Is evolution a fact or theory?

[dcalling]

In the case of genetic algorithms, they get an optimal result, even if they don't know how it was done. The point is that unexpected things are incorporated into the optimal solution. And what's great about that, is no one cares if it's "wrong", so long as it works.

Let me repeat myself:
"Engineers know their code (good ones at least), even if they mistakenly wrote the wrong code and got unexpected result, they can still debug it and understand what went wrong.

Science should be TESTABLE, VERIFIABLE and REPEATABLE. If something does not meet those standards, they are either hypothesis (with scientific model) or voodoo (with magic).

It seems when you claim you believe in evolution and the science behind it, you are just substituting God's creation with magic."

Just because someone added the term "genetic" in front of algorithm, it is still algorithm, and we know how algorithms work, we know how code work. Your understanding of software engineer is wrong, software engineers does not do magic, we do coding (which in some cases looks like magic to people who does not understand software).

 

[2tim_215]

Let me repeat myself:
"Engineers know their code (good ones at least), even if they mistakenly wrote the wrong code and got unexpected result, they can still debug it and understand what went wrong.

Science should be TESTABLE, VERIFIABLE and REPEATABLE. If something does not meet those standards, they are either hypothesis (with scientific model) or voodoo (with magic).

It seems when you claim you believe in evolution and the science behind it, you are just substituting God's creation with magic."

Just because someone added the term "genetic" in front of algorithm, it is still algorithm, and we know how algorithms work, we know how code work. Your understanding of software engineer is wrong, software engineers does not do magic, we do coding (which in some cases looks like magic to people who does not understand software).

I agree with you dcalling. There isn't any magic to software engineering, it just seems that way to the uninformed. Although I do agree that sometimes programmers luck into things. Doesn't have anything to do with genetics which is just a fancy name that some evolutionists use to try and claim evolution has something to do solving a particulate problem when it fact it's just good old fashioned engineering coupled with trial and error. Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let me repeat myself:
"Engineers know their code (good ones at least), even if they mistakenly wrote the wrong code and got unexpected result, they can still debug it and understand what went wrong.

It did exactly what they wanted it to do, produce an optimal solution. The fact that they know exactly what the code does, does not mean that they know exactly how the solution works. But the results are testable, verifiable, and repeatable. It works the same way, every time.

Science should be TESTABLE, VERIFIABLE and REPEATABLE.

As you see, it is. On the other hand, science does not have to know absolutely everything about the results. In fact, we never do that.

It seems when you claim you believe in evolution and the science behind it

As I reminded you, I didn't say that. You shouldn't "believe in" science. You should accept it or reject it on the evidence. Because you don't get that, you are just substituting God's creation with magic."

Just because someone added the term "genetic" in front of algorithm, it is still algorithm,

It's just copying nature. Random mutation and naturals selection tends to increase fitness. So engineers copied the process, and not surprisingly, it worked, producing better results than design could do. God turns out to be right, once again.

and we know how algorithms work, we know how code work.

Yep. But we often don't know exactly how the solution the code found, works. If this surprises you, perhaps you should consider how optima were obtained in the industrial age. How do you think people did that?

When you know that, you will have an important clue about genetic algorithms. And no, you are wrong. There's nothing magical.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree with you dcalling. There isn't any magic to software engineering, it just seems that way to the uninformed.

Genetic algorithms may look like magic to you. But it's nothing more than random mutation and natural selection, converted to code. That's it. Of course, more sophisticated algorithms include some heuristic elements and "chromosomes" that can feature cross-over and other genetic behavior that may make the algorithms more efficient. But no magic.

It works better than design wherever the problem is extremely complex. And there it works very, very well. Which is why it's being increasingly used.

It works. Just like it does in nature.

 

[2tim_215]

Genetic algorithms may look like magic to you. But it's nothing more than random mutation and natural selection, converted to code. That's it. Of course, more sophisticated algorithms include some heuristic elements and "chromosomes" that can feature cross-over and other genetic behavior that may make the algorithms more efficient. But no magic.

It works better than design wherever the problem is extremely complex. And there it works very, very well. Which is why it's being increasingly used.

It works. Just like it does in nature.

Just like fuzzy math or random number generators do? lol. No magic there just like there's no magic to gravity (although it may seem that way to some).

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Genetic algorithms may look like magic to you. But it's nothing more than random mutation and natural selection, converted to code. That's it. Of course, more sophisticated algorithms include some heuristic elements and "chromosomes" that can feature cross-over and other genetic behavior that may make the algorithms more efficient. But no magic.

