Some random discussion on evolution...

[pitabread]

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

You're doing it again, trying to put words in the mouths of those you are having a discussion with. As a result, you're constructing goofy strawman that is not at all representative of what I was talking about.

This is why I told you already that is not a good debate tactic.

At any rate, my prior points still stand. Feel free to re-read them and then ask appropriate questions if you there is anything you do not understand.

However, if you keep feeling the need to create strawmen out of what I was posting, then I'd say we're done here.

 

[xianghua]

You're doing it again, trying to put words in the mouths of those you are having a discussion with. As a result, you're constructing goofy strawman that is not at all representative of what I was talking about.

This is why I told you already that is not a good debate tactic.

At any rate, my prior points still stand. Feel free to re-read them and then ask appropriate questions if you there is anything you do not understand.

However, if you keep feeling the need to create strawmen out of what I was posting, then I'd say we're done here.

you said that: "If we aren't relying on evolutionary algorithms, then no we would not."
so im a bit confuse from your answers. you suggested before that without evolution to be true we were unable to make such anntenna. am i right so far and didnt put any words in your mouth? if so lets continue.

 

[pitabread]

you said that: "If we aren't relying on evolutionary algorithms, then no we would not."
so im a bit confuse from your answers. you suggested before that without evolution to be true we were unable to make such anntenna. am i right so far and didnt put any words in your mouth? if so lets continue.

The antenna in question was designed using evolutionary algorithms. Without using those algorithms, creating the same design would not be possible. This is covered directly in the NASA paper I previously linked. The reason this design was possible is because the evolutionary algorithms could explore designs that a human designer wouldn't otherwise come up with using traditional methods.

Those algorithms are based on principles derived from the Theory of Evolution. Without the Theory of Evolution, those algorithms wouldn't exist.

If we imagine a world where the Theory of Evolution didn't exist, then those algorithms based on the Theory of Evolution wouldn't exist either, and therefore the antenna in question would not have been designed.

Is that clearer?

 

[46AND2]

The antenna in question was designed using evolutionary algorithms. Without using those algorithms, creating the same design would not be possible. This is covered directly in the NASA paper I previously linked. The reason this design was possible is because the evolutionary algorithms could explore designs that a human designer wouldn't otherwise come up with using traditional methods.

Those algorithms are based on principles derived from the Theory of Evolution. Without the Theory of Evolution, those algorithms wouldn't exist.

If we imagine a world where the Theory of Evolution didn't exist, then those algorithms based on the Theory of Evolution wouldn't exist either, and therefore the antenna in question would not have been designed.

Is that clearer?

No. Cause god can do anything. GWIMW. have you learned nothing yet? When in doubt, insert miracle.

 

[Kylie]

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

But there is still a clear relationship.

 

[xianghua]

If we imagine a world where the Theory of Evolution didn't exist, then those algorithms based on the Theory of Evolution wouldn't exist either, and therefore the antenna in question would not have been designed.

thanks. so even if evolution is false, we were still able to reproduce such antenna, since this process just mimmic evolution. so it is not depend on the question if evolution is true or false.

 

[xianghua]

But there is still a clear relationship.

not relationship but similarity.

 

[Speedwell]

not relationship but similarity.

Of course. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

thanks. so even if evolution is false, we were still able to reproduce such antenna, since this process just mimmic evolution. so it is not depend on the question if evolution is true or false.

Except he actually answered your question directly:
"The antenna in question was designed using evolutionary algorithms. Without using those algorithms, creating the same design would not be possible."

 

[durangodawood]

Of course. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

I hate time flies!

But getting rid of them is easy. Just shoot an arrow and off they go.

 

[Speedwell]

thanks. so even if evolution is false, we were still able to reproduce such antenna, since this process just mimmic evolution. so it is not depend on the question if evolution is true or false.

The proper conclusion would be, even if evolution is eventually shown not to have happened the mechanism by which it operates--random variation and selection--is shown to be functional. That is, it can produce novel designs as claimed.

