Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

Yet another person who thinks we're saying this is proof of evolution. It's not. It's proof that evolution can produce the appearance of design.

Another example of trying to have it both ways. If it is suppose to be an actual depiction of evolution it would then by default prove evolution, if evolution then appearance of design begs the question of the first. Neither are being shown by this program.

 

[MikeEnders]

It's proof that evolution can produce the appearance of design.

Not without intelligence no and it pretty much SUCKS as a simulation in so many ways its embarrasing

A) It doesn't simulate life realities. In the real world Species can hit a PERMANENT dead end due to variations from mutations that can lead to disasters of extinction - in the program it just resets and tries again.

B) IN the program it should be obvious even to a neophyte programmer (somebody actually claiming to be a programmer in this thread should work on more programs) that a CONDITIONAL ( a functional piece of logic/intelligence) is being set to a particular goal and outcome. Whenever the program gets to a solution that does not allow it to fulfill a given end goal it resets. So ahem you guys believe in guided evolution "design" now?

C) The ""wheel" in the program never changes in anything but size. Its always a perfectly round wheel that can always spin on its axis whether on the ground or in the air. Its pre DESIGNED.

D) the Program CLEARLY favors the existence of the wheel as most times it will give you a wheel of some form or the other. could be a random variation based on array weighted with wheels. Its pre designed

E) No new function ever arises out of the simulation, it just has various abilities to roll IN ONE DIRECTION!!...rofl

F) If you look closely the axle (in addition to the wheel) is always present as designed by the programmer.

and I am just warming up because I haven't even started on the body of the car being limited by previous design algorythms

So congratulations your simulation proves that if you have a previously designed wheel and a previously designed axle and put various HUMAN PRESET combinations of shapes on top of them you just might get something that can roll to the end of a course that you designed for it to run down or reset

ROFL............but ahem thats your proof of Evolution being able to design and you are sticking with it right?

 

[MikeEnders]

Another example of trying to have it both ways. If it is suppose to be an actual depiction of evolution it would then by default prove evolution, if evolution then appearance of design begs the question of the first. Neither are being shown by this program.

Yep but stand by for the mother of all - "The emperor has new clothes you are just not smart enough to see it" spinning - like the old story where the kid yells out the truth and finally the king sees through the farce and realize he is standing in public in his underpants.

 

[The Cadet]

Not without intelligence no and it pretty much SUCKS as a simulation in so many ways its embarrasing

A) It doesn't simulate life realities. In the real world Species can hit a PERMANENT dead end due to variations from mutations that can lead to disasters of extinction - in the program it just resets and tries again.

A simulation of the basic mechanisms of evolution does not need every element to be useful to demonstrate a point.

B) IN the program it should be obvious even to a neophyte programmer (somebody actually claiming to be a programmer in this thread should work on more programs) that a CONDITIONAL ( a functional piece of logic/intelligence) is being set to a particular goal and outcome. Whenever the program gets to a solution that does not allow it to fulfill a given end goal it resets. So ahem you guys believe in guided evolution "design" now?

When it's discovered that the auto has not moved forward within a certain timeframe, it's assumed to be "dead", and that it will not continue to move forward. Given that cars on that track do not inherently die and that waiting for the full three minutes or so the program gives a car would be a complete waste of time in most of these cases, there is a cut-off point to simulate death. I fail to see how this removes the simulation from the realm of a typical evolutionary algorithm. In nature, the analog is when you wake up sleepy one morning and discover that in your drowsiness, you happened to walk out in front of a bus. It's not a perfect analog, but it does not insert "design" into the proceedings the way you seem to think it does.

C) The ""wheel" in the program never changes in anything but size. Its always a perfectly round wheel that can always spin on its axis whether on the ground or in the air. Its pre DESIGNED.

So what? A car where the wheels and triangles are ill-fitted is not going to drive. It won't appear designed in any meaningful way. The wheel itself is fixed, but you could, in theory, use a genetic algorithm to make those as well. Again, you're bringing up a distinction that makes no difference to the argument. You start with a random mess of wheels and polygons, and you end up with a car that seems explicitly designed for the track it is on. It isn't "designed" in any meaningful way, yet still shows the appearance of design. The fact that one specific element therein is "designed" or "pre-determined" a certain way is utterly meaningless, as are these arguments:

D) the Program CLEARLY favors the existence of the wheel as most times it will give you a wheel of some form or the other. could be a random variation based on array weighted with wheels. Its pre designed

E) No new function ever arises out of the simulation, it just has various abilities to roll IN ONE DIRECTION!!...rofl

F) If you look closely the axle (in addition to the wheel) is always present as designed by the programmer.

and I am just warming up because I haven't even started on the body of the car being limited by previous design algorythms

ROFL............but ahem thats your proof of Evolution being able to design and you are sticking with it right?