It works better than design wherever the problem is extremely complex. And there it works very, very well. Which is why it's being increasingly used.

It works. Just like it does in nature. Here's a way to learn more about it:
Introduction to Genetic Algorithms for Engineering Optimization

Just like fuzzy math

I'm guessing you don't actually know what "fuzzy math" means. What do you think it means? While in graduate school, I had some acquaintance with possibility theory, but it seemed to have no useful purpose in systems, which was my interest at the time.

or random number generators do?

It's always stunned creationists that you could solve complex problems through random mutation and natural selection. But that's exactly what genetic algorithms do. And as you know, they work very well. They aren't magic; they merely copy nature.

 

[Hieronymus]

Here's the way to check:

A theory (in science) is an idea or a group of ideas with predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Given the huge number of verified predictions, evolutionary theory is indeed as secure as gravitational theory. Actually more secure. We know why evolution works, but we aren't still entirely sure why gravity works.

A partial list of verified predictions will be given, if anyone doesn't know what they are.

Maybe you'll just believe anything they tell you without question.
They made you feel smart doing so too.
Those who are less sensitive to this peer pressure are deemed less intelligent.
The authority of truth versus the authority AS truth...

But where your argument fails is that while mutation and selection are certainly true phenomena, it can not, or a least has not been shown to be able to, write new purposeful data in the data carrier (DNA).
And THAT is the CLAIM they make, but without scientific evidence to support that claim.
I guess they didn't tell you that...

Comparing it to gravity is just ridiculous.

Technically, evolution is the observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory explains it.

Well, no.
Mutation and selection are factual, but the emergence of specialized traits, organs and organisms is not.
And you know darn well that THAT is the claim they make.
But it is merely ASSUMED.
And they have no other choice, because it has to be a NATURALISTIC (a belief system) explanation.

But you're a bit confused about "NATURALISM." Your confusion depends on conflating ontological naturalism ("nature is all there is") with methodological naturalism ("we can only use science to investigate natural things").


Hence, science (or plumbing, or auto repair, etc) are methodologically naturalistic, but not ontologically naturalistic. A plumber can be a theist, but he won't try to clear your drain by exorcising the demons of blockage.

Science and plumbing can't deal with God. But scientists and plumbers can.

Does that help?

Science, or rather POPULAR science, is naturalistic in every way.
The scientific community does not accept anything else.
So, even when intelligent design stares them in the face, it can not be design, it HAS to be unintended results of dead unconscious laws of nature.
It's a matter of finance too.
Lots of money and platform for naturalism and atheism.
People with power wanting you to think certain ways, and dismiss certain other ways.
It's what people in power do.

>> This does not mean, of course, that natural science is not suited to discover how things work.
The medical sciences rely on research and discovery by means of scientific endeavour.
You see, how things work is subject to the laws of nature.
BUT, how it came to be, how it came to exist or emerge, is a totally different subject.
Fact is, living nature exists, we are a part of it.
So through time and effort we discover how it works, or at least, we try to figure it out.
So yeah, biology and medical sciences are like a complex form of plumbing or electronics perhaps.
We are limited to approaching it naturalistically.
Fine, no problem.
But in this topic it's obviously about the ORIGINS of living nature, which we can not observe here and now.
We can't simulate it either.

 

[Hieronymus]

Barbarian observes:
Genetic algorithms may look like magic to you. But it's nothing more than random mutation and natural selection, converted to code. That's it. Of course, more sophisticated algorithms include some heuristic elements and "chromosomes" that can feature cross-over and other genetic behavior that may make the algorithms more efficient. But no magic.

It works better than design wherever the problem is extremely complex. And there it works very, very well. Which is why it's being increasingly used.

It works. Just like it does in nature. Here's a way to learn more about it:
Introduction to Genetic Algorithms for Engineering Optimization



I'm guessing you don't actually know what "fuzzy math" means. What do you think it means? While in graduate school, I had some acquaintance with possibility theory, but it seemed to have no useful purpose in systems, which was my interest at the time.



It's always stunned creationists that you could solve complex problems through random mutation and natural selection. But that's exactly what genetic algorithms do. And as you know, they work very well. They aren't magic; they merely copy nature.

They brainwashed you.

 

[dcalling]

It did exactly what they wanted it to do, produce an optimal solution. The fact that they know exactly what the code does, does not mean that they know exactly how the solution works. But the results are testable, verifiable, and repeatable. It works the same way, every time.

