sledgehammer
Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
| Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 14 2010,07:20) | | Quote | | SCheesman: Well, in fact, as the “Edge of Evolution” has demonstrated, the “evolutionary” optimization generally makes single steps in solution space (one mutation at a time). It is NOT good at taking multiple steps simultaneously, the reason being that the probabilistic resources are insufficient to pick the target from the exponentially increasing number of less fit solutions that involve two or more mutations. In other words, once it gets stuck in a local minimum, it demonstrably does not and cannot (except in the rarest instances of double-mutations) take simultaneous, multi-parameter modifications in order to jump to a new path. That behaviour is decidedly non-biological. |
Recombination is quite capable of moving replicators off of local fitness peaks—and with a reasonable probability of viability. Indeed, single point mutations are necessary, but not sufficient for robust evolution. |
And in that same vein:
How many simultaneous single-point mutations are involved in crossing over, gene duplication, and polyploidal events?
By standard Behe/Dembski/ID calculation methods, we would take the probability of a single-point mutation, and raise it by the number of base pairs involved, to get 1 in 10 to the bazillion chances of it ever happening.
--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind
|
