Simple is an understatement. You are ignoring so many issues that are biologically unrepresented by this model that it is a so obvious the model is not representative of the process. It convinces only those who don't have a great deal of understanding of the evolutionary complexities.
There is nothing ignored.
Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.
All these principles are present.
It makes no difference if the chromosome is 8 bits in length or a gazillion gigabytes.
It makes no difference if it is a single track or a thousand tracks.
The same principles apply.
Did you read my post, I gave you reason as to why it was a misrepresentation of biological evolution.
And I eplained why that "reason" was wrong.
A simple example does not represent the complexity of evolution. That is exactly what I was pointing out.
By that logic, every controlled experiment goes out the window in terms of usefullness.
This is nothing but anti-science rethoric.
It does matter and the example of Boeing is a perfect example, the complexity it of human origin. It is a design which can be programmed with all the necessary elements exactly as needed even if it is complex it is not based on supposedly mindless, unguided, undirected, unplanned principles to begin with.
If that were true, there would be no need to employ a massive team of programmers to implement the GA.
You haven't provided, in fact no one ever has a simpler or less complex life form from which all this is suppose to evolve from. Perhaps it is you who should look into the mirror to see the intellectual honesty lacking in your own reflection. This is not completely irrelevant because the only evidence we have for any life form is of complex and extreme amounts of information. You can't just manufacture some less complex and simple form that is not in evidence to scaffold your position.
The point you made is that evolution can't produce designs.
Your point is refuted. You continue to dance around the issue.
The GA of carbox2d starts with shapes like this:
And after X amount of generations, you get shapes like this for the speed track:
And shapes like this for the track that has plenty of "rubble" on it:
And shapes like this for the track that has plenty of "gaps" where the cars can get stuck in:
Each of these three seem designed specifically for the track they exist on.
Yet, they all started out like random shapes, like the first one I posted.
Indeed, this is a direct refutation of the idea that the evolutionary process (mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat) can not produce
design.
This is a rather ridiculous statement. All science experiments ARE controlled. The point is that intelligence was needed to produce the programs.
And intelligence was need to create the freezer. But that doesn't mean that the ice on the arctic isn't the result of natural processes.
No computer would produce evolutionary processes even in this terribly simplistic program without the aid of intelligence and that intelligence providing the necessary information and pre-set boundries; if you could provide a program where anything was possible you might have a true representation of evolution.
Not a SINGLE line of code has direct control of the designs being produced. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
NO intelligence WHATSOEVER is involved in producing these designs.
It's just a blind algoritm: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.
The only things that are programmed are:
- the selection pressures (a good algoritm will make these dynamic variables that can be changed while running)
- the fitness test which will test the individuals of a generation against the selection pressures
- a rather random "merge" algorithm to produce a new generation from breeding pairs
- a selection strategy (in GA, several are possible, some of them well explained on the carbox site - which you didn't bother to click around in
I don't know what you are saying here, chromosomes carry the genes determining heredity.
You don't know what I'm saying
because you have no clue about GA's. And this quote right here is black on white evidence of that.
The "chromosome" is the name given to the string of characters/numbers that represents an individual in a GA. It's analogous to a DNA string in living creatures.
So, this is again black on white evidence that you insist on arguing against things that you have NO CLUE about.
Had you read about GA's - even only as an introduction-, you would have known this.
Again, this is so simplistic as to not even being coherent in regard to the systems that Behe is referring to.
How is it not?
A wheel's function is LITERALLY controlled by more then 3 variables. If one is out of whack,
the wheel comes off.
So all of those variables need to be just right
or the system does not work.
How exciting and totally irrelevant to the actual process of evolution and the intricate complexity of even the most simple example of organism. The generations are artificial.
Oh well then of course you must be right, I didn't realize that the computer acting completely in isolation produces this program and it is not pre-set by human intervention. I concede then that intelligence didn't have a thing to do with it.
There is no intelligence whatsoever involved in producing the designs of the cars.
It starts with a random cluster of polygons and it ends with highly efficient cars.
The process by which this is achieved: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.
To simulate evolutionary processes?
Did you write the program to simulate evolutionary processes?
It's not really a simulation...
It IS an evolutionary process. Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.
