Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[The Cadet]

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.

Just for reference.

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.

This is your defense against genetic algorithms. They are not analogous to a natural process because they incorporate "intelligence". And then you're going to tell me that you cannot define what it is. Here, let me reformulate your statement:

" You misunderstand my objections to the GA. They incorporate piggledywiggledy in the program by the knowledge we put into them."

Do you know what piggledywiggledy is? No? Well, apparently it doesn't matter. You don't need to define your terms in order for them to be a part of your argument! The fact that you cannot define the term means you cannot sensibly use the term. What you're telling me is that you literally do not know what you just said.

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.

Except that you have made and endorsed this claim numerous times. The fact that you can point to some people who think that something appears designed (although you still can't point to any of these biologists who actually think that that demonstrates design, for some reason).

I am suppose to define and conclude design of some other person's assertions?

Fundamentally, if you accept a position, it is to be expected that you can, to some extent, defend that position. More importantly, the position you are espousing is not Dawkins's! It's not Crick's, either. They both hold that the appearance of design is illusory. That it's something not actually present, but rather something we project onto the object. Really, this dodge is kind of gross when you think about it. Both of them bring up the illusions of design in response to religious objections! They're saying, "Yeah, sure, we see design, but it's not really there," in response to people like you saying that you see design, therefore it is designed! I do not think that there is any objective "appearance of design", and I have been waiting for weeks for you to demonstrate that there is, rather than simply continuing to quote-mine scientists.

ASK DAWKINS.

If I do, will you drop this ridiculous argument?

 

[lasthero]

Funny how it is only the atheists on the forum making this complaint.

I don't have the time to check right now, but I'm quite certain I've seen RickG and SFS having similar complaints, neither of whom are atheists.

But sure, if it makes you feel better, it's not any problem you have. It's just the mean, evil atheists picking on you.

 

[Zosimus]

"You misunderstand my objections to the GA. They incorporate piggledywiggledy in the program by the knowledge we put into them."

Do you know what piggledywiggledy is? No? Well, apparently it doesn't matter. You don't need to define your terms in order for them to be a part of your argument!

Failure to define terms is not a logical flaw. I could just as easily criticize your argument by pointing out that you didn't define the terms objections, incorporate, program, or knowledge. Even if you defined these terms, you must surely use other terms to define them with and, presumably, other terms to define those terms. This would lead to an infinite regress.

 

[The Cadet]

Failure to define terms is not a logical flaw. I could just as easily criticize your argument by pointing out that you didn't define the terms objections, incorporate, program, or knowledge. Even if you defined these terms, you must surely use other terms to define them with and, presumably, other terms to define those terms. This would lead to an infinite regress.

You're comparing the use of a technical, highly ambiguous term whose specific meaning is crucial to the structure of the argument to a large group of terms that are both well-defined and unambiguous in the context. There's a difference.

(Although you may have a point with "knowledge".)

 

[whois]

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

the point i am making is, you cannot object to boxcar2d on the grounds that it is "artificial" or "written by an intelligence".

BTW, ballistics is indeed a natural consequence of projectiles moving through a gravity field.

 

[Loudmouth]

dogmahunter,
just stop with it already.
even the cadet has admitted boxcar2d doesn't actually mimic evolution, and has explained the only reason it was presented was to show how design can be had by random processes.

How does boxcar2d not mimic evolution? Why does it matter if a mutation in DNA or a random change in computer code produces the change in phenotype? What matters is that phenotype changes in a random manner with respect to what the organism needs.

 

[Loudmouth]

well see, that's the thing, with all these processes going on inside DNA, you might not wind up with what you think you would.

Why does that matter? All that matters is that phenotype changes randomly with respect to fitness. Evolution doesn't select DNA sequences. It selects phenotypes. Evolution is completely blind to the DNA sequences that underlie phenotype.

this doesn't even include epigenetics.

You could create models where there are tiny little changes that only stick around for 1 or 2 generations. However, I don't think you will be amazed by the outcome.

even koonin has said natural selection isn't the primary driving force of evolution,

You are leaving out context. He said that it wasn't the primary driving force for genomic evolution, or the change in DNA sequences.

Context matters. Please use it.

 

[Loudmouth]

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"

I agree with Koonin. Genome evolution is primarily drivin by genetic drift, unlike phenotype evolution which is driven primarily by selection. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Oncedeceived]

the point i am making is, you cannot object to boxcar2d on the grounds that it is "artificial" or "written by an intelligence".

BTW, ballistics is indeed a natural consequence of projectiles moving through a gravity field.

Are they living breathing organisms? NO? That is why there is a difference between those things listed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just for reference.

This is your defense against genetic algorithms. They are not analogous to a natural process because they incorporate "intelligence". And then you're going to tell me that you cannot define what it is. Here, let me reformulate your statement:

" You misunderstand my objections to the GA. They incorporate piggledywiggledy in the program by the knowledge we put into them."

Straw man. That is an element in my objection.

Do you know what piggledywiggledy is? No? Well, apparently it doesn't matter. You don't need to define your terms in order for them to be a part of your argument! The fact that you cannot define the term means you cannot sensibly use the term. What you're telling me is that you literally do not know what you just said.

You want to play Semantics? Well when all else fails I suppose.

Except that you have made and endorsed this claim numerous times. The fact that you can point to some people who think that something appears designed (although you still can't point to any of these biologists who actually think that that demonstrates design, for some reason).

There are those who are biologists that do actually think that it demonstrates design. The evidence is design, if biologists who disagree that it is actual design it is incumbent upon them to support that conclusion. That has not occurred.

