1) This Thompson machine for example...are you saying an artificial program code can make brand new code all by itself ?
It alters connections in the circuit. There is no code as such. If there was, the researcher could learn how it works. But he doesn't know; the circuit is more efficient than we know how to program, because it apparently uses some unrecognized effect to get things done.
(2) Secondly show me some scientists on video perhaps who talk about what your saying in expert detail...
In science, they write papers. No videos for the technical side. I don't view videos much for science. I make them for flipped classrooms, but never made one on evolutionary processes. I'll see if I can find you a source for he Thompson experiment. It's rather aged by now, and AI people have been implementing the process in all sorts of ways.
The video I posted before is an expert microbial geneticist for 15 years on bacterial flagellum, where as Michael Behe is a biochemist with a different view of things.
There are a few scientists who, for religious reasons, reject some part of science or another. But Behe, for example, has been shown to be wrong about his claims in various ways. Would you like to see about that?
Show me any evolutionist talking about the hook structure buckling under pressure....
Bacteria can exploit a flagellar buckling instability to change direction
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n8/full/nphys2676.html
Much of evolution works that way. Nature can exploit a flaw to make it a useful thing. I'm not aware of any engineers who have as yet exploited this evolutionary development, but I can see where Euler buckling could be used in machines. It's found in things like seaweed and in sea anemones in a much larger context, of course.
I would certainly love to hear these expert opinions on video and on image...I would also love to hear some expert speak of the type III secretory system, how it can evolve to flagella system and how similar are both systems ?
The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b)
At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact – the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.
So the irreducible complexity argument has crashed and burned by a counterexample.
(3)" Engineers are using genetic algorithms to solve problems that are too complicated by design" When you speak of algorithm's, I assume your speaking of functional mathematical calculations used to solve problems, not write new code...eg using a function to calculate square roots, the more you loop the program the more accurate the solution becomes. What are you actually trying to say? Can you speak in more application terms and less riddle please, I am not following you ..
It's more natural in the way it works. You start with a feasible, but inefficient solution. Then the algorithm generates a number of "offspring" with random changes. The algorithm then examines them and determines which of them is more fit (more efficient than the previous generation) and retains only those most fit. Then the process repeats, always keeping the best, and removing the less efficient. The process converges on one or more optimal solutions.
I could give you a some feel for the way it works, with an exercise using dice and graph paper, if you like.
(4) "Unlike most other computers, it does evolve." What do you mean by this ? Write new code ?
It changes the connections in the circuits. This probably seems less weird to those of use who remember when you reprogrammed a machine using jumpers.
I'll see if I can find some examples for you. Years ago, someone did this with virtual circuits using LISP. But maybe you could write Thompson himself. I believe he's still in an office at the university as teacher and chair emeritus.
The only computer program that I know of that switches for changes within limits of the program code is DNA
Seems like a bad fit, trying to map the concept "program" onto DNA. More sensible to try to map hardware onto the molecule, although there are difficulties with that also. You see, DNA is not the information; it is merely the "hardware" onto which the information is "programmed" by changes in the sequence of bases. This would again be more apparent to one used to more primitive computers than to modern digital computers.
Actually, it does. The code is not quite universal. It varies among different kinds of living things, and not surprisingly, according to evolutionary phylogenies worked out using other evidence. This had been predicted early on, based on evolutionary theory, but was not verified until the late 70s or early 80s.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi?mode=c
(whatever that term means)
Change in allele frequency in a population over time.
but the DNA program does allow switching of parameters for reactions to environmental stimuli for survival reasons within the limits of the programming code.
It's called "natural selection", and both recombinations from mating of sexual organisms and random mutations found in all organisms provide the necessary variation on which natural selection acts. New alleles appear in all organisms. You have a fair number of mutations that were not present in either of your parents. Most don't do much, a few are harmful, and a very few are useful. That's what natural selection does. Amazing that God was able to create such a world, but then He is God.
And this is a part of the Creation for all living kinds. But there is no evidence of DNA writing new DNA code
The Milano mutation, for example, which gives very good resistance to arteriosclerosis, made a slight change in the code for a certain lipoprotein. (the old one still exists, via a gene duplication) We know, from genetic tracing, the name of the individual in which this mutation took place, hundreds of years ago.
Bacteriologist Barry Hall observed the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria. The code was "written" by a series of mutations that produced a new, regulated system.
mutations spoil the gene code
Normally, they do very little. Proteins are quite large, and a change of one amino acid usually has no consquences.
most mutations make deletions of DNA letters , maybe add some DNA letters ?? or cause missing letters or foul up the switching processes...
It's more interesting than you think it is. Lots of different mechanisms and kinds of mutations. Start a new thread and we'll talk about it.
Glad to be speaking to an expert,
No expert, but I had to learn about it. You can simulate DNA functioning on a digital computer, but it is an analog process. Not surprisingly analog computers were first used to simulate it. One of the remarkable things about DNA is that some organisms will increase their mutation rate when envirionmentally stressed. Some prokaryotes will mutate at a higher rate if placed in media for which they are unfit. Without the benefit of sexual reproduction, their best bet is to do as much variation as possible, with an increased likelihood that one of the variants will survive.
Understand that there's no adaptive response in terms of the mutations arising in response to need. They are all still random. It's just that more mutations mean more chances of an adaptive mutation.
propensities of vanity) and the rod of his anger shall fail.