Jojo, Whether or not macro-evolution can be explained by genetic mutations, species extinction have played a role in macro-evolution. If macro-evolution is caused by an intelligent designer, it follows that species extinction occurs by design.
I think the main reason people reject conscious design by a biblical God, is that non-believers think such a biblical designer is perverse if he creates life and then subsequently destroys life. Who wants to worship a sadist God? Harry On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >
