Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[whois]

Darwinian evolution in a nutshell: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Check, check, check and check.

and you seem to keep forgetting that science has dumped darwinism.
koonin, noble, ayala, and a large number of the scientific community is changing their thinking of darwinism.
ayala and koonin both said the modern synthesis is dead, noble says it needs replaced.
so:
uncheck, uncheck, uncheck, and uncheck.

but it doesn't matter, you will keep on tripping along like nothing has ever happened.

 

[crjmurray]

and you seem to keep forgetting that science has dumped darwinism.
koonin, noble, ayala, and a large number of the scientific community is changing their thinking of darwinism.
ayala and koonin both said the modern synthesis is dead, noble says it needs replaced.
so:
uncheck, uncheck, uncheck, and uncheck.

but it doesn't matter, you will keep on tripping along like nothing has ever happened.

Well that's what you do when nothing has happened.

 

[justlookinla]

Darwinian evolution in a nutshell: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

The only thing that's produced, supported by the scientific method, is bacteria producing bacteria. Finches producing finches. Moths producing moths.

 

[Loudmouth]

and you seem to keep forgetting that science has dumped darwinism.
koonin, noble, ayala, and a large number of the scientific community is changing their thinking of darwinism.

You seem to forget that we refute these claims in every thread that you introduce them.

 

[lasthero]

and you seem to keep forgetting that science has dumped darwinism.
koonin, noble, ayala, and a large number of the scientific community is changing their thinking of darwinism.
ayala and koonin both said the modern synthesis is dead, noble says it needs replaced.
so:
uncheck, uncheck, uncheck, and uncheck.

but it doesn't matter, you will keep on tripping along like nothing has ever happened.

People like you have been spouting similar claims for over a century.

It's not any more convincing now than it was the last hundred or so times.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have been routinely disproven on this point.

That is false. He has not provided anything that supports that claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually, i'm not laughing at all.
as a matter of fact i'm counting on your expertise.
i provided you a means to show how the boxcar2d program simulates biological evolution by the actual processes involved.
you have failed to do that.

I have not.
You failing to understand how GA's accomplish what they accomplish through applying the process of natural evolution is not my failure.

if my aasumption that you are a proficient programmer is valid, then it's safe to assume the boxcar2d DOES NOt simulate the processes of biomolecular evolution.

That doesn't follow.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and you seem to keep forgetting that science has dumped darwinism.

"darwinism"?

To me, that term means the idea that through natural selection and descent with modification, systems that compete evolve to become "more fit" in context of the environment they find themselves.

No, science has not dumped this idea in any sensible way.

koonin, noble, ayala, and a large number of the scientific community is changing their thinking of darwinism.

None of them will agree that the ideas of descent with modification and natural selection are wrong.

ayala and koonin both said the modern synthesis is dead, noble says it needs replaced.
so: uncheck, uncheck, uncheck, and uncheck.

False.
Every single one of the basic principles I mentioned are very much part of the core of evolution theory. If you are going to pretend that these people don't agree with that, I'm just going to laugh at you.

but it doesn't matter, you will keep on tripping along like nothing has ever happened.

Nothing has happened.
Your objections are invalid and besides the point.
Your objections are only about scope, not about what actually is going on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The only thing that's produced, supported by the scientific method, is bacteria producing bacteria. Finches producing finches. Moths producing moths.

Evolution theory doesn't predict otherwise, so one has to wonder why you continue to repeat this.

 

[whois]

dogmahunter,
just stop with it already.
even the cadet has admitted boxcar2d doesn't actually mimic evolution, and has explained the only reason it was presented was to show how design can be had by random processes.

you have also failed to answer one simple question about programming i send you by PM, which any programmer with ANY experience should have been able to answer.

please don't quote me anymore, it will do you no good.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution theory doesn't predict otherwise, so one has to wonder why you continue to repeat this.

Darwinist evolution claims much more than bacteria producing bacteria. Darwinist evolution claims that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.

Your Darwinist creation mantra isn't based on the scientific method.

 

[The Cadet]

even the cadet has admitted boxcar2d doesn't actually mimic evolution

Maybe I should clarify. I agree completely that Boxcar2D does not accurately represent the methods of gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, et cetera. The methods used to change its genome are far simpler and do not model the precise reality of how genomes evolve. However, once you cut through that and get to the core of what evolution is, it's basically the same thing, albeit with a different tool; like sinking nails with a hammer rather than a nail gun. You still have descent with modification, common ancestry (although it isn't really represented here, it could fairly easily be), and a few other such things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Darwinist evolution claims much more than bacteria producing bacteria. Darwinist evolution claims that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.

Not a single individual ever gave birth to an individual that wasn't of the same species.
It's a gradual process.

Your Darwinist creation mantra isn't based on the scientific method.

Your darwinist mantra is based only on a strawman.

 

[DogmaHunter]

dogmahunter,
just stop with it already.
even the cadet has admitted boxcar2d doesn't actually mimic evolution, and has explained the only reason it was presented was to show how design can be had by random processes.

I never said anything other then that.
Perhaps it's you who should stop it.

I've consistently said that was is being applied here is the process of evolution. Not chemistry, not molecular biology, not physics,....

But the process of evolution. Natural selection. Descent with modification.
That's the process of evolution.

I consistenly explained as well how this process is not the same thing as the stuff subject to said process.

