Quote: "Genetic mutations are supposed to be completely random, but according to recent studies they aren't either. (see links in previous post)"
But as per my previous comment, that can't possibly be beneficial. Unless it's following a design, a blueprint, no non-random process can't possibly create complexity and structure.
Quote: "I would say true randomness doesn't exist"
As far as Newtonian Physics is concerned, no, it doesn't. But
Quantum Physics has something to say about that.
Quote: "As much as I'd love to discuss that topic, it is actually against the AUP and the mods might begin to swarm. I'll just say that I strongly disagree that evolution could have happened, and leave it that."
Yep, me too actually
From my position as a programmer and IT Professional, I do not accept Evolution as a plausible explanation for life.
Without going totally into it, here is a small part of it:
It is often claimed by Creationists about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The supporters of evolution simply come back with a few examples of what Creationists call micro-evolution and say that small changes add up to big changes, all you need is a few million years.
Two examples are Peppered Moths and E-Coli.
Here is my analysis of them:
Peppered Moths:
Explanation image:
How it really works (or not).
ORIGINAL:
#include "stdafx.h"
struct colour{
int r,g,b;
}
struct moth {
int generation;
colour c;
}
struct moth CreateMoth(unsigned short colour){
moth ret;
ret.generation=1;
ret.c.r=colour;
ret.c.g=colour;
ret.c.b=colour;
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
moth pepper=CreateMoth(255); //Make White moth
return 0;
}
AFTER MUTATION:
#include "stdafx.h"
struct colour{
int r,g,b;
}
struct moth {
int generation;
colour c;
}
struct moth CreateMoth(unsigned short colour){
moth ret;
ret.generation=1;
ret.c.r=colour;
ret.c.g=colour;
ret.c.b=colour;
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
moth pepper=CreateMoth(230); //Make Grey Moth
return 0;
}
Obviously this change will NEVER add up to something bigger
E.Coli
The claim:
E.Coli Bacteria evolved the ability to use Citric Acid.
The real claim (fine print):
E.Coli evolved the ability to use Citric Acid in an Anaerobic Environment, they already had the ability to do this in an Aerobic environment.
What really happens:
#include "stdafx.h"
bool IsAerobic(){
//Test here to detect if there is any air in the environment (ie, aerobic or anaerobic)
//Assume true
return true;
}
short GetEnvironmentAcid(){
//Test here to detect if there is any citric acid in the environment and return how much.
//Let's assume theres a level of 127/255
return 127;
}
int UseCitricAcid(){
//Use the citric Acid in the environment
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) //Main loop of bacteria
{
if(GetEnvironmentAcid()>100){
if(IsAerobic()){ //MESSAGE FROM THE CREATOR: Here to save energy when not required.
UseCitricAcid();
}
}
return 0;
}
#include "stdafx.h"
bool IsAerobic(){
//Test here to detect if there is any air in the environment (ie, aerobic or anaerobic)
//Assume true
return true;
}
short GetEnvironmentAcid(){
//Test here to detect if there is any citric acid in the environment and return how much.
//Let's assume there's a level of 127/255
return 127;
}
int UseCitricAcid(){
//Use the citric Acid in the environment
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) //Main loop of bacteria
{
if(GetEnvironmentAcid()>100){
//if(IsAerobic()){ //BROKEN!
UseCitricAcid();
//}
}
return 0;
}
You can see from this that while this is more of a structural change, it did not actually do anything new, it just deactivated something that was already there.
This is just the way I see it. I cannot possibly accept Evolution when, from my experience as a programmer, I don't see any way for the code to actually evolve, and all the examples that are given of evolution being observed, really aren't ever going to add up to anything bigger.
As I said, this is my opinion. I will not try to change yours, (at least, not here
). Feel free to let me know what your opinion is on my opinion, I'll not be about to start a debate/flamewar.
Anyway, much as I'd like, I won't be responding to any reply's I get to this post, let's try and keep this within the AUP
Mod note:
I feel justified in posting this because the AUP 3.9 says
debate is banned. I am not planning on debating, just stating my position and leaving it at that.
Note to everybody else:
This is not even close to the extent of why I don't accept Evolution, but it is at least part of it. My reasons are not simply because evolution disagrees with my religion (although it must be admitted there are many who do disagree for that reason only).
If you wonder why I think I know better than all those scientists, the reason is really quite simple. What the !@#$ does a biologist know about information and code! All they do is look at the outside, see similarities and assume that the code is similar.
As any coder knows, the output doesn't actually have a lot to do with the code. You can have massive changes in the output from tiny little changes in the code (ie, an invincibility hack), or you can do massive code changes with little change in the appearance of the program (ie. code is now readable/runs 5 FPS faster).
