Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[MikeEnders]

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.

If You are seasoned programmer I am the POTUS. As programmers we build in intelligent conditional logic into our programs every day and this one is a doozy because the major function of the wheel and the axle is built right in and thats all the function in the whole simulation. the end

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

lol......the only thing false is your claim to have good reading comprehension skills. I said variations caused by mutations.
one animal develops a thin coat the environment gets too cold and it affects their survival. another species doesn't they are better able to survive. Your local bookstore might have an introductory book on Evolution you can buy so you can take it home and use in your next debate with me. Apparently you will need it.

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

Nada none. The wheels are always attached to the axles. They wheels and the axle are predesigned and change only in size. Theres not the slightest bit of Darwinian evolution unless you believe differences in head sizings is you next true blue evidence for Evolution.....rofl. The track is basically the same kind of track with only variations on where it turns. Nothing new ever takes place

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".

Yawn...anyone can go to the site and when the "car" doesn't run there is a "reset" - not going to argue semantics with you. Theres enough foolishness in your post to add to your full plate

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

Get to it then...Or Better yet hire an actually good programmer to get to it. Make sure he addresses how the axles always are designed to the wheels as well. That will be a doozy of a simulation without that. We will await a replacement for this utter failure of a "proof".

No. Every change is random.

pure junk until you show us the code. You can never tell an event is truly random until you look at how it was coded - programming 101. Thers a definite and obvious built in weight given to wheel generation.

Bottom line is it starts with the programmer putting in the design of wheel and axles and no new function ever appears . your claim of a snow plow is just utter and complete nonsense. THINK! Any triangle will act as a snow plow due to the angle of a triangle

epic fail from start to finish n your part. take a bow.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

You are the only one practicing intellectual dishonesty here. You are ignoring what even those who use these programs are saying. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

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.

It is showing the opposite. It is not a blind process! READ the LINK.

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.

Because you are refusing to see the actual point.

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.

Yes, scientists came up with it and yes it uses the above but....It does use Knowledge and information and the goal of optimalization. It is designed to do what it does. It has "set and designed" elements that work randomly towards a goal predetermined. Intelligence is required.

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.

Seriously dude read the links. You are embarrassing yourself.

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

No kidding read the links.

 

[whois]

If You are seasoned programmer I am the POTUS.

yes, i was thinking along these very same lines.
dogmahunter,
please refer to post 518, page 26 and show me where, or how, in the boxcar2d program this is implemented?

 

[MikeEnders]

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

Why yes if the claim is that its just us here talking about its unexpectedness (do try and not get lost in your own argument next time)but I see someone else has already corrected your nonsense on that (special thanks to oncedeceived).

The fact remains.

You haven't had any for any to remain. A series of illogical begs and rhetoric do no facts make

 

[Oncedeceived]

And yet, intelligence was needed to build the freezer.

If you even realized how ridiculous this is you simply would not even write it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

You are welcome.

 

[MikeEnders]

yes, i was thinking along these very same lines.

I am still cracking up that because any triangle (which is programmed in) moving will act as a snow plow his simulation shows it designed a snowplow. Whats next? If you attach something to the back of something moving you have designed a train??

 

[MikeEnders]

BTW, increasing the font size makes no difference at all.

Don't be too sure. he might be thinking if he can make the "Ms" big enough he can claim it shows evolution designs mountains

 

[DogmaHunter]

If You are seasoned programmer I am the POTUS.

I am a Microsoft .NET MVP and these days I lead my own software company.
I think I am a seasoned programmer, yes.

As programmers we build in intelligent conditional logic into our programs every day and this one is a doozy because the major function of the wheel and the axle is built right in and thats all the function in the whole simulation. the end

Again, read up on what GA's are before thinking you are informed enough to argue against them.

If, as the programmer, I would know in advanced what the best solution to a design problem is, I wouldn't need to build a GA to find out.

Over here in reality though, the process of evolution is a great method of optimising designs and even coming up with them from scratch.

Our customer in those days wouldn't have paid us more then 200.000 bucks if that weren't the case.

Fun sidefact, the ROI of the project was less then a year.
But hey, continue pretending that none of this works and that it's all a scam.

Eventhough you can check it out yourself.
You could even pick up a book, learn rudimentary programming skills and build such an app yourself.

In fact, I encourage you to do so.
At least then you'll be forced to inform yourself first.

lol......the only thing false is your claim to have good reading comprehension skills. I said variations caused by mutations.

I understood that quite well. And I understood it the first time.

Mutations causing variations does not lead to species going extinct. Environmental factors do.

At best, mutation/variation kills a few individuals. Not entire species.

one animal develops a thin coat the environment gets too cold and it affects their survival. another species doesn't they are better able to survive.

Right and the causal factor here of the extinction is .....-drumroll-.....the environment.

Nada none. The wheels are always attached to the axles.

Right. The attachment is part of the wheel. I already said that.
However
- the angle of the axis: random
- location of the attachment: random
- the force of the attachment: random
...

Don't pretend as if all these parameters are "designed to be just right", because they aren't.

