Is evolution a fact or theory?

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Barbarian observes:
Except of course, computer programs are binary and DNA isn't binary. And genes work different than code, and DNA is natural, not designed, and so on.

You have said it multiple times, and I have replied multiple times. Thing things they can express are the same. For example we can use binary code to emulate DNA.

That's one of the big differences, but as you learned, the designers of AI often don't understand how the output happened.

The articles declare such, but the designers of AI can understand how all that happen exactly if they want to. And even if they don't have to figure out, they know how the model works. That is a major difference between science and woodoo

Turns out our DNA has an error-correcting process. But it's imperfect. How imperfect? Well, it varies, but the imperfection is just about right for different kinds of organisms. But it's not "designed" and therefore isn't very good for long-term considerations. Because it's mediated by natural selection, it's optimized for the here and now.
Natural Selection Fails to Optimize Mutation Rates for Long-Term Adaptation on Rugged Fitness Landscapes
That is also God's design, and it is not magic, most likely we can understand it if given enough time. Just like the counter to make sure cells don't split too many times, errors and error correcting are ways to allow certain parameter changes and limit amount of mutations to within designed boundaries. As we keep on degrading, such design safe guards will gradually deteriorate.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You have said it multiple times, and I have replied multiple times. Thing things they can express are the same. For example we can use binary code to emulate DNA.

Sure we can. It's why genetic algorithsm work. If they didn't emulate DNA, they wouldn't be evolutionary processes, and then they wouldn't be useful. But we can't use DNA to emulate binary code. It doesn't work like that.

The articles declare such, but the designers of AI can understand how all that happen exactly if they want to. And even if they don't have to figure out, they know how the model works. That is a major difference between science and woodoo

As you learned, the computer that learned "stop" and "go" worked by processes no one quite understands. It's not purely binary, but seems to use some kind of analog effects to get the job done. Pretty much the way evolution takes stuff and repurposes it.

That is also God's design,

Limited creatures design. God creates. As you have learned, evolution works better than design for complex things.

and it is not magic, most likely we can understand it if given enough time.

Probably so. But the point is, that the people who made the device don't know how it works. It wasn't "designed" to work as it does. That evolved.

Just like the counter to make sure cells don't split too many times

There's no "counter." In some organisms, telomeres don't peel off with each division. Some don't have them at all. And they are restored by telomerase.

errors and error correcting are ways to allow certain parameter changes and limit amount of mutations to within designed boundaries.

Natural selection acts against any population that has more mutations than can be accommodated within each generation. Likewise, it tends to increase the mutation rate in populations were it is less than optimal.

As we keep on degrading, such design safe guards will gradually deteriorate.

Since humans are (for example) much smarter than earlier humans even in historical times, that seems to be unlikely. Show us your evidence that say the people of Jesus' time had better DNA than we do.
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As you learned, the computer that learned "stop" and "go" worked by processes no one quite understands. It's not purely binary, but seems to use some kind of analog effects to get the job done. Pretty much the way evolution takes stuff and repurposes it.

You keep on saying that " as you learned" which is just wrong. I have always maintained my position that the designers of the AI know what's going on, or that if they made a mistake and not sure what's going on, if they wish to know, given time they will know what's going on.

Any attempt to say that we don't know or hint that it is not possible for us to know the so called evolution process in computers is a lie, and is unscientific since they are mixing science with voodoo. And this is one of our fundamental differences, you keep claiming that the machines evoluted process that no one understands, which is basically held voodoo as science, and at the same time knowingly or unknowing, think God does not know what might come and that He has to create in-perfect creations to be evolved (to something better instead of from perfection mutate to imperfection).

I am interested to know which part of the above do you disagree?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You keep on saying that " as you learned" which is just wrong.

Well, I'm assuming you can.

I have always maintained my position that the designers of the AI know what's going on, or that if they made a mistake and not sure what's going on, if they wish to know, given time they will know what's going on.

Which means that in these experiments, the programmer sometimes doesn't understand how the output occurred. In the case of some of these, it's not software-determined, but is the result of subtle effects in the hardware itself, some of which remain not understood.

Could we in principle, find out what they are? Yep. Does that mean that the programmer knew beforehand? No.

