Alain, I hope you read my thread on Microevolution vs Macroevolution. The resistance of bacteria to certain antibiotics and the bugs surviving pesticides are the result of microevolution. In both instances, the changes appear to fast, to quickly, to large a change, to complex a new trait, that it can not be explained by random mutation over several generations as implied by Natural Selection.
In other words, what you are seeing is indeed evolution; but clearly not Darwinian Evolution. What you are seeing is Microevolution or adaptation. Microevolution is real, Darwinian Evolution (macroevolution) is a fallacy. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Sepeda To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability I've worked on such operation research look in the 90s. was working well on tricky problems. one things I noticed is tha "Elitism" (keeping always the best fit, without any random death) was slowing the evolution. Best fit need to be killed by accident. there was interesting research on other kind of evolution, based on cultural assets the "books"... that you can give to your childs, or not, but also to neighnours, or foreigners, and receives, copy, destroy.... was working too, but simple genetic algorithm were working for hard to formalize problems. However they can explain the success of species where cultural asset start to be more important for survival than genetic assets. sorry to bother you with industry problems. about darwinian evolution, every time a friend catch an antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or that a farmer get ruined because the bugs survive from insecticides, I have a tendency to respect that theory. about intelligent design, as an engineer about biology I'm quite critic about the word design, and the word intelligent, but I'm only an engineer... have a tendency to be touchy about design. When I see the "genetic computer", the word "fallen in order" (fr: "tombé en marche") seems evident for me... the is the best description of self-organizing. A QM physicis will talk of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Engineer Joke: Optimistic : the glass is half full. Pessimistic: the glass is half empty. Engineer : the glass is twice too big. 2012/8/7 Colin Hercus <[email protected]> Hi Jojo, You might also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming and some of the related links. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: Amino Acids are just the building blocks, the letters of the alphabet for building complex protein molecules. You have to chain them correctly in the proper sequence to get even the simplest protein of 50 animo acids. The chances of this occuring randomly is staggering in its own right, let alone come up with 300-500 of these proteins to come up with the simplest self-replicating life. Having amino acids is a far cry from the simplest protein and definitely a far far far cry to the simplest life form. It's like saying since we found the letters A - Z, the novel "Romeo and Juliet" can be easily found also. I have read your wikipedia articles, and I am suitably "impressed" by the level of its scholarship and integrity. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Colin Hercus To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Hi Jojo, I'd hate to say I read it on Wikipedia, but there's also more scientific sources than that. I'm not about to go do the research for you, I suggest you check it out yourself. Abiogenesis is a problem and scientists are working on it. That's a lot of why we looking for life on other planets, other solar systems and in extreme environments on earth. Amino acids have been found in comet tails, they're really not that complicated. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: You don't know that. But even if it was, that still does not solve your abiogenesis problem. ----- Original Message ----- From: Colin Hercus To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: Abd, I appreciate your comments. After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please restate your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand. Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never created any self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life" The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct conditions. For one, it was performed on a "Reducing" Atmosphere of hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the experiment was designed on top of faulty assumptions. No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis
