Claims for random evolution overlook the fact that life needs software as well as hardware

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 15, 2021

Artificial Intelligence, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Richard W. Stevens points out that a bird does not fly just because it has wings; it needs a Explanations of the evolution of flight do not account for that.“flight” program in its brain:

Somehow, when we think about evolution, the problem of hardware–software coordination is ignored. Take, for example, the neo-Darwinian claim that modern birds evolved from reptile-like dinosaurs. Discussions of dinosaur-to-bird evolution talk about the hardware changes: scales became feathers, legs became wings, cold-blooded (exothermic) physiology became warm-blooded (endothermic) physiology, tooth-filled mouths became beaks, and so on. All of these monumental changes in hardware present enormous operational challenges that incremental mutations somehow solved over millions of years. But totally missing is any account of the evolution of the necessary software.
Assume for the moment that unguided mutation could actually modify a reptile and install the wing apparatus, including all the muscles and feathers. For the early stubby proto-wing to give the modified reptile the “survival advantage” necessary to win in natural selection, the reptile must know how to use the proto-wing. A reptile with proto-wings instead of legs is like a human with roller skates instead of feet. The reptile must have the biological software to operate the proto-wings successfully. Whatever software the legged reptile had, it won’t operate a proto-wing. The stubby-winged reptile is worse off than his legged brothers and sisters, not better, and won’t win the natural selection prize.
Richard W. Stevens:, “Random evolution does not produce algorithmic functions in animals” at Mind Matters News

He goes on to explain that, to understand the problem created by ambitious claims for random evolution, we need to consider the difference between the hardware and the software of life.

You may also enjoy: “Evolution and artificial intelligence face the same basic problem.” Think of the word ladder game, where we transform one word into another by changing only one letter at a time. (Eric Holloway)

Comments

And every observation that defies Darwinian evolution does not cause embarrassment for its proponents, but rather they celebrate this anomaly as a surprise that will ultimately shed more light on the amazing complexities and power of evolution. They are in complete denial. There is no "miracle" that cannot be explained, rationalized, or ignored. Trans-strata fossils? Living fossils? Out of order fossils? Preserved tissue in dinosaurs? C-14 present in dinosaurs? Disparities in DNA of supposedly related organisms? Cambrian explosion of body plans? Rates of genetic load? No problem! None of these cause any apparent consternation or re-evaluation to Darwinian fundamentalists. They simply have biological features evolve multiple times, create new magical mechanisms, invent stories about how something "musta" happened and so on. -QQuerius_{February 19, 2021
February
02
Feb
19
19
2021
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PST}

Never mind producing wings or teeth. How did Eukaryotes ‘evolve’? Single cell Prokaryotes go on for about a billion years then suddenly there is specialisation and compartmentalisation of certain functions.and hey presto there is a multicelled Eukaryote. The vaguest of theories are proposed like one bacterium sswallowing anther and the other takes over new duties, or parasites that learned to get along....Belfast_{February 16, 2021
February
02
Feb
16
16
2021
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PST}

The article makes the mistake of equating mental ability with software. If you woke up one morning strapped into a wheelchair, unable to get out, you would not wait for someone to teach you how to use it. Rather, you would experiment and learn on your own. After a (long) while, you'd get pretty good at moving it around and going where you want. I believe there were some experiments with rats along those lines some time ago, so such learning is not just a human ability. Of course this is not the same as evolved wings, but the point is that an animal could probably start to use some new nascent appendage just by having it and the nerves to control it. After all, not all animals have all their behaviours pre-programmed genetically. Even a new-born calf has to learn how to walk, even if it is programmed to stand up. Of course granting "evolution" the ability to develop new appendages is a step way too far. Coordinating the numerous genetic changes needed to get new bones, muscles, nerves, arteries, and so on to make a usable new feature goes way beyond the ability of the Darwinian process, regardless of what "software" is needed to use it. Perhaps the article meant "firmware" rather than "software"? i.e. even with brand new wings, fully connected via nerves, the brain still needs its motor cortex pieces to convert conscious wishes into nerve impulses controlling the nerves. This is similar to the major problem with human brain implants (to become a cyborg): you can make electrical connections to the brain, but that does not ensure the brain will be able to interpret incoming signals or generate meaningful outgoing ones - the input/output. To do that easily we will need some firmware changes!Fasteddious_{February 16, 2021
February
02
Feb
16
16
2021
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST}

Excellent point, and applies to everything from birds to mitochondria. None of this stuff works without its own intelligence at its own scale.polistra_{February 16, 2021
February
02
Feb
16
16
2021
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PST}

and i can't resist to add one more post: The UD article talks about software and hardware (in respect to flight). Sure! In 21st century, Darwinian biologists and Darwinian laymen believe, that sophisticated, fully autonomous, self-navigating flying systems self-designed and self-assembled with no help from engineers. And this happened at least 4 times independently (birds, insects, dinos, mammals) So how absurd does that sound especially in 21st century ? PS: and i respect to insects, most Darwinists don't realize, that to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system in a size of a fruit fly, is even in 21st century an engineering SCI-FI.martin_r_{February 15, 2021
February
02
Feb
15
15
2021
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PST}

Talking about flight, let me add one more related article: from my https://www.stuffhappens.info blog "Key evolutionary innovation lost 1000 times! The ability of flight lost repeatedly in the vast majority of insect orders" "Evolutionary biologists claim, that after insect-species evolved the key evolutionary innovation – the ability of flight – then the ability got lost, and this happened independently, more than 1000 times in vast majority of insect orders …" https://stuffhappens.info/repeated-evolution-ability-to-fly-lost-in-the-vast-majority-of-insect-orders-multiple-times/martin_r_{February 15, 2021
February
02
Feb
15
15
2021
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PST}

Darwinists are top experts in over-simplifying things, e.g. powered fly. Darwinists are trying to mislead laymen, that wing-flapping is stupid simple, e.g. moving limbs up and down, and one day you can fly - this is one of the hypothesis how powered flight 'may have' evolved ... Of course, as always with Darwinian story-telling, the exact opposite is true. Wing flapping has a pretty complicated trajectory, especially in insects. Let me remind you of some Darwinian articles, e.g. from LiveScience: This is the title of the article: "Explained: The Physics-Defying Flight of the Bumblebee" Physics-Defying flight ? :))))) Sure, because Darwinian clowns always oversimplifying things....Darwinian biologists (natural science graduates) doing it for 150 years, telling absurd stories, using absurd examples, because Darwinian biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, and other '-logists' just don't understand what they are looking at... All what they do is misleading lay, uneducated public. CONTRARY TO DARWINIAN EXPECTATIONS, NOTHING IN NATURE IS SIMPLE ... for some 'unknown' reason, Nature always create things as complicated as possible :))))))) Darwinian clowns....martin_r_{February 15, 2021
February
02
Feb
15
15
2021
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PST}

and, i forgot to mention a hummingbird it flaps its wings at 200 times per second, so not only insects is utilizing such a high frequency wings flapping. Darwinians believe in miracles... Each Darwinist should talk to an aerial engineer, to have an idea .... Darwinists are very talented story-tellers, but their stories are crazy absurd, especially in 21st century.martin_r_{February 15, 2021
February
02
Feb
15
15
2021
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PST}

Darwinists believe in miracles... They believe, that sophisticated, powered flight evolved 4 times independently (insects, birds, dinos, mammals ) yes, according to Darwinian theory, that miracle should have happened 4 times independently !!!! But, in all 4 cases, they have ZERO ZERO ZERO evidence how that happened.... they find a fossil, but the wings are always fully developed and ready to fly. After 150 years of Darwinian story telling, Darwinists are clueless about flight evolution... There are 4 !!!! hypothesis (just-so-stories) on why flight evolved. Of course, these 4 hypothesis are only in regards to vertebrae flight evolution. Insect flight, this is another level ... I am a mechanical engineer. To me, insect wings look more like rotors. A mosquito flaps it wings up to 600 per second. This is a rotor !!! I was wondering, how a Darwinian biologist will even explain how a mosquito managed to evolve wing-flapping of 600 times per second. Or, how a mosquito evolved wings in the first place :)))) Utilizing rotors for flight, this is another level of engineering. After 150 years of Darwinism, there is a zero evidence on how several types of flight evolved. (hint: Wings did not evolved. Engineered from the beginning)martin_r_{February 15, 2021
February
02
Feb
15
15
2021
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply