Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[whois]

my discussion about dogmahunter is over, publicly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So would you say that Mike was attacking Dogma? Yes or no, please.

I would say no because it was founded upon knowledge that he was claiming to have in which Mike was questioning. If it was an established fact that Mike was aware of and then Mike said what he said, it would then be a derogatory remark against his professional aptitude.

 

[Oncedeceived]

the first thing that would change is that he wouldn't have come in here and say boxcar2d simulates the processes of biological evolution.
because it doesn't.
as a matter of fact no one has proved that it even APPLIES to biological evolution.
in order to prove it does is by simulating ALL of the processes involved, and boxcar2d does not do that.

Right, there are two separate arguments in this, one is does he possess the knowledge that one would expect someone that claims to be a programmer should know and the other is that he lacks knowledge of evolution that makes his other claim false.

 

[Oncedeceived]

my discussion about dogmahunter is over, publicly.

I agree. This has went to far already. I am staying with what has been said to me personally.

 

[The Cadet]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective
ob•jec•tive ( b-j k t v)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object. (living organisms systems and features)
2. Having actual existence or reality. (observed by a 3rd party as in most biologists and biochemists)
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
(both materialists and theist observe it.)
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
(All biologists that I am aware of claim they observe the appearance of deliberate design)

This is objective evidence as defined in the free dictionary. As shown it is objectively present.

All biologists you are aware of is 2. Materialists and theists may observe the appearance of design, but materialists and theists both experience the beauty of abstract art and that does not make that beauty objective. Fundamentally, here's the disagreement: you claim that the appearance of design is inherent to the object; I reject that claim and expect you to back it up. The fact that it is observed by a certain group of people does not make it objective. The fact that bitter enemies can agree on it does not make it objective.

Let me make it simple. I do not observe design. How can you prove to me that it is actually there? If you can't answer that question, it may not actually be objective.

According to the above definition of objective evidence those who claim there is an appearance of deliberate design do so by observation which is confirmed by 3rd party observations about living organisms' systems and features which actually exist.

Observation of what? What do they observe? Can it be measured?

It is an innate ability to understand from experience what design appears like. To claim that we don't understand or recognize design is going against reason and logic. If we didn't know the pyramids were designed we would still recognize that it is not built from natural processes. The same is true of Mt. Rushmore.

Okay, question. Imagine a completely isolated tribe of humans that never discovered stoneworking. They have no idea that rocks can be changed in any meaningful way outside of the ocean eroding their home. Do you think they'd recognize those constructs as design? I somehow doubt it - they have no idea that humans could design that kind of thing.

I actually provided a way of explaining this in a previous thread. It was not exactly "well-engaged". My method is far less metaphysically extravagant - it requires no "extra sense" among humans, it simply requires that we be able to group things based on their attributes and what we can observe.

You have a Twilight Sparkle costume?

Well, not me specifically. My costume is anthro Big Macintosh.

 

[Loudmouth]

the first thing that would change is that he wouldn't have come in here and say boxcar2d simulates the processes of biological evolution.
because it doesn't.

It does.

Evolution is random mutations filtered through natural selection. Boxcar2d uses random mutations filtered through selection.

Whether those mutations occur through random numbers in code or by random changes to DNA sequences, the outcome is the same. Random changes in phenotype that are filtered through selection.

HGT, recombination events, transposons, substutitions, indels . . . all of these processes are blind to what the organism needs. The mechanisms that produce HGT don't know if the DNA being transferred is going to help the organism that gets the DNA. The same for all of the other sources of genetic change. They are random with respect to the needs of the organism.

As long as boxcar2d blinds the program that produces the changes from what the car needs, then boxcar2d has successfully simulated evolution.

as a matter of fact no one has proved that it even APPLIES to biological evolution.

It applies wonderfully. If you rerun the program multiple times you will get different results. This perfectly simulates fitness landscapes and how specialists can be forced up a fitness peak and be unable to transit the valley between them.

in order to prove it does is by simulating ALL of the processes involved, and boxcar2d does not do that.

As discussed above, it does a fine job of simulating random changes to phenotype which is exactly what DNA mutations do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All biologists you are aware of is 2. Materialists and theists may observe the appearance of design, but materialists and theists both experience the beauty of abstract art and that does not make that beauty objective. Fundamentally, here's the disagreement: you claim that the appearance of design is inherent to the object; I reject that claim and expect you to back it up. The fact that it is observed by a certain group of people does not make it objective. The fact that bitter enemies can agree on it does not make it objective.

Let me make it simple. I do not observe design. How can you prove to me that it is actually there? If you can't answer that question, it may not actually be objective?

Observation of what? What do they observe? Can it be measured?

Okay, question. Imagine a completely isolated tribe of humans that never discovered stoneworking. They have no idea that rocks can be changed in any meaningful way outside of the ocean eroding their home. Do you think they'd recognize those constructs as design? I somehow doubt it - they have no idea that humans could design that kind of thing.

I actually provided a way of explaining this in a previous thread. It was not exactly "well-engaged". My method is far less metaphysically extravagant - it requires no "extra sense" among humans, it simply requires that we be able to group things based on their attributes and what we can observe.

How do you define objective?

Well, not me specifically. My costume is anthro Big Macintosh.

Interesting.

 

[florida2]

Once and whois and whoever else, if you think that your design idea is a worthy scientific replacement of evolution, how would it be presented scientifically?

Look at scientific papers - they have to contain evidence to back up the arguments they are making. That evidence is presented in the form of data which has been collected. This can then be analysed and reviewed by their peers to confirm or question their conclusions. They also publish the methodology of how they collected the data which means that other scientists can do the same to corroborate or questions their results, or to conduct a similar test in different areas.

Your design idea doesn't have any of this sort of evidence. Before you do another copy n paste job, scientific evidence is not a bunch of quotes from scientists - even if they are famous ones like Richard Dawkins. If you want people to accept deliberate design scientifically you will need to present scientific data which has been gathered in order to support your hypothesis which others can then analyse. There is no evidence for this supernatural interference in life which is why it isn't part of the theory of evolution. If you want it to be, you'll need evidence.

From reading a lot of your posts on this thread and others I know you are going to write about 'appearance of design' and design=evidence for design. That's irrelevant. You still don't have any evidence for design. Do we know exactly how every single feature of every single organism evolved? No, not yet. That doesn't mean that you automatically invoke design. When there is a gap in knowledge in science, you keep investigating until you have an answer. All you are doing is a glorified God of the gaps argument. For anything to be incorporated into a scientific theory you need evidence - not just a gap in our knowledge.

This is why some people get frustrated when debating with you. You are desperate for your design ideas to be taken seriously scientifically, but you haven't presented any scientific evidence (as I discussed above) for it.

 

[justlookinla]

Once and whois and whoever else, if you think that your design idea is a worthy scientific replacement of evolution, how would it be presented scientifically?

How is the view that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago presented scientifically.....using the scientific method?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It does.

Evolution is random mutations filtered through natural selection. Boxcar2d uses random mutations filtered through selection.

Whether those mutations occur through random numbers in code or by random changes to DNA sequences, the outcome is the same. Random changes in phenotype that are filtered through selection.

HGT, recombination events, transposons, substutitions, indels . . . all of these processes are blind to what the organism needs. The mechanisms that produce HGT don't know if the DNA being transferred is going to help the organism that gets the DNA. The same for all of the other sources of genetic change. They are random with respect to the needs of the organism.

As long as boxcar2d blinds the program that produces the changes from what the car needs, then boxcar2d has successfully simulated evolution.



It applies wonderfully. If you rerun the program multiple times you will get different results. This perfectly simulates fitness landscapes and how specialists can be forced up a fitness peak and be unable to transit the valley between them.



As discussed above, it does a fine job of simulating random changes to phenotype which is exactly what DNA mutations do.

