Some random discussion on evolution...

[xianghua]

ok. lest see. lets sart with your first point to detect design:

How do I conclude design? The presence of components for which there is no known naturalistic process to produce them.

now, note that its also true for living things: there is no known naturalistic process that can produce them from non-living components. we have a theory but its only a theory. as you can see- the first point is also true for living things. do you agree so far? if not please explain why and we will continue.

 

[Speedwell]

ok. lest see. lets sart with your first point to detect design:



now, note that its also true for living things: there is no known naturalistic process that can produce them from non-living components. we have a theory but its only a theory. as you can see- the first point is also true for living things. do you agree so far? if not please explain why and we will continue.

My goodness! I've been trying to make that point with you for several years now, and you're finally just getting it? Congratulations, anyway.

 

[VirOptimus]

 

[pitabread]

say that tomorrow someone will falsify evolution. are you saying hat we will not be able to use these algorithms anymore?

First of all, what specifically do think is going to be falsified? The theory of evolution is a both an extremely broad and deep subject with numerous different facets. So if you want to start arguing about its potential falsification even in a hypothetical scenario, you need to be more specific.

its irrelevant to biological evolution of course. so the fact that something mimmic evolution doesnt prove that evolution is true.

This isn't about proving evolution to be true. It's about exploiting the underlying theory of evolution for a practical application.

But this does beg the question: if the theory of evolution was false (as you claim it is), why would applications based on the theory of evolution work?

This doesn't just include engineering either; evolution has a variety of practical applications directly related to biology.

more than that: in reality evolution need small steps. but no one know if these small steps actually exist.

You mean besides the countless experiments, observed changes in populations over time, genetic analysis, recreation of molecular evolutionary pathways, among other things?

It may come as a shock, but evolution is an observable process.

thus again these algorithms are irrelevant to biological evolution.

Except for the fact that the algorithms are based on the theory of evolution, which means they are relevant to biological evolution. Biological evolution is why the theory of evolution exists in the first place.

 

[Kylie]

ok. lest see. lets sart with your first point to detect design:



now, note that its also true for living things: there is no known naturalistic process that can produce them from non-living components. we have a theory but its only a theory. as you can see- the first point is also true for living things. do you agree so far? if not please explain why and we will continue.

And you think that "theory" when used in a scientific sense means the same as it does in a colloquial sense - that it's a hunch, guess or idea.

It is not. A scientific theory is about as close to 100% proven fact as it is possible to be. Do you doubt the theory of gravity the same way you doubt the theory of evolution? Of course not. And, I'm sure, this has been explained to you many times already, that a scientific theory is not just a guess. It's a well-supported explanation.

So I do not agree with you here. You can't dismiss evolution by claiming it is "just a theory." Now that your first counter argument has been shown false, let's continue.

 

[xianghua]

And you think that "theory" when used in a scientific sense means the same as it does in a colloquial sense - that it's a hunch, guess or idea.

It is not. A scientific theory is about as close to 100% proven fact as it is possible to be. Do you doubt the theory of gravity the same way you doubt the theory of evolution? Of course not. And, I'm sure, this has been explained to you many times already, that a scientific theory is not just a guess. It's a well-supported explanation.

So I do not agree with you here. You can't dismiss evolution by claiming it is "just a theory." Now that your first counter argument has been shown false, let's continue.

i disagree. for instance: you cant prove that you are related to banana. that is a theory. not a fact. and its also true for the first living thing. so no.

 

[xianghua]

First of all, what specifically do think is going to be falsified? The theory of evolution is a both an extremely broad and deep subject with numerous different facets. So if you want to start arguing about its potential falsification even in a hypothetical scenario, you need to be more specific.

i refer to common descent for all living things.

But this does beg the question: if the theory of evolution was false (as you claim it is), why would applications based on the theory of evolution work?.

because its irrelevant to biological evolution. we can design such systems without evolution to be true.

Except for the fact that the algorithms are based on the theory of evolution

no. they just mimmic evolution. they are not base on it.

 

[pitabread]

i refer to common descent for all living things.

You believe that every single living organism was specially created?

because its irrelevant to biological evolution. we can design such systems without evolution to be true.

That's not the reality though: evolutionary algorithms *are* based on the theory of evolution.

You can read about it yourself: https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

This techniques is based on evolutionary algorithms (EAs), a family stochastic search methods, inspired by natural biological evolution, that operate on a population of potential solutions using the principle of survival of the fittest to produce better and better approximations to a solution.​

no. they just mimmic evolution. they are not base on it.

In order to mimic the process of evolution the evolutionary algorithm is based on the same.

Your claim that the algorithms are not based on the theory of evolution is just incorrect.

 

[xianghua]

You believe that every single living organism was specially created?



That's not the reality though: evolutionary algorithms *are* based on the theory of evolution.

