Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[The Cadet]

How many intellects were used to create the program?

It doesn't matter. This isn't about "information". This isn't about "complexity". This isn't about any of the dodges you keep making. This is about the appearance of design. A simulation of a semi-random, non-designed evolutionary process produces cars which, to most people, subjectively appear designed. And you keep failing to address this.

The car designs themselves were not designed

Thank you. With that admission, your point about observed design is directly refuted. We're done. We're just done.

 

[The Cadet]

They look to be outcomes from a intelligently designed program that pre-programs information into a computer simulation and using that information creates random simple to complex car designs using the principles known for evolution.

...Wow.

You can have one or the other, man. You can have that design is apparent and evident and that that is evidence of design, or you can have that design is subjective. You cannot have both. You especially cannot switch between them whenever it becomes inconvenient for you! You've been pushing the former again and again and again and again and again. To now switch to the latter and say, "Nuh-uh, that doesn't look designed"... Okay, so now you agree with me that the appearance of design is subjective and not actually evidence of real design. Great! So why the objections when I fail to notice the design in the human eye?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Intellectual honesty is something that I fear you have no understanding of or of determining. You make a straw man out of my arguments while not addressing any of the actual issues involved and then say I am intellectually dishonest. Pot Kettle Black is all I can say.

You have been saying for countless pages that there is no explanation for "the illusion of deliberate design".

I have provided you with exactly that. Not only did I provide you with an explanation, I even provided an actual example that you can check out for yourself how evolution is more then capable of producing the appearnace of design.

You are in this field and you should know that all information is provided by an intelligent agent.

You have demonstrated that you don't know ANYTHING about this field. You were perplexed by my use of the word "chromosome".

Had you even only read an introduction to GA's, you wouldn't have been so perplex.

Once again: there is no intelligence involved whatsoever in producing the specialised, functional and irreducibly complex designs of the cars in carbox2d. None whatsoever.

No information just arises in the computer to simulate "evolution". How many intellects were used to create the program? What did they provide? Information.

The setup of an experiment is not the same as the experiment itself.

Requiring an intelligent being to design and create a freezer doesn't mean that "intelligence" is required to make water turn into ice.

Do you remember saying "if that were true, there would be no need to employ a massive team of programmers to implement the GA"?

Yes. Do you also remember what I was responding to when I said that?
You claiming that the design of the solution was build into the system by the programmers.

If that were true, you wouldn't need the programmers to implement the GA...
In that case, you could just ask these programmers to simply hand over the designed solution.

But that's not how simulations work.
And you know this, I reckon.

The need for a massive amount of intelligence is needed to produce this simple "very" simple simulator.

No, there I was talking about a massively more complex genetic algortim.
The carbox2d logic can be made by a single guy over the weekend.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The car designs themselves were not designed

That's the ONLY point.

Evolution produce those designs.
Evolution...resulting in the appearance of deliberate design.

Directly refuting your claim of "appearance of design, therefor design".
Directly refuting your claim that there is no explanation for "illusion of design".

Evolution. Producing design.

but the intelligence behind the ability to produce them very much designed the program using information that was not randomly produced or articulated into the program.

No, once.

Just like requiring intelligence to build a freezer doesn't mean that it requires intelligence to turn water into ice.

 

[justlookinla]

I see you are back to the usual intellectual dishonesty.

Notify me when you are ready to discuss the point honestly.

I see that you're not going to find a car which hasn't been designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...Wow.

You can have one or the other, man. You can have that design is apparent and evident and that that is evidence of design, or you can have that design is subjective. You cannot have both. You especially cannot switch between them whenever it becomes inconvenient for you! You've been pushing the former again and again and again and again and again. To now switch to the latter and say, "Nuh-uh, that doesn't look designed"... Okay, so now you agree with me that the appearance of design is subjective and not actually evidence of real design. Great! So why the objections when I fail to notice the design in the human eye?

Seriously? We know that it takes design to create the "cars". WE know what information was needed (intelligence) so the cars and everything are products of intelligent design. I am switching nothing. What you are misunderstanding as usual, is not that evolution is wrong but evolution as a mindless, undirected, unguided process without goals or plan is not shown in the designs we see in living forms nor is it what we see in the simulation of evolution. ALL TAKE INTELLIGENT DESIGN. NONE of it can be done without intelligent design. What I see in the cars is the outcome of this interaction between the intelligent input providing for the outcome. The reason I don't see in the cars the actual design features of the human input is the same reason the simulator does not provide realistic evolutionary realities.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the ONLY point.

Evolution produce those designs.
Evolution...resulting in the appearance of deliberate design.

Directly refuting your claim of "appearance of design, therefor design".
Directly refuting your claim that there is no explanation for "illusion of design".

Evolution. Producing design.



No, once.

Just like requiring intelligence to build a freezer doesn't mean that it requires intelligence to turn water into ice.

You would like to think so, however the result of the design of the cars could not have been accomplished without the input of intelligent design. So you point is null. The reason the cars are different from actual life forms is that this simulation does not reflect actual biological evolution.

 

[whois]

Yeah citation needed.

like the other stuff, i'll have to find it.

did you read the excerpt you requested about the misalignment of species and gene trees you requested?
also, did you read the excerpt i posted about the linearly decreasing fitness in the MA experiment?

i seriously doubt if this boxcar2d program mimics biological evolution.
in fact, i will say it doesn't apply to biological evolution at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They look to be outcomes from a intelligently designed program that pre-programs information into a computer simulation and using that information creates random simple to complex car designs using the principles known for evolution.

Right. So, the "appearance of deliberate designs" here, are an illusion, correct?
There's no "deliberate design" here at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I see that you're not going to find a car which hasn't been designed.

Can you even believe this? It utterly amazes me that they really believe that these cars are not intelligently designed in all intent and purposes. It does give me "some" understanding if they can be so hoodwinked to believe this stuff is like actual biological evolution then it is no surprise they can believe molecular machines are products of no intelligence either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right. So, the "appearance of deliberate designs" here, are an illusion, correct?
There's no "deliberate design" here at all.

There is deliberate design, it was planned. The whole program was set up for it. The information was from intelligent agents. Are you seriously going to deny that? They are a product of deliberate design themselves. They are not representatives of actual organisms and the realities of evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I see that you're not going to find a car which hasn't been designed.

I never claimed that actual cars are not designed, so I have no need to defend that notion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the ONLY point.

Evolution produce those designs.
Evolution...resulting in the appearance of deliberate design.

Directly refuting your claim of "appearance of design, therefor design".
Directly refuting your claim that there is no explanation for "illusion of design".

Evolution. Producing design.



No, once.

Just like requiring intelligence to build a freezer doesn't mean that it requires intelligence to turn water into ice.

You have provided an example of intelligent design. It is not an illusion of design for goodness sake, it is a design. The program is the design rather than the cars. The realities of actual organisms is not represented in this program, that is the problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right. So, the "appearance of deliberate designs" here, are an illusion, correct?
There's no "deliberate design" here at all.

False. There is deliberate design in the program. The cars are a result of intelligent agents programming the simulation. The cars could not be produced otherwise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Seriously? We know that it takes design to create the "cars". WE know what information was needed (intelligence) so the cars and everything are products of intelligent design.

Using this logic, ice is the result of intelligence "because freezers".

What you are misunderstanding as usual, is not that evolution is wrong but evolution as a mindless, undirected, unguided process without goals or plan is not shown in the designs we see in living forms nor is it what we see in the simulation of evolution.

No. That is exactly what is demonstrated in GA's.

No goals, no directions, no intelligent interventions.

Just a process/algoritm that looks no further then the CURRENT generation.
A process that introduces RANDOM changes when creating a new generation.

ALL TAKE INTELLIGENT DESIGN. NONE of it can be done without intelligent design. What I see in the cars is the outcome of this interaction between the intelligent input providing for the outcome.

There is no "intelligent input".

The input at generation 0 is RANDOM.
The additional input in every subsequent generation is a combination of non-random selection based on the performance of the CURRENT generation on the one hand and a couple of RANDOM changes on the other.

There is no intelligence involved whatsoever in producing the designs of those cars. None at all.

The reason I don't see in the cars the actual design features of the human input is the same reason the simulator does not provide realistic evolutionary realities.

So, when you see this design:

You don't see an appearance of design in this car, specifically to clear the track of rubble so that it can drive through it?

To you, this car has just as much "appearance of design" as this one:

in generation 0?

This is becoming very ridiculous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You would like to think so, however the result of the design of the cars could not have been accomplished without the input of intelligent design.

Yep. Just like the water in my freezer wouldn't change into ice if it wasn't for the intelligent design of the freezer.

Therefor, ice is the result of intelligent intervention.

/end sarcasm

 

[DogmaHunter]

i seriously doubt if this boxcar2d program mimics biological evolution.
in fact, i will say it doesn't apply to biological evolution at all.

A hereditary mechanism akin to DNA: check.
The introduction of random mutations in new generations: check.
Breeding pairs selected for based on fitness: check.
And environment where competition between individuals take place: check

So, what's missing in your opinion?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is deliberate design, it was planned.

How can it be planned if it starts with RANDOM polygons and introduces changes through RANDOM mutations?

The whole program was set up for it.

Just like the freezer was set up to provide a cold environment.

The information was from intelligent agents. Are you seriously going to deny that? They are a product of deliberate design themselves. They are not representatives of actual organisms and the realities of evolution.

The designs of the cars are the result of "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat".
They are not the result of any programming or deliberate designing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have provided an example of intelligent design.

No. An example of "intelligent design", would be this car:

Which wasn't produced by the algoritm. It was made in the car designer on the website.

It is not an illusion of design for goodness sake, it is a design.

It is an illusion insofar as the design was not the product of an actual designer who planned for it and made it from scratch.

Rather, it's a design that was produced by a process.

You understand the difference between an "intelligent entity" and a "process/algoritm", right?

The program is the design rather than the cars.

lol

Here's an example chromosome of one the evolved cars:

0.24,0.622,0.848,2.626597810257226,0.4205,3,0.05,0.27712579048238695,0.05,1.492,0.259,0.883,1,3,0.4775,0.6799999999999999,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,3.8242242744053905,1.5,2,5.340707511102648,1.4118160991929471,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,3.015928947446201,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,9043968,7172723,61440,13639213,13349497,13349497,15764055,15777024,0,0,6172137,11931568,12779520,12779520,16121856,16121856,8

None of these values were inputted by a person/designer.
They were randomly generated in generation 0 and subsequently changed through random mutations and selected for after passing the fitness test.
No human was involved in ANY of these values.

The realities of actual organisms is not represented in this program, that is the problem.

That chromosome is in principle the exact same as a DNA string.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Using this logic, ice is the result of intelligence "because freezers".




No. That is exactly what is demonstrated in GA's.

No goals, no directions, no intelligent interventions.

Just a process/algoritm that looks no further then the CURRENT generation.
A process that introduces RANDOM changes when creating a new generation.



There is no "intelligent input".

The input at generation 0 is RANDOM.
The additional input in every subsequent generation is a combination of non-random selection based on the performance of the CURRENT generation on the one hand and a couple of RANDOM changes on the other.

There is no intelligence involved whatsoever in producing the designs of those cars. None at all.



So, when you see this design:

View attachment 161675

You don't see an appearance of design in this car, specifically to clear the track of rubble so that it can drive through it?

To you, this car has just as much "appearance of design" as this one:

View attachment 161676

in generation 0?

This is becoming very ridiculous.

It is becoming very ridiculous because you want to ignore that this program is not reflective of actual organisms nor actual biological evolution.