>Let me try again. You say, "There is no Goal in the program." Of course
>there is. The Goal is the "the geometric form chosen before hand." You, as
>the outside investigator, chose the goal, just as the pigeon breeder in
>Darwin's book chose some "standard of perfection" which guided his selection
>in each generation. This distant goal selects which mutations of the genome
>will survive and be reproduced. That's artificial selection.
>
>Natural selection differs basically from artifical selection. Survivability
>in natural selection is based on improved adaptability to the *immediate
>environment,* it does not compare the phenotype to the distant geometric form
>chosen by an outside intelligence (you). The mutations and the immediate
>environment do not look ahead to some pre-selected form or goal, as your
>program does.
>
I understand what you are saying, but I see no difference between what my
program does and what natural selection does. The goal does not select
anything. The selection inside the program is fitness to the local
environment. The program can never find the best fit to the form among all
genomes. Only the local form is used in the selection because the program
does not know the global form.
Who chooses the goal is irrelevant. The Ebola virus is about to choose a
goal for mankind that it is good to have immunity to it. And yes,
adaptability is compared to the distant goal of this immunity. Adaptability,
like a comparison ot a geometric form, are analog. By this I mean that
there is a sliding scale of immunity to Ebola/any disease. Those who have
some immunity (closer to the goal) are more adaptable and will leave more
offspring. This does not require them to be totally immune to the disease.
Just like in my program, those who are closer to the goal, are allowed to
reproduce.
I fail to see how you remove the "goal" from natural selection. An animal
that lives in the desert has the "goal" of an ability to retain water, to
recycle their water, and to survive body temperature rises. Those in each
generation are "compared" to that goal by life. Those better adapted on
average live. So, I don't see the difference.
[snip]
I understand what you are saying, but I see no difference between what my
program does and what natural selection does. The goal does not select
anything. The selection inside the program is fitness to the local
environment. The program can never find the best fit to the form among all
genomes. Only the local form is used in the selection because the program
does not know the global form.
[snip]
>In my original post I wrote, I am puzzled by your option of running a
>program with no selection at all. I asked, "What has it to do with natural
>selection?"
>
>You responded, "No selection merely lets the genome vary with no constraint.
> What is so puzzling about that?" I am puzzled because I don't know why you
>consider this natural selection. Again, back to Darwin, "Only those
>variations which are in some way profitable will be preserved or naturally
>selected" (p. 110 Everyman's Library edition). Your computer, without
>constraints, obviously produces some interesting forms, but without selection
>it is not Darwinian natural selection.
>
I agree without selection it is not Darwinian selection. But running the
program without selection is only one option. All other options have selection.
[snip]
>Finally, I commented and asked, "To be sure, God created the nonlinear
>systems, as you say, and all the other initial conditions and laws of the
>universe. Don't deists believe the same? I think we need to go beyond
>that. For instance, do you think God enters into the process of natural
>selection and if so, where and how?"
>
Is it deistic to believe that God created the laws of Gravitation and lets
those laws now govern the movement of the planets? Or must a theist believe
that god Himself pushes the planets in a circle? God created the pathways
in the phase space of the genomes and this represents a considerable amount
of control on what will happen.
[snip]
>You concluded, "His control of the world was at the creation not as it is
>occurring." This does not square with my reading of Scripture. As I read it,
>God is interacting with his creation all the time. In my view, God's
>intervention of the world is on a sliding scale. When it comes to the large
>features of the cosmos, I join with you in seeing God's control of the world
>being exercised at creation, not as it is occurring. The closer one comes to
>life processes, however, and especially human life, and still more especially
>the life of His covenant people and His Only Begotten Son, the more I see God
>intervening as that life is occurring.
May I ask what is the Scriptural support for saying that large scale
features are controlled from the set up at creation but life must be
controlled later? I would be willing to bet that this is an artifact of the
fact that your theology has adjusted to Newtonian science but not to
nonlinear dynamical science. There were some christians who felt that God
must be involved in pushing the planets around or it was a deistic universe.
> As a starting point, I see God being
>involved in all life processes, particularly in the beginning and the
>conclusion of the life (the birth, hatching, and death) of all organisms,
>again on a sliding scale culminating in the birth, life, death and
>resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I agree, but not necessarily with your view of the means and methods of
God's involvment
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm