Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[The Cadet]

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.

I still fail to see how the intricate realities of actual evolution have anything to do with this. I keep explaining that it's about using a model and unguided processes to craft the illusion of design. At that point, so long as the model uses an unguided process, it doesn't matter what relation the model has to reality. It could be your mandelbox simulation. It doesn't matter. What, exactly, is absurd about my statement? The cars evolve through reproduction and mutation within the genotype. It's not the exact process of evolution as understood by modern science and nobody here has made the claim that it is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Been there, done that

View attachment 161913


View attachment 161914

The natural process of evolution, producing design.

Nope. Intelligence creating a program that simulates in a simple unrepresentative way that intelligence is needed in design.

 

[The Cadet]

Nope. Intelligence creating a program that simulates in a simple unrepresentative way that intelligence is needed in design.

And yet, intelligence was needed to build the freezer.

 

[MikeEnders]

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

Oh theres a lot of chatter on the internet that shows you are full of nonsense

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

Are you serious when you say you can read? How does research is ongoing translate to "no clue". Thats about as silly as your boxcar fiasco

Yes, it's called learning.

You should try it some time.

So I can relate the experience to you to see if you can try it?

 

[whois]

I still fail to see how the intricate realities of actual evolution have anything to do with this.
. . .
It's not the exact process of evolution as understood by modern science and nobody here has made the claim that it is.

it does not model biological evolution, so stop saying it does.
you shouldn't refer to it AT ALL in regards to biological evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

No, the scientific community understand the premise of the GA. They are not trying to claim that this program IS EVOLUTION. You and Cadet are the only ones trying to convince others of something that is not even claimed by scientists.

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

Are you serious?
http://aeon.co/magazine/science/how-horizontal-gene-transfer-changes-evolutionary-theory/

What has become increasingly clear in the past 10 years is that this liberal genetic exchange is definitely not limited to the DNA of the microscopic world. It likewise happens to genes that belong to animals, fungi and plants, collectively known as eukaryotes because they boast nuclei in their cells. The ancient communion between ferns and hornworts is the latest in a series of newly discovered examples of horizontal gene transfer: when DNA passes from one organism to another generally unrelated one, rather than moving ‘vertically’ from parent to child. In fact, horizontal gene transfer has happened between all kinds of living things throughout the history of life on the planet – not just between species, but also between different kingdomsof life. Bacterial genes end up in plants; fungal genes wind up in animals; snake and frog genes find their way into cows and bats. It seems that the genome of just about every modern species is something of a mosaic constructed with genes borrowed from many different forms of life.

‘What scientists have seen is just a little tip of an immense iceberg,’ says Antonio Teixeira, a biologist at the University of Brasilia. W Ford Doolittle, a biochemist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, agrees: horizontal gene transfer, he wrote recently ‘is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago’. Researchers have now discovered so many examples of gene transfer between species and kingdoms of life – with many more surely to come – that they have to adjust their understanding of how evolution works. Standard evolutionary theory does not account for the possibility of complex organisms suddenly acquiring genes from other species, let alone how those foreign genes might change a creature for better or worse. Think of it this way: if the genomes of living species are flowers on different branches of the great evolutionary tree of life, horizontal gene transfer is a subversive wind whipping pollen from one part of the tree to another. Emphasis mine.

Yes, it's called learning.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

You should try it some time.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

You really have no idea what we are even talking about. You have no idea what evolution consists of, what the process has included into it or anything you just have made your mind up that evolution is an all powerful entity and no one is going to show you anything that could shake your confidence in it.

 

[whois]

Standard evolutionary theory does not account for the possibility of complex organisms suddenly acquiring genes from other species, let alone how those foreign genes might change a creature for better or worse.

thanks for the link, bookmarked and saved.
HGT can explain a great many things about evolution.
first it introduces an element of "randomness".
second, it explains the discontinuities of the record.
third, it can explain why a healthy population could go extinct.

 

[MikeEnders]

Let me explain this again.

