Autocatalytic (converters) Networks
-
OK, OM brought up autocatalytic networks but never made any point about them. However Dean Kenyon was one of the first on that scenario and he is now an IDist.
I am not sure what OM's point is but my bet is that he thinks that once you get the right mix of chemicals, shit happens and living organisms emerge.
So you may have this warm pond of chemicals just sitting there and then one day some other chemical is added somehow and badda-bing, badda- boom autocatalytic reactions!
But anyway what is your point OM? You do realize that Meyer deals with this in "Signature in the Cell"...
OK, OM brought up autocatalytic networks but never made any point about them. However Dean Kenyon was one of the first on that scenario and he is now an IDist.
I am not sure what OM's point is but my bet is that he thinks that once you get the right mix of chemicals, shit happens and living organisms emerge.
So you may have this warm pond of chemicals just sitting there and then one day some other chemical is added somehow and badda-bing, badda- boom autocatalytic reactions!
But anyway what is your point OM? You do realize that Meyer deals with this in "Signature in the Cell"...
posted by Joe G @ 5:39 PM
33 Comments:
At 6:14 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe G said...
"Autocatalytic (converters) Networks"
Pssst...hey 150 IQ guy...autocatalytic doesn't refer to the converter in the exhaust system of your automobile.
At 7:24 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Is FSCI present in auto catalytic networks?
If so, if I give you an example network can you calculate the FSCI present in it?
Also, would a complex auto catalytic network be noted as designed by the EF?
They seems complex. They have a "specification". In fact, their specification can be so detailed you can probe it using graph theory.
Here's a couple of crazy papers for you perusal.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/adap-org/pdf/9809/9809003v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nlin/pdf/0210/0210070v1.pdf
I bet Sanjay Jain is a crazy guy on the weekends.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d771523078x4484u/
Things can certainly get complex in those warm pond of chemicals just sitting there...
More interesting papers on this next link then I could read in the next year, or begin to understand:
http://tinyurl.com/27yuanc
Joe, you said:
In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no
Just one of those papers I linked to directly provides enough evidence to disprove that immediately. The other ~1900 are just a bonus. And there are many more about similar subjects. All blind. All undirected.
At 8:25 AM,
Joe G said…
thortard:
Pssst...hey 150 IQ guy...autocatalytic doesn't refer to the converter in the exhaust system of your automobile.
Psst- asshole, it was a joke...
At 8:27 AM,
Joe G said…
M:
Is FSCI present in auto catalytic networks?
Make your fucking point asshole.
In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no
OM:
Just one of those papers I linked to directly provides enough evidence to disprove that immediately.
Context asshole. My comment pertains to BIOLOGY.
At 8:46 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/adap-org/pdf/9809/9809003v1.pdf
Nope, nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes in that paper.
You just searched on titles and thought they would support your nonsense.
OM:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nlin/pdf/0210/0210070v1.pdf
I likes PDFs because you can search them for the key words- nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes in that one either.
OM:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d771523078x4484u
"A generalized model ofn catalytically-coupled self-replicative molecules witherror-prone replication is presented."
Where did they get these alleged self-replicating molecules?
Lincoln and Tracey did an experiment using RNAs- it took two to tango- one to act as the template and one that was able to catalyze ONE stinking bond- meaning the experiment was loaded with other smaller RNAs- about 1/2 the size of the original two...
It appears this last link satrts with what needs explaining in the first place.
Sweet...
At 8:47 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
They seems complex.
Explain how they appear complex.
Explain how they arose via blind, undirected chemical processes.
At 2:45 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
Context asshole. My comment pertains to BIOLOGY.
BIOLOGY? Does BIOLOGY not involve lots of chemicals then?
Nope, nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes in that paper.
That's all it was about. Or is it your position that the designer now makes chemicals react with each other?
You just searched on titles and thought they would support your nonsense.
You are asking for processes that proceed without telic intervention that create complexity. This has now been provided.
Where did they get these alleged self-replicating molecules?
What do you mean "alleged"?
It appears this last link satrts with what needs explaining in the first place.
I'm not trying to explain the origin of life Joe. You make a specific claim that "blind, undirected chemical processes cannot construct a simple functional multi-part system" and I'm proving to you that's not true. Sure, you can now shift the goalposts and claim that I've not explained the origin of life to your satisfaction, but that's your job here, right?
If you want to shift the goalposts and now claim that only BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS count then that's your lookout. But you claim starts to seem a bit silly then, doesn't it? Why don't you restate it so it makes it explicit that the "simple" system has to be a BIOLOGICAL one.
Explain how they appear complex.,
We have the words complex and simple because we can use them to describe things. Some auto catalytic systems are simple. Some are complex. Some would fall in between the two. Some would be simple to me and complex to other people. Some would be complex to me and simple to other people. Only ID claims to be able to quantify such things in such a way as to use that quantification to determine "designed".
There are plenty of examples of both complex and simple networks on the tinyurl link I gave earlier, but perhaps the best way to get the point across is visually.
http://tinyurl.com/simpleauto
http://tinyurl.com/complexauto
Care to pass either of those through the EF and tell me if either of them are designed? I can provide more details (source details) on those examples if you seriously want to use the EF on them.
At 3:33 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
BIOLOGY? Does BIOLOGY not involve lots of chemicals then?
Yes it does. However there isn't any evidence tat biological organisms are the result of blind, undirected chemical processes.
You cannot start with that which needs an explanation in the first place.
OM:
That's all it was about. Or is it your position that the designer now makes chemicals react with each other?
In a designed universe.
But that's not the point.
OM:
You are asking for processes that proceed without telic intervention that create complexity.
No. I asked for more than mere complexity.
I asked for evidence that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part system- and the CONTEXT was BIOLOGY as it was in reference to the theory of evolution.
The rest of your diaribe proves that you have no idea what ID claims.
As I said Meyer goes over autocatalytic networks in his book. Dean Kenyon pioneered the freakin' idea and his research led him to the design inference.
But all that is moot because you are not even addressing my claim.
At 5:01 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
At what point does a chemical system become a biological system?
Please define "biological" so I can recognise if a given example I might provide meets your definition.
For example, would you consider a virus to be alive?
Is a virus a collection of chemicals or a biological system?
What's the dividing line? And how do you know when you've crossed it.
in reference to the theory of evolution.
May things evolve Joe. Evolution is not limited to biological systems. Stars evolve. Auto catalytic networks evolve. Understanding evolves.
I asked for evidence that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part system- and the CONTEXT was BIOLOGY as it was in reference to the theory of evolution.
Let's pick the bacterial flagellum, for example. You are right. Blind, undirected processes cannot "create" (rather, stumble upon) such a functional multi part system.
But so what. It's like saying that you can't construct a red castle using blue bricks. It's obvious. Or that you can't build a motorcar out of ice cream.
Nobody is claiming that the flagellum was a product of blind undirected processes.
Nobody that is except you and other ID proponents. Prove me wrong. Find me a published biologist who things that a random search resulted in the flagellum, and nothing else.
Although evolution has a "blind, undirected" component that is not all that there is to it.
So you can keep on asking for the rest of your life for such an example, safe in the knowledge nobody will ever be able to give it to you.
If, however, you want to learn about how things actually are rather then your imagination of how they are then I could suggest you take your IQ of 150 and sign up for some courses at your local (non-bible) university.
Lastly
No. I asked for more than mere complexity.
Complexity means specification. Specification means design, according to you.
I ask you again, does the network in a auto catalytic system have a measurable amount of FSCI? If we have two complex systems, one designed and one not, then I thought that was exactly the problem the EF was designed to solve?
Joe, some of the networks I'm talking about are actually found in biological systems. According to you those biological systems are designed. If so, then each of their sub-components are also designed.
To say otherwise would be like saying that if you examine a car stereo in isolation from the car you could not determined if it was designed.or not.
So Joe, pick such a network and tell me if it passes the EF.
And then tell me exactly what you did to do that.
I realise there's a lot of points raised in this and my previous posts. I expect you to ignore most of them.
At 5:18 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
In a designed universe.
Joe, if everything in the universe is designed, under what circumstances the EF ever not indicate design?
At 6:34 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Joe, if everything in the universe is designed, under what circumstances the EF ever not indicate design?
Ummm in a designed universe not everything is designed. Accidents still happen.
At 6:47 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Please define "biological" so I can recognise if a given example I might provide meets your definition.
For example, would you consider a virus to be alive?
Is a virus a collection of chemicals or a biological system?
What's the dividing line? And how do you know when you've crossed it.
There is a whole field called BIOLOGY that is dedicated to that vey thing.
A virus is not self-sustaining- they need a host/ hosts. They cannot replicate by themselves.
And even as simple as they are there isn't any evidence they arose via blind, undirected processes.
OM:
Nobody is claiming that the flagellum was a product of blind undirected processes.
Nobody that is except you and other ID proponents. Prove me wrong. Find me a published biologist who things that a random search resulted in the flagellum, and nothing else.
What search? You can't search for things that don't exist.
But anyway you lose:
Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:
Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively blind, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement. page 4 (bold added)
Then we have:
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”
and:
“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UCBerkley
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.
Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10
The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro
What Causes Mutations?:
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals
2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.
At 6:47 PM,
Joe G said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
At 6:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Causes of Mutations:
1. DNA fails to copy accurately
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.
2. External influences can create mutations
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.
At 6:50 PM,
Joe G said…
DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)
And finally:
The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative
September 9, 2005
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
Read Darwin- it is all about chance- even natural selection, which is a result, is the result of three random/ chance inputs.
It ain't no magical ratchet.
OM:
Complexity means specification. Specification means design, according to you.
Fuck you- I never said nor implied anything of the sort.
And all ID literture says the opposite- complexity and specification are not the same. Only when they are put together- when you have both complexity and specification AND have eliminated cahnce and/ or necessity do we infer design.
Shit mother fucker THAT IS THE EF!
As for the "points" you raised- all you raised is the fact you are ignorant of ID and a troll.
At 6:53 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
May things evolve Joe. Evolution is not limited to biological systems. Stars evolve. Auto catalytic networks evolve. Understanding evolves.
I guess that is how you define "evolution".
If evolution is just change over time, then people evolve in throughout their lifetime.
At 7:40 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
Accidents still happen.
A pulsar is some accident.
At 7:45 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
There is a whole field called BIOLOGY that is dedicated to that vey thing.
Indeed. But it's your challenge. But you must yourself have an idea of when chemicals are chemicals and when chemicals+ are biology.
So, what is it?
A virus is not self-sustaining- they need a host/ hosts. They cannot replicate by themselves.
I taken from that then that you do not consider a virus to be a living thing.
And even as simple as they are there isn't any evidence they arose via blind, undirected processes.
What sort of process did you have in mind?
And now a virus is simple? How simple? Earlier you said
Explain how they appear complex.
I answered you. You do the same please. Do explain how a virus appears simple to you. And if they are so simple how is it that they still cause suffering despite many thousands of research decades going into them?
What search? You can't search for things that don't exist.
The flagellum does not exist?
Or the target does not exist, which I what I guess those quotes are supposed to prove.
Yes, that's right Joe. Mutations are random with respect to fitness.
And so perhaps this "target" is something a bit more abstract? Something a bit more general? Something where the distance to that target could be measured somehow? By some kind of process?
Do you think something like that is possible Joe?
At 7:59 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
I never said nor implied anything of the sort.
Joe, I have shown you networks that are both complex and specified. The challenge for you is to identify which are designed and which are not.
But what's that? You don't know the specification, or rather, purpose of the network? But imagine that you found an object on a alien planet. It's just a complex appearing as one of those networks. But you ascribe design, right? As the rest of the planet is desert as far as you can tell. Nothing else like this around.
So, I've linked to some complex and specified networks that arose via undirected chemical processes. Some of those processes are involved in living things. Therefore they are designed. And yet not designed at the same time. According to your own words.
Or why get so defensive when I ask you to calculate the FSCI in these systems? If your ID "design-detector-o-matic" really worked you'd just plug in the numbers and tell me what's designed and what's randomly generated just for the test.
The trouble with having such an incoherent world-view about how science works, Joe, is that you get inconsistent results from applying your faulty methodology. So the universe and everything in it is designed, but not pulsars, probably because Dembski uses them as an example when defending the EF
Thus, the “regular” patterns from pulsars are easily explained by natural law.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1488
So Joe
Only when they are put together- when you have both complexity and specification AND have eliminated cahnce and/ or necessity do we infer design.