Any attempt to say that we don't know or hint that it is not possible for us to know the so called evolution process in computers is a lie

As you learned the man who programmed the stop/go system didn't know. On the other hand, it's probably true that we could eventually figure it out. So, I'm wondering if you realize what you were doing in characterizing both as lies.

and is unscientific since they are mixing science with voodoo.

Nonsense. For example, microwave antennas had always exhibited a persistent hiss at a particular wavelength. Bell scientists struggled to eliminate it, and thought they had excluded external signals because the hiss occurred wherever the antenna might be aimed.

Then they realized that the hiss was the predicted microwave background remnant of the Big Bang. The two engineers got a Nobel for their discovery. It wasn't voodoo when they didn't know what it was. IT was just outside of their understanding at the time.

Emergent systems are a real phenomenon, and can be understood, but a different scientific tool box is necessary and strict reductionism will often fail. It's not voodoo; it's just not simple.

And this is one of our fundamental differences, you keep claiming that the machines evoluted process that no one understands

Rather, no one understands what it's doing. The stop/go computer uses less components than any programmer can use for the same problem. The designer thinks that perhaps the machine uses subtle effects from nearby components. Far as I know, no one's actually figured it out. As you learned from genetic algorithms, evolutionary processes are often able to use effects that no one knows about.

Likewise, the genetic algorithms that found a better diesel engine, apparently utilized some yet-to be understood change in gas flow that made the final result better.

which is basically held voodoo as science

and at the same time knowingly or unknowing, think God does not know what might come

Here, you're underestimating God. As Aquinas pointed out, an omnipotent Creator can use contingency as readily as He can use necessity. He's greater than you suppose.

and that He has to create in-perfect creations to be evolved (to something better instead of from perfection mutate to imperfection).

Or since evolutionary processes are more efficient than design, perhaps He just chose the best way. If you spend some time studying nature, you'll find that for all its apparent complexity, the principles by which it works are quite elegant (in the proper sense, i.e. simple).

I am interested to know which part of the above do you disagree?

I don't agree that things we are yet to understand, amount to "voodoo." I don't agree that God is not capable enough to use contingency. I don't agree that God is limited to what humans can do. I accept the fact of emergent systems.

I think that covers it.
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, I'm assuming you can.

We all can learn, but when you used the word "learned" to hint that I changed my mind at the same time when I constantly point to our differences, that is a lie.

Which means that in these experiments, the programmer sometimes doesn't understand how the output occurred. In the case of some of these, it's not software-determined, but is the result of subtle effects in the hardware itself, some of which remain not understood.

Except we are not dealing with quantum mechanics here, all hardware we use are working within designed limits so they can consistently produce the same result, I hope you understand that. Specificly in that guy's experiment, he can consistently produce on/off. And is he using quantum mechanics? Nope, he is using regular existing electronics.

Could we in principle, find out what they are? Yep. Does that mean that the programmer knew beforehand? No.
As you learned the man who programmed the stop/go system didn't know. On the other hand, it's probably true that we could eventually figure it out. So, I'm wondering if you realize what you were doing in characterizing both as lies.

What the programmers don't know amount to either bug or design flaws, in the world of programming, even if you don't know the out come (i.e. random number generator), you know their mechanics. Things you don't understand means you got unperdicable results, which you don't want (in that guy's case it means there won't be consistent on/off signals). Not to mention no one really verified his claims that he used less components. If that is true why Google/MS etc start to use his stuff after 10 years, when much better AI components all have taken off?

Nonsense. For example, microwave antennas had always exhibited a persistent hiss at a particular wavelength. Bell scientists struggled to eliminate it, and thought they had excluded external signals because the hiss occurred wherever the antenna might be aimed.

Then they realized that the hiss was the predicted microwave background remnant of the Big Bang. The two engineers got a Nobel for their discovery. It wasn't voodoo when they didn't know what it was. IT was just outside of their understanding at the time.

Emergent systems are a real phenomenon, and can be understood, but a different scientific tool box is necessary and strict reductionism will often fail. It's not voodoo; it's just not simple.

You are confusing things that we don't understand/unstable vs things that we understand and usable.

We don't fully understand quantum mechanics for example, and that is part of the reason it is so hard to make a general propuse quantum computer. On the other hand we understand electronics much better, and as long they operate under the limits, we can obtain consistence results, which make them useful.

