Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

He doesn't. Evolution is whichever story they want to tell on whichever day they tell it. Which one of the 20 different theories is true about how life started? Which particular one do you subscribe to? Or do you choose all of them so that you can change your story day-by-day?

Evolution doesn't address the origins of life.

You might want to read up on some basics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ah...."mainstream scientist".

Yes.

Problem?

 

[DogmaHunter]

http://s65.photobucket.com/user/papa_giorgio/media/GIFS/FinalIronyMeter.gif.html

GA's aren't the product of the blind algorithm is not reflective of evolution and is dependent upon knowledge from the programmer.

The GA is not the product of the blind algorithm.
The GA itself is the blind algorithm.

It blindly produces designs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

irrelevant.
flight simulators fall into the same category as GA's.

the space shuttle test flights were ALL made by computer simulation except 2.
the first such test was when she was released from a 747 and glided back to landing.
even this test was completely controlled by a computer.
the second fight was manned by crippen and young and was a full blown manned flight from launch to touch down.
the above was made possible by programming into the computer ALL of the variables, processes, and characteristics of the shuttle and the environment it would operate in.
contrast this with the mercury, gemini, and apollo program, where dozens of flights using actual hardware was made to validate the rocket.

So, after all this time...
After 40+ pages of going back and forward on this....

You still haven't figured out how GA's actually work?

For crying out loud...

the problem with GA's is . . . i've never seen one.
if there is indeed such a thing, i would like to see a link to it.

http://boxcar2d.com/about.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Read and educate yourself.
No, flight simulators (or indeed any such simulator) do not qualify as a "genetic algoritm".

Good grief...

 

[whois]

http://boxcar2d.com/about.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

we have already determined boxcar2d does not simulate the accumulation of genes, transposons, hgt, nor epigenetics.
as for wiki, i am interested in the simulation of evolution by computer program that simulates ALL the processes involved, not just a select few that gives the results you want it to give.

No, flight simulators (or indeed any such simulator) do not qualify as a "genetic algoritm".

a simulator is a simulator is a simulator, be it for a pair of dice or the formation of galaxies.

 

[whois]

1. Calling it "unsolvable" is, again, just your (irrelevant) opinion

actually it's the (irrelevant) opinion of eugene koonin.
apparently your highly touted GA algorithm isn't "all that".
unless of course you want to concede the origins of life doesn't deal with genetics.

 

[WordList]

actually it is not even close to infinite.

Not a phrase I'd expect from anyone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[whois]

Not a phrase I'd expect from anyone who knows what they're talking about.

computer memory is not like the number line in that you can just add more locations.
another thing you seem to be forgetting is that not all combinations are going to be valid.
filling a computer memory with random ones and zeroes for example will not give valid results.
this stuff MUST be ordered.
also, when comparing this with DNA you cannot "switch out" code segments like dogmahunter suggests.

 

[WordList]

computer memory is not like the number line in that you can just add more locations.
another thing you seem to be forgetting is that not all combinations are going to be valid.
filling a computer memory with random ones and zeroes for example will not give valid results.
this stuff MUST be ordered.
also, when comparing this with DNA you cannot "switch out" code segments like dogmahunter suggests.

Even with the prompt you still don't see what's wrong with the statement I quoted?

Keep digging?

 

[DogmaHunter]

we have already determined boxcar2d does not simulate the accumulation of genes, transposons, hgt, nor epigenetics.
as for wiki, i am interested in the simulation of evolution by computer program that simulates ALL the processes involved, not just a select few that gives the results you want it to give.

You asked for a link to a genetic algoritm.
I gave you one.

You not liking it is not my problem.
I don't care for your assertions based on ignorance either.

a simulator is a simulator is a simulator, be it for a pair of dice or the formation of galaxies.

And a color is a color, but red and blue aren't the same thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually it's the (irrelevant) opinion of eugene koonin.

If Koonin says that, then he is giving an equally irrelevant opinion as you are.
To call something "unsolvable" to make a point, is the basis of an argument from ignorance.

It means you need to learn more.

apparently your highly touted GA algorithm isn't "all that".

In your opinion.
Not in the opinion of those who successfully use it everyday.

unless of course you want to concede the origins of life doesn't deal with genetics.

Evolution doesn't address the origins of life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the only "evidence" for evolution is rational common sense.
as far as i know, there is no real hard evidence for it.