We have complexly and specification in these Viri and auto catalytic networks.
You have not eliminated "chance and necessity" in their creation. You seem to say on the one hand that they are very "simple" but on the other that even the very simple cannot evolve.
Yet no doubt you would not deny micro evolution exists and is proven to the most die hard YEC's satisfaction.
And what is micro evolution except very simple minor variation?
At 8:03 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
As for the "points" you raised- all you raised is the fact you are ignorant of ID and a troll.
Why not rebut them point by point Joe? Let's see your IQ of 150+ in action.
If I need to concede a point, I will. And I be better educated for it happening, as you'll no doubt have brought some new information to the table I had not considered.
So, Joe, if you can calculate the FSCI in a cake, can you calculate it for an auto catalytic network? And, the biggie, can you describe it so two different people can perform it on the same target and get the same result? After all, there's only one actual value for the FSCI in a given thing, right?
And knowing in detail the amount of functional specified complex information which is present in such a network will no doubt be valuable for you to determine if the network is designed or not. If it passes the EF.
At 7:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Accidents still happen.
OM:
A pulsar is some accident.
According to your position the whole universe and everything in it is the result of accidents.
So what's your point?
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
As for OM's other posts- well fuck you OM as you made the claim:
Nobody is claiming that the flagellum was a product of blind undirected processes.
Nobody that is except you and other ID proponents. Prove me wrong. Find me a published biologist who things that a random search resulted in the flagellum, and nothing else.
And I shot that down with references.
So until you admit you were wrong there isn't any need to continue as I am not wasting any more time on a lying loser.
At 11:49 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
And I shot that down with references.
So until you admit you were wrong there isn't any need to continue as I am not wasting any more time on a lying loser.
You mean like here where your quote happened to include the word "blind"?
This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively blind, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement.
Did you not read the second part of that sentence? "retrospectively capable of organic improvement"?
If you can quote somebody because you believe they support your argument can you disbelieve the second part of the sentence you are quoting?
So I asked "Find me a published biologist who things that a random search resulted in the flagellum, and nothing else."
You certainly went all out with the quotes. Yet the thing is Joe none of them support your argument. None of them are talking about a blind search. Sure, the exploration and decision about what individual path to take is blind. But each path comes with a cost, and that feedback is the information the environment provides to the system.
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.”
But Dawkins knows that such a system can still create "mindlessly". That's kinda his point Joe.
So, no, Joe, Dawkins does not think that a random search resulted in the flagellum, and nothing else was involved. Sure, if you want to search through the entire configuration space of everything, it'll take longer then you've got. Or instead of all you can just search it randomly, right Joe? that'd be a random search, right Joe?
But luckily evolution has some short cuts it can take. One step at at time. And even then the fraction of solution space explored is minimal compared to the entire amount.
But you know all that don't you, you and your 150+ IQ. I say "+" as I know that's an underestimate just from just talking to you over the past week or two.
So, no, Joe, I won't admit I'm wrong. I'm not. Nobody else believes in your 2D caricature of evolution. Other then you. And given that you will not wasting any more time on a lying loser I guess we're done here?
At 7:14 AM,
Joe G said…
So until you admit you were wrong there isn't any need to continue as I am not wasting any more time on a lying loser.
OM:
You mean like here where your quote happened to include the word "blind"?Did you not read the second part of that sentence? "retrospectively capable of organic improvement"?
Yes that supports my claim- evos think that blind, undirected chemical processes led to the diversity of living organisms- all without ant supporting evidence.
OM:
So I asked "Find me a published biologist who things that a random search resulted in the flagellum, and nothing else."
That doesn't have anything to do with my claim.
OM:]
Yet the thing is Joe none of them support your argument. None of them are talking about a blind search.
YOU are talking about a blind search.
The references support my claim that blind, undifrected chemical processes are the mechanisms of the ToE.
OM:
But Dawkins knows that such a system can still create "mindlessly".
He just baldly asserts it.
OM:
So, no, Joe, Dawkins does not think that a random search resulted in the flagellum, and nothing else was involved.
Listen asshole according to the ToE and my references all mutations are mistakes/ errors/ accidents. They are all undirected.
Add the blind and mindless natural selection and you get blind, undifrected chemical processes.
