DDHv wrote:Between chimps and humans, over a thousand "orphan gene" differences have been identified, plus other genes that are not orphan. Given the number of base pairs per gene, this is tens of thousands of base pairs for these differences alone. We aren't talking about a few mutations in 10^13 organisms per the Lenski experiment, this requires thousands of mutations in less than 10^10 organisms.
And? You've stated a premise, fine, now start drawing some conclusions (preferably ones that have experimental confirmations), don't leave us hanging here. At this point, you're still in "fatally flawed thought experiment" territory, in order to advance to proper science, you'll have to show some evidence.
Science, which assumes the universe is reasonable, has been able to produce good results. Empiricism, without logic based theory doesn't. Theory without empirical testing produces much speculation and again poor results. You need both! A randomly produced universe suggests the production of illogical patterns. Do you know anything but intelligence that has been shown to produce logical patterns
Yes. Crystallization produces many beautiful patterns with no intelligence in sight.
Also, if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know that its end products (no matter how complex or functional they are) are rarely as optimized as the results of actual design processes.
How many polities can you name which used Keynesian economics as a basis and are in good shape after five generations? Part of my current preference for the Austrian school comes from poorly performing Keynesian policies.
Given a better economic theory, I'll switch.
Hey, look at you setting up impossible goalposts! You're really quite a proper creationist aren't you?
(Keynes wrote his thesis in 1936. If we reckon a generation to mean around 30 years, and if we use post-World War 2 as a starting point for countries to adopt Keynesian policies, then we'll see that barely three generations have passed).
So, kindly find better goalposts. Don't worry, you can move them later.
FWIR, decentralized systems using multiple, simpler processors and parallel processing are the current tool of choice for large data problems. Many recent generations of supercomputers use this approach. And there are neural networks. Chtia would be my choice for this question.
I am pretty sure that economic systems are not directly comparable to supercomputers (for one, the various processors in a supercomputer rarely compete for ressources; if they do, external management infrastructures move in to reallocate ressources as needed).
Remember what I said about engineers being really good at being wrong with confidence?
I do. However, when doing this, intelligent design, including the sub category of creationist design, doesn't run into as many problems that need patching.
It doesn't? So the fact that it doesn't explain the mechanisms by which the supposed creator does his work doesn't bother you, at all? Or that it can't explain anything about the creator?
I expect the "orphan gene" work to produce some good results here. Evolutionary basics suggest that as we sequence more genomes, the remaining orphan genes should approach zero as a limit. Intelligent design basics suggest the limit approached will be above zero. An organism with zero orphan genes would be strong evidence for evolution. One with 100% orphan genes would be strong evidence for ID. It would also be unlikely that either exists on earth.
You really,
really do not understand the concepts you're dealing with (For the record, orphaned genes are incredibly rare). The only thing a creature with a mostly "orphaned" genome would be evidence of is a separate evolutionary path that produced it; it certainly would not be evidence of ID. Again, because you haven't understood it yet: There is
no evidence that ID explains anything that evolution doesn't.
It is obvious, isn't it?