Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[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 blind process of evolution.

These GA's produce designs without any "intelligent intervention".

Thus GA's prove your claims about "appearance of design therefor actual design" to be false, wrong, incorrect.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Why do you continue to pretend that HGT is a problem for evolution?
It's quite well understood how it works and, perhaps more importantly, how it does NOT work.

HGT is just part of the evolutionary understanding. I have no clue why you think it is a problem.

they apparently must be transferred, whole and intact.
also, this cannot be some kind of random thing.

And it isn't. The process by which HGT happens is quite well understood.

if you are going to use models such as boxcar2d, then you MUST use accurate analogies.

It's not an analogy.
It's literally a practical application of the process of evolution.

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?

In proprietary software on servers that aren't open to the public.

However, these are not "more accurate models". They are merely more complex (ie: more complex genotypes, more selection paramaters, more complex problems to solve, etc).

They are just as accurate however.
The principles stay the exact same:
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat

And that process acting upon systems that have
- a genotype
- a fenotype
- heredity
- competition

That's all one requires.
The process is ridiculously simple.
The only thing that makes it "complex" is the amount of parameters, population sizes, genotype structure, etc.

Nevertheless, the principles of the process are very simple.
Small-scale or large-scale - it doesn't matter.
The principles stay intact.

The process is what it is.

Just like the process of addition is simple.
1+1 = 2
That's simple.

45631+5431456+5431+123514+4531

Is just as simple. It only involves more and larger numbers.
But it doesn't change anything about the simplicity of the process of "adding".

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I know that you actually believe this, however, it simply is not true. This is not a true representative of evolution and no matter how much you want it to be it isn't. Not even the scientists that use this as a tool feel it is a true representative of evolution and you choose to ignore it.

 

[Loudmouth]

But there are different kinds of moths that I don't believe descend from one another or all have the same ancestors.

We need more than beliefs. We need actual criteria and evidence to back them.

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.

Why the family level of taxonomy? It seems that you are jumping from one arbitrary criteria to the next.

Also, what would you accept as evidence of common ancestry? What about common ancestry between chimps and humans?

Design, which I definitely see, has great variation possible, without evolution without any design producing more from it.

Then why is that design limited to a nested hierarchy, the very pattern we would expect from evolution? Why don't we see any groups of species with a mixture of mammal and bird features? Why don't we see a species with feathers and three middle ear bones, or a fish with mammary glands like we find with whales? Humans don't limit themselves to a nested hierarchy, so why would the supposed designer of life do so?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do you continue to pretend that HGT is a problem for evolution?
It's quite well understood how it works and, perhaps more importantly, how it does NOT work.

HGT is just part of the evolutionary understanding. I have no clue why you think it is a problem.

And it isn't. The process by which HGT happens is quite well understood.

It is a problem as far as your artificial evolutionary process is concerned, as there is no HGT or other factors that are involved in evolution. The fact that you are defending that we know "how it works" and "how it doesn't work" in evolutionary theory but can't see it being a problem with the GA program is paramount to your lack of understanding of evolution.



It's not an analogy.
It's literally a practical application of the process of evolution.

In proprietary software on servers that aren't open to the public.

However, these are not "more accurate models". They are merely more complex (ie: more complex genotypes, more selection paramaters, more complex problems to solve, etc).

They are just as accurate however.
The principles stay the exact same:
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat

Mantra and nothing more. It is useful for what it is meant for but it does not reflect evolution as a whole or in the way you think it does.

And that process acting upon systems that have
- a genotype
- a fenotype
- heredity
- competition

That's all one requires.
The process is ridiculously simple.
The only thing that makes it "complex" is the amount of parameters, population sizes, genotype structure, etc.

It is all one requires to do with it what scientists use it for but not if you are using it to claim it IS EVOLUTION because it is not.

Nevertheless, the principles of the process are very simple.
Small-scale or large-scale - it doesn't matter.
The principles stay intact.

The process is what it is.

Just like the process of addition is simple.
1+1 = 2
That's simple.

45631+5431456+5431+123514+4531

Is just as simple. It only involves more and larger numbers.
But it doesn't change anything about the simplicity of the process of "adding".

Seriously, that is the problem you are making it too simple. Your lack of evolutionary understanding and your dogmatic need for this to be true is evident. For goodness sake, this is not a true representation of evolution.

If this is a true representation of evolution and of the natural world provide the actual evidence in nature that provides confirmation that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living organisms. Provide the evidence of a simpler form evolving gradually and optimizing to reach the design in a living cell.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns
they apparently must be transferred, whole and intact."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Koonin disagrees. There are plenty of examples of genes evolving in the "Darwinian sense" in eukaryotes. Also, Koonin describes how you can produce trees for individual genes which means that the genes themselves evolving in a Darwinian sense with mutations filtering through natural selection:

"It is important to note, however, that evolution of individual genes still can be represented with trees, and search for trends in the ‘Forest of Life’ comprised of these gene trees could still reveal order in the historic flow of genetic information15."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

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.

You are ignoring the selection step which makes it non-random.