None of this matters. The usefulness of the simulation is not dependent upon any of these factors, and their presence has nothing at all to do with the general ability of genetic algorithms to produce complex, seemingly purposeful structures with no inherent design.

Boxcar2d is a phenomenally rudimentary genetic algorithm that nonetheless demonstrates that unguided processes can produce a very convincing illusion of design. You could easily build a better genetic algorithm; one that works from the ground up and models evolution far better, but you don't have to, as this largely unguided process does nothing of the sort and still produces exactly what is needed.

 

[MikeEnders]

A simulation of the basic mechanisms of evolution does not need every element to be useful to demonstrate a point.

A) demonstrates not a single point but that wheels can roll........ROFL so what??
B) What good is a simulation if it doesn't accurately summarize what its simulating? Want to give us a car simulation next to show us planes can fly? for a simulation to say anything about what it is simulating it can't just leave out huge aspects of what it is simulating. thats just drivel thinking.

You flat out don't have the basics of evolution. No realistic model of reproduction, no environmental change , no change in competition in an ecosystem basically no realistic natural selection - nothing but that guided by the function intelligently built into the axles and wheels. its all baloney. The wheels come predesigned and so do the axles and show STASIS only variating in sizes. give it up dude that emperor has no clothes! begging doesn't make him dressed in a suit.

If you would open up your eyes you'd realize that essentially the only thing happening in the "simulation" is that the Geometry placed on the wheel or wheels is getting in the way. You could drop a single wheel predesigned without the geometry and it would roll effortlessly and maximum efficient from first generation. so congratulations again. you have shown that a predesigned wheel will roll if you get other things from stopping it from rolling

When it's discovered that the auto has not moved forward within a certain timeframe, it's assumed to be "dead"

So it is assumed that not achieving a designated function by the human that programmed it causes death. Convenient interjection of human assumption/intelligence directedness into Evolution. But let me cut to the chase of this wholly silly defense of the logically indefensible by quoting the heart of your contention

The fact that one specific element therein is "designed" or "pre-determined" a certain way is utterly meaningless, as are these arguments:

LOl... The fact that the wheel and the axles are designed and they make up the ENTIRE function of the car means nothing he says!!......lol

Utter and Vacuous nonsense.ad obvious and desperate nonsense. You really need to take that reasoning to disney world. there is no way shape or form where the key elements that allow these cars to function being predesigned by the programmer does not matter to the argument of whether simulation shows evolution designed it. Thats just NOT an argument with any Truthfulness to it

You are doing absolutely nothing but handwaving because your "proof" has bee gutted and destroyed. the very heart of what those cars do is roll on wheels on axles and there is no sign of evolution at all in those. the programmer designed them in and they do not change. in fact nothing changes but the shapes and even a first year programmer knows those are intelligently programmed in as well

Take a bow. If you could get an academy award for playing an Ostrich you would.

Boxcar2d is a phenomenally rudimentary genetic algorithm that nonetheless demonstrates that unguided processes can produce a very convincing illusion of design.

Uh-huh. File that one ladies and gentlemen under the "if I say it enough and with enough conviction i might just convince someone out there my illogical claims are right" strategy

Next time add - PERIOD. maybe you can get someone with that.

 

[MikeEnders]

You start with a random mess of wheels and polygons, and you end up with a car that seems explicitly designed for the track it is on

Missed this total piece of utter fabrication before. i encourage anyone to go and look at the simulation. Anytime a wheel shows up rather than it shows up by itself in an alleged random mess it appears complete with attachment to an axle. Nothing random about it. heavily designed arrangement of wheel to axles is built into the program. The major function of the simulation is purely designed.

Watch it enough and you realize even the shapes are constrained by the programmer and the only thing that makes any difference is when they get out the way so the designed wheel and axles can do their predetermined predesigned thing.

 

[whois]

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

Because it seems like you don't.

well, you can toot that horn all you want.
the bottom line is boxcar2d does not model biomolecular evolution. period.

boxcar2d is an interesting concept though.
programs like this can go a long way in "proving" evolution if they modeled the mechanisms involved.
and before you start, no it doesn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Been there, done that

The natural process of evolution, producing design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Probably because it is and you are in denial

I guess the entire scientific community is in denial then. And only you random folk on an internet web forum understand it.

Thats just bluster. Its the subject of ongoing research. No need to pretend like its all figured out

Are you saying that we have no clue about the limits of HGT?
Are you serious?

Its amazing the things people claim after the fact. A few decades ago almost no one was talking about HGT but ahem....cough....cough....its just is part of an evolutionary understanding now that it is showing itself to be more predominant than ever suspected

Yes, it's called learning.

You should try it some time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

With parameters and knowledge provided by intelligence which shows the need for intelligence.

Yes, yes.... It's clear that freezing is an intelligent process. Cuz freezers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which is true with any finding. It can be weaved into the already little understood and vastly cumbersome theory that started with gradual, minute changes over immense time.

I adore how you people have to resort to arguing against the process of learning in order to defend your indefensible position.

It's absolutely hilarious.

It's like arguing against modern day physics because before Einstein, the impact of relativity on gravity wasn't properly understood.

Yeah... learning new things is such a bad thing ha.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Would putting my arguments in bold help you understand...GA isn't a blind process.

False. GA's are as blind as can be.
You understand that the 'A' stands for "algorithm", right?

It has knowledge put into the program.

Not really, no.

You are unable to come up with any natural evidence for the simplest life form on earth the bacteria

Bacteria really aren't "simple" lifeforms.

, and taking just one cell of its makeup showing a simpler form evolving gradually step by step into the one with apparent design. Got it?

I get that you wish to have 2 billion years of evolution demonstrated in a single human lifetime.

Regardless of this unreasonable request...
Your claim "appearance of design, therefor design", is refuted merely by pointing to the actual process of evolution evolving the appearance of design in a simple GA.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Illusion of design based on what criteria?

Your own criteria: purpose, intent, functionality, specialisation

This thing looks and works exactly like a snowplower.
It has a functional front that clears the track of rubble.
It has multiple wheels which have as purpose the fortification of the attachments, so that the front doesn't "break" from the collisions with the rubble.
The front wheel is smaller then the backwheels with the intention of creating the curve, making it more streamlined to clear the rubble with minimal resistance.
It is also irreducibly complex because it requires all parts to be present to work.


In every since of the word, this design is specialised for the track it exists on.

However, it's all an illusion because at no point in its evolutionary history was there any "intelligent intervention" to even only push it in this direction or to construct the bear essentials of the irreducibly complex structures.

Nore has there been any interventions to give it the front which clears the track of rubble.

All these things evolved from one generation to the next.
Every single change made to it was a RANDOM change.
At no point in the algorithm did the fitness test look any further then the CURRENT generation.

No plan. No intention. No purpose.

Just random changes followed by non-random selection.

The appearance of design. But not actually designed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ROFL.........I don't think I have had as good a laugh as this from a forum post in a long time. I wasn't going to take the time to read through the thread but took a little time

This is the kind of thing that people are saying proves their case

http://boxcar2d.com/

LOL..........THIS???? I almost want to check my office for hidden cameras to see if I am being punked

Perhaps a better thing to look for is an explanation on what genetic algoritms are.

 

[The Cadet]

A) demonstrates not a single point but that wheels can roll........ROFL so what??
B) What good is a simulation if it doesn't accurately summarize what its simulating? Want to give us a car simulation next to show us planes can fly? for a simulation to say anything about what it is simulating it can't just leave out huge aspects of what it is simulating. thats just drivel thinking.

Let me explain this again.

OnceDecieved made the claim that biological systems have the appearance of design, and that furthermore the appearance of design is evidence of design. Following a fairly extensive shifting of the burden of proof (which fails because it's still up to you to demonstrate that your evidence is even real to begin with), DogmaHunter pointed out that genetic algorithms produce the appearance of design without in-simulation design. Boxcar2d is a useful example of this. You start with a random mess of polygons and wheels, and gradually, through random, unplanned mutations, you end up with a running vehicle, one explicitly well-adapted to the environment. You can see this very clearly if you let it run on two different tracks.

