Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[justlookinla]

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.

Darwinist evolution says that our brains were constructed through a series of random natural mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[lesliedellow]

Darwinist evolution says that our brains were constructed through a series of random natural mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.

No it doesn't. It says nothing about how or why organisms with a nervous system first appeared.

 

[justlookinla]

No it doesn't. It says nothing about how or why organisms with a nervous system first appeared.

Yes it does. All constructs of life are solely by naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[The Cadet]

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.

The issue of consciousness is a hard one, but how exactly our consciousness works is rather immaterial once we know that it does work. Whether our consciousness is an emergent property of a complex biochemical machine or an illusion or something else entirely has no impact on how we interpret abstract concepts.

This is completely irrelevant to the argument we are having.

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).

When I write down "2+2=4", did I just create an actual object that is "2"? The book and the ink are physical substrate according to the definition of information theory. The actual information is an abstract concept we create by observing the substrate and imposing a cypher onto it. I realize this is counterintuitive, but this is how information is defined by information theory, and it solves quite a few rather difficult problems.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Genetic algorithms are not perfect evolutionary simulations

Genetic algoritms literally use the evolutionary process.

in that they have a predefined goal which is used to compute fitness.

It's called natural selection in the real world.
The best performers have the most chance of spreading their genes.

However, it can't be called a "predefined goal" as the implications of those words do not apply in any sense.

The correct term is "selection pressure".

They demonstrate the power of random variation, recombination, and selection to produce novel solutions to problems

Yes, they do. Exactly.

You know what else it demonstrates:

That blind evolution produces designs, or the "appearance of design", if by the word "design" you imply a personal designer.

Which is a direct refutation of your claim that there is "no explanation" for the "appearance of design".

There is.

It's called evolution.

Are you about ready to acknowledge this point?
And by extension, never again claim that "the appearance of design" is evidence of "design produced by a personal designer"?

Why do you not acknowledge this mega-obvious point?
Or at least, why do you not acknowledge this point explicitly?

, but they are not a full simulation of evolution (and are not intended to be).

They are a full simulation of the evolutionary process.
All elements of the process are present.

The process is very much capable of producing "the appearance of design".

You know.... your original claim? That "the appearance of design" is evidence of "actual design" and that there is no explanation for how "the appearance of design" is just an illusion?

Before you started moving the goalposts all over the place....

I never moved from your original argument.
Are you about ready now to concede the mega-obvious point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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



What information? There is no information according to Cadet.

Try being a bit intellectually honest.

Cadet was speaking about the DNA molecule.
Not about the manifestations and emergent properties of a neural network.

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

No.
Please stop conflating things.
If you wish to discus how brains work, create a thread where that is the topic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The issue of consciousness is a hard one, but how exactly our consciousness works is rather immaterial once we know that it does work. Whether our consciousness is an emergent property of a complex biochemical machine or an illusion or something else entirely has no impact on how we interpret abstract concepts.

This is completely irrelevant to the argument we are having.

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.

When I write down "2+2=4", did I just create an actual object that is "2"? The book and the ink are physical substrate according to the definition of information theory. The actual information is an abstract concept we create by observing the substrate and imposing a cypher onto it. I realize this is counterintuitive, but this is how information is defined by information theory, and it solves quite a few rather difficult problems.

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. 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 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.

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. Our minds communicate information from the information we hold in our brains, the chemical reactions in our brains are no more or no less than those we see in the DNA molecule and having communication, information and intent are earmarks of intelligence. If information requires intelligence and language communicates an intent and DNA is information and a language it stands to reason that DNA required intelligence in its formation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Try being a bit intellectually honest.

Cadet was speaking about the DNA molecule.
Not about the manifestations and emergent properties of a neural network.



No.
Please stop conflating things.
If you wish to discus how brains work, create a thread where that is the topic.

This is on topic and you can't talk about DNA without talking about information. AS I just posted:

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. 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 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.

