Irreducible Complexity At The China Shop

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Yep. And freezers are evidence of "intelligent freezing".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are the cars in the algorithms an illusion or are they evidence that deliberate design can be observed and explained by them?

Not a single car that comes out of the algoritm in carbox2d is "deliberatly" designed.
They are evolved by the blind process of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

 

[whois]

Not a single car that comes out of the algoritm in carbox2d is "deliberatly" designed.
They are evolved by the blind process of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

why do you keep implying boxcar2d is the epitome of biological evolution?
it in no way models how biological cells can increase in complexity, and that is what evolution starts with.
i've seen nothing in the algorithm that mimics the reading of base pairs.

the MA experiment i posted conclusively proves a linearly DECREASING fitness in ALL lines tested.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That's called intellectual honesty.

Actually, it supports it.

In the same way that freezers prove "intelligent freezing".

This is not a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no plan or goal using de novo as a starting point.

Yes there is. It's called the blind evolutionary process.
Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

There is no plan, no goal, no "mind" involved.
There is only mutation and a fitness test of the current generation against certain selection pressures.

It provides no proof of no design but of actual deliberate design for a purpose.

There is no deliberate design.
There is only mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

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.

Just like freezers support the notion of "intelligent freezing" at the North pole.

And still do, and your algorithm supports that.

It's not "my" algorithm. I didn't write it.
And no, it proves the contrary of what you're saying.

Off course, if you have no clue about what GA's are and how they work (which you don't), you won't be realising this.

And if you are to lazy and/or unwilling to read up on what they are and how they work (which you are), then that won't change.

You'll simply continue to drown in your own ignorance.

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

The only thing loaded in the system is an algoritm of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

The design of the cars are not loaded in the system.

Because, again, if that were the case, we would have no need for the algoritm.

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

The "D" in ID is, according to the ID movement itself, the design of the DNA itself. It is not the "design" of the universe in which evolution can occur.

In the algoritm, that is not what happens.
What is designed in the algoritm, is the "universe".
Not the chromosome. The chromosome is evolved.

The only way for you to continue this ridiculous argument is by changing this goalpost.

Your argument started out by "there is an appearance of design in life", meaning in the DNA.

You did not start by saying that there is "design" in everything else which makes evolution possible.

This is why GA's completely destroy your (original) argument.
Because that's exactly what the evolutionary process does: it blindly designs DNA.

But upon realising how destructive a simple example like carbox2d was to this silly argument, you moved that goalpost.

You have nowhere to turn. And you are desperatly trying to.


Here's a question for you....

Why do GA's even work?
How come this algoritm can change this like this:

Into things like this:

There is nothing in the code telling this thing that it should add that polygon in the front so that it can clear the track of the rubble so that it doesn't block the track.

There is nothing in the code telling this thing to fortify the anker of the wheels so that it doesn't break as the rubble bumps into it.

There is nothing in the code telling this thing to add more wheels so that it gains more traction and speed to clear the path of rubble, instead of simply bumping into it and coming to a stop.

This is what you need to comprehend.

There is nothing in the code telling the thing what to do next to improve itself

There is only random mutation and a fitness test.
There is no looking in the future and anticipating what would be needed next.
There is no going back and returning to the drawing board to correct for evolutionary mishaps.

There is only the current generation, some random mutations and a fitness test.

There is no deliberate design here


It's just this:

public void StartEvolutionProcess()

for(int i = 0; i < amountOfGenerations; i++)
{
foreach( var individual in PopulationList)
{
individual.ComputeFitness();
}

var breedingPairs = SelectBreedingPairs(PopulationList.OrderBy(p => p.Fitness);
var newGeneration = Reproduce(breedingPairs);
AddRandomMutations(newGeneration);
}
}



And that's it. Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

There's nothing deliberate going on there.
There are no "if wheels < 2 then addWheel()" lines anywhere.

 

[DogmaHunter]

why do you keep implying boxcar2d is the epitome of biological evolution?

It's a direct refutation of once's (original) claim of "it appears designed, therefor it is designed by an intelligent designer".

The cars coming out of boxcar most certainly look deliberatly designed.
They are not designed by an "intelligent designer". They are evolved through the evolutionary process.

it in no way models how biological cells can increase in complexity,

It's funny, because that is literally what happens in boxcar.
It increases the complexity, functionality and specialisation of the cars.

i've seen nothing in the algorithm that mimics the reading of base pairs.

That's because it doesn't simulate how DNA works on a chemical level. It rather simulates the evolutionary process, as I have told you already.

How the the evolutionary process works and how DNA works at the chemical level are not the same thing.

the MA experiment i posted conclusively proves a linearly DECREASING fitness in ALL lines tested.

boxcar2d (along with every single other GA as well as actual biological evolution) proves the opposite.

 

[whois]

dogmahunter,
your entire post is a strawman.
the boxcar2d program does not take into account how DNA accumulates genes, nor take into account such things as HGT.

That's because it doesn't simulate how DNA works on a chemical level. It rather simulates the evolutionary process, as I have told you already.

How the the evolutionary process works and how DNA works at the chemical level are not the same thing.

actually it is EXACTLY the same thing, the accumulation of mutations via chemical means is at the very heart of evolution.

boxcar2d (along with every single other GA as well as actual biological evolution) proves the opposite.

We performed a classic MA experiment in which frequent sampling of MA lines was combined with whole genome resequencing to develop a high-resolution picture of the effect of spontaneous mutations in a hypermutator (ΔmutS) strain of the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. After ∼644 generations of mutation accumulation, MA lines had accumulated an average of 118 mutations, and we found that average fitness across all lines decayed linearly over time.
-Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment.htm

please note that this decrease in fitness was noted in ALL lines tested.

 

[DogmaHunter]

dogmahunter,
your entire post is a strawman.
the boxcar2d program does not take into account how DNA accumulates genes, nor take into account such things as HGT.

How many times must it be repeated that a GA does not simulate how the chemistry of DNA works??

It simulates the evolutionary process of mutation, survive, reproduce, repeat

Seriously, do you even read the posts you respond to?

actually it is EXACTLY the same thing, the accumulation of mutations via chemical means is at the very heart of evolution.

No, it's not.

What is at the heart of the evolutionary process is that there is some kind of genotype (in life, this is DNA, in GA this is the chromosome), that random changes/mutations occur in that genotype and that these changes are inherited by off spring. Following that is a fitness test against certain selection parameters.

HOW this heredity and these changes physically/chemically work is not relevant.
The only thing that is relevant is that there are changes that are past on to off spring.

Which is exactly what happens in biological life and exactly what happens in Genetic Algoritms.

The process is not the same as the actual physical things subject to that process.

Sheesh........

We performed a classic MA experiment in which frequent sampling of MA lines was combined with whole genome resequencing to develop a high-resolution picture of the effect of spontaneous mutations in a hypermutator (ΔmutS) strain of the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. After ∼644 generations of mutation accumulation, MA lines had accumulated an average of 118 mutations, and we found that average fitness across all lines decayed linearly over time.
-Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment.htm
please note that this decrease in fitness was noted in ALL lines tested.

So, what was the response of the community?
Where was this published?

And what is "MA"?

 

[The Cadet]

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.

Maybe it's time to expand on that freezer analogy.

I'd like to test whether ice can come about through a natural temperature reduction, or if we require an intelligence to shift the individual atoms into place once it gets cold. However, it's summer, so I can't get the necessary temperatures to test my hypothesis outside. Now, what I can do is put the water in my freezer and observe how it reacts. And, to my great surprise, it freezes, without an intelligent designer.

And then Oncedeceived shows up and says, "Hang on, that's not right, a refrigerator requires intelligence! The fridge's inventor put in the information necessary for water to form those crystal structures! Therefore this experiment is evidence for intelligent design!"

Does that sound ridiculous? I think that sounds ridiculous. But that's exactly the argument you're making. And it's an argument that invalidates the ability of simulations and controlled experiments to show evidence for natural processes. And at this point, I'm sorry, but this claim is up there with SkyWriting's "Science cannot examine the past" claim - it completely ignores how actual scientists do their jobs and completely misses the point of the issue. It's wrong in theory and in practice, and I'm really wondering why you would make such an argument. Dude, you do realize that your God doesn't have to not exist just because he didn't specifically design everything exactly the way Genesis 1 says, right? Talk to a catholic or something, yeesh.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe it's time to expand on that freezer analogy.

I'd like to test whether ice can come about through a natural temperature reduction, or if we require an intelligence to shift the individual atoms into place once it gets cold. However, it's summer, so I can't get the necessary temperatures to test my hypothesis outside. Now, what I can do is put the water in my freezer and observe how it reacts. And, to my great surprise, it freezes, without an intelligent designer.

And then Oncedeceived shows up and says, "Hang on, that's not right, a refrigerator requires intelligence! The fridge's inventor put in the information necessary for water to form those crystal structures! Therefore this experiment is evidence for intelligent design!"

Does that sound ridiculous? I think that sounds ridiculous. But that's exactly the argument you're making. And it's an argument that invalidates the ability of simulations and controlled experiments to show evidence for natural processes. And at this point, I'm sorry, but this claim is up there with SkyWriting's "Science cannot examine the past" claim - it completely ignores how actual scientists do their jobs and completely misses the point of the issue. It's wrong in theory and in practice, and I'm really wondering why you would make such an argument. Dude, you do realize that your God doesn't have to not exist just because he didn't specifically design everything exactly the way Genesis 1 says, right? Talk to a catholic or something, yeesh.

Straw man.

 

[Oncedeceived]

dogmahunter,
your entire post is a strawman.
the boxcar2d program does not take into account how DNA accumulates genes, nor take into account such things as HGT.

actually it is EXACTLY the same thing, the accumulation of mutations via chemical means is at the very heart of evolution.

We performed a classic MA experiment in which frequent sampling of MA lines was combined with whole genome resequencing to develop a high-resolution picture of the effect of spontaneous mutations in a hypermutator (ΔmutS) strain of the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. After ∼644 generations of mutation accumulation, MA lines had accumulated an average of 118 mutations, and we found that average fitness across all lines decayed linearly over time.
-Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment.htm

please note that this decrease in fitness was noted in ALL lines tested.

Note that we continue to provide scientific information while all they do is assert this and that and provide a over simplistic model that requires fore knowledge (that evolution doesn't have) to support their positions.

 

[The Cadet]

Straw man.

Howso? You're rejecting a simulation as a model for reality. It's a functional analogy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Howso? You're rejecting a simulation as a model for reality. It's a functional analogy.

Because it misrepresents my position.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because it misrepresents my position.

Which position? Because you seem to be holding a few. With all those goalposts moving from side to side, it's hard to keep track.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not a single car that comes out of the algoritm in carbox2d is "deliberatly" designed.
They are evolved by the blind process of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

It isn't a blind process and you know it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which position? Because you seem to be holding a few. With all those goalposts moving from side to side, it's hard to keep track.

That too is untrue.

 

[The Cadet]

That too is untrue.

Well, you've confused the both of us pretty convincingly. Maybe it's not just us.

 

[lasthero]

Well, you've confused the both of us pretty convincingly. Maybe it's not just us.

It's not.

Many people have complained about this sort of thing with Once. But it's always their fault, never hers.