Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you can't bring yourself to having an intellectually honest discussion, then simply don't comment.
Nobody here is claiming anything about actual snowplows.
The designs produced by GA's are very real.
You don't plan for the result no. You misunderstand or refuse to accept what we are trying to say.The fact that the process itself was designed does not mean the process is not blind. If I design an algorithm that produces random shapes, I did not plan for the result. Even if I then take those random shapes, value them in accordance to a certain metric, then bang the highest-value ones together in a certain way to produce more shapes like that.
You claimed that this program SHOWS the appearance of design in the way that it is shown in living organisms. Now how do you determine that?See, this is why we need objective criteria. Because otherwise, this happens. People just deny that something which obviously appears designed actually appears designed, and say it's some kind of illusion that wasn't actually designed. I'm sure that objective model of how to determine whether something "looks designed" is going to be forthcoming any minute now.
Aaaaaaany minute now.
Actually I pretty much do. I could program a beginners one, if I set my mind to it. It doesn't matter. It is reflective of true evolution and that is the real issue. Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.You don't know what an evolutionary algorithm is or how it works.
I haven't implied that any of the above are planned. You misunderstand my objections to the GA. They incorporate intelligence in the program by the knowledge we put into them, that is one issue and although they are random this is based on optimization.
Secondly and most importantly, it is not a true representation of biological evolution. That is where you are not understanding the issue.
A recent article in Nature reminded me of the importance of definitions. The article discusses evolution and evolutionary algorithms in a special issue on machine learning (Eiben and Smith, 2015). I think we all know that "evolutionary" algorithms are based on natural selection and we all know that there's more to evolution than just adaptation. It's too late to change the name of these procedures in computer science but at the very least I expect computer scientists to be aware of the difference between their procedures and real evolution.
In this paper, there's a section on "how evolutionary computation compares with natural evolution." The authors consistently use "evolution" as a synonym for "selection" or "adaptation" and they seem to be unaware of any other mechanism of evolution.
In one sense, it's okay to conflate "evolution" and "adaptation" in computer science but if that error reflects and perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of real biological evolution then perhaps it's time to rename these algorithms "adpatation algorithms."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/06/evolutioanary-algorithms-are-really.html
Learn about evolution.
Define intelligence in the context of this sentence.I haven't implied that any of the above are planned. You misunderstand my objections to the GA. They incorporate intelligence in the program
Fine, provide the natural evidence that a simpler form evolved into the cell of the most simple form on earth, the bacteria. Show that simpler form and how like the GA it forms bit by bit into the cell of a bacteria.Which is an invalid objections.
As I have explained.
And the explanation is simply: according to that logic, every single scientific experiment is invalid. Because every experiment must be "set up", using intelligence.
And that's also why I keep coming back to the freezer.
Building a freezer requires intelligence as well.
You are just extremely mistaken about what this means (or rather: does NOT mean).
It is a true representation of the process of evolution.
That's another distinction that you don't comprehend.
It's funny, because this is incorporated in GA's.
In the field of GA, there are several selection strategies possible.
One of them is to only breed exclusively with the top X individuals in terms of fitness.
There are strategies, where this is more probability based.
Meaning that less fit creatures also have a chance of reproducing and thus passing on their genes.
There's nothing in there that contradicts anything I have said.
Nothing stops you from introducing additional mechanisms to GA to further mimmic actual natural evolution.
Meanwhile, the core principles of the process are what they are.
Computer programmer.Define intelligence in the context of this sentence.
Well, that's kinda the point. It's more than just looking at a shape and claiming design
So, the shape LOOKS LIKE a snowplow (I think it looks like a Bobcat loader), so what?
Computer programmer.
It's funny, because that was exactly the point that I had when bringing up GA's.
Particularly, oncedeceived claiming that it's okay to conclude design simply by "looking and claiming design cause it looks designed".
Clearly, it doesn't work that way.
Clearly, oncedeceived was wrong in claiming that.
"So what"?
It's a direct refutation of oncedeceived's claims.
Following the "logic" of once, this thing looking like and working like a snowplow should mean that someone deliberatly designed it to look and work like a snowplow.
But that's not what produced this snowplow-like shape.
A blind process produced that shape.
The same blind process that living things are subject to....
Fine, provide the natural evidence that a simpler form evolved into the cell of the most simple form on earth, the bacteria. Show that simpler form and how like the GA it forms bit by bit into the cell of a bacteria.
...Okay now this is just getting ridiculous. First you shift the burden of proof. Then we bring up an example to try to demonstrate why your poorly-defined idea which you never demonstrated to begin with is wrong, and you shift the burdne of proof again in such a way that relies on us understanding your poorly-defined idea. With all due respect, at this point you really need to reflect on your refusals to demonstrate your ideas and why it's so necessary to shift the burden to us.You claimed that this program SHOWS the appearance of design in the way that it is shown in living organisms. Now how do you determine that?
You claimed that this program SHOWS the appearance of design in the way that it is shown in living organisms. Now how do you determine that?
pointing to common ancestry.
common ancestry happened.
Computer programmer.
I don't believe that Once is claiming design simply because it 'looks' designed.
Conversely, Dawkins did claim illusion of design because.....well.....he nor anyone else has yet given evidence for illusion of design.
It's NOT a snowplow!
You are a master at simplistic thought.
The ole 'common ancestry' attempt at a switcheroo. Address the HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago.
It certainly seems like that is exactly what she is claiming.
She can always clear that up by providing an actual objective way to test for the "appearance of design".
FYI: the word "appearance" in "appearance of design" kind implies that that is exactly what she means: "it looks designed".
View attachment 161957
That is what Dawkins etc are talking about.
It appears deliberately designed specifically to clear a track of rubble.
But this appearance is an illusion.
It wasn't deliberatly designed to do that. It evolved to do that.
I never said it was. Stop with that strawman already.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?