Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Loudmouth]

The mechanisms of evolution (i.e. random mutation, selection, and speciation) were already established before we discovered DNA, as discussed by Mayr.

"By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."--Ernst Mayr, "80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5680/46.full

As you mention, all you need for a simulation of evolution is random changes in phenotype and selection. How that random change in phenotype is achieved is completely irrelevant to the process of evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lets take this from an angle that is very personal to you...

I'ld prefer you take it from the angle of the actual subject, but whatever

When you code an algorithm, YOU tell it what to do. Without highly directed, thoughtful, intelligent input, all you do is make mistakes faster.

While I agree that I am highly intelligent and thoughtful ( ), here's where you get lost in the quagmire of strawmen.

Yes, I tell it what to do, when I code software.

In the case of a GA, have you considered what it is exactly that I am telling it to do?

Make sure you sit down for this one...

I tell it to apply the process of natural evolution.

In nature this doesn't need to be done. Because nature....exists.

The program creates an environment. The only rules in that environment, are those that are required for natural evolution to occur.

I don't tell it to create some type of "deliberate design".
I tell it to apply evolution. The evolutionary algoritm does the designing.
The program is merely executing the algoritm.

Just like the freezer is merely withdrawing heat.
It's not the designer of the freezer that is "creating" or "designing" the ice inside.
It's not even the freezer. It's the environment the freezer creates. The environment is the executing force here.

That is the only point.

Evolution is the designer of species.
Just like evolution is the designer of the cars in boxcar2d.

And the designer of evolution is the environment in which evolution inevitably occurs when competing systems reproduce with variation and heredity.

The "appearance of design" is there because that is what evolution does.

I think you are log overdue to acknowledge this mega-obvious point.

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.

From this:

To this:

is not an "increase in information"?

 

[justlookinla]

As you mention, all you need for a simulation of evolution is random changes in phenotype and selection. How that random change in phenotype is achieved is completely irrelevant to the process of evolution.

How is the question to be answered in determining one's worldview of humanity. If one's 'how' is based on humanity being nothing more than an evolved sack of chemicals with littl inherent value, one can heartlessly take the life of a baby and dispose of it's parts to the highest bidder.

Of course that indicates a mindset, a worldview, that goes beyond the basis of Godless evolution.

 

[The Cadet]

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

...Well yeah, seeing as information is an abstract construct, and abstract constructs only ever exist in a mind, this is like saying a toaster never creates "2". Well, yeah, obviously. When we're talking about when we say that a program creates information is that the substrate, the thing we read the information into, is created. And you absolutely can write a program that creates the substrate for information. It's easy - here, let me show you:

while true {Print(Random(10))}

Boom, done. One line, and literally an infinite amount of substrate for us to read information into. You're speaking to one professional computer scientist and one guy who dropped out halfway through a computer science degree. Do yourself a favor - don't dismiss their opinions when talking about one of the most crucial issues in computer science. And consider maybe reading that thread I tagged you in, so you can stop making these mistakes.

Biological systems are systems of information, meaningful information.

What does "system of information" even mean? Biological systems are systems of chemicals. A system of information makes no sense when talking about an actual object, because information is an abstract.

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.

None of this follows and none of it makes any sense. We can easily further compress the information in DNA by using frame shifts to "double dip" on certain strings (as some organisms do). We could further compress it by using Huffman Coding, or any number of a number of other lossless compression algorithms. Wikipedia has like a 80; are you really going to claim that none are applicable? The idea that the algorithm cannot produce new information (or rather, new information substrate) is blatantly false; I have shown a few dozen papers that establish evolution doing exactly that. The mechanism behind these increases has been known for over 30 years. Why haven't you heard of it?

Again, you completely miss the point of the genetic algorithm, claiming that it requires intelligent input. Well, yeah. So does every controlled experiment ever. Does that mean that no controlled experiment can demonstrate natural processes? The process itself, within the simulation, does not require the intelligent input you want. It's a complete misunderstanding of what you're trying to refute, and the refrigerator analogy is completely accurate.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'ld prefer you take it from the angle of the actual subject, but whatever



While I agree that I am highly intelligent and thoughtful ( ), here's where you get lost in the quagmire of strawmen.

Yes, I tell it what to do, when I code software.

In the case of a GA, have you considered what it is exactly that I am telling it to do?

Make sure you sit down for this one...

I tell it to apply the process of natural evolution.

In nature this doesn't need to be done. Because nature....exists.

The program creates an environment. The only rules in that environment, are those that are required for natural evolution to occur.

I don't tell it to create some type of "deliberate design".
I tell it to apply evolution. The evolutionary algoritm does the designing.
The program is merely executing the algoritm.

Just like the freezer is merely withdrawing heat.
It's not the designer of the freezer that is "creating" or "designing" the ice inside.
It's not even the freezer. It's the environment the freezer creates. The environment is the executing force here.

That is the only point.

Evolution is the designer of species.
Just like evolution is the designer of the cars in boxcar2d.

And the designer of evolution is the environment in which evolution inevitably occurs when competing systems reproduce with variation and heredity.

The "appearance of design" is there because that is what evolution does.

I think you are log overdue to acknowledge this mega-obvious point.


From this:

View attachment 161771

To this:

View attachment 161773


is not an "increase in information"?

Genetic algorithms are not perfect evolutionary simulations in that they have a predefined goal which is used to compute fitness. They demonstrate the power of random variation, recombination, and selection to produce novel solutions to problems, but they are not a full simulation of evolution (and are not intended to be).

 

[The Cadet]

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

Um... Yes? Because information is an abstract construct that only exists in the mind? This is not a hard concept. DNA is a bunch of freakin' molecules! There's not "information" there. The Ribosome isn't peering over its newsprint of DNA, saying, "Oh yes, that pattern means we should make taurine," it's performing a very complex chemical interaction; akin to hydrolysis if it spent a few decades at university.

Genetic algorithms are not perfect evolutionary simulations in that they have a predefined goal which is used to compute fitness. They demonstrate the power of random variation, recombination, and selection to produce novel solutions to problems, but they are not a full simulation of evolution (and are not intended to be).

They don't have to be. The parts that they simulate disprove your design inference.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...Well yeah, seeing as information is an abstract construct, and abstract constructs only ever exist in a mind, this is like saying a toaster never creates "2". Well, yeah, obviously. When we're talking about when we say that a program creates information is that the substrate, the thing we read the information into, is created. And you absolutely can write a program that creates the substrate for information. It's easy - here, let me show you:

while true {Print(Random(10))}

Boom, done. One line, and literally an infinite amount of substrate for us to read information into. You're speaking to one professional computer scientist and one guy who dropped out halfway through a computer science degree. Do yourself a favor - don't dismiss their opinions when talking about one of the most crucial issues in computer science. And consider maybe reading that thread I tagged you in, so you can stop making these mistakes.



What does "system of information" even mean? Biological systems are systems of chemicals. A system of information makes no sense when talking about an actual object, because information is an abstract.



None of this follows and none of it makes any sense. We can easily further compress the information in DNA by using frame shifts to "double dip" on certain strings (as some organisms do). We could further compress it by using Huffman Coding, or any number of a number of other lossless compression algorithms. Wikipedia has like a 80; are you really going to claim that none are applicable? The idea that the algorithm cannot produce new information (or rather, new information substrate) is blatantly false; I have shown a few dozen papers that establish evolution doing exactly that. The mechanism behind these increases has been known for over 30 years. Why haven't you heard of it?

Again, you completely miss the point of the genetic algorithm, claiming that it requires intelligent input. Well, yeah. So does every controlled experiment ever. Does that mean that no controlled experiment can demonstrate natural processes? The process itself, within the simulation, does not require the intelligent input you want. It's a complete misunderstanding of what you're trying to refute, and the refrigerator analogy is completely accurate.

