Video: Randomness vs Evolution

Ophiolite · Jun 21, 2019

Kylie said:
It's an analogy about how traits that are favoured due to their fitness in a particular environment are more likely to be passed on. It's not meant to reflect protein function.

An analogy can only illustrate aspects of a concept and thus promote understanding of that concept, it cannot demonstrate that the concept is valid. To do it would have to be a simulation, not an analogy.

Kylie · Jun 21, 2019

Ophiolite said:
An analogy can only illustrate aspects of a concept and thus promote understanding of that concept, it cannot demonstrate that the concept is valid. To do it would have to be a simulation, not an analogy.

I've yet to see the evidence to show that the concept of inherited traits as a part of evolution be shown false.

Ophiolite · Jun 21, 2019

Kylie said:
I've yet to see the evidence to show that the concept of inherited traits as a part of evolution be shown false.

I agree. But the video and the software of the OP have no meaningful connection with that statement.

AV1611VET · Jun 21, 2019

Ophiolite said:
I agree. But the video and the software of the OP have no meaningful connection with that statement.

Could Eric Hovind make a video like that, in your opinion?

Kylie · Jun 21, 2019

Ophiolite said:
I agree. But the video and the software of the OP have no meaningful connection with that statement.

I disagree. I think that the video shows that when traits are inherited from one generation to the next, and beneficial traits are favoured, that it won't be long before natural selection results in a high degree of adaptation.

_____a_____ · Jun 21, 2019

Did you even read the post I wrote responding to you?

Ophiolite said:
Let me be more direct than I have been till now. The difficulty is that your program, despite the nice production values, is worthless as tool for demonstrating evolution. It fails even as an analogy. The trajectory of the demonstration you are seeking to construct is plausible and possibly valid; however, the implementation isn't working. I suggest a return to the drawing board.

Ophiolite · Jun 22, 2019

DecstarG said:
Did you even read the post I wrote responding to you?

Yes. My remarks stand. You have not addressed the a) the weakness of any analogy
b) the specific failures in this instance.

Ophiolite · Jun 22, 2019

Kylie said:
I disagree. I think that the video shows that when traits are inherited from one generation to the next, and beneficial traits are favoured, that it won't be long before natural selection results in a high degree of adaptation.

Then it seems you are seeing what you expect to see. There is almost no correlation between the simplistic algorithm used in the video and the mechanisms we believe to be at work in an evolving genome.

In the absence of a clear, concrete, demonstrable connection between the two my position will remain unchanged, so it is likely fruitless to continue this particular strand of conversation further. That is regrettable, since I feel speaking positively of an ineffectual model will encourage creationists to think their views justified.

_____a_____ · Jun 22, 2019

Ophiolite said:
Then it seems you are seeing what you expect to see. There is almost no correlation between the simplistic algorithm used in the video and the mechanisms we believe to be at work in an evolving genome.

Have you read the program's code? It is anything but simplistic. The program incorporates all of the primary functions and methods and evolution. Read through the code, you might then realise how it actually functions. The simplest explanation I could give would be is to watch Code Bullet's video on the topic.

It is actually very, very similar to real evolution.

Kylie · Jun 22, 2019

Ophiolite said:
Then it seems you are seeing what you expect to see. There is almost no correlation between the simplistic algorithm used in the video and the mechanisms we believe to be at work in an evolving genome.

In the absence of a clear, concrete, demonstrable connection between the two my position will remain unchanged, so it is likely fruitless to continue this particular strand of conversation further. That is regrettable, since I feel speaking positively of an ineffectual model will encourage creationists to think their views justified.

Seems to me that there is a correlation.

Something new comes up. If it is better adapted, then it will pass on its genes. If not, it will not pass on its genes.

Ophiolite · Jun 23, 2019

Kylie said:
Seems to me that there is a correlation.

Something new comes up. If it is better adapted, then it will pass on its genes. If not, it will not pass on its genes.

There are no genes in the program and the proxy for genes is so different from then that the comparison is rendered invalid.

In most of your responses you are making assertions confirming your confidence in evolutionary theory. I doubt your confidence in that theory can outmatch mine, but that does nothing for the OP's program analogy.

Kylie · Jun 23, 2019

Ophiolite said:
There are no genes in the program and the proxy for genes is so different from then that the comparison is rendered invalid.

In most of your responses you are making assertions confirming your confidence in evolutionary theory. I doubt your confidence in that theory can outmatch mine, but that does nothing for the OP's program analogy.

I don't understand how you can say that the mechanism is so different.

In evolution, the closer an individual's traits come to being well adapted to the environment, the higher its fitness.

In the simulation, the closer an individual word's traits come to the word "fifty", the higher its fitness.

In both cases, individuals that have higher fitness than others are favoured.

xianghua · Jun 23, 2019

Kylie said:
Would you care to explain why evolution requires that proteins be able to form at any arbitrary size?

what?

Ophiolite · Jun 23, 2019

Kylie said:
I don't understand how you can say that the mechanism is so different.

In evolution, the closer an individual's traits come to being well adapted to the environment, the higher its fitness.

In the simulation, the closer an individual word's traits come to the word "fifty", the higher its fitness.

In both cases, individuals that have higher fitness than others are favoured.

Kylie, around three or four posts ago I said there was little point in continuing. I said so out of respect, knowing that once you have considered a matter and arrived at a position it will require substantial data to move you from it. I consider the weakness of the analogy to be self evident. Stunningly so. However, I understand that you do not agree. At this point I am not prepared to put in the work to construct an argument of the required rigour to correct your thinking. So, for the moment, let's just leave it there.

Kylie · Jun 23, 2019

xianghua said:
what?

You said that it could be a problem for evolution that proteins have a size limit and this could prevent evolution. I am asking you to explain why evolution would work better if proteins could be as small as they wanted to.

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Kylie said:
You said that it could be a problem for evolution that proteins have a size limit and this could prevent evolution. I am asking you to explain why evolution would work better if proteins could be as small as they wanted to.

because in such a case the chance is far more higher. but if we need many changes at once (many amino acids changes) its a problem.

Ophiolite · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
because in such a case the chance is far more higher. but if we need many changes at once (many amino acids changes) its a problem.

What is the range of amino acid changes associated with effective mutations? If you think this could be an issue, then surely you have researched this.

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Ophiolite said:
What is the range of amino acid changes associated with effective mutations? If you think this could be an issue, then surely you have researched this.

according to this paper we are talking about 10^77 for a specific function (beta -lactamase):

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

Ophiolite · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
according to this paper we are talking about 10^77 for a specific function (beta -lactamase):

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

That is not what I asked. If we have functioning protein A, how many changes (or more usefully, the minimum number of changes) are required to change it into any other functioning protein?

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Ophiolite said:
That is not what I asked. If we have functioning protein A, how many changes (or more usefully, the minimum number of changes) are required to change it into any other functioning protein?

that is the main question. we know for instance that many proteins are very different from each other. so we need many mutations to such conversion in these specific cases.

Video: Randomness vs Evolution

Was this video at all convinving to you?

Yes

No (please explain why in the replies)

I already agreed

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Defeater of Illogic

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

Active Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Active Member

Defeater of Illogic

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Similar threads