 

[Oncedeceived]

GA's apply the blind process of evolution.

These GA's produce designs without any "intelligent intervention".

Thus GA's prove your claims about "appearance of design therefor actual design" to be false, wrong, incorrect.

If this is a true representation of evolution and of the natural world provide the actual evidence in nature that provides confirmation that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living organisms. Provide the evidence of a simpler form evolving gradually and optimizing to reach the design in a living cell.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Why does it matter of mutations produce a random change in phenotype or if a computer program produces a random change in phenotype? The only thing that matters for modeling the process of evolution is that the mechanism that produces the changes is blind to what the organism needs in any given environment. Luria, Delbruck, and the Lederbergs were able to determine that mutations were random in biological organisms without even knowing about DNA, for crying out loud.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Prove it. If this is a true representation of evolution and of the natural world provide the actual evidence in nature that provides confirmation that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living organisms. Provide the evidence of a simpler form evolving gradually and optimizing to reach the design in a living cell.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know that you actually believe this, however, it simply is not true. This is not a true representative of evolution and no matter how much you want it to be it isn't. Not even the scientists that use this as a tool feel it is a true representative of evolution and you choose to ignore it.

What happens in a GA is "true" evolution in every sense of the word.
It's not like the solutions it comes up with are fake or anything.

They are actual solutions which are actually evolved according to the actual principles of actual biological evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is a problem as far as your artificial evolutionary process is concerned, as there is no HGT or other factors that are involved in evolution.

Actually, there's nothing to stop you from incorporating HGT into a GA.
But there's no point in doing that. Because it makes no difference to the outcome.
HGT is, in reality, just another source of genetic change.
Wheter a "new" gene appears in an individual by insertion through HGT or by copying a gene of its own or what-have-you doesn't matter one bit to the outcome: an extra gene is present.

It just means that a new change occured in the genotype which might (or might not) affect the phenotype.

If you had a clue about how GA's (and evolution in general) work, I wouldn't have to explain this.

The fact that you are defending that we know "how it works" and "how it doesn't work" in evolutionary theory but can't see it being a problem with the GA program is paramount to your lack of understanding of evolution.

The irony is hilarious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What happens in a GA is "true" evolution in every sense of the word.
It's not like the solutions it comes up with are fake or anything.

They are actual solutions which are actually evolved according to the actual principles of actual biological evolution.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. If this is a true representation of evolution and of the natural world provide the actual evidence in nature that provides confirmation that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living organisms. Provide the evidence of a simpler form evolving gradually and optimizing to reach the design in a living cell.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, there's nothing to stop you from incorporating HGT into a GA.
But there's no point in doing that. Because it makes no difference to the outcome.
HGT is, in reality, just another source of genetic change.
Wheter a "new" gene appears in an individual by insertion through HGT or by copying a gene of its own or what-have-you doesn't matter one bit to the outcome: an extra gene is present.

It just means that a new change occured in the genotype which might (or might not) affect the phenotype.

If you had a clue about how GA's (and evolution in general) work, I wouldn't have to explain this.




The irony is hilarious.

Put the evidence for natural evolution being represented by this program in the natural world...If this is a true representation of evolution and of the natural world provide the actual evidence in nature that provides confirmation that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living organisms. Provide the evidence of a simpler form evolving gradually and optimizing to reach the design in a living cell.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If this is a true representation of evolution and of the natural world provide the actual evidence in nature that provides confirmation that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living organisms. Provide the evidence of a simpler form evolving gradually and optimizing to reach the design in a living cell.

I already have demonstrated that the blind process of evolution produces the appearance of deliberate design.

You failing to see the obvious of these simple principles at work, is your problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I already have demonstrated that the blind process of evolution produces the appearance of deliberate design.

You failing to see the obvious of these simple principles at work, is your problem.

I am not the only one that recognizes it is not representative of actual evolution, I provided quotes that confirm what I am saying all you are doing is repeating the same mantras and providing your own personal opinion which means nothing due to your lack of understanding of evolution. Provide real world confirmation of the design seen in a cell from the most simple organism on earth...the bacteria providing the simple to complex that you think this program is showing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not the only one that recognizes it is not representative of actual evolution, I provided quotes

I don't really care about "quotes" or bare declarations and assertions.

The only thing I've seen you do is misrepresent what a GA is while being unwilling to learn what it actually is.
The solutions produced by GA's are actually evolved solutions using the actual principles of natural biological evolution.

The point of bringing them up was your assertion that "the appearance of design" somehow means "actual design".

Which is demonstrably false.

providing your own personal opinion which means nothing due to your lack of understanding of evolution. Provide real world confirmation of the design seen in a cell from the most simple organism on earth...the bacteria providing the simple to complex that you think this program is showing.

You dissmiss all that evidence as well.

You know......
Nested hierchies.
ERVs.
Phylogenies.
Fossils.
...

People have presented all these things to you.
And you "declared" them all to be invalid.

Clearly, no evidence is ever going to be good enough for you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't really care about "quotes" or bare declarations and assertions.

