Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

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.



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



IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.

It not I that fails or refuses to understand "incredibly" complex evolutionary concepts and tries to pretend that an artificial program that only mimics certain features in evolution due to the complexity of the entire process IS evolution. It isn't I that can't or won't recognize that there are certain a priori concepts such as information and language that are not dependent upon us to "lay a cipher" upon.

The program as I've shown in the quotes above is not suppose to mimic every feature and element of evolution and doesn't represent clearly the process.

 

[whois]

i think a very important point is being overlooked here.
HGT was introduced into the TOL for a reason, and the reason being, genes simply do not "evolve" in the darwinian sense.
they apparently must be transferred, whole and intact.
also, this cannot be some kind of random thing.
if you are going to use models such as boxcar2d, then you MUST use accurate analogies.

another thing, since boxcar2d exists, then it's safe to assume that more accurate models, ones that actually model evolutions mechanisms, also exists.
where are they?

 

[joshua 1 9]

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

It's becomes an act of desperation on their part to maintain a lie that they simply are not able to maintain when they are confronted with the evidence. They say what evidence, the very same evidence they try to present for their theory gives testimony against their theory. We all have the same evidence to work with. Some just have a different explanation then others. Not that anyone is to blame. We all have the same pieces to the same puzzle. Only we do not have all the pieces yet, so we are not exactly sure what the puzzle will look like when it is finished.

 

[The Cadet]

It isn't I that can't or won't recognize that there are certain a priori concepts such as information and language that are not dependent upon us to "lay a cipher" upon.

There simply is no coherent way you can make information "inherent" to the object. That's not how conscious minds perceive thing. That's why philosophy and science have defined it the way it is.

The program as I've shown in the quotes above is not suppose to mimic every feature and element of evolution and doesn't represent clearly the process.

How many times do we have to tell you that it doesn't matter at all?

 

[whois]

How many times do we have to tell you that it doesn't matter at all?

it DOES matter.
it matters in the fact that you are using boxcar2d as a model of how evolution produces design.

the mandelbox analogy i introduced would be a far better example in that it has squat all to do with evolution, but yet produces patterns which appear designed.

if you are to use boxcar2d in this manner then you CANNOT equate it with evolution, simply because it doesn't mimic any of the processes involved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There simply is no coherent way you can make information "inherent" to the object. That's not how conscious minds perceive thing. That's why philosophy and science have defined it the way it is.

It is very coherent and completely absolutely required in DNA. The inherent information of DNA is totally required for each species that lives. The working structures that make up an organism can be thought of as form or substance. DNA has essential inherent information for that which is needed to give form.

How many times do we have to tell you that it doesn't matter at all?

And how many times do we have to tell you that it does?

 

[The Cadet]

i think a very important point is being overlooked here.
HGT was introduced into the TOL for a reason, and the reason being, genes simply do not "evolve" in the darwinian sense.
they apparently must be transferred, whole and intact.

...What? Did you read the paper Justa linked near the start of the thread? Seems to me that yes, genes do evolve.

it DOES matter.
it matters in the fact that you are using boxcar2d as a model of how evolution produces design.

We're using boxcar2d as a model of how an undirected process produces design. Doesn't have to be evolution. Could be a simulation of how erosion occasionally produces faces in mountainsides. Could be a simulation of how chemical particle physics leads to the structure of Laminin looking just a little bit like a cross (thank you, Louie Giglio, for being a colossal moron). The point is that the appearance of design is not a demonstration of actual design.

the mandelbox analogy i introduced would be a far better example in that it has squat all to do with evolution, but yet produces patterns which appear designed.

Might be. Probably would just get dismissed as not purposeful (as though life somehow was purposeful).

 

[DogmaHunter]

the boxcar2d program in no way models biomolecular evolution.

It models the process of natural evolution.
Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

How those tasks are accomplished is rather irrelevant.
As long as you have a genotype carrier, a way to slightly alter the genotype with mutations, a way to merge 2 genotypes to produce off spring and a way to transform the genotype into a fenotype on wich the fitness test is done - you're good to go.

Wheter those things are accomplished through chemistry or mathematical computations does not matter one bit to the process of evolution, as long as the computations (and the chemistry) are consistent (ie: the same genotype must always result in the same fenotype)

another typical example that gets attention is the "evolution" of computers, from the abacus to the supercomputers of today.

Nobody here has given that example.
And I sure as hell wouldn't, as I think it is a really bad analogy. In fact, it isn't analogous at all.

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

The "mechanisms" are things like mutation, fitness tests, etc.
What you are talking about are the things subject to the process.

In GA's, the things being evolved are analogous to living systems. And only to the point where they have the properties that make it possible to become subject to the process of evolution.

The process of evolution doesn't require the things subject to it to be based on chemistry.

The only requirement is having a genotype that can be mutated and a fenotype that can be fitness tested.


And once more, the entire point of this argument:
Design is produced by this blind, unguided, undirected process.
No 'minds' required.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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).

There is only one mainstream big-picture view of evolution. Your repeated strawman is kind of irrelevant to that.

Tetrapods are still tetrapods.
Mammals are still mammals.
Primates are still primates.
Humans are still humans.

And humans are still primates, mammals and tetrapods.

No human ever gave birth to a non-human.
No primate ever gave birth to a non-primate.
No mammal ever gave birth to a non-mammal.
No tetrapod ever gave birth to a non-tetrapod.

