Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[justlookinla]

If you can't bring yourself to having an intellectually honest discussion, then simply don't comment.

Nobody here is claiming anything about actual snowplows.



The designs produced by GA's are very real.

Well, that's kinda the point. It's more than just looking at a shape and claiming design, even though there are instances where that could be done. So, the shape LOOKS LIKE a snowplow (I think it looks like a Bobcat loader), so what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

You don't plan for the result no. You misunderstand or refuse to accept what we are trying to say.

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.

You claimed that this program SHOWS the appearance of design in the way that it is shown in living organisms. Now how do you determine that?

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

Actually I pretty much do. I could program a beginners one, if I set my mind to it. It doesn't matter. It is reflective of true evolution and that is the real issue. Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/06/evolutioanary-algorithms-are-really.html
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015

A recent article in Nature reminded me of the importance of definitions. The article discusses evolution and evolutionary algorithms in a special issue on machine learning (Eiben and Smith, 2015). I think we all know that "evolutionary" algorithms are based on natural selection and we all know that there's more to evolution than just adaptation. It's too late to change the name of these procedures in computer science but at the very least I expect computer scientists to be aware of the difference between their procedures and real evolution.

In this paper, there's a section on "how evolutionary computation compares with natural evolution." The authors consistently use "evolution" as a synonym for "selection" or "adaptation" and they seem to be unaware of any other mechanism of evolution.

In one sense, it's okay to conflate "evolution" and "adaptation" in computer science but if that error reflects and perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of real biological evolution then perhaps it's time to rename these algorithms "adpatation algorithms."

 

[DogmaHunter]

I haven't implied that any of the above are planned. You misunderstand my objections to the GA. They incorporate intelligence in the program by the knowledge we put into them, that is one issue and although they are random this is based on optimization.

Which is an invalid objections.
As I have explained.

And the explanation is simply: according to that logic, every single scientific experiment is invalid. Because every experiment must be "set up", using intelligence.

And that's also why I keep coming back to the freezer.

Building a freezer requires intelligence as well.

You are just extremely mistaken about what this means (or rather: does NOT mean).

Secondly and most importantly, it is not a true representation of biological evolution. That is where you are not understanding the issue.

It is a true representation of the process of evolution.
That's another distinction that you don't comprehend.

Now I want to present another person who is not a theist, is a biochemist and who understands evolution and who has no motivation in this discussion:

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015

It's funny, because this is incorporated in GA's.
In the field of GA, there are several selection strategies possible.
One of them is to only breed exclusively with the top X individuals in terms of fitness.
There are strategies, where this is more probability based.
Meaning that less fit creatures also have a chance of reproducing and thus passing on their genes.

A recent article in Nature reminded me of the importance of definitions. The article discusses evolution and evolutionary algorithms in a special issue on machine learning (Eiben and Smith, 2015). I think we all know that "evolutionary" algorithms are based on natural selection and we all know that there's more to evolution than just adaptation. It's too late to change the name of these procedures in computer science but at the very least I expect computer scientists to be aware of the difference between their procedures and real evolution.

In this paper, there's a section on "how evolutionary computation compares with natural evolution." The authors consistently use "evolution" as a synonym for "selection" or "adaptation" and they seem to be unaware of any other mechanism of evolution.

In one sense, it's okay to conflate "evolution" and "adaptation" in computer science but if that error reflects and perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of real biological evolution then perhaps it's time to rename these algorithms "adpatation algorithms."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/06/evolutioanary-algorithms-are-really.html
Learn about evolution.

There's nothing in there that contradicts anything I have said.

Nothing stops you from introducing additional mechanisms to GA to further mimmic actual natural evolution.

Meanwhile, the core principles of the process are what they are. Not to mention that adding more mechanisms only adds unnecessary complexity.

As I have also repeatedly stated, in a GA, you want to reduce it to only the core essentials. Why would you make it more complicated then it needs to be? You could, but there would be no point.

And meanwhile, we continue to dance around the actual point that was being made: the appearance of deliberate design can be accomplished through a blind process and thus does not have to mean that this "appearance of design" IS actual design - as you have been saying for months.

 

[The Cadet]

I haven't implied that any of the above are planned. You misunderstand my objections to the GA. They incorporate intelligence in the program

Define intelligence in the context of this sentence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is an invalid objections.
As I have explained.

And the explanation is simply: according to that logic, every single scientific experiment is invalid. Because every experiment must be "set up", using intelligence.

And that's also why I keep coming back to the freezer.

Building a freezer requires intelligence as well.

You are just extremely mistaken about what this means (or rather: does NOT mean).



It is a true representation of the process of evolution.
That's another distinction that you don't comprehend.



It's funny, because this is incorporated in GA's.
In the field of GA, there are several selection strategies possible.
One of them is to only breed exclusively with the top X individuals in terms of fitness.
There are strategies, where this is more probability based.
Meaning that less fit creatures also have a chance of reproducing and thus passing on their genes.



There's nothing in there that contradicts anything I have said.

Nothing stops you from introducing additional mechanisms to GA to further mimmic actual natural evolution.

Meanwhile, the core principles of the process are what they are.

Fine, provide the natural evidence that a simpler form evolved into the cell of the most simple form on earth, the bacteria. Show that simpler form and how like the GA it forms bit by bit into the cell of a bacteria.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Define intelligence in the context of this sentence.

Computer programmer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, that's kinda the point. It's more than just looking at a shape and claiming design

It's funny, because that was exactly the point that I had when bringing up GA's.

Particularly, oncedeceived claiming that it's okay to conclude design simply by "looking and claiming design cause it looks designed".

