All you need to do is look at Dawkins experiment of a computer simulating cumulative selection. This simulation requires a computer and a mind.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you think scientific experiments just happen by themselves, with no human input? Sheesh.
1 Like
Standard ID-Creationist dodge #1. All scientific experiments need human intelligence therefore all scientific experiments support Intelligent Design. 
Yup. Third Law.
2 Likes
So if NASA uses a computer to model orbits and rocket trajectories this means planets are guided by an intelligent designer?
nonsense comparison,
Nonsense hand-wave of a valid point.
1 Like
We prefer a more thought out response here at PS.
2 Likes
Then spend some time thinking about what I wrote before you post.
The example is based on Dawkins using a sequence generated by a mind to compare the evolving sequence to.
I did. You think that as soon as we model something in nature using a computer it means that process in nature is intelligently designed. Obviously, that argument doesn’t work.
valid nonsense,
the orbits of planets are governed or guided by gravity force, which can be described by mathematical equations
by definition, Darwinian evolution is unguided, blind with no purpose to achieve
if humans modeling orbits, they are just modeling existing gravitational forces, between objects,
evolutionary simulations violate the very definition of evolution, which it is supposed to simulate by artificially putting a target or hidden information to guide simulation for successful search
You need to think about this more as you missed the point entirely.
The process of random mutation is governed by physical forces, and can be described by mathematical equations.
Targets in sequence space naturally exist. All the computer model is doing is modelling what happens naturally.
3 Likes
That is non-responsive. You need to explain what is missing.
Organisms produce new sequences all of the time through random mutation and reproduction. This happens naturally without an intelligence.
Novel functional sequences?
Yes.
1 Like
Not an example of a de novo sequence being formed but thanks for the citation.
Why not?
As far as I understand the adaption this capability is formed by two mutations to an existing gene.
And why is that a problem? The two mutations produce a novel sequence, one that hasn’t existed before. Are you saying that evolution of new functions from pre-existing genes doesn’t count as evolution?