You flat out don't have the basics of evolution. No realistic model of reproduction, no environmental change , no change in competition in an ecosystem basically no realistic natural selection - nothing but that guided by the function intelligently built into the axles and wheels. its all baloney. The wheels come predesigned and so do the axles and show STASIS only variating in sizes. give it up dude that emperor has no clothes! begging doesn't make him dressed in a suit.

You continue to fail to understand the point of the simulation in this argument. The model of reproduction actually is present, by the way. Environmental change is unnecessary but can easily be provided by copying the car's genome onto a different track. The competition are the other cars - the better the car does, the more likely it is to reproduce. You can set it to one of two different methods, roulette (where the cars that score more points are more likely to reproduce) or tournament (where cars are paired off and only the half that do better reproduce). You can read about it on the Algorithm page.

If you would open up your eyes you'd realize that essentially the only thing happening in the "simulation" is that the Geometry placed on the wheel or wheels is getting in the way. You could drop a single wheel predesigned without the geometry and it would roll effortlessly and maximum efficient from first generation.

Oh? Really? Here, let's test that. Here's the code for a car which is just a single wheel, with minimal polygons in its center:

eNqzXzkTBGbZ74TSD8XqJP6cOQvn39+57NZlY2P7kzOzhRoYGOw31Wf6gGiY/OvVvS0XkPhn374xRjGvf/mUz0D9MP7bn+u3TUbwGRgY2B0kFX+HuOhK2P9gAIP/QGB/O/0P04cUC/uvE4uvRILVMTuwztA9f+mGqv31lj9Lfc6cAalzkCi5ktz0hsf++vcgEaAYUB2LA/cb0U3L91rZX2neFgq0A6xOtKvPfdrFdvsP0ef1cs6cBapjtT8iMJ1Z8bqN/e1ajkJjYyOwOv6tTkzft/XYv/qtfX1ZWhqDoe9rijADAyMApdilMQ==

Now copy that into the "insert seed" thing, and you'll quickly see that it can't make it up a hill, because the torque of the wheels is dependent on the amount of weight it's carrying and the size of the polygons. It's why a big car with two wheels will always beat a tiny car with two wheels on the speedway track.

No offense, but this is the second place you've shown that you haven't spent very much time using or reading about the algorithm. Maybe you should take a closer look both at what we're arguing and what genetic algorithms in general and Boxcar2d specifically actually do before you respond?

So it is assumed that not achieving a designated function by the human that programmed it causes death. Convenient interjection of human assumption/intelligence directedness into Evolution.

Evolutionary algorithms generally do not have a direct simulation for the process of an organism "dying". The better organisms reproduce; the others are discarded. When a car can go no further, it is, for the purposes of the algorithm, done. We have the variable we need. Just like in real life, when an organism loses the ability to reproduce, it is pretty much done and with the exception of social species could either die now or live on for another 100 years with no difference to the gene pool.

LOl... The fact that the wheel and the axles are designed and they make up the ENTIRE function of the car means nothing he says!!......lol

Start the program a hundred times. With those pre-designed wheels and axles, see how often you get a well-adapted car within the first generation. It does not happen very often. And again, we could just as easily lead the algorithm back to just a bunch of polygons, random joints, ball bearings, and the like, and let it evolve to that point. Your objection is not to the core function of the algorithm, it is to the scope. The fact that the wheels and axles are pre-designed does nothing to negate the fact that the algorithm takes a random mess of polygons and wheels and goes from that to a function racecar or snowplow depending on the environment with the help of evolutionary principles. Non-design produces the appearance of design.

You are doing absolutely nothing but handwaving because your "proof" has bee gutted and destroyed.

You know what the worst part about this is? Even if I were to grant your argument (which I don't), it's still up to you and OnceDecieved to demonstrate that the appearance of design is evidence of actual design, rather than for us to prove that it isn't.

Missed this total piece of utter fabrication before. i encourage anyone to go and look at the simulation. Anytime a wheel shows up rather than it shows up by itself in an alleged random mess it appears complete with attachment to an axle. Nothing random about it. heavily designed arrangement of wheel to axles is built into the program. The major function of the simulation is purely designed.

Great, then I'm sure you can find a well-adapted, designed-looking car in the first generation?

(Smart money is on no.)

Without the undesigned, evolutionary processes inherent to the genetic algorithm, the design of the wheels and axles will usually not produce what appears to be a car. It will almost never produce a car which is well-adapted to its environment. It does not produce the illusion of design in any meaningful way, beyond what can easily be attributed to random chance.

Again, your critiques come down to the scope of the program, not the function.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not without intelligence

Again, if you are not going to bother learning what GA's are, then you're not going to have any worthwhile contribution to the discussion.

That software needs to be programmed is kind of stating the obvious.
That a freezer needs to be build is the same kind of obvious.

However, people building freezers doesn't mean that intelligence is required to turn water into ice.

A) It doesn't simulate life realities. In the real world Species can hit a PERMANENT dead end due to variations from mutations that can lead to disasters of extinction - in the program it just resets and tries again.

This is just plain false.
Species go extinct due to environmental factors. Volcano's, meteor impacts, rise/migration of new species, etc

Species don't go extinct due to mutations - lol, where did you get that idea?

B) IN the program it should be obvious even to a neophyte programmer (somebody actually claiming to be a programmer in this thread should work on more programs)

Hilarious.

that a CONDITIONAL ( a functional piece of logic/intelligence) is being set to a particular goal and outcome.

That is not accurate
If you would bother to learn about GA's, you'ld know this.

What happens is random changes are introduced and what follows is a fitness test. Natural selection.

Then there's probability algoritms that match up breeding pairs. So the most fit might not even be chosen.

Yes, this needs to be coded. Kind of that stating the obvious again.....
In the real world, it doesn't need to be coded. Mutations happen and creatures either survive and reproduce - or they don't. Natural selection.

Whenever the program gets to a solution that does not allow it to fulfill a given end goal it resets.

No, it doesn't "reset". It never "resets".
It starts with a random population in generation 0 and then applies the process of evolution to it. At no point after generation 0 is a new individual generated. There is no "reset".

So ahem you guys believe in guided evolution "design" now?

Do you believe in intelligent freezing?

C) The ""wheel" in the program never changes in anything but size. Its always a perfectly round wheel that can always spin on its axis whether on the ground or in the air. Its pre DESIGNED.

No, that's not really true. It also changes in speed. It also changes in position. The attachment changes in direction. The strength of the attachment can also change.

The author could just as well expand the algoritm to vary the shape of the wheels. It would work as well.

D) the Program CLEARLY favors the existence of the wheel as most times it will give you a wheel of some form or the other.

No. Every change is random.

could be a random variation based on array weighted with wheels. Its pre designed

No, it's not. Every single value in the genotype is randomly generated in generation 0 and subsequently randomly changed in later generations.

Wheels, polygons and attachments are the materials it has to play with.
There's no need to make this more complex. One could, and it would certainly work, but the process being it, which is the actual point, would remain exactly the same.

E) No new function ever arises out of the simulation, it just has various abilities to roll IN ONE DIRECTION!!...rofl

That is simply utterly false.

I've once had a car which had a "loose" polygon at the front on the Hill track.
The only purpose of the polygon was to get over one specific hill. It would lose traction near the top. At this point, there was a slight dent in the track. When at this dent, the polygon came of and gave the car a slight "nudge", pushing it over the dent.

I thought that was fantastic.

It constantly comes up with new functions for the parts of the car. Sometimes it's to beat a hill, sometimes it's to get accross a dent, sometimes it's simply to clear the track of rubble.

F) If you look closely the axle (in addition to the wheel) is always present as designed by the programmer.

The attachment is part of the wheel, yes.

and I am just warming up because I haven't even started on the body of the car being limited by previous design algorythms

Are you sure you are "just warming up"? Because not a single point you raised was a valid objection to the point of bringing up GA's in this thread.

So congratulations your simulation proves that if you have a previously designed wheel and a previously designed axle and put various HUMAN PRESET combinations of shapes on top of them

Again, every individual in generation 0 is randomly generated.
At no point is there any "human preset" or any "intervention" happening.

The generation of the initial values as well as the changes subsequently applied to it are completely random from beginning to end.

you just might get something that can roll to the end of a course that you designed for it to run down or reset

Again, that's just not how it works.

ROFL............but ahem thats your proof of Evolution being able to design and you are sticking with it right?

It starts with randomly generated things like this:

and ends up with things like this:

And it does that by applying the process of natural evolution.

Yes. I'ld call that pretty solid evidence that the blind process of evolution is perfectly capable of generating the appearance of "deliberate design"

 

[whois]

Let me explain this again.

