Computer programs are transformed from one script (language) to another all the time on a daily basis, and for the most part automatically by other transformation software. As long as the input and the output schemas are available or can be deduced from the input working code can be generated. Code is generated all the time based on inputs that are not code. If we change the compiler and even the language say going from C to Java for example -- increasingly, as transformation (and generation) tools and techniques evolve -- this can be done almost seamlessly and largely automatically -- by machine driven transformation -- with very little human intervention. It is not all that difficult to scan for a symbol and transform it to some other canonical form or to build an expression tree that can be used to control a more sophisticated and less direct transformation process. As long as there is some transformer agent that can understand the schema of the input format and knows how to produce the desired schema of the output (even if it can not run or operate on it) the underlying functionality described by an instruction set in one language can be transformed into a faithful analog in another perhaps very different output language (for example say going from UML to java code) This is done all the time by programmers and is in fact the kind of tool I am working on today -- to take csv input and produce well formatted xml output conforming to a given schema. It's our bread and butter; we do things like this every day. Similarly in living things code is transformed all the time between encoding formats -- moving back and forth between DNA and RNA and between RNA and amino-acid chains. Proto self-replicating chemicals could have similarly transformed their rudimentary hereditary programming to some better evolved encoding format as the necessary building blocks (specific necessary catalyzing enzymes for example) became evolved and available. Molecules, including peptides & proteins, often undergo processes of self assembly that result in predictable outcomes and can generate important precursors required by living cells. Until Theists can present a God that can be seen, felt or in some way shown to exist (that does not rely on circular logic or faith), evolution driven abiogenesis is the best explanation/theory we have for how life sprang up on this rock.
________________________________ From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> To: "everything-list@googlegroups.com" <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:46:44AM +0000, chris peck wrote: > Hello Dr. Standish > > If I may play devil's advocate for a post it seems to me that the question > over duration required for an optimized system to evolve is only a minor > aspect of the argument presented in this paper. > > More seriously it concerns the mechanics of such an evolution. > > To use a computer analogy: It doesn't concern for example the developing > fitness of specific algorithms written in a language but the fitness of the > language itself. > > Many algorithms can be written in C and we can store these algorithms in > files etc. However, if we change the mechanics of C, if we change the > compiler, then these files become useless. Perhaps C requires a semi-colon to > designate the end of a line of code. If this changes even slightly, perhaps > the requirement becomes a comma rather than semi-colon, then all those code > files are effectively useless and will no longer compile in to workable > algorithms. > C is a rather poor example, as it is a brittle language, as are most computer languages. Examples of less brittle languages are the assembly language used in Tierra or Avida. The have been some examples of people evolving the instruction set itself, although admittedly I haven't heard how successful that has been, or recent results in that area. One reference you could follow up is Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv (2003), Proceedings ECAL 2003, LNAI 2801, p238--247 (SpringerLink) "Evolvability og the Genotype-Phenotype Relation in Populations of Self-Replicating Digital Organisms in a Tierra-Like System". > Compare that with the degree to which we can fiddle with the specifics of the > code files themselves. We can randomly change strings, constants, all manner > of things and there will be a set of changes that result in files that > compile into runnable algorithms. Different ones than before, with semantic > 'bugs' perhaps but there will be a further subset of new algorithms which do > the same as before, more or less, but more efficiently. And in this analogy > that is exactly what evolution requires. > > The point here is surely that in the former case even a subtle change to the > compiler is instantly catastrophic and is therefore different to usual > selective techniques which involve the accumulation of little changes over > time. > > Now, I'm very very possibly barking up the very wrong tree here, because Ive > never been the sharpest tool in the box, and maybe you have addressed that > and I can't see it. I can see how if all the different codes exist at some > point one can emerge as a winning replicator but I can't see how there can be > development of a single code into a winning replicator and I think that's the > main issue at stake. What is the mechanism for that? Or have I just lost the > plot? > > All the best > Er, competition? If you can see how all different codes existed at one point at different parts of the globe, and you can see that the region boundaries are unstable (no mechanism like speciation, or bilingualism, to keep different codes distinct), then it follows that the code with the best replication ability will ultimately dominate. It will be interesting to see what the genetic code is if (or more likely when) life is discovered on Mars. Paul Davies has an interesting bookn on the subject. I suspect that the Martian genetic code will be similar the Earth's, but probably less similar than the variation that currently exists on the Earth, as it seems plausible that the evolution of the standard genetic code ocurred during the period of late heavy bombardment, when there was a lot of material interchange between Mars and Earth. If they're very different, it would point to a much later evolution of the standard code than LHB, and the creationists had better hope it turns out to be identical :). Cheers > > Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 02:21:19 +0100 > > Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong > > From: te...@telmomenezes.com > > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > > <multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > if one is to believe in a god that created everything, then one also > > >>> > has to believe that this god > > >>> was malicious enough to plant an incredible amount of false evidence: > > >>> the > > >>> fossil record, > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, but that's not the only reason God would be a sadistic monster. He > > >> could have produced complex animals like you and me just by snapping His > > >> fingers, but instead he decided to do it by way of Evolution. And > > >> Evolution > > >> has made some beautiful things but the process itself is not beautiful, > > >> in > > >> fact its cruelty is ASTRONOMICAL, for every tiny advance millions die > > >> horrible deaths. There is no getting around it, Evolution is a hideously > > >> cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very very > > >> differently, among other things I would have made intense physical pain a > > >> logical impossibility, but unfortunately that punk Yahweh got the job and > > >> not me. > > > > > > > > > According to NSA records you didn't get the job because you ticked "YES" > > > at > > > the QM box and "NO" at possibility of computationalism box. That's why we > > > got Yahweh, because Bruno wrote "this test is not decidable" and walked > > > out > > > of the room. Concerning the rest of us getting the job (whether we finally > > > all wound up getting the damned job, because everything's a janitor job, > > > even being god... cue strange music...), that's classified apparently. PGC > > > > It allows annoys me how christians justify all the suffering and > > overall shittiness of existence with: ah, but that is necessary > > because God wanted us to have free will. Fuck free will! I would much > > rather exist in a state of constant bliss, unable to feel anything but > > orgasm x1000, no pain, no boredom, no negative emotion whatsoever, > > forever. Instead I get free will. Great. > > > > "In the beginning, the universe was created. > > This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a > > bad move. Many races believe it was created by some sort of god, but > > the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI firmly believed that the entire > > universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the > > Great Green Arkleseizure. > > The Jatravartids, who lived in perpetual fear of the time they called > > "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief" were small, blue > > creatures with more than fifty arms each. They were therefore unique > > in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol > > deodorant before the wheel." > > - Douglas Adams, in The Restaurant at the End of the > >Universe. > > > > >> > > >> > > >> John K Clark > > >> > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > >> "Everything List" group. > > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "Everything List" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