You could explain it a hundred times it will still be G A R BA G E

You are doing exactly what I predicted you would do. Its the classic The Emperor with the New clothes gambit. Essentially claim the reason why your opponent doesn't get it is because they are not sophisticated enough to see that the new clothes is actually non existent

Save your fingers the typing. This should be used and seen by everyone here on CF as PRIME example of the bogus nonsense your types try to float and then defend under the guise that the Christian or creationist is uneducated in comparison to your illustrious selves that can see the non existent new clothes of the emperor. Its pure grade A crapola to claim as you did that pre-existent design placed by an intelligent programmer has nothing to do with the simulation in which you bogusly try to claim its design from simulated evolution.

IN what world could predesign from a programmer causing the major function in the simulation have no bearing on the discussion? Thats one of the most drop down stupid argument of all time ever made on CF but here you are trying to sell it like it s gold. Since your pal has the nerve to be talkng about our intellectual honesty why don't both of you bolster up and actually show what that looks like in your own posts

We are waiting.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I still fail to see how the intricate realities of actual evolution have anything to do with this. I keep explaining that it's about using a model and unguided processes to craft the illusion of design. At that point, so long as the model uses an unguided process, it doesn't matter what relation the model has to reality. It could be your mandelbox simulation. It doesn't matter. What, exactly, is absurd about my statement? The cars evolve through reproduction and mutation within the genotype. It's not the exact process of evolution as understood by modern science and nobody here has made the claim that it is.

It isn't a blind process. It is a process designed for optimal results. It is "designed" to do this.


In previous subsection it has been claimed that via the operations of selection, crossover, and mutation the GA will converge over successive generations towards the global (or near global) optium. why these simple operation should produce a fast, useful and robust techiques is largely due to the fact that GAs combine direction and chance in the search in an effective and efficient manner. Since population implicitly contain much more information than simply the individual fitness scores, GAs combine the good information hidden in a solution with good information from another solution to produce new solutions with good information inherited from both parents, inevitably (hopefully) leading towrads optimality. Emphasis mine.

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/hmw/article1.html#introduction

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.....

I find it very predictable that "you people" resort to mocking when faced with the reality that your position is shown to be false. You make claims that we actually provide evidence against and you still make the claims and ignore the science that you are clutching onto as a security blanket. Scientists do not claim that this program IS EVOLUTION. I've included quotes that show you how you are wrong to claim this and yet you ignore them and then turn it around on us and claim that is what we are doing when in fact, you have provided NOTHING in the way of support for your position.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope. Intelligence creating a program that simulates in a simple unrepresentative way that intelligence is needed in design.

Yes, yes.

Just like freezers show in a simple unrepresentative way that intelligence is needed for water to turn into ice.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh theres a lot of chatter on the internet that shows you are full of nonsense

And it's on the interwebs, therefor it's true!!

Are you serious when you say you can read? How does research is ongoing translate to "no clue".

The fact remains. If we know the limits, we know what scope of impact it has on evolutionary mechanisms and phylogenetic trees.

So I wonder what you are arguing about.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Right, it's not a snowplow. It may look like one to you, but it's nothing more than an image. A picture of a snowplow doesn't make it a snowplow, it's construction does.

That's just dishonest.

How?

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.

Your story is nothing more than a fantasy with no real world construct.

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

We can certainly take real snowplows and examine them for function and purpose, but your 'snowplow' only has function and purpose in your pretend world of shapes.

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.

Clearly it does. Point out an actual snowplow which was created without purpose. You can assign any whim you wish to your image, that's not creating anything other than your own fantasy though.

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.....

If you can point out where I've used any other definition for intention, point it out. You're the one who introduced "intention". "The front wheel is smaller then the backwheels with the intention of creating the curve".

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

Do you understand the difference between 'looks like snowplow' and 'is a snowplow'?

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

A random shape does not a snowplow make.

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.

The point is, you're attempting to take a shape generated by a designed machine and a designed program which looks to you like a snowplow and infer that this somehow establishes the view that humanity is the construct of only a series of random naturalistic mechanisms. Your attempt is shown to be a complete and total failure.