Rather, no one understands what it's doing. The stop/go computer uses less components than any programmer can use for the same problem. The designer thinks that perhaps the machine uses subtle effects from nearby components. Far as I know, no one's actually figured it out. As you learned from genetic algorithms, evolutionary processes are often able to use effects that no one knows about.

Or it is not independly verified, or it is a hoax. If we can't produce repeatable, verifiable results i.e. see how AI design has matured, it can actually be verified and repeated by other people and realiably get used.

Likewise, the genetic algorithms that found a better diesel engine, apparently utilized some yet-to be understood change in gas flow that made the final result better.

And that one is not woodoo science, we understand exactly how it works. It is just algrithm. Nothing mysteries.

Here, you're underestimating God. As Aquinas pointed out, an omnipotent Creator can use contingency as readily as He can use necessity. He's greater than you suppose.



Or since evolutionary processes are more efficient than design, perhaps He just chose the best way. If you spend some time studying nature, you'll find that for all its apparent complexity, the principles by which it works are quite elegant (in the proper sense, i.e. simple).

I will agree with you on this, I know I don't understand God, I only see His commandments. So God could created world to keep evolving to better things, except the Bible said God "created us in his image", that implies it is a creation, not some slow evolution.

I don't agree that things we are yet to understand, amount to "voodoo." I don't agree that God is not capable enough to use contingency. I don't agree that God is limited to what humans can do. I accept the fact of emergent systems.
I think that covers it.

Find in my sentence where I said God is not capable to use contingency, where I said God is limited to what humans can do?
I am refering to what you said
That's one of the big differences, but as you learned, the designers of AI often don't understand how the output happened.
That my friend, is voodoo science The fact is, the sifi writters make it sounds like the computers got a mind of their own, but they really don't, and the software engineers better understand how their software works, do you agree?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2tim_215
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sure.
That would be nice, but it sounds like wishful thinking. What alternatives do you speak of?
For example, developmental evolution can produce non-random phenotypic changes where needed through developmental programs. Living things can be influenced to change by the environments they inhabit and the other living things they co-exist with. This can then trigger developmental changes that are well integrated where needed to help them adapt. This does not require random mutations or natural selection.

All living things have similar development programs for traits, these are just varied according to each creature. These traits are not evolved purely by adaptations but are the way in which living things are designed and have been that way from a very early stage. They produce certain types of features ie 4 limbs instead of 6 or 8 in complex creatures, 2 eyes, 3 segmented bodies etc. Natural selection does not change this because this is preset.

So all variation that stems from this uses pre-existing genetic material that will only vary what is already there also along certain lines rather than blindly trying to find the right feature to help living things adapt. There forechange is more directed rather than through blind selection and random variation through mutations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So all variation that stems from this uses pre-existing genetic material that will only vary what is already there also along certain lines rather than blindly trying to find the right feature to help living things adapt.

This sounds like Mayr's "somatic program", which was highly influential in my own thinking. But do you have any recent sources that investigate this idea?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
For example, developmental evolution can produce non-random phenotypic changes where needed through developmental programs. Living things can be influenced to change by the environments they inhabit and the other living things they co-exist with.

Show us one of those. Every organism can adapt to environments. It's called "homeostasis."

All living things have similar development programs for traits, these are just varied according to each creature. These traits are not evolved purely by adaptations but are the way in which living things are designed and have been that way from a very early stage. They produce certain types of features ie 4 limbs instead of 6 or 8 in complex creatures, 2 eyes, 3 segmented bodies etc. Natural selection does not change this because this is preset.

So we never see tetrapods with an extra limb, because it's "preset?" What about when there's a tetrapod born with extra limbs? You're saying natural selection doesn't act against such things? What about when a tetrapod is born without all four limbs. Natural selection doesn't act on that?

You do realize that "three segmented bodies" actually have many more segments than three, right? Do you understand what happens in tagmosis?

So all variation that stems from this uses pre-existing genetic material that will only vary what is already there also along certain lines rather than blindly trying to find the right feature to help living things adapt.

Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for demonstrating that changes are not in response to need. So your belief is contradicted by the evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
We all can learn, but when you used the word "learned" to hint that I changed my mind at the same time when I constantly point to our differences, that is a lie.

Your postion may not change, but now you do know better.

Except we are not dealing with quantum mechanics here, all hardware we use are working within designed limits so they can consistently produce the same result, I hope you understand that.

I get that you still have trouble with the idea that things like genetic algorithms produce optimal solutions that are not understood by the engineers who wrote the code.

