skeleton, that mutation would most likely hinder it's ability to do lobster stuff, and would not go any further, and such lobsters would not survive as well as the intact DNA lobsters.Beto wrote:Give me a biological example.
Not if the environment changes,.. or, if there is an unfilled niche that it stats to inhabit... although it would not 'lose' it's external shell all at once, but it would have to go through many many phases.. and would become 'unlobstery' generations before it could survive without an external shell.olavisjo wrote:Okay, take the lobster, it is perfectly suited to crawl around the bottom of the ocean and make it's living eating whatever it can catch. It has no need to evolve. All it needs to do is keep it's DNA the way it is. If the DNA were to mutate, for example, to form an internal skeleton, that mutation would most likely hinder it's ability to do lobster stuff, and would not go any further, and such lobsters would not survive as well as the intact DNA lobsters.Beto wrote:Give me a biological example.
Its DNA would not mutate to form an internal skeleton, the lobsters ancesters did that long before and that seems is no longer an option. This shows a lack of understanding the history of evolution of lobsters and a misunderstanding of how mutations work. No matter how well adapted the lobster is it still evolves and mutates and will pass on advantages while disadvantages will be eliminated by death, at least as a species.olavisjo wrote:Okay, take the lobster, it is perfectly suited to crawl around the bottom of the ocean and make it's living eating whatever it can catch. It has no need to evolve. All it needs to do is keep it's DNA the way it is. If the DNA were to mutate, for example, to form an internal skeleton, that mutation would most likely hinder it's ability to do lobster stuff, and would not go any further, and such lobsters would not survive as well as the intact DNA lobsters.Beto wrote:Give me a biological example.
If the lobster were forced to live on land, it would not evolve to become an air breather, it would simply become someones lunch. I will agree with minor changes like color, size, preferred temperature and salinity etc.Cathar1950 wrote: Its DNA would not mutate to form an internal skeleton, the lobsters ancesters did that long before and that seems is no longer an option. This shows a lack of understanding the history of evolution of lobsters and a misunderstanding of how mutations work. No matter how well adapted the lobster is it still evolves and mutates and will pass on advantages while disadvantages will be eliminated by death, at least as a species.
It is not that it has a need to evolve as change happens regardless of needs.
On the other hand, the early lung fish did not have compitition, and spent longer and longer periods on land. We knew the approximate time period when amphians wereolavisjo wrote:If the lobster were forced to live on land, it would not evolve to become an air breather, it would simply become someones lunch. I will agree with minor changes like color, size, preferred temperature and salinity etc.Cathar1950 wrote: Its DNA would not mutate to form an internal skeleton, the lobsters ancesters did that long before and that seems is no longer an option. This shows a lack of understanding the history of evolution of lobsters and a misunderstanding of how mutations work. No matter how well adapted the lobster is it still evolves and mutates and will pass on advantages while disadvantages will be eliminated by death, at least as a species.
It is not that it has a need to evolve as change happens regardless of needs.
You fail to see the point of natural selection. If lobsters found themselves in an environment where they had to spend varying amounts of time on land, over many generations, the lobsters which exhibited the ability to survive out of water the longest would eventually become dominant.olavisjo wrote:If the lobster were forced to live on land, it would not evolve to become an air breather, it would simply become someones lunch. I will agree with minor changes like color, size, preferred temperature and salinity etc.
We can call the last one to survive out of water 'dominant', at his funeral.McCulloch wrote:You fail to see the point of natural selection. If lobsters found themselves in an environment where they had to spend varying amounts of time on land, over many generations, the lobsters which exhibited the ability to survive out of water the longest would eventually become dominant.