IOW OM you are an imbecile and a lying loser.
At 7:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Random search? What the fuck are they searching for? Unless the first populations had a flagellum they cannot search for it because it didn't exist. You don't search for things that don't exist because guess what, you ain't going to find it.
Evotards are so freaking clueless...
At 9:30 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Random search? What the fuck are they searching for?
So it is your position that a search (any search) cannot take place unless you know in advance that which you are searching for?
At 9:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Om:
So it is your position that a search (any search) cannot take place unless you know in advance that which you are searching for?
If you don't know what you are searching for how do you know when you find it?
Also how do you search for something that doesn't exist?
At 9:44 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Now we're getting somewhere
If you don't know what you are searching for how do you know when you find it?
Never been on a treasure hunt where you don't know what the treasure is?
In short, the answer is easy here, and this should clarify much of your misunderstanding about evolution.
What is being "searched" for is something that will improve the organisms chances of surviving and reproducing. What that particular thing is does not matter very much. It just in the general class of "something that provides an advantage".
And it's not a "search" in the normal sense of the word, hence the scare quotes. It's rather an exploration of the accessible configuration space. In hindsight it looks like a search, as we only see the end result and not the countless meanderings into un-viability. But it's really an exploration.
Also how do you search for something that doesn't exist?
Everything exists already in configuration space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_space
The question then becomes how much of that configuration space is amenable to evolutionary searches from the starting point of the "search".
You yourself used an example of NASA evolving a new type of aerial design.
Are you now saying that was impossible because the specific aerial that was evolved did not exist in advance? If it existed in advance there would have been no need to search for it, would there?
But of course, it did exist already, just not physically. It existed in configuration space.
So you can "search" for something that meets a given set of a parameters, not necessarily something specific. I.E. "improved radio wave reception" or "improved survival in the current environment"
Neither of those things "exist" until you find them. Then they can be used as the starting point for further "searches".
So, no, Joe, no actual biologist thinks that specific things are being searched for because evolution has no foresight. How can it search for something specific other then (for example) "improved reproductive ability".
What form that ability takes depends on the local optimums.
At 9:52 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Now we're getting somewhere
Nope we are stuck on the fact that you are in denial of your position.
OM:
Never been on a treasure hunt where you don't know what the treasure is?
Nope.
OM:
What is being "searched" for is something that will improve the organisms chances of surviving and reproducing.
There isn't any searching going on. Whatever survives survives.
OM:
You yourself used an example of NASA evolving a new type of aerial design.
Via a targeted search in which the parameters were known.
The search was for those parameters and if an antenna could be constructed that matches those parameters.
So fitting the parameters is what was searched for.
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
IOW OM they are searching for an antenna that fits the pre-specified qualities.
They knew what they were searching for.
They could have found that no such antenna could exist but they may end up with one that is good enough and better than what they were using.
At 7:50 PM,
Joe G said…
Also how do you search for something that doesn't exist?
Om:
Everything exists already in configuration space.
God already exists in configuration space?
But I digress- tht is false, everything does not exist in configuration space.
Everything that exists in configuration space is amendable to a search, but not everything exists in configuration space.
At 11:54 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
everything does not exist in configuration space.
Yes, it does. Potentially. Or perhaps you don't think that a given integer exists until somebody writes it down?
Everything that exists in configuration space is amendable to a search, but not everything exists in configuration space.
I guess you did not read the link I provided.
the configuration space is the space of possible positions that a physical system may attain, possibly subject to external constraints.
Most of the things that "exist" in configuration space are not amenable to searches that operate using evolutionary mechanisms in finite time (external constraints). The space is much much much larger then any single processes ability to search it.
But having said that it's not a limiting factor in evolution as the search space available is still massively beyond imagining.
Your ignorance seems to be the limiting factor for you.
At 4:27 PM,
Joe G said…
everything does not exist in configuration space.
OM:
Yes, it does. Potentially.
Having the potential doesn't mean it does, it means it can.
OM:
I guess you did not read the link I provided.
Yes I did. Obviously you didn't understand it.
But anyway you are too fucked up to undersatnd your position is nothing but blind, undirected chemical processes. Tat you can deny that just exposes your agenda.
Post a Comment
<< Home