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. Our minds communicate information from the information we hold in our brains, the chemical reactions in our brains are no more or no less than those we see in the DNA molecule and having communication, information and intent are earmarks of intelligence. If information requires intelligence and language communicates an intent and DNA is information and a language it stands to reason that DNA required intelligence in its formation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

="DogmaHunter, post: 68428602, member: 346237"]Genetic algoritms literally use the evolutionary process.

It's called natural selection in the real world.
The best performers have the most chance of spreading their genes.

However, it can't be called a "predefined goal" as the implications of those words do not apply in any sense.

The correct term is "selection pressure".

Which is determined by intelligence.

Yes, they do. Exactly.

You know what else it demonstrates:

That blind evolution produces designs, or the "appearance of design", if by the word "design" you imply a personal designer.

Which is a direct refutation of your claim that there is "no explanation" for the "appearance of design".

There is.

It's called evolution.

Intelligently designed programs only confirms intelligence. Information is necessary for the program. You are not showing a blind evolutionary process. Why can't you understand that? The program is good at what it does but it doesn't show blind evolutionary processes.

Are you about ready to acknowledge this point?
And by extension, never again claim that "the appearance of design" is evidence of "design produced by a personal designer"?

Why do you not acknowledge this mega-obvious point?
Or at least, why do you not acknowledge this point explicitly?

Absolutely not. Like I said, this is not even meant to show evolution in all its aspects. You are taking an intelligently designed program and telling us that it is blind evolution...it is not.

They are a full simulation of the evolutionary process.
All elements of the process are present.

The process is very much capable of producing "the appearance of design".

You know.... your original claim? That "the appearance of design" is evidence of "actual design" and that there is no explanation for how "the appearance of design" is just an illusion?

Before you started moving the goalposts all over the place....

I never moved from your original argument.
Are you about ready now to concede the mega-obvious point?

This program does not show blind evolution. This is not providing an accurate depiction of evolution. It is not blind and is intelligently designed, it just supports intelligence is needed for design.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[DogmaHunter]

Language is the method in which information is communicated.

DNA is not a language.
DNA is a molecule.

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.

FALSE.

The information that was not deliberatly created that describes how this thing looks and works:
0.24,0.622,0.848,2.626597810257226,0.4205,3,0.05,0.27712579048238695,0.05,1.492,0.259,0.883,1,3,0.4775,0.6799999999999999,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,3.8242242744053905,1.5,2,5.340707511102648,1.4118160991929471,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,3.015928947446201,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,9043968,7172723,61440,13639213,13349497,13349497,15764055,15777024,0,0,6172137,11931568,12779520,12779520,16121856,16121856,8

This information was not created.
No intent.
Nothing deliberate.
No looking in the future, thus no planning

Instead, just blind evolution.

Our minds communicate information from the information we hold in our brains, the chemical reactions in our brains are no more or no less than those we see in the DNA molecule and having communication, information and intent are earmarks of intelligence. If information requires intelligence and language communicates an intent and DNA is information and a language it stands to reason that DNA required intelligence in its formation.

No "mind" is involved in the creation of the above "information".

It's just the blind process of:
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat



Yawn.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which is determined by intelligence.

Because it's a computer program.

In the real world, selection pressures automatically exist.

I'm starting the think that you are just messing with me. That you really understand all this stuff and are just trolling me or something.

I have serious problems believing you really are this stubborn.
A part of me hopes that I'm correct in that.

Intelligently designed programs only confirms intelligence.

Intelligently designed freezers only confirm "intelligent freezing"



It's incredible how you try to argue against the validity of an experiment or simulation by using as argument that the experiment or simulation is designed to do what it does....

That if you want to test something, that you actually need to do something to ....actually perform the test. Somehow that invalidates the test... :-/


I mean for real....

This logic throws all of science out the window.

Why do I even bother.

 

[Oncedeceived]

DNA is not a language.
DNA is a molecule.

What defines a language? Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics.