Clearly, it doesn't work that way.
Clearly, oncedeceived was wrong in claiming that.

So, the shape LOOKS LIKE a snowplow (I think it looks like a Bobcat loader), so what?

"So what"?

It's a direct refutation of oncedeceived's claims.
Following the "logic" of once, this thing looking like and working like a snowplow should mean that someone deliberatly designed it to look and work like a snowplow.

But that's not what produced this snowplow-like shape.

A blind process produced that shape.
The same blind process that living things are subject to....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Computer programmer.

Freezer builder.

 

[justlookinla]

It's funny, because that was exactly the point that I had when bringing up GA's.

Particularly, oncedeceived claiming that it's okay to conclude design simply by "looking and claiming design cause it looks designed".

Clearly, it doesn't work that way.
Clearly, oncedeceived was wrong in claiming that.

I don't believe that Once is claiming design simply because it 'looks' designed. Conversely, Dawkins did claim illusion of design because.....well.....he nor anyone else has yet given evidence for illusion of design.

"So what"?

It's a direct refutation of oncedeceived's claims.
Following the "logic" of once, this thing looking like and working like a snowplow should mean that someone deliberatly designed it to look and work like a snowplow.

But that's not what produced this snowplow-like shape.

A blind process produced that shape.
The same blind process that living things are subject to....

How many times do I have to point this out? It's NOT a snowplow!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Freezer builder.

You are a master at simplistic thought.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Fine, provide the natural evidence that a simpler form evolved into the cell of the most simple form on earth, the bacteria. Show that simpler form and how like the GA it forms bit by bit into the cell of a bacteria.

You have already presented with that evidence, and you seemed to dismiss it all with a hand wave.

We are going around in circles now.
Nested hierarchies, ERV's, Phylogenies, fossil record, comparative anatomy, ..........
And the convergence of plenty of different independend lines of evidence, all pointing to common ancestry.

All these things fit like a glove in a universe where evolution and common ancestry happened.

We also came up with GA's after understanding how evolution in biology worked. We observed it, we took abstraction of it and created nifty practical applications thereof.

 

[The Cadet]

You claimed that this program SHOWS the appearance of design in the way that it is shown in living organisms. Now how do you determine that?

...Okay now this is just getting ridiculous. First you shift the burden of proof. Then we bring up an example to try to demonstrate why your poorly-defined idea which you never demonstrated to begin with is wrong, and you shift the burdne of proof again in such a way that relies on us understanding your poorly-defined idea. With all due respect, at this point you really need to reflect on your refusals to demonstrate your ideas and why it's so necessary to shift the burden to us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You claimed that this program SHOWS the appearance of design in the way that it is shown in living organisms. Now how do you determine that?

By the same criteria you seem to propose for why there is appearance of design in living things.

If you are going to call that into question, you might perhaps want to answer that other question that you folks have refused to answer for months now:

How does one objectively test for the presence of "design" or the appearance thereof?

 

[justlookinla]

pointing to common ancestry.

common ancestry happened.

The ole 'common ancestry' attempt at a switcheroo. Address the HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[The Cadet]

Computer programmer.

I asked for a definition, not the ostensible source. Y'wanna try again?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't believe that Once is claiming design simply because it 'looks' designed.

It certainly seems like that is exactly what she is claiming.

She can always clear that up by providing an actual objective way to test for the "appearance of design".

FYI: the word "appearance" in "appearance of design" kind implies that that is exactly what she means: "it looks designed".

Conversely, Dawkins did claim illusion of design because.....well.....he nor anyone else has yet given evidence for illusion of design.

That is what Dawkins etc are talking about.

It appears deliberately designed specifically to clear a track of rubble.
But this appearance is an illusion.
It wasn't deliberatly designed to do that. It evolved to do that.

It's NOT a snowplow!

I never said it was. Stop with that strawman already.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are a master at simplistic thought.

You are a master at not understanding how the "logic" behind your statement and mine is the exact same.

I invite you to explain the difference between the programmer of a GA and the builder of a freezer.

 

[lasthero]

I would like to point out that complaints of going around in circles are VERY common with Once. In fact, I think that's been a complaint with every argument I've seen Once in.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The ole 'common ancestry' attempt at a switcheroo. Address the HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

By the process of evolution.

No, I'm not able to give you a rundown of the entire bloodline while pinpointing every single mutation of every single generation since first life 3.8 billion years ago.

 

[justlookinla]

It certainly seems like that is exactly what she is claiming.

She can always clear that up by providing an actual objective way to test for the "appearance of design".

FYI: the word "appearance" in "appearance of design" kind implies that that is exactly what she means: "it looks designed".



View attachment 161957

That is what Dawkins etc are talking about.

It appears deliberately designed specifically to clear a track of rubble.
But this appearance is an illusion.
It wasn't deliberatly designed to do that. It evolved to do that.

I never said it was. Stop with that strawman already.

Stop with claiming an image is evidence for illusion of design. You're doing the same switcheroo that is frequently seen in the attempt to change focus from HOW humanity was created to some form of common ancestry. With your 'snowplow', you're doing the same thing, attempting to present an image instead of examining the actual construct such as a real snowplow (nobody would claim illusion of design there). Take the bacterial flagellum or tactile sensory unit for example. Those aren't simply images, they're actual complex, functional and purposeful creations which can be examined and analyzed. This is what Dawkins is referring to when he claims illusion of design...and offers no support for his view.

Stop with your switcheroo strawman of a 'snowplow' which really isn't a snowplow.