More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 06, 2015, 20:42 (3187 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Perhaps "only" was a bit hasty. Either way, for the creationist, this is not a problem. If the same designer designed the bees and the flowers, they would know the capabilities of each and could design them to work together from the very beginning, with all the relevant instructions in place.
> 
>DHW: This is where your Creationism takes on similar dimensions to David's hypothesis - which you criticized so penetratingly (see below) - of a computer programme for all innovations, and complex lifestyles and residences. Now you have God not only creating each prototype separately, but also designing every individual animal, plant, insect and bird that has a symbiotic relationship. Where does this programming end?
> -
While it is complicated, it is not as complicated as you are making it out to be. As a programmer, I can see how it could be done relatively simply (compared to what you suggest). I am going to try to explain what I envision the best I can, as simply as I can. I will have to answer your other questions/comments in another reply.-
For starters, let's simplify the problem as best we can. You have multiple creatures (objects) with multiple similar parts (components) and multiple similar behaviors that at times must work together. -A Parent creature would, by definition, have to have:-Root Object Definition (The base definition of say, a bird)
This root definition(prototype) would contain a set of variables that are ubiquitous through all birds.-(example only)


• CanFly

• Diet

• Foot Type

• etc


-It would also contain some component codeComponent Examples)-

• Wings

• Feet

• Beak

• Bones

• Feathers


-It would also contain some behavior component codeBehavior examples)-

• Predator

• Scavenger

• Fisher

• Swimmer

• Diver

• Flyer

• NestBuilding


-
Then program some checks to make sure that each component and behavior matches up with the variables on the main prototype.-If (CanFly is True && Predator is True)
 Load wingtype X (where X is a wingtype common to hawks, eagles, etc)
else if....-
This type of programming can create virtually endless variation with a very small amount of programming. For example, just using the number of items in the list above, there are more than 90 possible combinations. If each component contained just 5 definitions, the number would jump to 450 possible combinations. Add one more variable to that and the number jumps to 625.. I'm sure you see how quickly that could escalate in complex organisms.-Now, to make it even easier, some code can be reused across prototypes because of similarities in environment, diet, etc. For example:-Eats Fish - All animals that eat fish have to have some means of getting rid of bones, reducing heavy metal toxicity, being able to see them, etc. So, knowing this, you can program a lot of this into one simple category that could be used in everything from fish to sharks to birds to marine mammals to humans. -Eats Plants - Anything that eats plants must also have certain traits to enable ingestion and digestion of plant material and the conversion of it into usable energy. -etc etc for dietary needs. -
This process would explain much of what we actually observe.-


• variation within breeds/prototypes with predefined limits

• the utter lack of modern evolution

• Creatures appearing without pre-cursor

• Shared genetic instruction between creatures with similar environments/diets/functionality.

• Etc..


-The other thing it would do is completely dismantle the Tree of Life. There is no need for pre-cursors or mutations/speciation between one species and another. The bush of life becomes easily explained as a product of variation on prototypes within strict confines. Genetic relationships between species becomes a property of shared functionality between creatures with similar functionality.

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