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

DNA.
Nested hierarchies.
ERV's.
Phylogenies.
...

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Well, when something is being shown black on white, demonstrated beyond any doubt, and people still continue to say the opposite.... what else can I say?

You people said that "the illusion of design has no evidence".
By "illusion of design", you mean something that looks designed but wasn't actually designed by a designer. That such a thing can't happen.

Yet, that's exactly what the GA of boxcar does.
The car certainly looks designed to drive a track filled with rubble. It has this snow-plower thing going on there. It has a lot of wheels also, which solidifies the structure so that it doesn't beak easily as it drives into the rubble.

But it's not designed. It's evolved by a blind process.

There it is. Black on white.
You can repeat the experiment by choosing the rubble track and starting anew. Similar (not the same) cars will start popping up on your screen after a few hours.

So, your statement that there is no evidence that such a thing can take place is demonstrably false.

I have pointed this out more times then I can count.

So if you continue to repeat the statement, I can only call it a lie.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It not I that fails or refuses to understand "incredibly" complex evolutionary concepts and tries to pretend that an artificial program that only mimics certain features in evolution due to the complexity of the entire process IS evolution. It isn't I that can't or won't recognize that there are certain a priori concepts such as information and language that are not dependent upon us to "lay a cipher" upon.

The program as I've shown in the quotes above is not suppose to mimic every feature and element of evolution and doesn't represent clearly the process.

GA's apply the process of evolution.

Biological life are entities subject to the process of evolution.

To be subject to the process of evolution, one requires only to have certain properties: a genotype, a fenotype and heredity thereof.

Check, check and check.

"appearance of design", accomplished by blind evolution.

Black on white.
Demonstrated.
Fact.

 

[The Cadet]

It's "phenotype", and you also need descent with modification. But yeah, pretty much exactly on point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

it DOES matter.
it matters in the fact that you are using boxcar2d as a model of how evolution produces design.

To model how the process of evolution produces design, one only requires to model the process of evolution.

Which is exactly what GA's do.

 

[whois]

...What? Did you read the paper Justa linked near the start of the thread? Seems to me that yes, genes do evolve.



We're using boxcar2d as a model of how an undirected process produces design. Doesn't have to be evolution. Could be a simulation of how erosion occasionally produces faces in mountainsides. Could be a simulation of how chemical particle physics leads to the structure of Laminin looking just a little bit like a cross (thank you, Louie Giglio, for being a colossal moron). The point is that the appearance of design is not a demonstration of actual design.



Might be. Probably would just get dismissed as not purposeful (as though life somehow was purposeful).

no, i haven't read the paper.
i will get back to this post after i do.

 

[whois]

It models the process of natural evolution.
Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

How those tasks are accomplished is rather irrelevant.

then i submit that you haven't proven boxcar2d even applies to biological evolution.

 

[The Cadet]

no, i haven't read the paper.
i will get back to this post after i do.

I mean, I'm hoping I misunderstood you, but there are numerous mechanisms by which genes evolve. Point mutation, de novo evolution, gene duplication, retroposition...

http://www.bath.ac.uk/bio-sci/hejmadi/BB30055/gene evol nrg1204.pdf

I mean, I think I misunderstood what you're saying. Or hope.

 

[DogmaHunter]

then i submit that you haven't proven boxcar2d even applies to biological evolution.

Then I submit you don't understand what GA's are.

Natural evolution = biological evolution.

The process of evolution is the same as the chemistry in life that makes it subject to the process.

I'm sorry that you seem to be utterly unable to understand the difference.

 

[whois]

I mean, I'm hoping I misunderstood you, but there are numerous mechanisms by which genes evolve. Point mutation, de novo evolution, gene duplication, retroposition...

http://www.bath.ac.uk/bio-sci/hejmadi/BB30055/gene evol nrg1204.pdf

I mean, I think I misunderstood what you're saying. Or hope.

okay, here's what i get from examining table 1 from the link:
exon shuffling:
basically framing errors, the "genes" were already present and framing errors rusulted in the "new gene"
gene duplication:
the gene was already there and was simply duplicated.
retroposition:
the gene was already there and was "reverse transcibed" by the transcription mechanism.
mobile element:
transposons, the gene was already there and was essentially "moved".
lateral element AKA HGT:
the gene was translocated from one organism to another, intact.
gene fusion/fission:
the gene was already there but was simply fused or divided.
de novo origin:
the gene was already there but now it takes an active role in the organism.

 

[whois]

The process of evolution is the same as the chemistry in life that makes it subject to the process.

that's right, and boxcar2d models none of the biochemical processes involved.

 

[DogmaHunter]

that's right, and boxcar2d models none of the biochemical processes involved.

And it doesn't need to, since it doesn't model chemistry. It models the process of evolution. The same process that bio-chemical life is subject to.


FYI: I misstyped the sentence you quoted.

That should have read:
The process of evolution is NOT the same as the chemistry in life that makes it subject to the process.

Chemical life is subject to the process of evolution.
This is the case because chemical life has certain properties that makes it subject to such a process: genotype, fenotype and descend with modification.

That's all one requires the make the process of evolution work.

Such properties are present in living things and they are present in the systems being evolved in a GA through the process of evolution.

You understand the difference between a process and the things subject to that process, right?

Because it seems like you don't.