While the similarity between a GA and biological evolution is fairly clear, there are at least two important differences even at a conceptual level. Firstly, the existence of a fitness function provides both an "invisible hand" and a teleology for the system. The fitness function allows the fitnesses of all individuals in the population to be compared and both proportionate and rank based fitness functions rely on this "global" knowledge. Whatever properties of an individual the fitness function indicates as "desirable" are the properties that will become more prevalent in the population. It is this which provides the teleology for the system. Secondly, no distinction is made between the genotype and phenotype of the individual. The fitness function is able to evaluate an individual directly on a genotypic basis, rather than through some phenotype to which that genotype gives rise.



3.4
Both of these differences can be explained by the "standard interpretation" of the GA as an instrumental function optimiser.[17] If the point of a GA is to serve as a tool allowing the programmer to find the optimal value of some fixed function, then global knowledge and a designed fitness function are both appropriate and necessary to that task. Rather than modelling natural selection, the programmer is attempting husbandry, incorporating an exogenous fitness function into the program in the same way that animal breeders measure their success by the amount of extra meat on a new strain of cow relative to the current herd.[18] However, for the purposes of this paper, we are interested in the extent to which evolutionary algorithms are capable of serving as descriptive models of social processes. (In such cases, the assumptions of global knowledge and a shared teleology are probably not appropriate.) In the same way that we have described evolutionary models in general as those which specify a coherent analogy with biological evolution, so we can envisage simulations based on coherent analogies with evolutionary algorithms. It is to these analogies we turn in section four, but for now, we continue with the technical description of evolutionary algorithms.

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/3/2.html

 

[florida2]

How is the view that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago presented scientifically.....using the scientific method?

I've given you links in another post for evidence for evolution including a scientific paper about common descent which discusses when different groups of organisms split from one another during the past. It's call common descent and yes, that is determined using the scientific method. Look at the scientific papers I gave you links to of you want to find out more.

 

[justlookinla]

I've given you links in another post for evidence for evolution including a scientific paper about common descent which discusses when different groups of organisms split from one another during the past. It's call common descent and yes, that is determined using the scientific method. Look at the scientific papers I gave you links to of you want to find out more.

You're not addressing the issue but responding as many people do, attempting to change the focus from HOW humanity was created to common descent.

I ask again, where's the scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, of HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago. Not common descent. That's not the question.

 

[florida2]

You're not addressing the issue but responding as many people do, attempting to change the focus from HOW humanity was created to common descent.

I ask again, where's the scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, of HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago. Not common descent. That's not the question.

Evolution is HOW all the species we see today were created. Common descent is that process over a long period of time.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution is HOW all the species we see today were created. Common descent is that process over a long period of time.

You going to give me the HOW or not? I'm not asking for just a link with the suggestion to find the evidence, actually present it. Quote something, point to somewhere in a link if you give it.

 

[florida2]

You going to give me the HOW or not? I'm not asking for just a link with the suggestion to find the evidence, actually present it. Quote something, point to somewhere in a link if you give it.

I just told you the HOW - evolution. That's how all species developed. You always talk just about humanity but we are one of millions and millions of species - biodiversity which is explained through evolution.

If you're so scientifically illiterate that you don't know the basics of evolution I suggest you do some basic reading on the subject using the links I've given you before. You don't appear to have read them yet so why should I post any more now?

 

[justlookinla]

I just told you the HOW - evolution. That's how all species developed. You always talk just about humanity but we are one of millions and millions of species - biodiversity which is explained through evolution.

If you're so scientifically illiterate that you don't know the basics of evolution I suggest you do some basic reading on the subject using the links I've given you before. You don't appear to have read them yet so why should I post any more now?

Of course you're not going to give evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Next!

 

[The Cadet]

How do you define objective?

Independent of our perception of the object. The fact that gravity affects objects is completely independent of our observation. It doesn't matter what I think of the pen; if I drop it, it will fall. If you tell me, "That pen won't fall!", then I can drop the pen and you will be forced to admit, "Huh, I guess it does".