I have never claimed otherwise.
You people merely asserted that I did and (deliberatly?) misrepresented me every time. And now again.

you have also failed to answer one simple question about programming i send you by PM, which any programmer with ANY experience should have been able to answer.

No. I refused to dive into your silly cryptic code written in a language that debuted in 1963. I also explained in detail what my fields of expertise actually are and even added a screenshot of the PC I'm currently sitting behind at my office, running visual studio 2015 and sql server. I even gave you a nice code review with plenty of tips on how you could immensly improve the readability and maintainability of your code.

I also invited you to ask actual questions concerning my field of expertise, if you have any actual questions about software engineering instead of these silly tests that are only a waste of both our time.

please don't quote me anymore, it will do you no good.

I'll assume that that is not a threat.

 

[whois]

Maybe I should clarify. I agree completely that Boxcar2D does not accurately represent the methods of gene duplication. However, once you cut through that and get to the core of what evolution is, it's basically the same thing, albeit with a different tool; like sinking nails with a hammer rather than a nail gun. You still have descent with modification, common ancestry (although it isn't really represented here, it could fairly easily be), and a few other such things.

well see, that's the thing, with all these processes going on inside DNA, you might not wind up with what you think you would.
it seems to me that the processes outlined in table 1 could have a very profound effect on the outcome.

this doesn't even include epigenetics.
epigenetics is apparently a transmission of inheritance without the corresponding genes.

even koonin has said natural selection isn't the primary driving force of evolution, and it's certainly not the only one.
the slow gradual change of darwinism has simply got to go.

 

[justlookinla]

Not a single individual ever gave birth to an individual that wasn't of the same species.
It's a gradual process.

Your darwinist mantra is based only on a strawman.

I don't chant the Darwinist mantra, others in the faith-based creation system do though.

Bacteria producing bacteria thus humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago is simply a worldview which excludes the scientific method.

 

[DogmaHunter]

well see, that's the thing, with all these processes going on inside DNA, you might not wind up with what you think you would.

You are again complaining about scope.

All evolution requires to work is a genotype to mutate and a phenotype to test, along with descent with modification.
How the genotype is stored (magnetically, molecularly or even simply written on a piece of paper), or what the process is like to transform the genotype into the phenotype is literally irrelevant to the process.

And, again, the entire (and only) point of bringing it up: blind processes can produce the appearance of deliberate design. Period.

 

[justlookinla]

And, again, the entire (and only) point of bringing it up: blind processes can produce the appearance of deliberate design. Period.

Has anyone ever examined a snowplow and said, hey Joe heck if I can determine if an intelligence designed and built this thing?

Sticking with real world stuff instead of Darwinist fantasy mind games can yield interesting conclusions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Has anyone ever examined a snowplow and said, hey Joe heck if I can determine if an intelligence designed and built this thing?

If you can't bring yourself to having an intellectually honest discussion, then simply don't comment.

Nobody here is claiming anything about actual snowplows.

Sticking with real world stuff instead of Darwinist fantasy mind games can yield interesting conclusions.

The designs produced by GA's are very real.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not only do I use them.... I make them.

And my customers paid me a lot of money to make them as well.

Well I am very pleased that you are monetarily successful in your business.

It is a blind process.
In the sense that:
- changes aren't planned
- changes aren't predetermined
- selection only looks at fitness of the CURRENT generation (ie: it doesn't go like "hmmm, I'm gonna keep this one cause it might be nice to have it 20 generations down the line").

In that sense, it is completely blind.[/Quote]
I haven't implied that any of the above are planned. You misunderstand my objections to the GA. They incorporate intelligence in the program by the knowledge we put into them, that is one issue and although they are random this is based on optimization.

Secondly and most importantly, it is not a true representation of biological evolution. That is where you are not understanding the issue.

The actual point is that the appearance of deliberate design is being produced by a mindless process without any intelligent intervention.

No. It is designed to evolve solutions for design problems.

It is only designed insofar as to create an environment where this process can take place.

Just like a freezer is designed to create an environment where the process of freezing can take place.

Freezing is not the result of design.
Neither is the process of evolution.

Freezing / evolution is rather a thing that inevitably happens if the environment finds itself in a specific state with certain properties.

In case of evolution, one needs systems that compete and reproduce with variation and heredity, and are subject to some kind of fitness test in context of the "competition".

What is designed in a GA is that environment. Just like a freezer.

...to create the software.
The designs that the software comes up with is the result of a blind process executed by the algoritm the software uses.

Now I want to present another person who is not a theist, is a biochemist and who understands evolution and who has no motivation in this discussion:

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015

A recent article in Nature reminded me of the importance of definitions. The article discusses evolution and evolutionary algorithms in a special issue on machine learning (Eiben and Smith, 2015). I think we all know that "evolutionary" algorithms are based on natural selection and we all know that there's more to evolution than just adaptation. It's too late to change the name of these procedures in computer science but at the very least I expect computer scientists to be aware of the difference between their procedures and real evolution.

In this paper, there's a section on "how evolutionary computation compares with natural evolution." The authors consistently use "evolution" as a synonym for "selection" or "adaptation" and they seem to be unaware of any other mechanism of evolution.

In one sense, it's okay to conflate "evolution" and "adaptation" in computer science but if that error reflects and perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of real biological evolution then perhaps it's time to rename these algorithms "adpatation algorithms."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/06/evolutioanary-algorithms-are-really.html

Learn how GA's work.

Learn about evolution.