Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

In this process, bacteria become bacteria, finches become finches and moths become moths.

Just like evolution predicts.

Same ole same ole.

Indeed, same ole, same ole....

The "evidence" you demand to see for evolution is in reality evidence that would actually falsify evolution.

That's the level of dishonesty we deal with here.

It's ridiculous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They're not. They'll offer the same evidence that Dawkins offered for the illusion of design......nothing.

Nothing.

You people lie.

Generation 0:

After plenty of generations subject to the blind process of evolution:

Appearance of design, but no actual design.

This nonsens is refuted. There's no denying it.
So why continue to deny it?

What do you hope to accomplish?

But whatever, by all means.... continue to spread falsehoods, misrepresentations and lies.
I'll be there, pointing it out.

 

[The Cadet]

No it is completely relevant to the argument we are having because the same physical chemical reactions that you claim are not information are the same that our thoughts are suppose to be produced by. Thus, if chemical reactions as you have implied have no semantic meaning our brains can hold no semantic meaning or information either. Either DNA holds semantic meaning and information and so does our brain or both don't but you can't have DNA having no information and our brains having it

The fact that we have not solved the problem of consciousness does nothing to negate the fact that we ostensibly have consciousness. We have a brain, and whether that brain is an emergent property of the molecules or something else has no impact on our ability to understand abstract concepts!

When we write down 2+2=4 we are conveying a message in written form that has meaning..two objects plus two objects makes four objects. That meaning is conveyed by written language. We understand it because it is a message given by intent for a purpose.

So if I didn't know anything about math or mathematical conventions, I would recognize the intent and purpose? If I didn't know anything about language, I'd recognize writing for what it was because of the intent and purpose?

No, of course not. We understand it because of shared linguistic and written conventions. When you write down "2+2=4", I understand it because you produced something which I am meant to understand by the typical linguistic conventions. We are trained to recognize this from a very young age, and often take it for granted, but it is not a given, any more than it is a given that someone who grew up knowing nothing about the national park system would recognize the blue paint markings denoting the path on Mount Desert Island. There is intent and purpose, but if by some bizarre coincidence, something else spelled out "2+2=4" with no intent or purpose, you'd still recognize it. And this is kind of a problem for your theory.

We understand it because it is written down in a language that conveys messages given by intent to share (purpose) and communicate something. One of the properties of language is that it contains and transmits information.

By and formal definition of information, language does not transmit information, because you cannot transmit information. You are transmitting a substrate that other people lay a cipher over to gain an abstract concept. This would become blatantly obvious if I gave you a recipe for cream pie in Swahili - without getting someone else to reinterpret the substrate or learning the cipher yourself, you'll never figure out what my grampy's secret ingredient is. Which, given the weird taste of his pies, is probably a good thing.

By any formal definition of language, DNA is language. The DNA molecule itself is an encoding-decoding system that transmits reproducible information.
It has the four characteristics of language… alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent….and it can be copied and stored on other media without losing information.

DNA does not have intent in the way intent is meant for language. This is exactly the same conflation you made with "purpose" earlier. Intent in this case implies that the mind that made the language means for it to accomplish something. You're still completely misunderstanding how information is defined in science.

Information has always been created with intent. Language is the method in which information is communicated. There are no examples of information being created without intent. We have NEVER seen language or a code coming from anything other than a mind...NEVER. There are no exceptions.

You can either define languages as only ever coming from a mind, or you can claim that DNA is a language. If you want to get both, you have to demonstrate that DNA actually fits that definition. Because as far as we know, there is no mind that could have produced the chemical structure of DNA. Once again, you're putting the cart before the horse.

Great if it is blind evolution and IS EVOLUTION, then provide evidence in nature of this appearance of design that is created in the artificial program. Give us for instance how the cell's systems were evolved from simpler form and show it evolve into the cell that has the appearance of design.

The human eye.

The fact that you don't understand the evidence for evolution does not mean that it isn't there.

 

[FredVB]

I am not reducing the understanding of design without evolution to simplicity as saying

In this process, bacteria become bacteria, finches become finches and moths become moths.

Finches are finches, and with all the variety among them, I don't expect evidence of other creatures that are not finchs coming from them or any other creatures that are direct ancestors. But there are different kinds of moths that I don't believe descend from one another or all have the same ancestors. I am sure that the bacteria are many kinds. Different species coming from the same kind are absolutely possible from variation and genetic drift, even without evolution. I see that evidenced with breeding possible between species, it is done with some trees of related species, for instance. In some cases what would be considered different genera might come from the same kind. There can be good evidence of such in those cases. But I doubt greatly that any such kind includes what are classified as different families, and I don't expect such good evidence that shows common descent for any of such a family with another. Design, which I definitely see, has great variation possible, without evolution without any design producing more from it.

 

[whois]

the boxcar2d program in no way models biomolecular evolution.

another typical example that gets attention is the "evolution" of computers, from the abacus to the supercomputers of today.
this analogy doesn't even come close to biomolecular evolution.

granted, the boxcar2d program might indeed model some of the concepts of evolution, but it models none of the mechanisms.

 

[whois]

I am not reducing the understanding of design without evolution to simplicity as saying

Finches are finches, and with all the variety among them, I don't expect evidence of other creatures that are not finchs coming from them or any other creatures that are direct ancestors. But there are different kinds of moths that I don't believe descend from one another or all have the same ancestors. I am sure that the bacteria are many kinds. Different species coming from the same kind are absolutely possible from variation and genetic drift, even without evolution. I see that evidenced with breeding possible between species, it is done with some trees of related species, for instance. In some cases what would be considered different genera might come from the same kind. There can be good evidence of such in those cases. But I doubt greatly that any such kind includes what are classified as different families, and I don't expect such good evidence that shows common descent for any of such a family with another. Design, which I definitely see, has great variation possible, without evolution without any design producing more from it.

the word design can be misleading.
google mandelbox on youtube and look at the intricate designs.
then go to the wikipage for mandelbox and see how they are created.
nothing but an equation, albeit a complex one, but an equation nonetheless.
chemistry also follows equations, so it's not hard for me to see how this stuff can appear to be designed.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution is a framework into which theories can be plugged, such as how the eye developed, or how organisms first acquired a nervous system.

In certain views of evolution, the guess is the framework which produced all life we observe today, from a single life form of long ago, is a framework of solely naturalistic mechanisms.

It's not a framework based on the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

Just like evolution predicts.

The problem is that certain views of evolution will take bacterica becoming bacteria, ect, ect, and claim that a life form of long ago produced both the pine tree and elephant by the Darwinist creation mantra. There's no scientific evidence for the Darwinist creation mantra proposing how all life we observe today was created (not abiogenesis).

Indeed, same ole, same ole....

The "evidence" you demand to see for evolution is in reality evidence that would actually falsify evolution.

That's the level of dishonesty we deal with here.

It's ridiculous.

There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, that all life we observe today was created by the Darwinist creation mantra of yours.

 

[justlookinla]

You people lie.

Generation 0:

View attachment 161836

After plenty of generations subject to the blind process of evolution:

View attachment 161837

Appearance of design, but no actual design.

This nonsens is refuted. There's no denying it.
So why continue to deny it?

What do you hope to accomplish?

But whatever, by all means.... continue to spread falsehoods, misrepresentations and lies.
I'll be there, pointing it out.

Well, back to the usual 'yer a liar' behavior we see frequently from you. Little substance, no evidence and wild faith based claims of yours are exposed and you get somewhat angry.

So typical.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's not a framework based on the scientific method.

It is a framework which fits the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This excludes DNA. There is no "communicating" there. There is only chemistry.

There is only chemistry in all living things. The communication in all living things including us depends on the chemical reactions that you claim are not communicating.

The program itself is not the point.
The output of the program is. Not the program itself.

Get. It. In. Your. Head.

I already showed you black on white, demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, that the process of evolution is MORE THEN CAPABLE of producing the appearance of design.

The fact that design is accomplished by the blind process of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

No "minds" are selecting for or against mutations.
No "minds" are determining what to mutate.
No "minds" are determining what type of mutation should or will take place.
No "minds" are involved whatsoever in this proces

Design is literally evolved through a blind process.

This is you, not able to acknowledge a mega-obvious point.

I'm done.

I have explained it time and again, I have linked you to tutorials on GA's, I have shown you practical applications that you could check out yourself easily.

Dogma, first of all you are not understanding what these programs vs. real evolution encompasses. Let me show you that what I am saying is not just me not understanding but it is a lack of your understanding what is missing in the program in regards to actual evolution.

Gerson Flavio Mendes de Lima · CGW USA LLC
Genetic Algorithms were invented to mimic some of the processes observed in natural evolution. Many people, biologists included, are astonished that life at the level of complexity that we observe could have evolved in the relatively short time suggested by the fossil record. The idea with GA is to use this power of evolution to solve optimization problems. The father of the original Genetic Algorithm was John Holland who invented it in the early 1970's.

GAs are adaptive heuristic search algorithm based on the evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetics. As such they represent an intelligent exploitation of a random search used to solve optimization problems. Although randomised, GAs are by no means random, instead they exploit historical information to direct the search into the region of better performance within the search space. The basic techniques of the GAs are designed to simulate processes in natural systems necessary for evolution, specially those follow the principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of "survival of the fittest.". Since in nature, competition among individuals for scanty resources results in the fittest individuals dominating over the weaker ones.

Why Genetic Algorithms?
It is better than conventional AI in that it is more robust. Unlike older AI systems, they do not break easily even if the inputs changed slightly, or in the presence of reasonable noise. Also, in searching a large state-space, multi-modal state-space, or n-dimensional surface, a genetic algorithm may offer significant benefits over more typical search of optimization techniques. (linear programming, heuristic, depth-first, breath-first, and praxis.) ...

Mahamad Nabab Alam · Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
All metaheuristic algorithms are not cent per cent analogous to its inspired one. While converting a thought into programming we need to do many assumptions. In these assumptions some actual processes are missed and some artificial logical processes are added to ease of programming. But the main process remains very close to its inspired one.

That's why, the main process of genetic algorithm is very similar to biological evolution but some process are not similar to biological one.

All emphasis mine.

You continue to drown in your own willful ignorance.

It is your ignorance of biological evolution and its mechanisms and other factors that affect it which makes you "believe" that this is "really" evolution. It isn't. It isn't from ignorance that I take the position I take, it is from the known elements that do not exist in this program which would prohibit it from being "actual biological evolution".

It's just sad and embarassing at this point.

I agree, but you could try to research evolution more to find out why this is not a true representation of evolution.

I provided practical applications of the process of natural evolution.
I literally completely refuted your assertion that "design only comes from a mind".

No. It does not. It can also come from the blind process of evolution.

You chose to ignore the evidence (and, I would argue, deliberatly lie about it).
Your choice.

You are seriously coming close to being reported. Your ignorance on the subject of evolution is the problem and it is a true shame that you don't even understand that. Another thing, an artificial program without all the factors and elements that affect life from the adaptations/mutations, HGT, and convergent evolution alone refutes your argument for the programs without even getting into the mutation rates, population size, and search states that are involved. All you can do is claim, without anything to support it I might add is your favorite mantra...
It's just the blind process of:
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat

No, just getting really bored of having to explain simple things over and over and over again without result.

Maybe you should try listening sometime.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, back to the usual 'yer a liar' behavior we see frequently from you. Little substance, no evidence and wild faith based claims of yours are exposed and you get somewhat angry.

So typical.

I agree 100%. He doesn't understand the nuances of evolution, doesn't seem to understand that GA's are not actually able to mimic all the factors and elements that would need to be factored into such a program if even it could mimic evolution to represent it fully and the fact that they are not viewed to be actual evolution but to use to find solutions to some problems in the area of biological evolution. Then he gets angry that we don't agree and disagreeing to him is lying. Everytime...we must all be liars if we don't buy into his materialistic atheistic views.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is a framework which fits the evidence.

Does it? Or does the theory flex to fit the evidence?

 

[lesliedellow]

Does it? Or does the theory flex to fit the evidence?

Theories are allowed to flex in order to accommodate new evidence. They are not allowed to become bent out of shape, with all the special pleading that so characterizes creationism

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fact that we have not solved the problem of consciousness does nothing to negate the fact that we ostensibly have consciousness. We have a brain, and whether that brain is an emergent property of the molecules or something else has no impact on our ability to understand abstract concepts!

Do our thoughts and the communication of those thoughts require chemical reactions in the brain? Yes or no?

