Irreducible Complexity At The China Shop

[DogmaHunter]

From the first sentence in your link:

A genetic mutation in single-celled yeast turns it into a multicellular organism — hinting at how multicellularity might have evolved.

Need I say more?

It's called "intellectual honesty". I know the concept is foreign to you, however....
But that's what it is.

I also note that first you imply that one-cellular to multi-cellular can't happen, then you are shown an example of exactly that, after which you again brush it aside with a phenomenally ignorant one-liner...

And then you wonder why people call you dishonest...

 

[DogmaHunter]

What? What you gave me and what I noted as the first sentence is exactly what I am trying to show you. Could be's, might have been's and plausibility are not evidence. Evolution is not wrong, the claims that are being made are not supported by evidence. There is a difference. Evolution is not wrong just because people want to make claims about it that can't be substantiated.

Again, it's called intellectual honesty.

It is a recognition that while in this yeast example, multi-celled organism evolved in this particular manner, it doesn't mean that in the past it happened through the same mutation.

The important part about the example is that, clearly, it is possible for one-celled organisms to become multi-celled organisms.

Which is a direct refutation of the implication that such a thing is "impossible".

Clearly, it's not impossible, because it happened right before the eyes of those studying the yeast.

How can you stand there and maintain that this isn't evidence that one-celled can evolve into multi-celled????

 

[DogmaHunter]

Like I said, all biologists see it and admit to it.

They also all explain it. But if you simply ignore the explanation, you are simply going to be wrong in your conclusions.

Does that car appear designed to run a track filled with rubble?
Is it actually designed to run that track?

 

[Larniavc]

I'll admit I don't understand the second paper or what it's trying to say, and I don't have access to the fulltext. Would you care to summarize it?

It says that short term population pressures (such as rapid climate change) can have long lasting effects on genes (even when it happens a long time ago).

I don't see how it supports Oncedeceived's point, either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

an interesting concept.
here is the algorithm:
boxcar2d.com/about.html
take note of the following:
To prevent the algorithm from converging too fast theres a chance it won't use the roulette wheel and just randomly select a mate. For version 1 this was as high as 40%, otherwise the small population didn't lost diversity quickly and it would fall into local optimum.

isn't this a little like saying a gorilla mates with a banana?

No.

In contex of GA, you should view the entire population as being of the same species.
What that paragraph refers to is the part of the algoritm responsible for selecting breeding pairs (after the fitness test).

Also note that there is no hand-picking involved and that it rather works based on probabilities. ie, pseudo-random.

Designing a solid GA is not an easy task. Having your solution fall into a local optimum to quickly and finding a good balance between optimisation and variation is indeed one of the hard parts.

In the real world, this isn't much of a problem because the environment (and by that, I mean the complete works - including competing species, predators, food sources, climate, etc) is very very dynamic, while in a GA it is typically very static.

For example, if you try to optimise a fluid distribution system, you are not going to change the end-points of the system during computation. That would make no sense.

Or when the point of the GA is to solve the "traveling salesman" problem, you aren't going to change the location of the places the salesman needs to visit during computation. That also wouldn't make any sense.

GA's are used when you are trying to solve a very specific design problem. So the job of the GA is to find the best possible solution for that particular, static, problem.
And it will be designed with that in mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's called "intellectual honesty". I know the concept is foreign to you, however....
But that's what it is.

I also note that first you imply that one-cellular to multi-cellular can't happen, then you are shown an example of exactly that, after which you again brush it aside with a phenomenally ignorant one-liner...

And then you wonder why people call you dishonest...

Oh let me assure you I know why people call me dishonest and every other person who doesn't buy into the materialist worldview. So here we go again, on one hand this was "suppose" to be evidence to support a claim and then when it is pointed out that it is not evidence but the usual may have, could have, plausibly could be imagined scenario it is then called "intellectual honesty". Is that intellectually honest...really?

 

[Oncedeceived]

They also all explain it. But if you simply ignore the explanation, you are simply going to be wrong in your conclusions.

View attachment 161665

Does that car appear designed to run a track filled with rubble?
Is it actually designed to run that track?

It is not "actually" designed to run a track filled with rubble but the information in the program determined the ability for such to occur.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It says that short term population pressures (such as rapid climate change) can have long lasting effects on genes (even when it happens a long time ago).

I don't see how it supports Oncedeceived's point, either.

The point was that there is discordance from nested hierarchy and genetics. He claimed they were showing "exactly" the same outcome and that is not true.

 

[The Cadet]

It is not "actually" designed to run a track filled with rubble but the information in the program determined the ability for such to occur.

And congratulations, you have come full circle to accepting my claim that the appearance of design is not evidence of design. I think we're done here. You're wrong, no matter how you want to spin it. Genetic algorithms destroy these claims, and at that point, all you have left are weak dodges like "the program was designed" (which misses the point completely).

 

[bhsmte]

And congratulations, you have come full circle to accepting my claim that the appearance of design is not evidence of design. I think we're done here. You're wrong, no matter how you want to spin it. Genetic algorithms destroy these claims, and at that point, all you have left are weak dodges like "the program was designed" (which misses the point completely).

Yes, some of us have seen this movie before and it does end the same every time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And congratulations, you have come full circle to accepting my claim that the appearance of design is not evidence of design. I think we're done here. You're wrong, no matter how you want to spin it. Genetic algorithms destroy these claims, and at that point, all you have left are weak dodges like "the program was designed" (which misses the point completely).

It is evidence of design, those cars could not have spontaneously arose from a computer without the aid of a designer. You are only reinforcing the concept of intelligent design.

 

[The Cadet]

It is evidence of design, those cars could not have spontaneously arose from a computer without the aid of a designer. You are only reinforcing the concept of intelligent design.

And so we're buckling down on the "a simulation or experiment cannot be evidence for a natural event" argument. Lovely.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is not "actually" designed to run a track filled with rubble but the information in the program determined the ability for such to occur.

What "information" would that be?

Be specific.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh let me assure you I know why people call me dishonest and every other person who doesn't buy into the materialist worldview.

I can assure you that it has nothing to do with what views you do or don't accept.

So here we go again, on one hand this was "suppose" to be evidence to support a claim and then when it is pointed out that it is not evidence but the usual may have, could have, plausibly could be imagined scenario it is then called "intellectual honesty". Is that intellectually honest...really?

No. No "may haves", no "plausibles", no "mights"....

Rather, a direct refutation of your claim that there is no solid explanation in context of evolution theory for the "appearance of deliberate design". Which you have consistenly used as a warped argument saying "it appears so, therefor it is so until proven otherwise".

Regardless of the fallacious logic of that argument due to the blatant shift of the burden of proof....

boxcar2d is proving otherwise.

This simple examples illustrates very elegantly how an evolutionary process can turn a complete random cluster of polygons into a design that appears deliberate, a design that appears purposeful, a design that is specified, a design that is irreducibly complex.

Which is EXACTLY what you consistently have denied to be possible.

Yet, there it is.....
A functional, purposeful, irreducibly complex system that appears deliberatly designed. Achieved purely through the mechanism of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

This is a direct refutation of the (fallacious) argument you have been repeating ad nauseum for weeks, nay, MONTHS on this forum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is evidence of design, those cars could not have spontaneously arose from a computer without the aid of a designer. You are only reinforcing the concept of intelligent design.

The ice in your freezer could not have spontaneously arose from a freezer without the aid of a designer.

You are only reinforcing the concept of "intelligent freezing" at the arctic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope. The areas thought to be junk are shrinking fast. In a few years, they will be forced to admit that junk DNA is no more scientific than vestigial organs. That leaves no place for mutations to accumulate.

If you are talking about the ENCODE study, it was a swing and miss. Just because DNA is transcribed into low copy mRNA's does not mean it is functional, contrary to what ENCODE tries to claim.

They have mutated enough generations to know that they have reached the limits on what mutations can change in the DNA.

References?

 

[The Cadet]

Seriously, OnceDeceived, not only do genetic algorithms completely disprove your claims at a fundamental level, they are not even necessary, because you have never done anything to actually demonstrate that this "apparent design" is actually real design and not pareidolia. So not only are you shifting the burden of proof, we can prove that you're wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And so we're buckling down on the "a simulation or experiment cannot be evidence for a natural event" argument. Lovely.

Are you denying that it is a simulation or experiment because it is not a natural event and is not providing anything without the input of intelligence which only supports ID.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Seriously, OnceDeceived, not only do genetic algorithms completely disprove your claims at a fundamental level, they are not even necessary, because you have never done anything to actually demonstrate that this "apparent design" is actually real design and not pareidolia. So not only are you shifting the burden of proof, we can prove that you're wrong.

Cadet you may really really want to believe that the genetic algorithms disprove my view but in actuality they only reinforce them.
Then you go back to the Pareidolia which sabotages your whole argument because of the contradictory elements within it. Are the cars in the algorithms an illusion or are they evidence that deliberate design can be observed and explained by them? You are all over the place and your desperation to discount the observation of design is apparent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can assure you that it has nothing to do with what views you do or don't accept.

Right.

No. No "may haves", no "plausibles", no "mights"....

Rather, a direct refutation of your claim that there is no solid explanation in context of evolution theory for the "appearance of deliberate design". Which you have consistenly used as a warped argument saying "it appears so, therefor it is so until proven otherwise".

The may haves, the plausibility and the might haves are very prominent in scientific literature.

Regardless of the fallacious logic of that argument due to the blatant shift of the burden of proof....

boxcar2d is proving otherwise.

Actually, it supports it. This is not a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no plan or goal using de novo as a starting point. It provides no proof of no design but of actual deliberate design for a purpose.

This simple examples illustrates very elegantly how an evolutionary process can turn a complete random cluster of polygons into a design that appears deliberate, a design that appears purposeful, a design that is specified, a design that is irreducibly complex.

That is because it is an intelligently designed program with purpose and design that does not reflect a mindless, unguided, undirected process without a plan or purpose.

Which is EXACTLY what you consistently have denied to be possible.

And still do, and your algorithm supports that.

Yet, there it is.....
A functional, purposeful, irreducibly complex system that appears deliberatly designed. Achieved purely through the mechanism of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

With information from intelligent agents which are loaded into the system.

This is a direct refutation of the (fallacious) argument you have been repeating ad nauseum for weeks, nay, MONTHS on this forum.

Yet it isn't. It is an exercise in ID providing a program that simulates evolutionary processes by informational input into the system.