Only if you ignore:
- Nested hierarchis
- Phylogenies
- fossil records
- ERV's
- comparative anatomy
- distribution of species
- obeserved speciation
- ..............................................

Then, yes, then there is "no evidence" for evolution.

:-/

science has been unable to prove inanimate matter can become alive.

This has nothing to do with evolution and is an entirely different field of study.

science has been unable to prove a dinosaur can become a bird.

Birds ARE dinosaurs.
Just like humans ARE primates and ARE mammals.

To say that science can't justify calling birds "dinosaurs", then you'ld have to also say that science can't justify calling humans "primates" and "mammals".

Go ahead....
Try to come up with a definition of what a "dinosaur" is that includes all dinosaurs but excludes birds. And without including "...but not birds" in the definition.

It's a straight up challenge.
Another, identical, challenge, is to come up with a definition for "mammal" that includes ALL mammals, but excludes humans.

some will no doubt point to the time scales involved,

Nope. No timescales needed. We can figure this out purely by comparing anatomy and phylogenies.

but this is irrelevant with computers when speeds can be factored on the order of billions.

Que?

What do computers have to do with birds being dino's?
:-S

 

[DogmaHunter]

It isn't irrelevant because evolution is suppose to be mindless, it is not planned for optimization and the program is.

It's not.

I lost track of how many times I had to point this out.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i will say this, if someone writes a computer program that models how atoms can become a man, and that program is verified as accurate, then you can bet it can actually happen.

I pretty much agreed until you came to this line.
That's a completely unreasonable request. Which not only demonstrates ignorance of what appropriate models are, it also demonstrates ignorance on how evolution works.

You can't model "from atoms to man" in a computer model, because "man" is the result of 3.8 billion years of random changes and random events

This wouldn't be a proper model of evolution, because evolution requires random input.
If we would "reset" the world to 3.8 billion years ago and have it "run again" till this day, humans would not exist.

In the exact same way, you can run the boxcar program several times for 100 generations and the end design would always be different. It will look roughly the same because it's a static environment with static selection pressures, but the input would still be random. And "random" means that if you do it several times - you will most likely not obtain the same results. And the more sequential random events there are, the less likely it becomes to obtain the same results.

the shuttle example above demonstrates this beyond question.

The shuttle example demonstrates a static model which has nothing to do with what is being talked about here.

 

[whois]

dogmahunter,
despite your wall of text, GA's MUST by definition simulate how DNA acquires genes, then how those genes "mutate".
this would be the only way i know of to actually simulate evolution.
to those ends, i haven't seen one single program that does that.
if there is, then present a link to it.

 

[whois]

Even with the prompt you still don't see what's wrong with the statement I quoted?

Keep digging?

i can't read minds, so state yours.

 

[DogmaHunter]

dogmahunter,
despite your wall of text, GA's MUST by definition simulate how DNA acquires genes, then how those genes "mutate".

No, that would be a simulation of biochemistry.

this would be the only way i know of to actually simulate evolution.

Perhaps you should then finally learn a bit about this subject.

to those ends, i haven't seen one single program that does that.
if there is, then present a link to it.

No, there is no "universe simulator" which simulates everything from quantum mechanics, to physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry, etc etc etc.

Be a bit reasonable, will you?

 

[whois]

No, that would be a simulation of biochemistry.

i hate to break it to you, but that's EXACTLY what evolution is all about, the manipulation of biochemistry.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i hate to break it to you, but that's EXACTLY what evolution is all about, the manipulation of biochemistry.

I hate to break it to you, but the process of evolution is an abstraction of a natural phenomena.

Biochemical life are things that are subject to this process. Biochemical life is NOT the process.

In order for a thing to be subject to this process, it requires certain properties. All one requires to simulate this process on a computer, are the presence of those propertes (a genotype, a fenotype, a fitness test, heredity, mutation, etc).

We don't require a complete model of bio-chemisty because it is simply not needed.

You strip it down to only the bear essentials. That's what smart people do who don't like to waste time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolution doesn't address the origins of life.

You might want to read up on some basics.

Yah I know. You prefer to just let it magically happen. Sorry but that's a strawman, because without life coming about in the first place - there can not be any evolution. So the origin of life is paramount to your theory and can never be ignored. Except by those who believe in evolution because they don't want to deal with the problem.