OnceDecieved made the claim that biological systems have the appearance of design, and that furthermore the appearance of design is evidence of design. Following a fairly extensive shifting of the burden of proof (which fails because it's still up to you to demonstrate that your evidence is even real to begin with), DogmaHunter pointed out that genetic algorithms produce the appearance of design without in-simulation design. Boxcar2d is a useful example of this. You start with a random mess of polygons and wheels, and gradually, through random, unplanned mutations, you end up with a running vehicle, one explicitly well-adapted to the environment. You can see this very clearly if you let it run on two different tracks.

i now understand why you always reported certain posts of mine by koonin.
for anyone interested in seeing how the above quote by the cadet is absurd, i urge them to read "the origin at 150" by eugene koonin.

 

[justlookinla]

Your own criteria: purpose, intent, functionality, specialisation

View attachment 161915

This thing looks and works exactly like a snowplower.

No it doesn't. It's not a snowplow.

It has a functional front that clears the track of rubble.

No it doesn't. It's nothing more than a shape produced by a designed program.

It has multiple wheels which have as purpose the fortification of the attachments, so that the front doesn't "break" from the collisions with the rubble.

Purpose requires intent and intent requires intelligence.

The front wheel is smaller then the backwheels with the intention of creating the curve, making it more streamlined to clear the rubble with minimal resistance.

"Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought.".....Wikipedia.

It is also irreducibly complex because it requires all parts to be present to work.

Do you understand that the image is not a snowplow? Do you understand that nothing has been produced other than shapes and forms produced by a designed machine running a designed program?

Now, examine this machine and conclude a mindless, meaningless, purposeless random creation instead of complex, functional, , purposeful design if you will. (I'm talking about the snowplow machine, not the willy-nilly creation driving the machine.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

No it doesn't. It's not a snowplow.

I didn't say "it is a snowplow". I said that "it looks and works like one".

No it doesn't. It's nothing more than a shape produced by a designed program.

That's just dishonest.

The population that produced that design "lived" on a track filled with rubble.
This front is only there because of the selection pressure of the rubble.
On other tracks, such features do not evolve.

The front definatly has function and purpose in context of the car and the task it needs to accomplish.

Purpose requires intent and intent requires intelligence.

Clearly, it doesn't.
Which is kind of the whole point of bringing up GA's.......to prove that it doesn't.
Off course, if you are simply going to be dishonest about what this GA actually does, then you aren't going to understand this point.

"Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought.".....Wikipedia.

I actually agree with that statement.
But that's not how the word "intention" has been used by your lot throughout this thread. When I used that word in my previous post, I assumed the meaning that was previously used by you guys in this thread.

Now, where did that goalpost go.....

Do you understand that the image is not a snowplow?

Do you understand what the words "looks like" and "works like" mean?

Do you understand that nothing has been produced other than shapes and forms produced by a designed machine running a designed program?

So, to you, the random shape/form in generation 0 is equally random and meaningless as the snowplow-like shape/form many generations later?

Goalposts are all over the place here.

Now, examine this machine and conclude a mindless, meaningless, purposeless random creation instead of complex, functional, , purposeful design if you will. (I'm talking about the snowplow machine, not the willy-nilly creation driving the machine.)

Epic fail.

Try again when you are prepared to present an intellectually honest argument.

Nobody here is talking about actual machines (that don't reproduce with variation and that don't compete with peers).

Try to understand the points being raised first, so you can avoid making stupid comments.

 

[DogmaHunter]

well, you can toot that horn all you want.

Because it's true.

The process is not the same as the things that are subject to that process.

In case of evolution, things require certain properties in order to be subject to the process.

All those properties are present in the population of a GA.

Being "chemistry based" is not one of those required properties.

the bottom line is boxcar2d does not model biomolecular evolution. period.

Right. What it models is the process of evolution. What's that now... the 7th time I mention it?

boxcar2d is an interesting concept though.
programs like this can go a long way in "proving" evolution if they modeled the mechanisms involved.
and before you start, no it doesn't.

What GA's like this prove is that one doesn't require an "intelligent designer" to produce the "appearance of design".

It starts with NO APPEARANCE of design and it then ends up WITH APPEARANCE of design.



Now, can we all please try some intellectual honesty and acknowledge that simple, mega-obvious point?