Modularity and Design

Placing hope in "modularity" to get around the transparent inadequacies of random events filtered by selection (natural or otherwise) is a fool's errand when it comes to biological complexity, machinery, information, and information processing. Computer programs use modules (e.g., that do sorting, parsing, mathematical operations, etc.), and these can be used in a variety of ways to modify programs (with much understanding about the nature of the modules and the goal in mind). However, modules taken from a chess-playing program can't be used to produce a graphics-manipulation program, or a word-processing program. The notion that "modularity" is the magic key to unlocking the mystery of how stupid stuff (actually, not stupid stuff, but comatose stuff) created intelligent stuff, is stupid. Innovation requires intelligence, design, and foresight. This is not hard to figure out. The Evo-Devo guys can try, but they're on a fool's mission, trying to find a way to convert lead into gold through chemistry.GilDodgen

November 16, 2007

November

11

Nov

16

16

2007

07:41 PM

7

07

41

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

godslanguage, I have an good idea what the genetic data looks like without even looking knowing exactly what it is. I'll tell you what godslanguage, you go look the genetic data up, and tell me if I'm accurate, OK? 1. The parent species will be found to be genetically similar to all the sub-species. 2. The genetic variability of the population of parent species will slightly exceed the entire genetic variability of the entire spectrum of sub species. 3. Each sub-species will be found to have a very narrow range of genetic variability when compared to the genetic variability of the parent species. 4. Each sub-species will be found to have a marked increase in problems with inbreeding, the narrower their genetic variability is, when compared to the parent species. 5. If the parent species is close enough to the "original" parent species, in which the CSI was implemented, then the parent species will demonstrate such a resistance to inbreeding problems (when one male is forced to start a "new" population with one female) that evolutionists will be surprised that their requirement of "genetic drift" has not occurred. i.e. they will quickly reestablish large genetic variability in their "offshoot" population. That is the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del...Please get back to me and tell me just how accurate the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del is, will you?bornagain77

November 16, 2007

November

11

Nov

16

16

2007

06:33 PM

6

06

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sorry for barging in and going a bit off-topic, A new Canadian study suggests Darwins theory is proven "right": [quote] Evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin had it right when he said different species could develop in the same place, a new Canadian-led study suggests. CBC News Darwin's theory of sympatric speciation - distinct species evolving from a single parent species within a geographic area - first appeared in his 1859 book The Origin of Species. He was not able to prove it, and the dominant theory since has been allopatric speciation - that a barrier, such as a mountain, glacier or ocean, is required to produce separate species. Now, 148 years later, research led by Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., may prove the existence of sympatric speciation. The international research team found that this type of evolution could occur by "allochronic isolation," or separation by breeding times. Prior to the study, released this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, there were only two documented cases of species evolving in the same place and no clear evidence as to how it would occur in nature. The research team studied a species of tropical seabird known as the Madeiran or the band-rumped storm petrel, which populate archipelagos in the tropic and sub-tropic, and have different breeding seasons. Some colonies have a single breeding season, others prolonged seasons, and in five locations, there are two distinct breeding seasons. The research focused on the latter five areas. Researcher Andrea Smith told CBC News the team was interested in whether the difference in breeding periods "was a barrier to drive them to become separate species." By analyzing genetic variation in the species, they found the petrel populations differed genetically in all five locations and had ceased to exchange genes in two. "The seasonal populations from four of the locations are more closely related to each other than populations from the same breeding seasons elsewhere," said Smith, suggesting that "one arose from the other just out of the separation of breeding." The study says this finding suggests that "seasonal populations appear to have arisen sympatrically at least four times." Additionally, they found that the species had not interbred for between 1,000 to 180,000 years. "I think it's exciting for a number of reasons," said Smith. "One is that it's challenging the idea that you need a geographic barrier for species to arrive." She said the findings also suggest that this mode of speciation might be more common than researchers had previously thought. Smith said their discovery could lead to changes in species protection. "In finding that there are actually populations that are considered separate species, it indicates that we need to be looking into conservation for these species, because a lot of them are represented only by a couple hundred birds," she explained. "We don't want to lose that biodiversity that we've documented."[/quote] Heres the link: http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Tropical+bird+species+evolved+without+isolation+study/NewsandOpinions/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=petrel-study&feedname=CBC-TECH-SCIENCE&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=Fagodslanguage

November 16, 2007

November

11

Nov

16

16

2007

04:35 PM

4

04

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link