Just to explain to you, the code will only do exactly what you want it to do if you code it exactly to do that. When they know exactly what the code does, they know exactly how the result works. In your example, the engineers designed the software, and it produced optimal result, which means the engineers also understand the result, else how do they know the result is optimal?

As you see, it is. On the other hand, science does not have to know absolutely everything about the results. In fact, we never do that.

True, for everything else except software engineer, which is basically logic and math. Where methods are proven optimal by logical inductions, you might not understand it, but every engineer who went through understand them (at least when they studied them)

As I reminded you, I didn't say that. You shouldn't "believe in" science. You should accept it or reject it on the evidence. Because you don't get that, you are just substituting God's creation with magic."



It's just copying nature. Random mutation and naturals selection tends to increase fitness. So engineers copied the process, and not surprisingly, it worked, producing better results than design could do. God turns out to be right, once again.



Yep. But we often don't know exactly how the solution the code found, works. If this surprises you, perhaps you should consider how optima were obtained in the industrial age. How do you think people did that?

When you know that, you will have an important clue about genetic algorithms. And no, you are wrong. There's nothing magical.

You are the one who claims engineers don't understand their software just by adding "genetic algorithm" to it, not me

 

[The Barbarian]

Just to explain to you, the code will only do exactly what you want it to do if you code it exactly to do that.

As you learned, engineers using genetic algorithms know exactly what their code will do. They just don't always know how the optimal solutions found by their code works.

When they know exactly what the code does, they know exactly how the result works.

As you just learned, that's not the case.

In your example, the engineers designed the software, and it produced optimal result, which means the engineers also understand the result, else how do they know the result is optimal?

Because they specified in the code what they wanted optimized. But they didn't specify how it was to be achieved. Turns out, random mutation and natural selection will do that. Just as it does in nature.

True, for everything else except software engineer, which is basically logic and math. Where methods are proven optimal by logical inductions,

No proofs involved here. The code merely varies parameters, and each generation, picks the best ones to vary for the next generation. So one is never absolutely sure the perfect solution is obtained. Nevertheless, better solutions come this way, than can be designed, when the problem is very complicated.

You are the one who claims engineers don't understand their software

Nope. That was your invention. I'm pointing out that they often don't understand exactly what makes the optimal solution optimal.

 

[The Barbarian]

The first evolved antenna designs appeared in the mid-1990s from the work of Michielssen, Altshuler, Linden, Haupt, and Rahmat-Samii. Most practitioners use the genetic algorithm technique or some variant thereof to evolve antenna designs.

An example of an evolved antenna is an X-band antenna evolved for a 2006 NASA mission called Space Technology 5 (ST5).[1] The mission consists of three satellites that will take measurements in Earth's magnetosphere. Each satellite has two communication antennas to talk to ground stations. The antenna has an unusual structure and was evolved to meet a challenging set of mission requirements, notably the combination of wide beamwidth for a circularly polarized wave and wide impedance bandwidth to cover the up and down link frequencies at X-band. Each spacecraft had two antennas - an evolved unit and a more standard, quadrifilar helix antenna. Both antennas were fabricated by the Physical Science Laboratory at New Mexico State University. Their external appearance was essentially identical in that a foam radome covered the radiating elements. The ST5 mission successfully launched on March 22, 2006 and operated for the mission period before being decommissioned by NASA, and so this evolved antenna represents the world's first artificially-evolved object to fly in space. Other evolved antennas were subsequently used on the LADEE spacecraft.
Evolved antenna - Wikipedia

 

[NobleMouse]

Haven't been here in awhile,

After nearly 1700 posts did we conclude that evolution (change over time) is observed in that there are variations of what God created from the beginning (humans have always been humans, birds always birds, fish always fish, etc...)?

Evolution from a universal common ancestor is the weakest and worst of all theories (a scientific theory being, "... an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." yet no experiment has ever demonstrated this (not once, let alone repeatedly) nor has this ever been observed in accordance with any method beyond the imagination.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution from a universal common ancestor is the weakest and worst of all theories (a scientific theory being, "... an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

Let's see what an informed YE creationist has to say about that...

Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise in Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

(my emphasis)

 

[dcalling]

As you learned, engineers using genetic algorithms know exactly what their code will do. They just don't always know how the optimal solutions found by their code works.

Let's put your above statement under a micro scope and hope you can learn something.....

If the engineers don't know how their solution works, how did they know it is optimal?

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's put your above statement under a micro scope and hope you can learn something.....

If the engineers don't know how their solution works, how did they know it is optimal?

Because it's a better solution than anything that they could design. Do you understand what a "fitness peak" is?