However, when it comes to the appearance of design, if I say "I don't see design", what can you do? How can you demonstrate design if I don't already see it? Appealing to others who see it doesn't help you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once and whois and whoever else, if you think that your design idea is a worthy scientific replacement of evolution, how would it be presented scientifically?

There are two ways that the appearance of design would be observed, that it is due to the natural processes of evolution or actual design. If there is no evidence that supports that natural processes of evolution has produced that appearance then it is there by actual design. The fact that throughout history the appearance of design has been present and acknowledged in scientists and lay person alike gives a strong endorsement of the appearance being objective and present in living organisms.

Look at scientific papers - they have to contain evidence to back up the arguments they are making. That evidence is presented in the form of data which has been collected. This can then be analysed and reviewed by their peers to confirm or question their conclusions. They also publish the methodology of how they collected the data which means that other scientists can do the same to corroborate or questions their results, or to conduct a similar test in different areas.

There is no scientific paper that provides data collected and analyzed that concludes that evolution produces the appearance of deliberate design in all living organisms.

Your design idea doesn't have any of this sort of evidence. Before you do another copy n paste job, scientific evidence is not a bunch of quotes from scientists - even if they are famous ones like Richard Dawkins. If you want people to accept deliberate design scientifically you will need to present scientific data which has been gathered in order to support your hypothesis which others can then analyse. There is no evidence for this supernatural interference in life which is why it isn't part of the theory of evolution. If you want it to be, you'll need evidence.

If the appearance of design in living forms is not produced by evolution what other reason would it be there? Is not the recognition of design and that which is recognized being present in living organisms reasonable to conclude then that if this appearance is not produced by natural means that design is actual? The evidence is recognizable deliberate design in living things. Deliberate design would leave this appearance. Evolution has not been shown by any evidence to produce this appearance.

From reading a lot of your posts on this thread and others I know you are going to write about 'appearance of design' and design=evidence for design. That's irrelevant. You still don't have any evidence for design. Do we know exactly how every single feature of every single organism evolved? No, not yet. That doesn't mean that you automatically invoke design. When there is a gap in knowledge in science, you keep investigating until you have an answer. All you are doing is a glorified God of the gaps argument. For anything to be incorporated into a scientific theory you need evidence - not just a gap in our knowledge.

You are begging the question, you are claiming that information or evidence for evolution producing this appearance is not known but it will be and it will show evolution can produce it. That is not in evidence. The design is evidence and it is best explained by invoking a designer since a designer would leave evidence of that design as it being deliberately designed for a purpose. It is not what we don't know (how evolution could do it) it is what we do know and how evolution does work that has not provided the means in which it could produce this appearance.

This is why some people get frustrated when debating with you. You are desperate for your design ideas to be taken seriously scientifically, but you haven't presented any scientific evidence (as I discussed above) for it.

You have mistaken my persistence as desperation. Evolution has no evidence to support it has produced the appearance of deliberate design in all living organisms and everyone realizes that but they continue to not accept it because they realize the implications which they simply refuse to accept.

 

[florida2]

Of course you're not going to give evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Next!

You mean other than the evidence and explanations I gave in links in other posts which you haven't bothered to read? Next!

By the way, why are you so interested in evidence? You clearly have no desire to learn anything about science, which I find truly sad, and instead want to subscribe to unscientific, unevidenced supernatural intervention. Let's be honest - you will never ever ever ever ever accept any evidence for evolution, will you? You simply won't allow your religious beliefs to get in the way so when I and other posters present evidence you have to either ignore it or play word games.

 

[justlookinla]

You mean other than the evidence and explanations I gave in links in other posts which you haven't bothered to read? Next!

By the way, why are you so interested in evidence? You clearly have no desire to learn anything about science, which I find truly sad, and instead want to subscribe to unscientific, unevidenced supernatural intervention. Let's be honest - you will never ever ever ever ever accept any evidence for evolution, will you? You simply won't allow your religious beliefs to get in the way so when I and other posters present evidence you have to either ignore it or play word games.

So far no one has given evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Keep making the baseless claims with no evidence, you'll certainly be challenged and exposed for your futile effort.