Jojo: I really don't mind you voicing your opinions about evolution etc., the vortex is for an exchange of ideas, but could we get back on track. This week and next are important weeks for LENR and these other discussions can wait.
Ransom ----- Original Message ----- From: Jojo Jaro To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Now you see the point. Natural Selection would chose the Individuals who outsurvice others; but that choice may not be optimal for the further propagation of the species. In fact, if a mutation causes one to outsurvive others but causes that individual to be infertile; natural selection would still chose that individual. Now you are beginning to see the fallacy of Natural Selection as a mechanism of life. Outsurvival and Reproductive Fecundity normally does not come hand in hand. For example, a person who have more male steriods/hormones would grow to be physically bigger and thus would outsurvive others; but with the increased steriod levels come the price of less reproductive fecundity. Natural Selection would fail in this case. Humans are not perfect and our DNA are full of errors because of our decline due to the curse of Sin. Humans have been declining in both physical attributes as well as mental ability ever since. The Bible speaks of people who can run continuously for hours and then fight continously for a day without getting tired and without eating. We do not have those abilities anymore. We will never see the likes of Isaac Newton, Micheal Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Albert Einstein anymore. We are just not as smart as our ancestors. Can you find an Individual who can speak and write 40 languages fluently today? Just as recently as 1611, you can find them. We are so arrogant to think that humans are at the peak of development today that we fail to see the declining status of our physical and mental capacities. Doesn't Darwinian Evolution say we should be improving? Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Colin Hercus To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Jojo, You say "survival is not necessary the best of all possible outcomes" and I totally agree, but survival which also includes success at breeding is what got us here and possibly also why we aren't perfect. Humans aren't perfect and certainly we're not the best possible outcome for evolution. I think a planet that failed to evolve an intelligent species may last longer than one that did. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: I am familiar with genetic programming. Richard Dawkins like to use these to point out that an "evolutionary" approach works to reach certain results. While interesting, it has nothing much to do with the real Darwinian Evolution. If anything, genetic programming proves that Darwinian Evolution is faulty. Why? Because in the end, genetic programming requires intelligence to set the goal or criteria of the algorithm. Random processes can not decide what the final goal is. Darwinists always like to misrepresent what Natural Selection can do. It's as if Natural Selection is this all encompassing process that can decide "a priori" what the good results are. They always like to imply that Natural Selection can somehow foresee a future result and work toward it. No, natural selection does not work that way. Natural selection can not decide between any of the many future results. It takes intelligence and the foresight of Intelligence to do that. Natural Selection simply chooses those who survive, each generation along the way; and survival is not necessary the best of all possible outcomes. Genetic algorithms does not in any way have the foresight to determine what the best results are. In fact, many of the claimed successes of genetic programming can be solved more efficiently by more deterministic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are "simulations", and simulation program are not the best way to solve problems. Simulation implies the random testing of results based on random inputs to the problem. Not the best way. And before you claim you know more about programming than I, let me just say I'm an Electrical Engineer and I have programmed many times before. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Colin Hercus To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability 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