 

[2tim_215]

What you're speaking of (in Software Engineering terms) is called Stepwise Refinement which is what I believe you're calling optimal design.

 

[Job 33:6]

Haven't been here in awhile,

After nearly 1700 posts did we conclude that evolution (change over time) is observed in that there are variations of what God created from the beginning (humans have always been humans, birds always birds, fish always fish, etc...)?

Evolution from a universal common ancestor is the weakest and worst of all theories (a scientific theory being, "... an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." yet no experiment has ever demonstrated this (not once, let alone repeatedly) nor has this ever been observed in accordance with any method beyond the imagination.

Nobody is going to see a dog like mammal evolve into a whale in their lifetime. But any and every other observation that can be made, has been made. Any and every other test has affirmed evolution as well.

Even some of the most start opponents to darwiniam evolution still accept common descent and aspects of evolution such as dog like mammals evolving to become whales (such as Michael Behe).

Welcome back by the way.

 

[The Barbarian]

What you're speaking of (in Software Engineering terms) is called Stepwise Refinement which is what I believe you're calling optimal design.

No. It's not "design" at all. Stepwise Refinement is a design process. In systems a more effective method of design is called "linear programming." And it works pretty well for fairly simple problems. It essentially finds optima for various conditions. One application would finding the shortest route for a deliveryman. Another would be a factory finding optimal mix of products to make. One of the projects I did in graduate school was to find an optimal approach to effective mosquito control that minimized pesticide use by utilizing both pesticide and more traditional methods. It's one way to delay the evolution of pesticide resistance, and causes less damage to useful insect species.

Unfortunately, more complex things don't work so well with a design approach. That's why engineers started copying from nature to solve things that aren't readily handled by design.

 

[NobleMouse]

Nobody is going to see a dog like mammal evolve into a whale in their lifetime. But any and every other observation that can be made, has been made. Any and every other test has affirmed evolution as well.

Hello my friend. I believe what has actually been observed is what might be better described and intuitively understood as adaptation where variations occur that result in changes suitable to the environment. In the absence of observed evidence supporting evolution from a universal common ancestor, the conclusion seems this is more of an authority issue.

Even some of the most start opponents to darwiniam evolution still accept common descent and aspects of evolution such as dog like mammals evolving to become whales (such as Michael Behe).

This illustrates my point, a little. So Michael Behe believes "this", Darwin believed "that", Dawkins believes "that over there", Gould believed "this thing over here", etc... all the ever-changing and varied ideas of men, who were not there in the beginning, and made their inferred conclusions based upon facts, but extended them beyond observation, by assumptions with no conclusive evidence.

Similarly, one can just as blindly choose to believe what God has said in his word... that He created everything (including man) in the first 6 days and rested on the 7th --> it's in Genesis this way, it's in Exodus 20:8-11 this way, it's affirmed by Jesus and by authors throughout the Bible so no need to belabor. The only difference is that God claims to have been there at creation and God claims to be the author of life & creator of all things, and the Bible claims to be His word.

Neither position can unequivocally 'prove' their position with empirical evidence here in the present (despite how hard everyone here has tried), and in our finiteness nobody has the resources and time to question and investigate everything to the point at which there no longer remains any unanswered questions (as only God is infinite and is all-knowing), so somewhere along the way we all have to decide what we'll just accept and believe as truth, as the authority. So this comes down to man's word vs God's word as the authority.

Seems reasonable, for the Christian therefore, to believe God's word as the authority.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hello my friend. I believe what has actually been observed is what might be better described and intuitively understood as adaptation where variations occur that result in changes suitable to the environment.

That's what evolution is.

In the absence of observed evidence supporting evolution from a universal common ancestor,

Let's see what YE creationist Kurt Wise says about that:

Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

(my emphasis)

But it goes far beyond that. For example, the nested hierarchy of taxa, first noted by Linnaeus shows a family tree. Later on, genetics confirmed the family tree by DNA analysis. And we know that works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

There's a lot more. Want to see more?

Similarly, one can just as blindly choose to believe what God has said in his word...

YE creationists aren't satisfied with His word. They have to add their new doctrines to it to make it acceptable to them.

that He created everything (including man) in the first 6 days and rested on the 7th --> it's in Genesis this way, it's in Exodus 20:8-11 this way, it's affirmed by Jesus and by authors throughout the Bible so no need to belabor.

Show us where Jesus said that the creation story is a literal history and not figurative. This looks like another YE addition. But let's see what you have.

Why not just accept what He says, as it is, without adding your new beliefs?