Natural languages are spoken or signed, but any language can be encoded into secondary media using auditory, visual, or tactile stimuli – for example, in graphic writing, braille, or whistling. This is because human language is modality-independent. Depending on philosophical perspectives regarding the definition of language and meaning, when used as a general concept, "language" may refer to the cognitive ability to learn and use systems of complex communication, or to describe the set of rules that makes up these systems, or the set of utterances that can be produced from those rules. All languages rely on the process of semiosis to relate signs to particular meanings. Oral and sign languages contain a phonological system that governs how symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes, and a syntactic system that governs how words and morphemes are combined to form phrases and utterances.

Your computer programs are a language that we have encoded into a secondary media.

FALSE.

View attachment 161801

The information that was not deliberatly created that describes how this thing looks and works:
0.24,0.622,0.848,2.626597810257226,0.4205,3,0.05,0.27712579048238695,0.05,1.492,0.259,0.883,1,3,0.4775,0.6799999999999999,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,3.8242242744053905,1.5,2,5.340707511102648,1.4118160991929471,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,3.015928947446201,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,9043968,7172723,61440,13639213,13349497,13349497,15764055,15777024,0,0,6172137,11931568,12779520,12779520,16121856,16121856,8

This information was not created.
No intent.
Nothing deliberate.
No looking in the future, thus no planning

Instead, just blind evolution.

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.

No "mind" is involved in the creation of the above "information".

What evidence are you providing that supports your premise that no mind is involved in the information?

It's just the blind process of:
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat

Yes, so you've said but where is the evidence? You have provided an artificial program, provide evidence from natural events that provide support to your assertion. Provide evidence that simpler form evolving step by step gradually to the cell that has the appearance of design.

Yawn.

Oxygen depletion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it's a computer program.

In the real world, selection pressures automatically exist.

I'm starting the think that you are just messing with me. That you really understand all this stuff and are just trolling me or something.

I have serious problems believing you really are this stubborn.
A part of me hopes that I'm correct in that.



Intelligently designed freezers only confirm "intelligent freezing"



It's incredible how you try to argue against the validity of an experiment or simulation by using as argument that the experiment or simulation is designed to do what it does....

That if you want to test something, that you actually need to do something to ....actually perform the test. Somehow that invalidates the test... :-/


I mean for real....

This logic throws all of science out the window.

Why do I even bother.

I seriously can't believe that you expect anyone that knows anything about evolution would be convinced that this was a true depiction of evolution. I am not stubborn, I am informed and you expect me to forget all I know about evolution so that you can explain design in nature by using an artificial simulation that does not have all the factors needed for evolution to happen in the way it actually has happened. You are the one that is throwing out logic and science because even though there have been others as well as yourself trying to show that design is not needed to explain the design observed in nature; scientists themselves say that these programs while very informative in their way do not actually show evolution as it is in nature.

 

[Oncedeceived]

***

Nope. You don't get to play that game. You're stretching out that lazy, tired old ID argument. You provide empirical proof.

Nope you aren't going to get out of supporting your own dogmatic worldview without support any longer. You and others seem to think that there is no need to show how evolution really does have the evidence it claims to have. Provide it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

staff edit

Sorry, this time it is on you or anyone that claims as Richard Dawkins does that living things have an appearance of design with a purpose but this appearance of deliberate design is produced by evolution. So it is a positive claim which has not been supported by any evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope you aren't going to get out of supporting your own dogmatic worldview without support any longer. You and others seem to think that there is no need to show how evolution really does have the evidence it claims to have. Provide it.

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

 

[justlookinla]

It's just the blind process of:
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat
Yawn.

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

Same ole same ole.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Nothing.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes it does. All constructs of life are solely by naturalistic mechanisms.

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

 

[DogmaHunter]

What defines a language? Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics.

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

Your computer programs are a language that we have encoded into a secondary media.

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

Get. It. In. Your. Head.

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.

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.

What evidence are you providing that supports your premise that no mind is involved in the information?

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.

You continue to drown in your own willful ignorance.

It's just sad and embarassing at this point.

Yes, so you've said but where is the evidence?

You have provided an artificial program, provide evidence from natural events that provide support to your assertion. Provide evidence that simpler form evolving step by step gradually to the cell that has the appearance of design.

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.

Oxygen depletion?

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