Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[whois]

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.

there's that darwinist mantra yet again.
"Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection."
-"the origin at 150"

 

[justlookinla]

By the process of evolution.

Prove it. Support the claim using the scientific method.

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.

Not asking you to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

You have provided nothing...nothing at all. Artificial programs? Sorry. If you think this shows actual evolution then provide the natural evidence that this is suppose to mimic. Show a simple form evolving into the cell of the most simple life form on the planet.

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.

Common ancestry does not explain how the cell of a bacteria came about by a simpler form evolving over a long period of time. Provide the evidence for what is being asked for rather than a blanket explanation of evolution did it.

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

I don't care what you think, I want you to provide evidence for what you think.

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.

Like the link I gave you argued...it is not evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Stop with claiming an image is evidence for illusion of design.

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.

It's about what's on the image, Einstein.

This is what Dawkins is referring to when he claims illusion of design...and offers no support for his view.

Yes, which is nicely represented in the designs that are produce by this GA.

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

Stop pretending that it's "just an image" and start thinking about what it is that you see in the image.

 

[Oncedeceived]

there's that darwinist mantra yet again.
"Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection."
-"the origin at 150"

All we are getting here are mantras and hand waving....evolution did it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Of course your not. You can't even show evolution from the most simple form of a reproducing cell evolving into the cell in the most simple life form on the planet. That starts it all and you can't show the first step.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have provided nothing...nothing at all. Artificial programs? Sorry. If you think this shows actual evolution then provide the natural evidence that this is suppose to mimic. Show a simple form evolving into the cell of the most simple life form on the planet.


Common ancestry does not explain how the cell of a bacteria came about by a simpler form evolving over a long period of time. Provide the evidence for what is being asked for rather than a blanket explanation of evolution did it.

I don't care what you think, I want you to provide evidence for what you think.

Like the link I gave you argued...it is not evolution.

I can only repeat myself.

"artificial programs" = representative of ANY "artificial" environment mean to conduct experiments. Including freezers.

Yes, GA's apply the process of evolution.
No, the subjects of GA's aren't based on bio-chemistry.
Yes, GA's refute your silly claim of "appearance of design, therefor actual design".

Carry on repeating the same PRATTs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Human intelligence. Can you define it? Does science define it? No, and you know it so this is a good deflection to what is being presented. Provide evidence for the simpler form of cell evolving into the cell of the most simple life form on the planet the bacteria.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Funny how it is only the atheists on the forum making this complaint. The circle is that I ask for evidence and no one can give it and they continue to make assertions and blanket evolution did it answers that are not answers at all.

 

[justlookinla]

It's about what's on the image, Einstein.



Yes, which is nicely represented in the designs that are produce by this GA.



Stop pretending that it's "just an image" and start thinking about what it is that you see in the image.

This is no different than seeing a duck in a cloud.

Again, examine ACTUAL constructs. Actual constructs was what Dawikins claimed were illusion of design.....and actual constructs are what you're not addressing.

Play with your computer program until it produces something which 'looks' like a 'snowplow'. I'll just step outside and watch the clouds until I see one which 'looks' like a duck. Same difference. Neither addresses the issue of Dawkins' claim of illusion of design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course your not.

Because it is an unreasonable request.

The equivalent thereof is "show me a picture of every second of your life, or else you can't support that you are aging".

You can't even show evolution from the most simple form of a reproducing cell evolving into the cell in the most simple life form on the planet.

That process took more then 2 billion years.
No, I can't demonstrate to you on a forum a process that took 2 billion years.

One can only explain the process, explain the scientific predictions it makes, explain how it can be falsified, and then point at a mountain of data that supports the idea that that process actually took place.

That starts it all and you can't show the first step.

The "first step" is not within the scope of evolution theory.
As has been explained to you. Many, many times.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Funny how it is only the atheists on the forum making this complaint. The circle is that I ask for evidence and no one can give it and they continue to make assertions and blanket evolution did it answers that are not answers at all.

Projecting much?

Several months ago, people have asked you to provide an objective method and a null hypothesis on how to detect design.

You still haven't answered that. Instead, you shifted the burden of proof demanding that we provide evidence that the "appearance of design" isn't evidence of "actual design".

I have done exactly that by pointing you to working GA's you can try out yourself.

The result is history.
Dodging, moving goalposts, misrepresenting what GA's do, coming up with invalid objections and then right back to the original claim coupled with yet another burden of proof. And then we are back at square one.

You create this circle, not us.

So, indeed, back to square one: what objective test can be conducted to objectively conclude "design" and what is the null hypothesis?

 

[justlookinla]

Because it is an unreasonable request.

The equivalent thereof is "show me a picture of every second of your life, or else you can't support that you are aging"..

That's not what's being asked for.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

If you don't know what deliberately designed means how do you claim that it is just an illusion? So we do know what deliberately designed means? You have just spent a massive amount of time and effort in claiming I don't define it but then in one swoop you have not only defined it in your own mind but have set forth to refute any sense of deliberate design in living forms by an artificial program that does not even reflect evolution to do so. You then declare that if an animated, intelligently designed program using design that allows for blind random choices to occur from predetermined environmental, selection and populations equal natural occurring design. Mind blowing to say the least.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is no different than seeing a duck in a cloud.

Ow, actually, it is extremely different.

Clouds aren't the product of the evolutionary process.
The thing in the image, IS.

Again, examine ACTUAL constructs.

The thing in the image is an actual design construct within the scope of the environment it exists in.

A GA to optimise fluid distribution systems represents actual pipes with genotype data strings. Those genotypes can be fed into a 3d printer.

They are real designs of things. Not the kind of "designs" that come from a mind, though....

Play with your computer program until it produces something which 'looks' like a 'snowplow'. I'll just step outside and watch the clouds until I see one which 'looks' like a duck. Same difference.
Neither addresses the issue of Dawkins' claim of illusion of design.

The designs produced by GA's address exactly the issue of illusion of design.
Your intellectual dishonest not withstanding.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Projecting much?

Several months ago, people have asked you to provide an objective method and a null hypothesis on how to detect design.

You still haven't answered that. Instead, you shifted the burden of proof demanding that we provide evidence that the "appearance of design" isn't evidence of "actual design".

I have done exactly that by pointing you to working GA's you can try out yourself.

The result is history.
Dodging, moving goalposts, misrepresenting what GA's do, coming up with invalid objections and then right back to the original claim coupled with yet another burden of proof. And then we are back at square one.

You create this circle, not us.

So, indeed, back to square one: what objective test can be conducted to objectively conclude "design" and what is the null hypothesis?

Let me get this straight, I haven't provided an objective method on how to detect design; although it was not me that put forth the assertion that the deliberate design seen in living organisms is an illusion produced by evolution. I am suppose to define and conclude design of some other person's assertions? ASK DAWKINS. My point which everyone would just love to ignore or deflect away from is if someone agrees with Dawkins it is incumbent upon them to support that assertion. NO goal posts have been moved.

Moving on then through the thread we see GA presented to show this undefined, non-objective design can be evolved.

See the lack of logic of all of you?

The burden is on all of you if you agree with Dawkins that the deliberate design observed in living forms is an illusion produced by evolution. GA will not cut it. Provide evidence from actual evidence and not that created by artificial programs.

 

[whois]

Provide evidence from actual evidence and not that created by artificial programs.

whether a program is "artificial" is irrelevant if it follows the laws of what it's trying to simulate.
no one would question ballistics programs.
no one would question flight simulators.
no one questions poker programs.
why?
because they simulate EXACTLY the processes involved.
this just isn't happening in the boxcar2d program.
these people can scream it at the top of their lungs if they want to, but it changes nothing.

 

[justlookinla]

Ow, actually, it is extremely different.

Clouds aren't the product of the evolutionary process.
The thing in the image, IS.

You can claim 'evolutionary process' but it's no different than a random shape being produced.

The thing in the image is an actual design construct within the scope of the environment it exists in.

So is a duck in a cloud.

A GA to optimise fluid distribution systems represents actual pipes with genotype data strings. Those genotypes can be fed into a 3d printer.

They are real designs of things. Not the kind of "designs" that come from a mind, though....





The designs produced by GA's address exactly the issue of illusion of design.
Your intellectual dishonest not withstanding.

It doesn't address the illusion of design claimed in the actual constructs in the human body. You're doing a switcheroo.

 

[Oncedeceived]

whether a program is "artificial" is irrelevant if it follows the laws of what it's trying to simulate.
no one would question ballistics programs.
no one would question flight simulators.
no one questions poker programs.
why?
because they simulate EXACTLY the processes involved.
this just isn't happening in the boxcar2d program.
these people can scream it at the top of their lungs if they want to, but it changes nothing.

That is why I said artificial. Ballistics, flight simulators and poker programs are not natural occurring processes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it is an unreasonable request.

The equivalent thereof is "show me a picture of every second of your life, or else you can't support that you are aging".




That process took more then 2 billion years.
No, I can't demonstrate to you on a forum a process that took 2 billion years.

One can only explain the process, explain the scientific predictions it makes, explain how it can be falsified, and then point at a mountain of data that supports the idea that that process actually took place.



The "first step" is not within the scope of evolution theory.
As has been explained to you. Many, many times.

The whole basis of evolution is simpler forms became more complex. There is no evidence for this happening at all. None. The evidence shows that complex molecular machines that are suppose to be the product of evolution over long periods of time are present in the first life we know existed. We know this because it is a required system and is present in all the evidence we do have. Claiming evolution of these required elements for reproduction and for life to evolve at all is begging the question and has NO Evidence to support it. Common descent and evolution do not explain how this complexity is explained.