They wheels and the axle are predesigned and change only in size

....and force and angle and location.

Theres not the slightest bit of Darwinian evolution

Darwinian evolution in a nutshell: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Check, check, check and check.
That's the only things I need to make the process of evolution come up with the appearance of deliberate design.

unless you believe differences in head sizings is you next true blue evidence for Evolution.....rofl. The track is basically the same kind of track with only variations on where it turns. Nothing new ever takes place

You can migrate populations to other tracks if that makes you feel better.

Not that it matters to the point of why GA's were brought up in this thread though.
But you already made it clear that you don't really care about that. You are content arguing strawman, thinking it will gain you something.

Whatever.


[quoe]
Yawn...anyone can go to the site and when the "car" doesn't run there is a "reset" - [/quote]

I think you are talking about generation 0.
You understand that in generation 0, it generates a population, right?
Meaning x amount of individuals.

Again, there is no "reset" - in ANY sense of the word.
There is only the random generation of population 0, followed by random changes to that initial generation's chromosomes.

There is NO reset.

I can't say it any clearer then this.

It generates a random population and then it continues with those chromosomes, randomly altering them.
At no point is a "reset" of chromosomes taking place.

not going to argue semantics with you.

This isn't about "semantics". This is about you being factually wrong.
There is no "reset". There is no "preset".

There is just a random first generation and an evolutionary process going forward with the chromosomes of that first generation.

Get to it then...

Why would I?
So you can dissmiss that app with the same strawman arguments you are using here?
Don't really see the point of that.

If you understood what a GA was, you'ld see as well that there is no point in that.
But yea...

Or Better yet hire an actually good programmer to get to it.

So now we are going to insult my leet programming skills as well?
FYI: you do understand that I'm not the author of the boxcar project, right?

Make sure he addresses how the axles always are designed to the wheels as well. That will be a doozy of a simulation without that. We will await a replacement for this utter failure of a "proof".

As if you'll change opinion if I would make such a thing...
Please...

pure junk until you show us the code.

http://boxcar2d.com/about.html

Mutation
In addition to crossover, each generation the chromosomes go through mutation. This means theres a probability that each aspect of the car (or variable in the chromosome) will change, as determined by the mutation rate slider set by the user. When a variable mutates, a new value is randomly chosen

If you want the source to check if the about page isn't lying, mail the author and ask the source.

You can never tell an event is truly random until you look at how it was coded - programming 101. Thers a definite and obvious built in weight given to wheel generation.

No, there isn't.

Bottom line is it starts with the programmer putting in the design of wheel and axles and no new function ever appears . your claim of a snow plow is just utter and complete nonsense.

How is it nonsense?
If you choose that track, then there will be a trend for the cars to evolve into something like a snowplow..... it needs to clear the rubble of the track or else it collides and comes to a stop.

So there is selection pressure on cars more capable of clearing the track of rubble.
'snowplow' - like design is what such selection pressure leads to.

You don't get such designs if you choose the speed track.

THINK! Any triangle will act as a snow plow due to the angle of a triangle

The polygon must first find itself in that angle before it can increase fitness.
And not just "any angle remotely like that". Some angles are more efficien then others. So, through random mutation followed by fitness testing / selection, we expect this angle to optimise over time.

Lo and behold, that's exactly what happens.

It wasn't "programmed" or "predesigned" to obtain such optimal angles.
These designs were evolved by the algoritm, using the process of evolution.

That's kind of the entire point of GA's. But I realise you don't understand that (or don't want to understand that).

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are the only one practicing intellectual dishonesty here. You are ignoring what even those who use these programs are saying. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Not only do I use them.... I make them.

And my customers paid me a lot of money to make them as well.

It is showing the opposite. It is not a blind process! READ the LINK.

It is a blind process.
In the sense that:
- changes aren't planned
- changes aren't predetermined
- selection only looks at fitness of the CURRENT generation (ie: it doesn't go like "hmmm, I'm gonna keep this one cause it might be nice to have it 20 generations down the line").

In that sense, it is completely blind.

Because you are refusing to see the actual point.

The actual point is that the appearance of deliberate design is being produced by a mindless process without any intelligent intervention.

Yes, scientists came up with it and yes it uses the above but....It does use Knowledge and information and the goal of optimalization. It is designed to do what it does.

No. It is designed to evolve solutions for design problems.

It is only designed insofar as to create an environment where this process can take place.

Just like a freezer is designed to create an environment where the process of freezing can take place.

Freezing is not the result of design.
Neither is the process of evolution.

Freezing / evolution is rather a thing that inevitably happens if the environment finds itself in a specific state with certain properties.

In case of evolution, one needs systems that compete and reproduce with variation and heredity, and are subject to some kind of fitness test in context of the "competition".

What is designed in a GA is that environment. Just like a freezer.

It has "set and designed" elements that work randomly towards a goal predetermined. Intelligence is required.

...to create the software.
The designs that the software comes up with is the result of a blind process executed by the algoritm the software uses.

Seriously dude read the links. You are embarrassing yourself.

No kidding read the links.

Learn how GA's work.