So if I didn't know anything about math or mathematical conventions, I would recognize the intent and purpose? If I didn't know anything about language, I'd recognize writing for what it was because of the intent and purpose?[/Quote]
So language is not language of we don't personally understand it. IF we don't know that two objects and two objects are four it means that there is no language to represent that equation? You do realize that is pretty unrealistic.

No, of course not. We understand it because of shared linguistic and written conventions. When you write down "2+2=4", I understand it because you produced something which I am meant to understand by the typical linguistic conventions. We are trained to recognize this from a very young age, and often take it for granted, but it is not a given, any more than it is a given that someone who grew up knowing nothing about the national park system would recognize the blue paint markings denoting the path on Mount Desert Island. There is intent and purpose, but if by some bizarre coincidence, something else spelled out "2+2=4" with no intent or purpose, you'd still recognize it. And this is kind of a problem for your theory.

The way we understand it is due to the symbols or signs or words or letters that we use to convey information, yet the informational concept regardless of symbol is still mathematical and still information whether or not we have the "right" language to understand it or not. Information is conveyed when sender and receiver understand the message being transmitted. If I don't know french and I am with two french men and they are discussing the world economy, I won't know what they are saying...they still are conveying information from sender to receiver. I am out of the loop only because I don't know the language but it is regardless information and language.

By and formal definition of information, language does not transmit information, because you cannot transmit information. You are transmitting a substrate that other people lay a cipher over to gain an abstract concept. This would become blatantly obvious if I gave you a recipe for cream pie in Swahili - without getting someone else to reinterpret the substrate or learning the cipher yourself, you'll never figure out what my grampy's secret ingredient is. Which, given the weird taste of his pies, is probably a good thing.

The information is grampy's secret ingredient, it doesn't matter whether or not YOU or I understand it...the information is still there in actuality. The language is the way the information is transmitted. I knowing Swahili (not really) means that information is available to me. It is not an abstract concept it is molasses or ginger or whatever it is a real bit of information of a real thing.

DNA does not have intent in the way intent is meant for language. This is exactly the same conflation you made with "purpose" earlier. Intent in this case implies that the mind that made the language means for it to accomplish something. You're still completely misunderstanding how information is defined in science.

Information is information. Information in science is the same as information in history. If you wish to make up your own definitions then fine, but the rest of the world might not agree. Shannon's theory of information makes nonsense and meaning the same thing. That is not really representative of the real world.

You can either define languages as only ever coming from a mind, or you can claim that DNA is a language. If you want to get both, you have to demonstrate that DNA actually fits that definition. Because as far as we know, there is no mind that could have produced the chemical structure of DNA. Once again, you're putting the cart before the horse.

Well, we have to look at things with a rational mind and understand that DNA if it fits the requirements of information and language and there is no evidence of any natural occurring process that can give rise to this information which makes more sense...coming from a mind or coming from mindless matter? My choice I feel is much more rational than yours.

The human eye.

Stories, may haves, might have and could have is not evidence.

The fact that you don't understand the evidence for evolution does not mean that it isn't there.

No, the fact that you haven't provided any means it isn't there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Theories are allowed to flex in order to accommodate new evidence. They are not allowed to become bent out of shape, with all the special pleading that so characterizes creationism

Ok, what is creationism? What special pleading do you see me making?

 

[The Cadet]

Stories, may haves, might have and could have is not evidence.

I'm just gonna +1 DogmaHunter's last post. This is a complete waste of time. You fail or refuse to understand incredibly simple concepts.

Your problem is that you are relying on natural observations to explain a super-natural event.

Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to rely on supernatural explanations? You know, all of the ones we've ever been privy to? -_-

the boxcar2d program in no way models biomolecular evolution.

IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.

 

[justlookinla]

It is a framework which fits the evidence.

There is no evidence for the particular evolutionary framework that all of life is the result of solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago. The framework of guesses and suppositions isn't evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

of life is the result of solely naturalistic mechanisms

The Theory of Evolution says nothing about whether or not there is divine causality in the background. It does say that there is a clearly discernable family tree of the species which have evolved over time.

 

[justlookinla]

The Theory of Evolution says nothing about whether or not there is divine causality in the background. It does say that there is a clearly discernable family tree of the species which have evolved over time.

Darwinist evolution certainly limits the causality of all life we observe today to solely naturalistic mechanisms. There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view. As I pointed out earlier, guesses and suppositions do not equate to evidence.