Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

No. An example of "intelligent design", would be this car:

View attachment 161677

Which wasn't produced by the algoritm. It was made in the car designer on the website.




It is an illusion insofar as the design was not the product of an actual designer who planned for it and made it from scratch.

Rather, it's a design that was produced by a process.

You understand the difference between an "intelligent entity" and a "process/algoritm", right?




lol

Here's an example chromosome of one the evolved cars:

0.24,0.622,0.848,2.626597810257226,0.4205,3,0.05,0.27712579048238695,0.05,1.492,0.259,0.883,1,3,0.4775,0.6799999999999999,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,3.8242242744053905,1.5,2,5.340707511102648,1.4118160991929471,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,3.015928947446201,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,9043968,7172723,61440,13639213,13349497,13349497,15764055,15777024,0,0,6172137,11931568,12779520,12779520,16121856,16121856,8

None of these values were inputted by a person/designer.
They were randomly generated in generation 0 and subsequently changed through random mutations and selected for after passing the fitness test.
No human was involved in ANY of these values.




That chromosome is in principle the exact same as a DNA string.

You understand the difference between a living organism and an inanimate construction right? You know the difference between no intelligent input and intelligent input? You know that a process that is intelligently designed for random events creates the outcome right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How can it be planned if it starts with RANDOM polygons and introduces changes through RANDOM mutations?




Just like the freezer was set up to provide a cold environment.



The designs of the cars are the result of "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat".
They are not the result of any programming or deliberate designing.

They are a result of the programming. Computer don't just spontaneously create shapes and forms. Common on.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep. Just like the water in my freezer wouldn't change into ice if it wasn't for the intelligent design of the freezer.

Therefor, ice is the result of intelligent intervention.

/end sarcasm

Simplistic argumentation for a simplistic and uncharacteristic program simulation.

 

[whois]

So, what's missing in your opinion?

the most important is missing, namely atoms and their associated laws and equations.
writing a program based on these laws and equations should be a simple matter, and it has no doubt been done already.
i will give you one guess as to why we don't see such a thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is becoming very ridiculous because you want to ignore that this program is not reflective of actual organisms nor actual biological evolution.

The exact same principles are used.

It's an implementation of the evolutionary process. Step by step.

Please also answer the question I asked.

Do you consider the two pictures I posted to have the same level of "appearance of design"?

I wanted to say "the two cars", but let's face it... the one in generation 0 can't exactly be called a "car". Which in itself, kind of already answers my question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You understand the difference between a living organism and an inanimate construction right? You know the difference between no intelligent input and intelligent input? You know that a process that is intelligently designed for random events creates the outcome right?

Following the exact same trail of thought leads to the conclusion that ice in the arctic isn't natural, because freezers are designed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They are a result of the programming. Computer don't just spontaneously create shapes and forms. Common on.

The designed program creates an environment in which the shapes are evolved according the certain selection pressures and the principles of evolution.

Just like the designed freezer creates a cold environment in which water turns into ice.

 

[The Cadet]

here is the paper i referred to concerning smith:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_major_evolutionary_transitions
this was apparently published in nature in 1995.

The paper is essentially a review article on his book (which I linked to in the previous post you quoted). The subheading seems fairly misleading, honestly, as it goes on to talk about how "complexity" is not well-defined, and how genetic information can increase (@Justatruthseeker oops). But okay, Smith does say "there is no theory to explain the increasing complexity of the record and there is no reason to expect this increase, nor is there any empirical evidence of it". I get the feeling the research has moved on slightly since then, but fair enough. It's just that the paper seems to be setting up and saying, "this is what we need to figure out, here are some first steps". And this is pretty typical within the scientific literature. To quote PZ Myers:

It’s a superficial ploy creationists play. They don’t have any scientific literature of their own, so they go rummaging about in the genuine scientific literature and start pulling out fragments that show disagreement and questions in the evolutionary community. And that is so trivial to do, because they don’t grasp something obvious and fundamental: every science paper has as its throbbing heart a question and an argument. Seriously. Every single paper on evolution is arguing with evolution, probing and pushing and testing. I am not at all impressed when some clueless dingbat pulls up Alberch’s paper titled “Problems with the interpretation of developmental sequences” and crows about finding a paper that talks about “problems”. Problems are what we’re interested in.​

Let it be known that my opinion towards you is considerably less hostile (and justifiably so) than PZ's opinion towards the person he was referring to, and I have nothing to say about your motives.

this is where you try to interject a strawman.
in the link on my profile, koonin clearly states that darwinism and its refurbished form (the modern synthesis) belongs in a museum.
he says exactly NOTHING about evolution.
in his paper "the origin at 150" he again states ALL of the tenets of the modern synthesis has been either overturned or replaced.
it is not me saying this stuff, it is koonin.

Well great. Then do you accept that Koonin accepts common ancestry, descent with modification, and natural selection? And do you accept those things?

maybe.
the classification of life has somewhat subjective boundrys.
did you read the excerpt i provided on the mismatch between species and gene trees?

Yes, I did. It was dealing with a specific issue in a specific branch of Drosophilia. We can expect this kind of thing to pop up every once in a while, mainly because taxonomy is not as precise as genetics is when it comes to phylogeny.

Seriously? We know that it takes design to create the "cars". WE know what information was needed (intelligence) so the cars and everything are products of intelligent design. I am switching nothing. What you are misunderstanding as usual, is not that evolution is wrong but evolution as a mindless, undirected, unguided process without goals or plan is not shown in the designs we see in living forms nor is it what we see in the simulation of evolution. ALL TAKE INTELLIGENT DESIGN. NONE of it can be done without intelligent design. What I see in the cars is the outcome of this interaction between the intelligent input providing for the outcome. The reason I don't see in the cars the actual design features of the human input is the same reason the simulator does not provide realistic evolutionary realities.

Not only do you completely miss the point, but you completely flip-flop on your position numerous times. Maybe I'd understand what you were talking about if you ever offered an objective manner to determine whether something has the appearance of design or not.

also, did you read the excerpt i posted about the linearly decreasing fitness in the MA experiment?

Yep.

i seriously doubt if this boxcar2d program mimics biological evolution.
in fact, i will say it doesn't apply to biological evolution at all.

Most of it doesn't. The degree to which it does, however, proves OnceDeceived wrong. Just like every other genetic algorithm does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the most important is missing, namely atoms and their associated laws and equations.

DNA doesn't mutate?
This mutated DNA isn't inherited by off spring?
Natural selection doesn't happen?

I ask again... what is missing?
Be specific.

i will give you one guess as to why we don't see such a thing.

Because when we design experiments, we remove all the clutter and strip it down to the essential principles.

The whole point of experimenation and simulation is to strip things down to bare essentials. To simplify complex processes so that we may zoom in on the actual relevant bits.

In this case, the relevant bits being "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat".

 

[loveofourlord]

It is becoming very ridiculous because you want to ignore that this program is not reflective of actual organisms nor actual biological evolution.

and it's becoming rediculous because both you and Just want to pretend that cars are any way analagous to biology and some how cars designed ='s life designed despite repeated explanations of why your both wrong. Evolution has no design, no program, nothing beyond chemistry. Chemistry that god created in the past to allow for evolution, but doesn't require his constant fixing, and prodding every time there is need of it. I believe life was 'designed' in this way, but it's not like cars, where every new design of cars needs to be built from the ground up by a designer.

A better anology might be the singularity.

We design computers to where they can design and build themseleves, so at that point no human designer is needed, we got the ball rolling, but from then on computers produce offspring with modification that gets better and better with each generation.

In biology the apperance of design is due to anything that doesn't work better then the last generation is discarded or doesn't flourish as well, so over long periods of time you can have complex designs such as those box car, or any form of evolutionary algorythem. They appear designed because they have a goal, to make a object that moves, make a computer chip thats the most efficient for memory space and so on. With life it's the most efficient to survive it's enviorment, if it doesn't it dies.

The flagellum experiments was just that, break the gene and see if the bacteria can survive, can they produce through natural means a way to survive,a nd they do, using only the evolutionary algorythem of:

errors in DNA produced each generation
errors that help or neutral are kept
errors that make things worse are discarded or lost

In this case this case, mutations that co-oped a simular gene worked, was it design, or god, no it was when a mutation in the location allowed the simular gene to interact with the receptor for the missing gene in the lock and key that are proteins worked well enough to restart the flagellum nothing more was needed. No repair mechanism, because it didn't repair the broken mechanism, it wasn't a redundant gene used, because the gene already had a use unrelated to the flagellum, but was close enough to work.

This is how evolution works on a grander scale, a mutation to the genes in a paw that allow for the shape to change, make them bigger, make toes longer and so on is all that is needed for evolution from mouse to monkey, by changing how the genes that regulate when the parts of the body start or stop growing and how they grow.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Darwin's basic premise of only naturalistic mechanisms creating all life we observed today (not abiogensis) is till alive and well in the guesses and suppositions of those who embrace one of the views of evolution.

Again, I couldn't care less what darwin did or didn't say.

The dude lived 200 years ago.

It doesn't matter who says what. If it's wrong, it's wrong and if it's right, it's right.

If you wish to discuss anything about biology, there is no need to go back 200 years.
Talk about biology instead of perceived authorities.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All the program has done is produce shapes. When those shapes become complex, functional and purposeful creations, design is inherent in the creation.

Translation: "I'm right, even when I'm wrong!!!!"


Kind of like that statement of yours in my signature.

 

[Oncedeceived]

and it's becoming rediculous because both you and Just want to pretend that cars are any way analagous to biology and some how cars designed ='s life designed despite repeated explanations of why your both wrong. Evolution has no design, no program, nothing beyond chemistry. Chemistry that god created in the past to allow for evolution, but doesn't require his constant fixing, and prodding every time there is need of it. I believe life was 'designed' in this way, but it's not like cars, where every new design of cars needs to be built from the ground up by a designer.

A better anology might be the singularity.

We design computers to where they can design and build themseleves, so at that point no human designer is needed, we got the ball rolling, but from then on computers produce offspring with modification that gets better and better with each generation.

In biology the apperance of design is due to anything that doesn't work better then the last generation is discarded or doesn't flourish as well, so over long periods of time you can have complex designs such as those box car, or any form of evolutionary algorythem. They appear designed because they have a goal, to make a object that moves, make a computer chip thats the most efficient for memory space and so on. With life it's the most efficient to survive it's enviorment, if it doesn't it dies.

The flagellum experiments was just that, break the gene and see if the bacteria can survive, can they produce through natural means a way to survive,a nd they do, using only the evolutionary algorythem of:

errors in DNA produced each generation
errors that help or neutral are kept
errors that make things worse are discarded or lost

In this case this case, mutations that co-oped a simular gene worked, was it design, or god, no it was when a mutation in the location allowed the simular gene to interact with the receptor for the missing gene in the lock and key that are proteins worked well enough to restart the flagellum nothing more was needed. No repair mechanism, because it didn't repair the broken mechanism, it wasn't a redundant gene used, because the gene already had a use unrelated to the flagellum, but was close enough to work.

This is how evolution works on a grander scale, a mutation to the genes in a paw that allow for the shape to change, make them bigger, make toes longer and so on is all that is needed for evolution from mouse to monkey, by changing how the genes that regulate when the parts of the body start or stop growing and how they grow.

You even admitted the point, it takes intelligent design in the program to get the ball rolling. Whether or not there is interjection into the computer program or not, the intelligent agent is needed.

In the case of real biological evolution there are so many variables and elements that provide for an outcome that this simplistic view is unrelated to the actual processes involved. You are doing what Dogma and Cadet are doing and that is making something far more complicated so simple that becomes disconnected to the process it is trying to simulate. You over simplify the Bacterial Flagellum, you claim an already complex system with no evolutionary explanation to explain the BF.

 

[loveofourlord]

You even admitted the point, it takes intelligent design in the program to get the ball rolling. Whether or not there is interjection into the computer program or not, the intelligent agent is needed.

In the case of real biological evolution there are so many variables and elements that provide for an outcome that this simplistic view is unrelated to the actual processes involved. You are doing what Dogma and Cadet are doing and that is making something far more complicated so simple that becomes disconnected to the process it is trying to simulate. You over simplify the Bacterial Flagellum, you claim an already complex system with no evolutionary explanation to explain the BF.

the process of evolution is simple, the things it creates are complicated, but you can get incredible things from basic patterns, simple processes can create incredible thing, with no input needed.

I think god created the universe that allows for things to form and evolve from the start, but hasn't done any input into evolution since, once humans appeaered he interacted and deals with us, but evolution is still a hands off process, because there is no need for god to do so.

 

[justlookinla]

No. An example of "intelligent design", would be this car:

View attachment 161677

Which wasn't produced by the algoritm. It was made in the car designer on the website.

That's not a car.

 

[justlookinla]

the process of evolution is simple, the things it creates are complicated, but you can get incredible things from basic patterns, simple processes can create incredible thing, with no input needed.

I think god created the universe that allows for things to form and evolve from the start, but hasn't done any input into evolution since, once humans appeaered he interacted and deals with us, but evolution is still a hands off process, because there is no need for god to do so.

When God created, humans were a surprise to Him?

 

[justlookinla]

Again, I couldn't care less what darwin did or didn't say.

The dude lived 200 years ago.

It doesn't matter who says what. If it's wrong, it's wrong and if it's right, it's right.

If you wish to discuss anything about biology, there is no need to go back 200 years.
Talk about biology instead of perceived authorities.

You can't talk about certain views of evolution without Darwin being involved.

 

[justlookinla]

Translation: "I'm right, even when I'm wrong!!!!"


Kind of like that statement of yours in my signature.

Never noticed your sig. Neato.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not a car.

Now you're just being silly...

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't talk about certain views of evolution without Darwin being involved.

No, YOU can't.

I can.