 

[Kylie]

not relationship but similarity.

You don't seem to understand the evidence for this.

 

[pitabread]

thanks. so even if evolution is false, we were still able to reproduce such antenna, since this process just mimmic evolution. so it is not depend on the question if evolution is true or false.

No. Once again, a lot of things are getting lost in translation between what I am posting and your apparent understanding of what I am posting.

First, if the theory of evolution were considered to be "false", it doesn't make much sense why anyone would derive algorithms based on it. It makes even less sense to derive algorithms based on the theory of evolution and have them produce superior results to manual design, and then have the same underlying theory turn out to be false.

A more realistic scenario is not so much that the Theory of Evolution would be false, but rather that it would be incomplete.

In other words, it could be (and it probably is) that there is more to learn about the mechanisms and processes of evolution. And that current applications such as evolutionary algorithms while the underlying theory may be incomplete, are still good enough that they achieve effective results. As was demonstrated by the evolved antenna created by NASA.

In a way, this would be similar to Newton's theory of gravity. Newton didn't get everything right when it came to his understanding of gravity. His theory was good enough that aspects of his theory (such as Newton's Laws of Gravity) are still useful in specific circumstances. But the same theory of gravity is definitely incomplete as it cannot explain everything we observe with respect to gravity.

So your premise of the theory of evolution being "false" doesn't make any sense. Rather, I would suggest that a better premise is that it's simply incomplete.

 

[xianghua]

No. Once again, a lot of things are getting lost in translation between what I am posting and your apparent understanding of what I am posting.

First, if the theory of evolution were considered to be "false", it doesn't make much sense why anyone would derive algorithms based on it.

because it doesnt base on it. thats my point. there is a different between biological evolution and a process that just mimmic biological evolution. even you can mimmic evolution by choosing red balls out of a pile that is full of balls in different colors. you used here something similar to natural selection (choose the one that fit and ignore that one that dont fit) . its of course irreleant to biological evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

because it doesnt base on it. thats my point. there is a different between biological evolution and a process that just mimmic biological evolution. even you can mimmic evolution by choosing red balls out of a pile that is full of balls in different colors. you used here something similar to natural selection (choose the one that fit and ignore that one that dont fit) . its of course irreleant to biological evolution.

That is not a complete description of either evolution or genetic algorithms. You left out the feedback loop.

 

[pitabread]

because it doesnt base on it. thats my point. there is a different between biological evolution and a process that just mimmic biological evolution.

Not really. The fundamental process in genetic algorithms is based directly on our understanding of that process in nature.

You're just trying to argue against facts here. There's no point in arguing; genetic algorithms are based on the theory of evolution. To suggest otherwise is to deny the reality of what genetic algorithms are.

even you can mimmic evolution by choosing red balls out of a pile that is full of balls in different colors. you used here something similar to natural selection (choose the one that fit and ignore that one that dont fit) .

No, this is not the same as evolution since it doesn't include other mechanisms (e.g. reproduction and inheritance).

I understand that you don't want to acknowledge the reality of what genetic algorithms are and the fact that they are based on the Theory of Evolution. But continually denying this isn't going to change reality. Just accept it and move on.

 

[xianghua]

No, this is not the same as evolution since it doesn't include other mechanisms (e.g. reproduction and inheritance).

but the algorithm program also doesnt include reproduction. as i said: biological evolution isnt the same as computer program.

 

[pitabread]

but the algorithm program also doesnt include reproduction.

Sure it does. That's how evolutionary algorithms work.

Evolutionary algorithm - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

but the algorithm program also doesnt include reproduction. as i said: biological evolution isnt the same as computer program.

So why do you think it's the same as a robot penguin?

 

[xianghua]

Sure it does. That's how evolutionary algorithms work.

Evolutionary algorithm - Wikipedia

no. it doesnt reproduce physically.