Fundamentally, if you accept a position, it is to be expected that you can, to some extent, defend that position. More importantly, the position you are espousing is not Dawkins's! It's not Crick's, either. They both hold that the appearance of design is illusory.

Yes, I have repeatedly presented that information and now you are pretending that I have left out that important piece of information. They ASSERT that the deliberate design observed in living organisms is an illusion. They have not given one bit of evidence to support that assertion.

That it's something not actually present, but rather something we project onto the object.

That is not what they claim at all. It is present and they must explain why it is there and they explain that by claiming that evolution produces this observe (actually present) design.

Really, this dodge is kind of gross when you think about it. Both of them bring up the illusions of design in response to religious objections! They're saying, "Yeah, sure, we see design, but it's not really there," in response to people like you saying that you see design, therefore it is designed! I do not think that there is any objective "appearance of design", and I have been waiting for weeks for you to demonstrate that there is, rather than simply continuing to quote-mine scientists.

I've not dodged anything and what is "kind of gross" is that you are misrepresenting what the scientists are claiming and then claiming I am quote-mining. Your lack of evidence, your lack of understanding of what appearance of design actually means and your denial of anything that points to design and bias against it is very apparent. At least Dawkins and Crick have the guts to admit to the observation of design...you just outright deny it. Of course, the design is so obvious that if they were to deny it as you are doing; they would lose credibility among other scientists.

If I do, will you drop this ridiculous argument?

It isn't ridiculous and you are trying to persuade others less informed to believing you know what you are talking about when in fact, that is far from the truth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't have the time to check right now, but I'm quite certain I've seen RickG and SFS having similar complaints, neither of whom are atheists.

But sure, if it makes you feel better, it's not any problem you have. It's just the mean, evil atheists picking on you.

I don't believe that SFS has ever made that complaint and RickG and I have disagreed but I don't believe he has made that accusation against me either.

 

[whois]

How does boxcar2d not mimic evolution?

if you read my posts, which you apparenty do, you will notice i never said boxcar2d mimcs evolution.

Why does it matter if a mutation in DNA or a random change in computer code produces the change in phenotype? What matters is that phenotype changes in a random manner with respect to what the organism needs.

oh yes, DNA doesn't matter at all in evolution.
you know, i had you on ignore once, then you started to make sense, but something happened and your brain fell out again.
so back in your box.

 

[Oncedeceived]

if you read my posts, which you apparenty do, you will notice i never said boxcar2d mimcs evolution.

oh yes, DNA doesn't matter at all in evolution.
you know, i had you on ignore once, then you started to make sense, but something happened and your brain fell out again.
so back in your box.

He said why doesn't the program mimic evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

if you read my posts, which you apparenty do, you will notice i never said boxcar2d mimcs evolution.

Why do you think that boxcar2d is not a valid simulation of evolution?

oh yes, DNA doesn't matter at all in evolution.
you know, i had you on ignore once, then you started to make sense, but something happened and your brain fell out again.
so back in your box.

Apparently, whois is unaware of genetic drift.

 

[The Cadet]

It is present

And there's the assertion.

Prove that it is objectively present and not merely something we subjectively and more or less arbitrarily attribute to the object.

If Crick or Dawkins were to make that assertion, I would ask them for evidence. I don't think they're making that assertion. You, on the other hand, are. And have been defending that assertion for weeks.

As I have said in the past, the fact that your phenomenon is indistinguishable from pareidolia is already a really bad sign.

Also, the demand for you to define the key terms in your statement is not "semantics", and the fact that you're not using the scientific definition of those terms makes it harder.

 

[The Cadet]

Funny how it is only the atheists on the forum making this complaint.

@RickG
@sfs

Someone probably should have paged you guys when your names were first dropped...

 

[whois]

Are they living breathing organisms? NO? That is why there is a difference between those things listed.

ok, you are apparently missing something.
computer simulations are indeed valid scenarios.
they are almost as valid as the evidence itself.
the above is valid if, AND ONLY IF, all of the rules, laws, and processes, are programmed into it.
unfortunately, this is not the case with boxcar2d.
if it were, then boxcar2d would indeed give a valid response to the scenario.
to give 2 simple examples, tossing a penny and rolling a pair of dice.
a computer can easily give you the output for these scenarios.
complexity doesn't become a problem unless we are talking about an enormous amount of data.
the modeling of how a star cluster would come together for example.
this scenario employs billions of stars, each with its own speed, direction, and gravitational field, and they all interact with one another.
this would be an impossible job for a group of humans to work out.
a computer can do it easily.

it isn't the fact that these things are alive, it's the fact that boxcar2d doesn't mimic all of the processes involved.

another very good example would be virtual reality.
after playing one of these games, it would be hard for you to believe when someone says "it's just a computer".

 

[whois]

If Crick or Dawkins were to make that assertion, I would ask them for evidence. I don't think they're making that assertion. You, on the other hand, are. And have been defending that assertion for weeks..

i know that crick referred to DNA as a frozen accident.

i take this to mean a firecracker frozen in mid bang.

 

[whois]

He said why doesn't the program mimic evolution.

simply because boxcar2d does not model all of the processes involved, that's why.
you have to take into account HGT, frame shifts, reverse reads, and all of the other things that was presented in table 1.

another thing. boxcar2d gives the impression of an linearly increasing fitness of the object, whereas the MA experiment i posted says exactly the opposite should happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

simply because boxcar2d does not model all of the processes involved, that's why.
you have to take into account HGT, frame shifts, reverse reads, and all of the other things that was presented in table 1.

All of which would manifest as random changes in phenotypes, which boxcar2d already does.