 

[DogmaHunter]

yes, i was thinking along these very same lines.

I'm laughing my behind of by you people doubting my expertise in software engineering.... If only you knew...

O well... It is quite hilarious though.

dogmahunter,
please refer to post 518, page 26 and show me where, or how, in the boxcar2d program this is implemented?

I have already explained at length why it is not necessary.

For the process of evolution to work, especially in context of GA's, it's quite irrelevant where the changes come from.

If a "gene" comes into an individual by horizontal transfor or by copying or "out of nothing" - it is not relevant.

No matter where it comes from, it will simply undergo its fitness test and score good or bad.

As I have explained ad nauseum here, it's about mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

The core principles of evolution.
"mutate" here is to be understood as "small change to the genotype of an individual".

It's the evolutionary process at work.

No, it's not meant to mimic chemistry or physics or geology or cosmology or plant seeds or herbivores or entire eco-systems of a bazillion species.

It's just meant to mimic the core principles of evolution: change, heredity, fitness test, selection.

You may continue with the strawmanning now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Three strikes and you are out. this is number two claiming intellectual dishonesty

No, no. Its really number I-lost-count.

because your garbage nonsensical proof has been blown up.

No, it's because after plenty of people here have explained what the point is about, people still continue to repeat the same falsehoods.

That's intellectual honesty, sorry.

I suspect part of you wants this thread locked because of your epic failure to exhibit anything logical in your posts.

I'm against locking any thread as I think it restricts freedom of speech as well as discussion in general.

Perhaps you should make less assumptions and spend more time reading up on what is actually discussed here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am still cracking up that because any triangle (which is programmed in) moving will act as a snow plow his simulation shows it designed a snowplow. Whats next? If you attach something to the back of something moving you have designed a train??

I didn't say it designed a snowplow.

I said it produced a design that looked and worked LIKE a snowplow. And qualified what I meant by that statement.

What strike is that? Number 14 that you misrepresented what I actually said?

 

[The Cadet]

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

The reason I explained it again was because you obviously missed the point that was being made, because you keep on throwing up things that just don't matter. It's not the courtier's reply (there's a name for it, by the way) to point out that your arguments fail because they fail to address what you're trying to respond to. The fact that the process starts with wheels and axles addresses the scope, not the function of the algorithm. It fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of genetic algorithms, just as badly as whois's objections ("they aren't a perfect simulation of evolution") do.

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

The fact that the process itself was designed does not mean the process is not blind. If I design an algorithm that produces random shapes, I did not plan for the result. Even if I then take those random shapes, value them in accordance to a certain metric, then bang the highest-value ones together in a certain way to produce more shapes like that.

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.

See, this is why we need objective criteria. Because otherwise, this happens. People just deny that something which obviously appears designed actually appears designed, and say it's some kind of illusion that wasn't actually designed. I'm sure that objective model of how to determine whether something "looks designed" is going to be forthcoming any minute now.

Aaaaaaany minute now.

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.

You don't know what an evolutionary algorithm is or how it works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

IN what world could predesign from a programmer causing the major function in the simulation have no bearing on the discussion?

I challenge you to obtain the source code of boxcar2d and point out exactly where the lines of code are that "predesign" this thing:

Go ahead. It's a straight up challenge.

Put your money where you mouth is.

The exact lines of code please.
File name + line number.
I accept multiple entries, so you can point to multiple places - no problem at all.

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 already did that.

Now it's your turn.

You claim that the code is predesigned to come up with designs like that car above, clearly specialised to clear a track of rubble without having to slow down or come to a stop.

Go ahead. Make your case.
Point out where we can find those lines of code.

We are waiting.

No, WE are waiting. ;-)

 

[justlookinla]

I think it looks like a Bobcat loader. But actually, it's only an image on a screen.

 

[whois]

I'm laughing my behind of by you people doubting my expertise in software engineering.... If only you knew...

actually, i'm not laughing at all.
as a matter of fact i'm counting on your expertise.
i provided you a means to show how the boxcar2d program simulates biological evolution by the actual processes involved.
you have failed to do that.
if my aasumption that you are a proficient programmer is valid, then it's safe to assume the boxcar2d DOES NOt simulate the processes of biomolecular evolution.

 

[whois]

It fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of genetic algorithms, just as badly as whois's objections ("they aren't a perfect simulation of evolution") do.

i not only say it's imperfect, i question whether it applies to biolmolecular evolution at all.
that is the biggest mistaken assumption you and dogmahunter are making.
the ONLY way you can prove this, is by modeling the actual biomolecular processes involved.

i am more than confident that such biomolecular modeling programs exist.
where are they?

 

[Loudmouth]

it does not model biological evolution, so stop saying it does.

You have been routinely disproven on this point.

 

[The Cadet]

i question whether it applies to biolmolecular evolution at all.

Given the way we know evolution to work at the moment? No, it probably doesn't. Genetic algorithms typically do not draw the specifics of genetics into account. Boxcar2d is a rudimentary simulation of evolution that does not include many of the details we know about the process. But neither I nor DogmaHunter are claiming that.