 

[DogmaHunter]

it does not model biological evolution, so stop saying it does.
you shouldn't refer to it AT ALL in regards to biological evolution.

*ahum*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover


You can't talk about genetic algoritms and not mention natural evolution.
In fact, you can't even start to create a GA without understanding how natural evolution works.

I'll leave you to figure out why that is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I still fail to see how the intricate realities of actual evolution have anything to do with this. I keep explaining that it's about using a model and unguided processes to craft the illusion of design. At that point, so long as the model uses an unguided process, it doesn't matter what relation the model has to reality. It could be your mandelbox simulation. It doesn't matter. What, exactly, is absurd about my statement? The cars evolve through reproduction and mutation within the genotype. It's not the exact process of evolution as understood by modern science and nobody here has made the claim that it is.

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/hmw/article1.html#introduction


In previous subsection it has been claimed that via the operations of selection, crossover, and mutation the GA will converge over successive generations towards the global (or near global) optium. why these simple operation should produce a fast, useful and robust techiques is largely due to the fact that GAs combine direction and chance in the search in an effective and efficient manner. Since population implicitly contain much more information than simply the individual fitness scores, GAs combine the good information hidden in a solution with good information from another solution to produce new solutions with good indormation inherited from both parents, inevitably (hopefully) leading towrads optimality.

It is designed to optimality. Information/knowledge is combine direction and chance, it is not random blind process, it is a designed one to work towards optimal results.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I still fail to see how the intricate realities of actual evolution have anything to do with this. I keep explaining that it's about using a model and unguided processes to craft the illusion of design. At that point, so long as the model uses an unguided process, it doesn't matter what relation the model has to reality. It could be your mandelbox simulation. It doesn't matter. What, exactly, is absurd about my statement? The cars evolve through reproduction and mutation within the genotype. It's not the exact process of evolution as understood by modern science and nobody here has made the claim that it is.

It matters because it is designed to do what it does. It takes our knowledge and information and uses it to optimize the patterns and shapes put into the system. It is not blind, it is only random in which of the predetermined and predesigned elements put into the system. Yes it is based on evolutionary ideas but it is not a simulation of actual evolution and thus provides no support to your claim that it shows how design is produced by evolution in the real world. period.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I find it very predictable that "you people" resort to mocking when faced with the reality that your position is shown to be false.

The only thing you have shown here is intellectual dishonesty by arguing strawmen and irrationally resisting acknowledging a mega-obvious point.

That point being (and ONLY being): the "appearance of design" can be evolved by a blind process. It doesn't "require" the intelligent intervention of tinkering with the designs in any sense of the word.

That is the only point being made here.

That you people insist on making it about something else, complaining about scope, complaining about things irrelevant to the point... that's not my problem.

All I can do is point it out and try to get back to the actual point.

Which, unsurprisingly, seems like an exercise in futility.

Scientists do not claim that this program IS EVOLUTION.

Errr.......

It's scientists themselves that came up with the idea of GA's..........
And they did it based on the knowledge we acquired by understanding the process of evolution: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Every single scientist worth his salt will acknowledge that GA's employ the process of natural evolution to come up with nifty solutions for certain design problems.

In fact, that's pretty much the definition of what a GA is.

The stubborness..... it's so incredible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

*ahum*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover


You can't talk about genetic algoritms and not mention natural evolution.
In fact, you can't even start to create a GA without understanding how natural evolution works.

I'll leave you to figure out why that is.

Oh for goodness sake, read my link. OF course it uses the evolutionary ideas, that is its purpose but it is not considered true the evolutionary processes it is artificial with optimalization as its goal.

 

[whois]

*ahum*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover


You can't talk about genetic algoritms and not mention natural evolution.
In fact, you can't even start to create a GA without understanding how natural evolution works.

I'll leave you to figure out why that is.

i will refer you to the very same article i mentioned in regards to the cadets post.
BTW, increasing the font size makes no difference at all.