You seem to be unaware of how biologists disagree with you.

To manufacture protein molecules, a cell must first transfer information from DNA to mRNA through the process of transcription. Then, a process called translation uses this mRNA as a template for protein assembly. In fact, this flow of information from DNA to RNA and finally to protein is considered the central dogma of genetics, and it is the starting point for understanding the function of the genetic information in DNA.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-information-in-dna-determines-cellular-function-6523228

This department was only recently established, with the aim of providing a synthesis of biological science and technology for the exploration of new frontiers in bio-pharmaceutical research and development. Emphasis is placed on the study of biological information, such as genetic information, intra- and inter- molecular and cellular signal transduction, electric-chemical signal conversion in nervous systems, and biomass-ecosystem interfaces. The elucidation of new fundamental principles and innovative applications stemming from studies in these fields are expected to provide a significant contribution to the solution of critical problems facing human beings in the twenty-first century.
http://www.bio.titech.ac.jp/english/research/en_grad/bi/index.html

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um... Yes? Because information is an abstract construct that only exists in the mind? This is not a hard concept. DNA is a bunch of freakin' molecules! There's not "information" there. The Ribosome isn't peering over its newsprint of DNA, saying, "Oh yes, that pattern means we should make taurine," it's performing a very complex chemical interaction; akin to hydrolysis if it spent a few decades at university.

They don't have to be. The parts that they simulate disprove your design inference.[/QUOTE]

What does DNA do?
DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.

Each DNA sequence that contains instructions to make a protein is known as a gene. The size of a gene may vary greatly, ranging from about 1,000 bases to 1 million bases in humans. Genes only make up about 1 percent of the DNA sequence. DNA sequences outside this 1 percent are involved in regulating when, how and how much of a protein is made.

Top of page

How are DNA sequences used to make proteins?
DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins.
https://www.genome.gov/25520880

 

[The Cadet]

You seem to be unaware of how biologists disagree with you.

To manufacture protein molecules, a cell must first transfer information from DNA to mRNA through the process of transcription. Then, a process called translation uses this mRNA as a template for protein assembly. In fact, this flow of information from DNA to RNA and finally to protein is considered the central dogma of genetics, and it is the starting point for understanding the function of the genetic information in DNA.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-information-in-dna-determines-cellular-function-6523228

This department was only recently established, with the aim of providing a synthesis of biological science and technology for the exploration of new frontiers in bio-pharmaceutical research and development. Emphasis is placed on the study of biological information, such as genetic information, intra- and inter- molecular and cellular signal transduction, electric-chemical signal conversion in nervous systems, and biomass-ecosystem interfaces. The elucidation of new fundamental principles and innovative applications stemming from studies in these fields are expected to provide a significant contribution to the solution of critical problems facing human beings in the twenty-first century.
http://www.bio.titech.ac.jp/english/research/en_grad/bi/index.html

Hey, wanna bet that if we emailed the authors of those respective sources, they'd basically say, "Wow, that person is completely misinterpreting our research and taking this analogy in a way that is absolutely not appropriate"? You are mistaking an analogy used to make the concept more approachable for the object itself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey, wanna bet that if we emailed the authors of those respective sources, they'd basically say, "Wow, that person is completely misinterpreting our research and taking this analogy in a way that is absolutely not appropriate"? You are mistaking an analogy used to make the concept more approachable for the object itself.

Hey, wanna bet that if we emailed the authors of those respective sources, they'd basically say, "Wow, that person is completely misinterpreting our research and taking this analogy in a way that is absolutely not appropriate"? You are mistaking an analogy used to make the concept more approachable for the object itself.