What the programmers don't know amount to either bug or design flaws, in the world of programming, even if you don't know the out come (i.e. random number generator), you know their mechanics.

The simulation isn't the point. The way the diesel engines work optimally, is not understood. The algorithm found an optimal configuration by randomly varying parameters, and then selecting the best ones each generation. I think you need to consider that the algorithm doesn't know how it works, either.

Things you don't understand means you got unperdicable results, which you don't want

In the diesel engines, they got a predictable result; a better engine than was capable by design. That's why they used a genetic algorithm. You are confusing things that we don't understand/unstable vs things that we understand and usable.

That my friend, is voodoo science The fact is, the sifi writters make it sounds like the computers got a mind of their own, but they really don't,

I think you unconsciously make that assumption. Genetic algorithms, for example, aren't conscious. They don't "know" how their optimal solutions work, either.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
For example, developmental evolution can produce non-random phenotypic changes where needed through developmental programs. Living things can be influenced to change by the environments they inhabit and the other living things they co-exist with. This can then trigger developmental changes that are well integrated where needed to help them adapt. This does not require random mutations or natural selection.

All living things have similar development programs for traits, these are just varied according to each creature. These traits are not evolved purely by adaptations but are the way in which living things are designed and have been that way from a very early stage. They produce certain types of features ie 4 limbs instead of 6 or 8 in complex creatures, 2 eyes, 3 segmented bodies etc. Natural selection does not change this because this is preset.

So all variation that stems from this uses pre-existing genetic material that will only vary what is already there also along certain lines rather than blindly trying to find the right feature to help living things adapt. There forechange is more directed rather than through blind selection and random variation through mutations.
Can you show any examples of any of this, that has been observed?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Proof of either what?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that existing life forms have evolved from ancestral life forms and share common ancestry. There is also a large body of theory that explains how and why evolution has occurred.

γλυκύ δ᾽ἀπείρῳ πόλεμος
sweet hopeless war?

Evolution exists as a part of life. What has been done to this "fact" has become 'fake news' in classic form.

The prehistoric creation was a separate world that had a beginning and definite end. Gen 1:2 reveals the aftermath.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2tim_215
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
γλυκύ δ᾽ἀπείρῳ πόλεμος
sweet hopeless war?
War is sweet to the inexperienced (i.e. who haven't experienced it).
Evolution exists as a part of life. What has been done to this "fact" has become 'fake news' in classic form.
The genetic evidence for common descent is overwhelming -- nothing fake about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

OSAS 101

Newbie
May 27, 2013
371
161
✟34,288.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
γλυκύ δ᾽ἀπείρῳ πόλεμος
sweet hopeless war?

Evolution exists as a part of life. What has been done to this "fact" has become 'fake news' in classic form.

The prehistoric creation was a separate world that had a beginning and definite end. Gen 1:2 reveals the aftermath.
You live in fantasyland.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Abraxos

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem.
Jan 12, 2016
1,116
599
123
New Zealand
✟69,315.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Of course evolution is a fact. The microevolution part. (adaptation, variations, even natural selection) When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

Issues arise when people start claiming they're related to cucumbers. (macroevolution)
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
experienced it).

The genetic evidence for common descent is overwhelming -- nothing fake about it.

Of course.. As long as you call the Bible a liar? Then you can stand firm on that one.

The Bible is there to keep spiritual believers from falling prey to a shell game trick of the deceived who deceive others. And, want to be.

The understanding (contrary to closed minded fundamentalist) did not begin at the time of Darwin. For the Bible on this matter had been understood by scholars for a very long time. They saw it to contain information that indicates that what we now see and know, is not the only creation to grace the surface of the earth.

The exegetical grasp had been known a long before the TOE controversy erupted. Its relevancy was simply not something to be concerned about for there was nothing to challenge it. When it resurfaced during the TOE controversy some souls who did not know any better, called it a new 'invention' to counter TOE. That is not the case. It had been understood by many excellent scholars many centuries prior to Darwin's birth. Darwin was simply an antagonist who caused this exegetical understanding to resurface again.

If you have an open mind I would suggest finding some time to read some of this free online book. I have a paper copy and enjoyed and benefited from its insights very much.

No one can tell God that He did not provide for us to counter the "fake news." Without Form and Void - Chapter 1
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums