Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

Do you see here anything that says that it reflects all elements of evolution? It says above that it is inspired by, not that it is evolution because it isn't.

 

[The Cadet]

If it doesn't take that into account (of course it can't realistically) it is not a true reflection of evolution.

Do you understand the scope of the argument? Genetic algorithms are not meant to "truly reflect evolution". They're meant to simulate the process of descent with modification and natural selection. And we can show that these produce the appearance of design without actually producing design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When will you stop lying about this?

GA's simulate the process. Not the physical things subject to that process.

GA's are not "analogous" to the evolutionary process.
No, they USE the ACTUAL abstraction of the evolutionary process.

Why is it if someone disagrees with you they are either dishonest or lying? Do you know that disagreeing is not equal to lying?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you understand the scope of the argument? Genetic algorithms are not meant to "truly reflect evolution". They're meant to simulate the process of descent with modification and natural selection. And we can show that these produce the appearance of design without actually producing design.

Do you understand that they are programs that are aided by intelligence? What is doing is showing that design comes with Intelligence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Noooooo.

"Information" as the term is used in science has a specific definition, meaning, and context. It refers to a particular way of viewing information, as described by information theory. The definition you described was not the same thing, and saying "information is information" when you're using two different definitions is a textbook equivocation fallacy, along the lines of "Feathers are light; what is light is not dark, therefore no feathers are dark". And as I and DogmaHunter keep on pointing out, the definition you want to use doesn't actually apply to DNA.

It applies to DNA. You can use a different definition but it all boils down to information, the conveying it and the receiving it.

You have not demonstrated that DNA is meant to be informed or to be received and there is no reason to believe that that is the case. Ribosomes are not "receiving" DNA in the sense you imply. It's chemistry. You no more need an intelligent ribosome to read DNA than you need intelligent water molecules to participate in hydrolysis.

See my post to Dogma.

And once again, you're mangling the technical terms. DNA is not a code, we impose a code onto it. DNA is a series of nucleotide base pairs connected by deoxyribose and a phosphate group, all controlled by intricate chemistry and biomechanisms. The fact that we can impose a code onto it and get something of use says nothing about design. DNA has explicit resemblances to code, but as we've established quite firmly, looking like something or being similar to something does not make you equivalent to something. DNA has many useful analogies to code. However, by any strict scientific definition, it is not a code. We impose a code onto it.

What is DNA?
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA. Most DNA is located in the cell nucleus (where it is called nuclear DNA), but a small amount of DNA can also be found in the mitochondria (where it is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA).

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

 

[Loudmouth]

this is even more hilarious.
this is EXACTLY what you are doing with the boxcar2d program.

What boxcar2d does is produce the appearance of design through evolutionary processes. This falsifies the claim that the appearance of design can only be the result of intelligent design.

 

[whois]

What boxcar2d does is produce the appearance of design through evolutionary processes. This falsifies the claim that the appearance of design can only be the result of intelligent design.

i tend to agree.
certain equations, fractals for example, gives very intricate patterns that some would say are designed.

the problem i have with boxcar2d is that it doesn't mimic the processes involved in biological evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

the problem i have with boxcar2d is that it doesn't mimic the processes involved in biological evolution.

It does. It uses random mutation and selection just as in biological evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have said no. Why would you need to ask? It is too simplistic, and if anything it shows how ID is necessary.

How exactly does it show that ID is necessary?

And keep in mind that the point of the pogram is the design of shapes being produced, not the track or the overall environment it evolves in.

And please... no wall of text with gish gallops.

Real focused and to the point: how exactly does it show that?
And make sure I can't use the exact same argument to "show" intelligent freezing.

(edit: correct formulation of above sentence)

How many selective probabilities were included in this program?

Please reformulate this question so that it makes sense. I don't really get what you are asking about.

The application generates a random population for generation 0.
"Random" meaning that it generates chromosomes with random values of various lengths.

The fitness test is rather simple: how far did it get on the track?
This gives individuals a score.

That score determines how likely the individual is to survive and reproduce.
Then it selects breeding pairs, with the top creatures having the most chances to find a mate and the bottom creatures the less chance.

To merge the chromosome to create off spring, merging strategies inspired by how it happens in DNA sequences are used.

The newly obtained chromosome is then mutated. The type of mutations are again inspired by how it happens in DNA. Values can be copied (= resulting in additional fixation points, additional polygons, additional wheels), values can be deleted (= removal of polygons, wheels, fixation points, etc), values can be changes (= wheels spin faster, shape of polygon changes, force of attachment changes,...) etc.

The type of mutation is random.
The place of mutation is random.

What is your question?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If it doesn't take that into account (of course it can't realistically) it is not a true reflection of evolution.

That's like saying that a freezer needs to be as big as the North Pole to demonstrate natural freezing.

DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions for the development and function of living things.

All known cellular life and some viruses contain DNA.

The main role of DNA in the cell is the long-term storage of information.

It is often compared to a blueprint, since it contains the instructions to construct other components of the cell, such as proteins and RNA molecules.

The DNA segments that carry genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the expression of genetic information. Emphasis mine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/dna.htm
DNA transcription...
These steps are:

1. Transcription - specialized proteins attach to the DNA strand and make a copy of the DNA sequence in the form of a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA).
2. The genetic message is transferred outside the nucleus via mRNA.
3. Translation - Cellular machinery reads the genetic instructions in the mRNA and synthesizes proteins.

the process of informing and the act of receiving...
Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.

The way DNA works on a chemical level is not what is simulated by a GA, nore is it relevant.

There must be heredity: check
There must be a type of genotype and fenotype: check
There must be random changes to said genotype: check
There must be a fitness test for the fenotype: check

Again: it's the evolutionary process.

It works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you see here anything that says that it reflects all elements of evolution?

Yes.

Heredity.
Mutation.
Natural Selection based on fitness.

All the elements of evolution.

It says above that it is inspired by, not that it is evolution because it isn't.

It's the evolutionary process.
GA were develop inspired by natural evolution.
GA is unnatural evolution.

Just like your freezer is engaging in unnatural freezing.

For crying out loud.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is it if someone disagrees with you they are either dishonest or lying? Do you know that disagreeing is not equal to lying?

This is not about mere disagreement.

This is about stating false things after they have been pointed out to be wrong.

GA's factually do not reflect the chemical, physical workings of DNA. They just don't.
What they reflect is the evolutionary process.

The evolutionary process is not the same as the actual physical workings of DNA.

The process is a set of principles.
These principles being mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

To then continue stating this falsehood is dishonest and lying.


The chromosome in a GA is analogous to DNA.
And that analogy only exists within the scope of having a genotype / fenotype specification, where the genotype can be mutated in some way.

You mutate the genotype and you subject the fenotype to a fitness test according to whatever selection pressures are important.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you understand that they are programs that are aided by intelligence? What is doing is showing that design comes with Intelligence.

Then freezers show intelligent freezing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i tend to agree.
certain equations, fractals for example, gives very intricate patterns that some would say are designed.

Fractals are not the same thing.
Those, I would say, are designed.
Since it's, in essence, just a deterministic formula.

the problem i have with boxcar2d is that it doesn't mimic the processes involved in biological evolution.

Except that it does.

What you are complaining about is that it doesn't reproduce the workings of chemistry and physics.

 

[whois]

What you are complaining about is that it doesn't reproduce the workings of chemistry and physics.

and the problem is?
when certain posters point to the fact that DNA is coded information, you zoom in there and say all DNA is, is chemistry and physics.
you are now no doubt going to say DNA has nothing to do with evolution.

do you ever step back and look at your posts before making them?

well, at least you gave me my first grin of the day!

 

[DogmaHunter]

and the problem is?

The problem is, like I explained 3 times already, that Genetic Algoritms aren't about that.

They are about the evolutionary process.

when certain posters point to the fact that DNA is coded information, you zoom in there and say all DNA is, is chemistry and physics.

Because it is.
The "information" part is what we impose upon it. It's not what it actually is.
Not in the sense of information found in a book or on a website.

But in the sense of "information" of how chemical reactions work.

you are now no doubt going to say DNA has nothing to do with evolution.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

The problem is that you are pretending that DNA is evolution. It's not. DNA is, in nature, subject to evolution.

do you ever step back and look at your posts before making them?

Do you ever step back, and try to understand what people are telling you?

well, at least you gave me my first grin of the day!

To bad it resulted in a grin and not in a lesson learned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How exactly does it show that ID is necessary?

And keep in mind that the point of the pogram is the design of shapes being produced, not the track or the overall environment it evolves in.

And please... no wall of text with gish gallops.

Real focused and to the point: how exactly does it show that?
And make sure I can't use the exact same argument to "show" intelligent freezing.

(edit: correct formulation of above sentence)


Please reformulate this question so that it makes sense. I don't really get what you are asking about.

The application generates a random population for generation 0.
"Random" meaning that it generates chromosomes with random values of various lengths.

The fitness test is rather simple: how far did it get on the track?
This gives individuals a score.

That score determines how likely the individual is to survive and reproduce.
Then it selects breeding pairs, with the top creatures having the most chances to find a mate and the bottom creatures the less chance.

To merge the chromosome to create off spring, merging strategies inspired by how it happens in DNA sequences are used.

The newly obtained chromosome is then mutated. The type of mutations are again inspired by how it happens in DNA. Values can be copied (= resulting in additional fixation points, additional polygons, additional wheels), values can be deleted (= removal of polygons, wheels, fixation points, etc), values can be changes (= wheels spin faster, shape of polygon changes, force of attachment changes,...) etc.

The type of mutation is random.
The place of mutation is random.

What is your question?

Lets take this from an angle that is very personal to you...When you code an algorithm, YOU tell it what to do. Without highly directed, thoughtful, intelligent input, all you do is make mistakes faster. GIGO, or “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. A machine never creates new information, but it performs a very valuable transformation of known information.

Biological systems are systems of information, meaningful information. All the meaningful information within a biological system can not be compressible. The biological evolutionary process is not compressible. In fact, the algorithm of evolution by natural selection (or any other unguided process) cannot produce any new information, including that contained in the DNA molecule. The GA which is a product of intelligent input of meaningful information shows and supports not only that intelligence is needed to have the program work but supports that intelligent input into evolution itself is supported.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's like saying that a freezer needs to be as big as the North Pole to demonstrate natural freezing.




The way DNA works on a chemical level is not what is simulated by a GA, nore is it relevant.

There must be heredity: check
There must be a type of genotype and fenotype: check
There must be random changes to said genotype: check
There must be a fitness test for the fenotype: check

Again: it's the evolutionary process.

It works.

Again:
Lets take this from an angle that is very personal to you...When you code an algorithm, YOU tell it what to do. Without highly directed, thoughtful, intelligent input, all you do is make mistakes faster. GIGO, or “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. A machine never creates new information, but it performs a very valuable transformation of known information.

Biological systems are systems of information, meaningful information. All the meaningful information within a biological system can not be compressible. The biological evolutionary process is not compressible. In fact, the algorithm of evolution by natural selection (or any other unguided process) cannot produce any new information, including that contained in the DNA molecule. The GA which is a product of intelligent input of meaningful information shows and supports not only that intelligence is needed to have the program work but supports that intelligent input into evolution itself is supported.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is not about mere disagreement.

This is about stating false things after they have been pointed out to be wrong.

GA's factually do not reflect the chemical, physical workings of DNA. They just don't.
What they reflect is the evolutionary process.

The evolutionary process is not the same as the actual physical workings of DNA.

The process is a set of principles.
These principles being mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

To then continue stating this falsehood is dishonest and lying.


The chromosome in a GA is analogous to DNA.
And that analogy only exists within the scope of having a genotype / fenotype specification, where the genotype can be mutated in some way.

You mutate the genotype and you subject the fenotype to a fitness test according to whatever selection pressures are important.

The point that they do not reflect the actual physical workings of DNA is part of the whole of what GA is missing. DNA is information and that information is central in all aspects of evolution whether that be a perfect copy, mutation, HGT or epigenetics and the error correction systems in biological forms. All of biology is information. The question about Evolution is how that information got there in the first place.

Without the preordained information set forth in the program, the program would not and could not even work. Intelligence is needed to provide the necessary information for the program. No new information is created. It aids in pointing out solutions with the information input provided.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it is.
The "information" part is what we impose upon it. It's not what it actually is.
Not in the sense of information found in a book or on a website.

But in the sense of "information" of how chemical reactions work.

We don't impose anything upon it. Do you think the information and instructions in DNA depend on us to impose its meaning?