Natures wonders: making spider silk (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, August 28, 2014, 21:20 (1637 days ago) @ dhw

Just making sure: are you saying that God created each innovation and “wonder” separately as he went along?

Again, to make sure: does this mean God created “the dog”, but dogs created their own variations? Might this have been done through an inventive mechanism within doggy cell communities? Let me note in passing that every individual dog - like every individual human - has its own individual sets of cell communities resulting in different characteristics. Since every innovation, according to evolution, must have taken place in existing organisms, this may explain why some cell communities (organisms) remained as they were, while others experimented.


No. Let me try to illustrate. Let's assume that you come up with the design for hair. It can vary in length, thickness, color, density, sheen/oiliness, etc. From a programmers point of view, let each of these values fall between 0 - 1 (except color).

Dog A might have: (A dog with short, thick, slightly bristled dull brown hair)
Length = .1
thickness per strand = .26
color = Brown
density = .5
sheen = .025

Dog B might have:(A with long, soft, thick, glossy, white hair)
Length = .75
thickness = .15
color = white
density = .75
sheen = .5

Just from the slight changes here, one would be better "adapted" for surviving in cold winter climates(dog b) and the other for warmer Savannah style climates(dog A). Extrapolate this across each variable of a dog, bone length, muzzle length, etc, and you will be able to explain ever single "species" of dog with the same exact set of variables and the same set of constraints. There is no "invention" happening, only slight variation of constrained variables. The program can neither create nor destroy the variables. It can switch them off, set them to 0, switch them on, and alter them, but it can not create new ones.

What this also means is that the process of creating the "great bush of life" is not as monumental as it would appear at first glance, though it is still mind-boggling. It reduces the needed programs dramatically by reusing elements that have already been programmed. In computer program, the analog to this are called classes and functions(methods). The class is a blueprint, and the method are the individual instructions for manipulating that blueprint to achieve different results. A strong measure of the programmers success is the ability for that class to be used repeatedly, in wildly different scenarios, with few if any errors. When we look at the code that God has written, that is precisely what it has done.


DHW I agree that we can only speculate, as we cannot observe the arrival of eyes, kidneys etc. However, adaptation is an observable fact, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that since cell communities can change themselves to cope with environmental threats, there is an internal mechanism for change. The question then becomes how inventive that mechanism might be.


Limited adaptation. That is the keyword that seems to be missing from most statements when we discuss this. See the analogy above.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum