A genetic algorithm is much more complicated than a simple 'trial and error' program, they are used for complex problems that have multiple solutions. Basically there is a problem and they start with a parent generation of randomly put together programs. They run the parent programs and the codes that do the best are preserved and the ones that do the worst are discarded. Sometimes they also discard random codes and save random codes from discarding (to simulate the effect of slight randomness in nature). Of the ones that are saved they essential make them sexually reproduce and throw in some random mutations. After that they repeat the original steps with the new generation and continue to do this thousands of times. While the actual algorithms are much more complicated than what I presented here, it is the basic idea.
P.S. for those of you who do research this on your own, you will notice (hopefully) that some of the things they put into the algorithm are violations of nature (like preserving some of the previous generation's codes), but remember the idea of genetic algorithms are not to support evolution, but to make very good programs to solve complex problems. However, because they work so well, and are basically derived from the theory of evolution and what we see in nature, they show that random mutations plus natural selection can and does work. Genetic algorithms have created IC systems with parts that seem not to function but when taken out the whole thing collapses. People that have created these algorithms and have studied them cannot always explain how certain programs work the way they do, which can be a good parallel to the eye thread.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
I did not even suggest that science should conclude that a supernatural power was involved in anything.
Yes you did, you wrote that "science must conclude that something supernatural caused them" if we can't find a natural reason for the evidence. But science cannot even say that. Either you were tired or something and didn't write exactly what you meant, or you changed your position because you then contradicted yourself with your next post.
Since science can only explain the natural, it cannot rule out something it cannot explain. While science cannot say, "such-and-such was supernatural," neither can it say that anything it cannot explain could not have been supernatural. To rule out the suprenatural as a cause of something we cannot explain is no more scientific than saying that since we cannot explsin it, it must be supernatural.
The point is that science cannot rule on the question of supernaturality. It can neither confirm it nor deny it. The only thing that a true scientist can say about the supernatural is, "I don't know."
If this is your true position I will support it, as it closely aligns with my own, and I do feel it is the scientific response to the supernatural.
If we use that (classical) definition of speciation, I deny that you can demonstrate a single case. In saying this, I mean that you cannot demonstrate a single case in which we have observed a species that is no longer able to interbreed with a population that has, within out observation, descended from the same root population.
Sure we can, just google instances of observed speciation, and you get a whole list of new species arising.
It is true that we have observed cases in which two descendant populatiions have become sufficiently diverse that they no longer recognise each other as a common species. But there has been no case within my knowledge in which the descendant populations could no longer be successfully interbred.
Yes we have, how do you think scientists say that one population gave rise to two separate species?
I do not know what you mean about being skeptical about harmful mutations. I have recognised that they exist. I have simply reported my own personal finding that of a thousand mutations I personally studied, 90% were lethal, and 90% of those that were not lethal were crippling. This leaves only 1% that were questionable in nature.
And I'm saying that this isn't to the standards of the scientific community and it is way out-dated. Did you sequence the genomes of all individuals in each generation to know when a harmful mutation was really a mutation?
Lethal mutations are not passed on beyond a very few generations. The 1% of questionable murtations can easily explain your data. A mutation occuring in an individual's body will affect that individual only if it occurs in the portion of the genome that controls the particular organ in which the mutation occurs. If I remember correctly, and I am not going to bother to look it up at this time, a mutation occurs on an average of once every 10,000 reproductions.
By your data, on average every human should have around 115 lethal mutations. A mutation isn't found once every 10K reproductions, but over a hundred in every human. Luckily most of them are neutral.
You are confusing two essentially different concepts. You are talking about how many bytes it takes to write our abbreviated code for the sequence of the rungs in the DNA ladders. I am talking about the information contained in this genetic code.
As am I, the 'abbreviated code' still had the information. Understanding that information is a hard process, and it is complicated.
A single 10 cm strand of DNA contains 294 thousand quaternary digits. 294 thousand quaternary digits contain as much information as 86 billion binary digits. This is simple math. A binary digit is either a 0 or a 1. A quaternary digit is either a 0, a 1, a 2, or a 3. Two binary digits are either a 00, a 01, a 10, or a 11. Two quaternary digits are either a 00, a 01, a 02, a 03, a 10, a 11, a 12, a 13, a 20, a 21, a 22, a23, a 30, a 31, a 32, or a 33. Thus we see that the amount of information contained in quaternary code is not twice as much information as that contained in binary code, byt the square of the information contained in binary code. the square of 294 thousand is 86 billion
You can express the genetic code through binary sequencing, as anything can be expressed by it. You don't need a quaternary code to digitalize the information of DNA. If you can reference a valid scientific source for a 86 GB DNA code for humans I'll look into it.
I will admit that I never heard of them, but this sounds like science fiction to me. I will look into it.
Invisibility sounds like Sci-Fi, but there's promise that such a material can bend the visible part of the EM spectrum. Such a material already exists that can do it for micro-waves.
This has no bearing on the point in question. The fact that such a mutation could occur does not prove that it did occur. That would be proof is evolution were accepted as proven fact. But since that is the subject of this discussion, it cannot rationally be used as evidence of anything (in this discussion.)
Human skin color is expressed through certain genes on the human genome. They are subject to mutations just as any locus on the genome is, and you accept mutations. But when you see that skin color is largely due to where a population lives it isn't logical to assume that through selective pressures the population adapted to fit their environment?
And this is how I see the leaders of the evolutionary movement. The truth is that there have been a great many willful frauds presented as proofs of evolution, and these frauds have repeatedly been accepted without question because "scientists" said these things.
And what have scientists said that are frauds showing evolution?
I do not accept this statement as factual. It would be more accurate that a judge was recently convinced to rule that intelligent design is just a re-branding of creationism. The fact that the majority of intelligent design advocates are religiously motivated does not in any way prove that religion is the basis of intelligent design.
I would say the vast majority of ID advocates are religiously motivated, and all the figureheads of ID are religiously motivated. The book of Pandas and People showed that ID is a re-branding of creationism. Judge Jones is a Christian, a republican, and was appointed by president George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the senate. Before the trial ID advocates were happy that he was going to be the judge. But because he decided to go against popular will and uphold the constitution creationists now dislike him.
As I said above, true speciation would have to be the rise of a population that is no longer to be interbread with the parent population. Demonstrating that two populations derived from the same root population no longer recognise each other as the same species is not a demonstration of true speciation.
Well of course you can't have the the thousandth generation breed with the original parent generation and get infertile offspring as the original generation would be dead. You ask unreasonable proof for things you just don't want to be true.
Here, you are again going back to your elliptical logic. This is ultimately evolution if, but only if, evolution is indeed fact.
How do you account for the diversity of life?
The basic theory, from the very beginning, is, and has always been, speciation through natural selection of chance variations.
And we've observed speciation countless times, you claiming that we haven't doesn't change that fact.
I accept the age of the earth as much older than the age of the current ecosystem. But I do not accept the concept that we are able to reliably measuse such time spans. Although there have been new dating systems developed in recent years, at the time I was concentration on these things, most dating system in use was based on unprovable assumptions. And I have my doubts that things have changed that much since then.
Dating is a tricky thing to measure, and I haven't studied any methods of dating the Earth, so I can't comment too much on any dating methods.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
I would say the vast majority of ID advocates are religiously motivated, and all the figureheads of ID are religiously motivated. The book of Pandas and People showed that ID is a re-branding of creationism. Judge Jones is a Christian, a republican, and was appointed by president George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the senate. Before the trial ID advocates were happy that he was going to be the judge. But because he decided to go against popular will and uphold the constitution creationists now dislike him.
Everybody have motivates for what they do including Judge Jones. It was shown later that Jones replied came straight from the ACLU website.
Judas was one of the 12 disciples, did miracles in the Lord's name, seems to care about the poor yet betrayed the Lord with a kiss.
It like arguing that ID advocates in doing it for the money as even they admit they have made money. So you don't think evolutionist have religious (religion in the general sense) motivates and making money as well from the debate?
__________________ Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth:..."
Romans 3:3-4 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;"
Everybody have motivates for what they do including Judge Jones.
Very true, Judge Jones wasn't there to represent the ID movement but to asses if ID was legal to teach in the science classrooms of public schools in the Dover district. It was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and wasn't a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. So as a federal judge Jones felt it was his duty to uphold the constitution (government can't support any one religion), and rule against ID.
Judas was one of the 12 disciples, did miracles in the Lord's name, seems to care about the poor yet betrayed the Lord with a kiss.
You don't have to ascribe to the creationist movement to be a Christian, most don't. Judge Jones didn't betray Christianity or anything else. He never had a duty to the ID movement, he had one to uphold the constitution which he did. If you don't like how the U.S. constitution was put together that is your problem not mine.
It like arguing that ID advocates in doing it for the money as even they admit they have made money. So you don't think evolutionist have religious (religion in the general sense) motivates and making money as well from the debate?
What does money have to do with anything were talking about?
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
Very true, Judge Jones wasn't there to represent the ID movement but to asses if ID was legal to teach in the science classrooms of public schools in the Dover district. It was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and wasn't a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. So as a federal judge Jones felt it was his duty to uphold the constitution (government can't support any one religion), and rule against ID.
Everyone knows that the constitution is badly abused to even support child porn. They are just like the Pharisees as they pretend they are for the law yet when it for their best interest broke the law in order to send Jesus to the cross. There is absolute nothing in the constitution about teaching ID or evolution.
You don't have to ascribe to the creationist movement to be a Christian, most don't. Judge Jones didn't betray Christianity or anything else. He never had a duty to the ID movement, he had one to uphold the constitution which he did. If you don't like how the U.S. constitution was put together that is your problem not mine.
the point everyone has their motivates so don't pretend those who support TOE don't.
What does money have to do with anything were talking about?
In the real world money (and power) has a lot to do with everything.
__________________ Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth:..."
Romans 3:3-4 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;"
There is absolute nothing in the constitution about teaching ID or evolution.
Not directly, but the constitution is opposed to religious favoritism, and supporting ID would be religious favoritism.
the point everyone has their motivates so don't pretend those who support TOE don't.
I don't know what Jones motive(s) was for his ruling, but it is clear that he upheld the constitution by not supporting government favoritism.
In the real world money (and power) has a lot to do with everything.
That doesn't say anything. What specifically does money have to do with this? Perhaps that that the ID side purged themselves in court by lying about where they got the money for the textbook Of Pandas and People?
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
Yes you did, you wrote that "science must conclude that something supernatural caused them" if we can't find a natural reason for the evidence. But science cannot even say that. Either you were tired or something and didn't write exactly what you meant, or you changed your position because you then contradicted yourself with your next post.
I stand corrected.
If this is your true position I will support it, as it closely aligns with my own, and I do feel it is the scientific response to the supernatural.
Yes, I should have stated it this way the first time.
Sure we can, just google instances of observed speciation, and you get a whole list of new species arising.
I did, and found the following in the most referenced link:
Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community. 2.2.1 History of the Biological Species Concept
The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as
"... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."
Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it. A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as
"... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)
It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. By the publication of the third edition of the book this appeared in, Dobzhansky (1951) had relaxed this definition to the point that is substantially agreed with Mayr's. The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as
"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is
"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."
Here we see that, as I had previously pointed out, evolutionists have relatively recently re-defined speciation in such a way that it becomes easy to demonstrate speciation. It is, by the way, not the way you have defined it. Speciation of the type required for evolution to proceed requires that the new species is unable to be cross bred (even artificially) with the parent species. But this definition was explored and rejected as the concept developed.
Yes we have, how do you think scientists say that one population gave rise to two separate species?
I have just explained this.
And I'm saying that this isn't to the standards of the scientific community and it is way out-dated. Did you sequence the genomes of all individuals in each generation to know when a harmful mutation was really a mutation?
Actually, my research was from published peer reviewed scientific literature, an exhaustive list of all mutations that had been observed in the fruit fly. And as I said, 90% of them were lethal, and 90% of them that were not lethal were crippling. This is simple fact, whether you care to believe it or not.
By your data, on average every human should have around 115 lethal mutations. A mutation isn't found once every 10K reproductions, but over a hundred in every human. Luckily most of them are neutral.
Your logic totally breaks down here. Mutations that are of neutral value can collect and be passed on to following generations. Individuals that receive lethal mutations cannot reproduce, and therefore cannot pass these mutations on.
As am I, the 'abbreviated code' still had the information. Understanding that information is a hard process, and it is complicated.
You can express the genetic code through binary sequencing, as anything can be expressed by it. You don't need a quaternary code to digitalize the information of DNA. If you can reference a valid scientific source for a 86 GB DNA code for humans I'll look into it.
I referenced well accepted scientific understandings about the length of a DNA molecule and the spacing between the rungs of the DNA ladder. The rest is simple mathematics. If you cannot follow the mathematics, I am sorry, but it is fact, whether or not you understand it.
Human skin color is expressed through certain genes on the human genome. They are subject to mutations just as any locus on the genome is, and you accept mutations. But when you see that skin color is largely due to where a population lives it isn't logical to assume that through selective pressures the population adapted to fit their environment?
I never denied the process of natural selection. But to imagine that this is why dark colored peoples "developed" in Africa and fair haired people "developed" in northern regions is to project your theories. We have historical data, not theories, as to the ancient movements of ethnic groups. We know, for instance, that the western Europeans migrated to that region from the steppe regions of the Ukraine, and that the dark skinned peoples migrated to Africa from what is now western Turkey.
And what have scientists said that are frauds showing evolution?
There are so many that it would take a whole book to present it. The earliest that I remember at the moment was the Piltdown man. This was followed by Java man and numerous others such as the (now well known to be) false diagrams of how embryos supposedly traced their evolutionary descent as they grew. All of these frauds continued to be presented in textbooks long after they had been exposed. Within my personal experience, I have know more than one university professor of biology to stress "proofs" of evolution to beginning students, while explaining to advanced students that these supposed "proofs" are not factual. The truth is, that every argument for evolution is debunked by leading experts in the field to which that argument applies.
Well of course you can't have the the thousandth generation breed with the original parent generation and get infertile offspring as the original generation would be dead. You ask unreasonable proof for things you just don't want to be true.
No, I am asking for proof that the members of the "branch" species can no longer be bred with current members of the "origin" species.
How do you account for the diversity of life?
This is pure nonsense. A creator could create many different life forms as easily as he could create one.
And we've observed speciation countless times, you claiming that we haven't doesn't change that fact.
I quote again from the same website I quoted from above:
3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events? In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature. Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time. Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur. Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.
Thus, your own proponents clearly state that most of the purported cases of observed speciation were "inferred," rather that observed. I tend to believe that the word most would read all if the writer were entirely truthful, but I will not press the point at this time.
Dating is a tricky thing to measure, and I haven't studied any methods of dating the Earth, so I can't comment too much on any dating methods.
Well I have studied them, and I can assure you that every dating method applicable to living things except one includes at least one unprovable assumption. The only one that is logically rigorous is tree ring dating, and that can be extended back only a few thousand years.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
Last edited by Biblewriter; 16th August 2009 at 03:26 PM.
Very true, Judge Jones wasn't there to represent the ID movement but to asses if ID was legal to teach in the science classrooms of public schools in the Dover district. It was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and wasn't a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. So as a federal judge Jones felt it was his duty to uphold the constitution (government can't support any one religion), and rule against ID.
Actually, that is exactly the opposite of what Judge Jones did. He ruled in favor of one religious belief (evolution) at the expense of another.
You don't have to ascribe to the creationist movement to be a Christian, most don't. Judge Jones didn't betray Christianity or anything else. He never had a duty to the ID movement, he had one to uphold the constitution which he did. If you don't like how the U.S. constitution was put together that is your problem not mine.
Your understanding of American law is as bad as your understanding of science. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify a banning of religious speech from the classroom. This has its source entirely in fairly recent Supreme Court decisions, beginning with the court of Earl Warren. These recent decisions were reached in explicit reversal of earlier Supreme Court decisions that clearly defended the teaching of religion in schools. One of the early Supreme Court decisions went so far as to say that all public schools must teach the Bible and Christian morality. This particular decision went on to say that the teaching of these things could be banned only if no public monies were used in the funding of the school.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
Actually, that is exactly the opposite of what Judge Jones did. He ruled in favor of one religious belief (evolution) at the expense of another.
Evolution is not a religion. The only people who claim that are creationists themselves.
Your understanding of American law is as bad as your understanding of science. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify a banning of religious speech from the classroom. This has its source entirely in fairly recent Supreme Court decisions, beginning with the court of Earl Warren. These recent decisions were reached in explicit reversal of earlier Supreme Court decisions that clearly defended the teaching of religion in schools. One of the early Supreme Court decisions went so far as to say that all public schools must teach the Bible and Christian morality. This particular decision went on to say that the teaching of these things could be banned only if no public monies were used in the funding of the school.
While I know very little about the law, one of the few things that I do know is that the government can't support any religion or deny religious freedom in public schools. The Dover trial did not ban religious speech from the classroom, only the science classroom because it was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and not a good scientific alternative to the ToE. If a school wants to make a new course about intelligent design or creationism in the religion department the government can do nothing to stop it.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
Evolution is not a religion. The only people who claim that are creationists themselves.
You are basically right that evolution is not a religion, as such, but it is held with religious fervor by many.
But while the underlying philosophy that drives most intelligent design proponents is Christianity, the underlying philosophy that drives evolution is atheism. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that atheism is a religion, because it is a belief about God.
While I know very little about the law, one of the few things that I do know is that the government can't support any religion or deny religious freedom in public schools. The Dover trial did not ban religious speech from the classroom, only the science classroom because it was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and not a good scientific alternative to the ToE. If a school wants to make a new course about intelligent design or creationism in the religion department the government can do nothing to stop it.
This is a new concept of law, introduced by the courts in the mid twentieth century. It has absolutely zero basis in the Constitution. When the courts introduced this concept, they reversed their own former position.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
Linear Mode