So in the same vein, are not our thoughts according to ToE just chemical reactions? If information is not information since it is just chemical in nature your thoughts as well are just results of chemical reaction and none of the "information" you hold is actually information and thus has no relationship to right or truth. This refutes your position as your position is one that prevents information being shared between the two of us due to "information" being nothing but chemical reactions.

 

[justlookinla]

So in the same vein, are not our thoughts according to ToE just chemical reactions? If information is not information since it is just chemical in nature your thoughts as well are just results of chemical reaction and none of the "information" you hold is actually information and thus has no relationship to right or truth. This refutes your position as your position is one that prevents information being shared between the two of us due to "information" being nothing but chemical reactions.

Survival of the fittest chemicals?

 

[lesliedellow]

So in the same vein, are not our thoughts according to ToE just chemical reactions?

I suppose it is only to be expected of a creationist that he doesn't know the difference between ToE and neuroscience.

If information is not information since it is just chemical in nature your thoughts as well are just results of chemical reaction and none of the "information" you hold is actually information and thus has no relationship to right or truth.

The data stored in our brain is stored in some kind of physical substrate, and both biochemistry and biophysics will doubtless have a role in describing how information is stored. Thoughts must also correspond to physical processes acting upon that stored information, and they can lead to conclusions which may be either true or false.

This refutes your position as your position is one that prevents information being shared between the two of us due to "information" being nothing but chemical reactions.

The fact that information in a computer is "nothing but" magnetised areas on a hard disk does not prevent that information being shared.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I suppose it is only to be expected of a creationist that he doesn't know the difference between ToE and neuroscience.

First of all I am female. Secondly, do you think that our neural make up is different from any other product of evolution?

The data stored in our brain is stored in some kind of physical substrate, and both biochemistry and biophysics will doubtless have a role in describing how information is stored. Thoughts must also correspond to physical processes acting upon that stored information, and they can lead to conclusions which may be either true or false.

What information? There is no information according to Cadet.

The fact that information in a computer is "nothing but" magnetised areas on a hard disk does not prevent that information being shared.

Do you think that information on a computer is equivalent to that information in a human brain or in a cell?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Survival of the fittest chemicals?

Must be.

 

[justlookinla]

Must be.

Honestly, they don't even comprehend what they're saying.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Honestly, they don't even comprehend what they're saying.

Reasonable and rational argumentation is necessitated through a freedom of thought and recognition of mind, mind not brain. If they are just a brain, how can they?

 

[justlookinla]

Reasonable and rational argumentation is necessitated through a freedom of thought and recognition of mind, mind not brain. If they are just a brain, how can they?

And, it's just a life form obeying evolved chemical reactions. In a sense, they do not exist except as an illusion in their own mind.

 

[lesliedellow]

First of all I am female. Secondly, do you think that our neural make up is different from any other product of evolution?

No it isn't, but Evolution says nothing about how information is stored in our brains. It is a theory about how species evolved, and nothing more than that.

What information? There is no information according to Cadet.

Then cadet is wrong. It is like saying that a book contains no information, because it is "nothing but" ink on a physical substrate (the paper).

Do you think that information on a computer is equivalent to that information in a human brain or in a cell?

In principle yes. A string of letters A, C, T and G, representing a gene, would encode the same information as the gene itself, and both could in principle be used to build a protein. One day that might actually happen, if it hasn't already.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And, it's just a life form obeying evolved chemical reactions. In a sense, they do not exist except as an illusion in their own mind.

The materialist lives in a world of illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No it isn't, but Evolution says nothing about how information is stored in our brains. It is a theory about how species evolved, and nothing more that that.

Information has to be relegated to chemicals to make sure there is no need for God to be the arbitrator of that information.

Then cadet is wrong. It is like saying that a book contains no information, because it is "nothing but" ink on a physical substrate (the paper).

I agree.

In principle yes. A string of letters A, C, T and G, representing a gene, would encode the same information as the gene itself, and both could in principle be used to build a protein. One day that might actually happen, if it hasn't already.

And what would that do in actuality?