“Can I compare living organisms with genetic algorithms that mankind design and run on a computer?”
Of course, people are very clever at designing and modifying things to produce outcomes that would never occur naturally. This is the very basis of the effectiveness of medical and industrial biological science. The fact that man can produce these tools and manufacture these things doesn’t mean they would have evolved naturally. Neither does it follow that because man was a necessary requirement to their design and manufacture then all things complex must have been designed. All cats have a head but not everything with a head is a cat.
“Evolved, or perhaps I should say, arose through genetic change.”
I think ‘evolved’ describes it accurately.
“You may be surprised, but creationists aren't in denial about genetic change of populations over time, and natural selection. The issue is whether such mechanisms are able to go from ancient goop to complex life as we see it today.”
I’m not surprised you accept such theories at all. Given the spectrum of acceptance of science among creationists I don’t think any presumption can be made about their particular beliefs other than there was a creator. What is interesting is what evidence you can put forward to support your claim that genetic mutation (as a mechanism for change) is insufficient to produce the complexity of life presently observed. Given genetic change, speciation and huge amounts of time what is your limiting factor?
“Can I compare living organisms with genetic algorithms that mankind design and run on a computer?”
Of course, people are very clever at designing and modifying things to produce outcomes that would never occur naturally. This is the very basis of the effectiveness of medical and industrial biological science. The fact that man can produce these tools and manufacture these things doesn’t mean they would have evolved naturally. Neither does it follow that because man was a necessary requirement to their design and manufacture then all things complex must have been designed. All cats have a head but not everything with a head is a cat.
“Evolved, or perhaps I should say, arose through genetic change.”
I think ‘evolved’ describes it accurately.
“You may be surprised, but creationists aren't in denial about genetic change of populations over time, and natural selection. The issue is whether such mechanisms are able to go from ancient goop to complex life as we see it today.”
I’m not surprised you accept such theories at all. Given the spectrum of acceptance of science among creationists I don’t think any presumption can be made about their particular beliefs other than there was a creator. What is interesting is what evidence you can put forward to support your claim that genetic mutation (as a mechanism for change) is insufficient to produce the complexity of life presently observed. Given genetic change, speciation and huge amounts of time what is your limiting factor?