The only thing I've seen you do is misrepresent what a GA is while being unwilling to learn what it actually is.
The solutions produced by GA's are actually evolved solutions using the actual principles of natural biological evolution.

They are solutions using only simplistic principals of evolution. I think I understand more fully what they actually are than you do because you only are looking at the computer applications and not the biological ones.

The point of bringing them up was your assertion that "the appearance of design" somehow means "actual design".

Which is demonstrably false.

Demonstrate it in the real world and maybe you can confirm this assertion.

You dissmiss all that evidence as well.

You know......
Nested hierchies.
ERVs.
Phylogenies.
Fossils.
...

I don't dismiss any of that.

People have presented all these things to you.
And you "declared" them all to be invalid.

Provide a quote that I have "declared" them all to be invalid or apologize.

Clearly, no evidence is ever going to be good enough for you.

Artificial anything is only as good as the components within...the GA are not representative of the full elements of evolution processes. Provide real world solutions and we will talk.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They are solutions using only simplistic principals of evolution.

Evolution is simplistic.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

You are thinking about chemistry. Chemistry is complex. Evolution is not.

I don't dismiss any of that.
Provide a quote that I have "declared" them all to be invalid or apologize.

Your repeated mantra that "there is no evidence that the appearance of design is an illusion rather then actual design".

And when asked to explain, you ask for the evidence.
After that evidence is presented (the clear evidence for common ancestry + the demonstrated fact that the process of evolution produced the appearance of deliberate design), you simply revert to saying that there is no evidence.

If that isn't dismissing the evidence, then I don't know what is.
Nore what you are arguing for or against, I would add.

Artificial anything is only as good as the components within...the GA are not representative of the full elements of evolution processes.

Or so you keep declaring.
That you can't understand the difference between the process and the things subject to said process is on you, not us.

Provide real world solutions and we will talk.

I already have.
The cars in carbox are real solutions to real problems.

It's not "faked". It's not "staged".

The problem to be solved was obtaining a design of a car that can complete the track.
Through the process of blind evolution, such a design was evolved.

A real problem. A real solution.

You want actual material things?
Try the fuel distribution system of a Boeing airplane, the design of which was optimised with a GA.

You can observe the exact same process in biology as well. Off course, that goes rather slow.

However, all that other evidence (nested hierarchies, phylogenies, etc) are exactly what we should see if the diversity we observe was produced by this process of evolution.

You can return to denial mode now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evolution is simplistic.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

You are thinking about chemistry. Chemistry is complex. Evolution is not.

choice mantra and lack of knowledge of actual evolution.

Your repeated mantra that "there is no evidence that the appearance of design is an illusion rather then actual design".

And when asked to explain, you ask for the evidence.
After that evidence is presented (the clear evidence for common ancestry + the demonstrated fact that the process of evolution produced the appearance of deliberate design), you simply revert to saying that there is no evidence.

If that isn't dismissing the evidence, then I don't know what is.
Nore what you are arguing for or against, I would add.

The evidence is design, it is up to those who claim that this is an illusion to provide NATURAL evidence that shows this illusion is produced by evolutionary processes. Until the time evidence is presented from the natural world and evidence of actual evidence in the real world it stands. You have provided no evidence other than a simulation of a process that is not a true representation of that process; you have not provided any evidence that this is possible with actual evolution. I can't dismiss something that hasn't been presented.

Or so you keep declaring.
That you can't understand the difference between the process and the things subject to said process is on you, not us.

No, it is on you because you are not showing any real evidence but a simulation of a process that is not even clearly reflected in the program not to mention all the elements that we don't even know about.

I already have.
The cars in carbox are real solutions to real problems.

Carbox is not real life and the fact that you can't even honestly understand that is beyond me.

It's not "faked". It's not "staged".

The problem to be solved was obtaining a design of a car that can complete the track.
Through the process of blind evolution, such a design was evolved.

I'm not saying it is faked or staged. I am saying that it is not reflective of the actual evolution. It is not blind. That is simply untrue and I don't know if you are just ignorant of that fact or you are ignoring it to suit your own motives I just don't know.

A real problem. A real solution.

It is good for what it does but it is not a true representation of evolution and as you have already shown by lack of any real evidence you know it too.

You want actual material things?
Try the fuel distribution system of a Boeing airplane, the design of which was optimised with a GA.

Like I said they are good for what they are meant to do. They are not meant to encompass the entire evolutionary process and they don't.

You can observe the exact same process in biology as well. Off course, that goes rather slow.

However, all that other evidence (nested hierarchies, phylogenies, etc) are exactly what we should see if the diversity we observe was produced by this process of evolution.

It doesn't matter if evolution is true, what matters is evidence which you have not presented. If this is a true representation of evolution and of the natural world provide the actual evidence in nature that provides confirmation that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living organisms. Provide the evidence of a simpler form evolving gradually and optimizing to reach the design in a living cell.

You can return to denial mode now.

I have nothing to deny as you have presented nothing.

 

[justlookinla]

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.



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

And yet, nary a word about how humanity was formed from an alleged single life form of long ago.