You can read about it yourself: https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

This techniques is based on evolutionary algorithms (EAs), a family stochastic search methods, inspired by natural biological evolution, that operate on a population of potential solutions using the principle of survival of the fittest to produce better and better approximations to a solution.​

In order to mimic the process of evolution the evolutionary algorithm is based on the same.

Your claim that the algorithms are not based on the theory of evolution is just incorrect.

there is a game called "spore" that mimmic evolution. so according to your criteria we can produce such a game if evolution was false. right?

 

[pitabread]

there is a game called "spore" that mimmic evolution. so according to your criteria we can produce such a game if evolution was false. right?

I've never played the game Spore and know nothing about it. Therefore I cannot comment on that game and what it purports to do.

Also as I previously said, don't use the "according to your criteria" form of argument. You keep trying to put words in people's mouths and are mixing things up in the process. It's not a good debate tactic.

At any rate, my prior points still stand. Evolutionary algorithms as used in examples like the NASA engineering of an evolved antenna are based on the theory of evolution. The paper I linked makes that clear. You denial of that does not change reality.

 

[xianghua]

I've never played the game Spore and know nothing about it. Therefore I cannot comment on that game and what it purports to do.

Also as I previously said, don't use the "according to your criteria" form of argument. You keep trying to put words in people's mouths and are mixing things up in the process. It's not a good debate tactic.

At any rate, my prior points still stand. Evolutionary algorithms as used in examples like the NASA engineering of an evolved antenna are based on the theory of evolution. The paper I linked makes that clear. You denial of that does not change reality.

so again say that evolution is false (so common descent is false). can we made that antenna in the future or not?

 

[pitabread]

so again say that evolution is false (so common descent is false). can we made that antenna in the future or not?

Again, saying "evolution is false" is an extremely broad statement. Even saying "common descent is false" is an overly broad statement. Be more specific in articulating which parts of evolutionary theory you want to claim are false.

In the case of the evolved antenna, it utilized the basic processes of iterative change over time coupled with natural selection. Which in turn is based on the observed process of how populations evolve in nature.

Do you think that specific process of evolution is false?

 

[xianghua]

Again, saying "evolution is false" is an extremely broad statement. Even saying "common descent is false" is an overly broad statement. Be more specific in articulating which parts of evolutionary theory you want to claim are false.

In the case of the evolved antenna, it utilized the basic processes of iterative change over time coupled with natural selection. Which in turn is based on the observed process of how populations evolve in nature.

Do you think that specific process of evolution is false?

ok. lets say that every part in evolution is false. can we make that antenna in such a case?

 

[VirOptimus]

ok. lets say that every part in evolution is false. can we make that antenna in such a case?

Evolution is a fact. The ToE explains how it works.

 

[pitabread]

ok. lets say that every part in evolution is false.

That's a ridiculous premise. Especially since we literally observe the process of evolution in population of organisms. I don't think you've thought this through.

can we make that antenna in such a case?

If we aren't relying on evolutionary algorithms, then no we would not. That's covered in the NASA paper. Traditional design approaches would not likely result in the same output.

 

[durangodawood]

it seems that you cant do that either. so how you conclude design when you see a PC if you cant provide a criteria to detect design?

How do I conclude design? The presence of components for which there is no known naturalistic process to produce them. The fact that each component contributes to the function of the whole, which is not seen in evolution, since there is plenty that evolution doesn't get rid of, or does a half-baked attempt at getting rid of, such as eyes in blind cave fish. The fact that there is specific branding on parts of a PC - if every single person had a mark on their bodies, always in the same place, always absolutely identical that said, "Made by God" or something like that, then I'd be more inclined to accept design.

We have the actual history of the computer's evolution to examine. And that is a history of humans designing it at every step.

Just like we have a very good history of biological evolution to examine. And that history leaves no trace of a purported designer.

Thats before we even examine the proposed mechanisms for biological evolution, which, for me, are quite compelling.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

i disagree. for instance: you cant prove that you are related to banana.

You've been told many times that science doesn't deal in proof, so what is the point of this statement? Trolling or a demonstration of refusal to listen?

that is a theory.

Only in the colloquial sense. Scientifically it's a hypothesis.

 

[Kylie]

i disagree. for instance: you cant prove that you are related to banana. that is a theory. not a fact. and its also true for the first living thing. so no.

A genetic examination of myself and a banana would beg to differ.

 

[xianghua]

That's a ridiculous premise. Especially since we literally observe the process of evolution in population of organisms. I don't think you've thought this through.



If we aren't relying on evolutionary algorithms, then no we would not. That's covered in the NASA paper. Traditional design approaches would not likely result in the same output.

so basicaly if human doesnt share a common descent with a fish- we cant make antenna?

 

[xianghua]

A genetic examination of myself and a banana would beg to differ.

actually you are very different from a banana. you have for instance many genes that we cant find in banana.