Some random discussion on evolution...

[Bungle_Bear]

what are you talking about? it was a theoretical question about a flying UFO. if we can conclude design base on such object then it means that we can detect design base on the object alone.

Since you cannot back up your argument I'm on the verge of thinking it is tacit admission of your error. Here's your final chance to put me straight - produce the evidence and I'll tell the world that you are right. Produce nothing and we'll conclude you have no argument and are making dishonest, unsupported claims.

The ball is 100% in your court. Game on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so its irrelevant to biological evolution. even if evolution was false we can still create that antenna.

If the principle underlying biological evolution didn't work, not only would our evolved antenna not be generated, but we wouldn't be around to set up the evolutionary antenna process.

 

[Kylie]

can you do that?

I'm not going to do your homework. If you want to argue that we are designed, you provide your own definition.

 

[SLP]

2) Blatant chimeric organisms.

Like a Duck Billed Platypus?

And thus the mask is lifted...

 

[SLP]

On the other hand, from the ID perspective, we can demonstrate new digital information being originated and updated all the time - (even remotely by radio waves like DNA to some extent)

But not in DNA, only via analogies.
So, IOW, you've got nothing.

 

[xianghua]

If the principle underlying biological evolution didn't work, not only would our evolved antenna not be generated, but we wouldn't be around to set up the evolutionary antenna process.

but i just showed you that even if evolution is false we still could make that antenna.

 

[pitabread]

but i just showed you that even if evolution is false we still could make that antenna.

Per the NASA paper on the subject they clearly state that the evolutionary algorithms could create designs that a human designer wouldn't likely be able to. Thus if the principles of evolution didn't work, the antenna they created wouldn't otherwise exist.

Whereas the current practice of designing antennas by hand is severely limited because it is both time and labor intensive and requires a significant amount of domain knowledge, evolutionary algorithms can be used to search the design space and automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed.​

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

 

[xianghua]

No, I don't. That's why I asked you to talk us through your thought process. How do you recognise something that is too complex to evolve naturally?

I'm not going to do your homework. If you want to argue that we are designed, you provide your own definition.

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?

 

[pitabread]

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?

You're the one making the claim thus the burden of proof is on you. You don't ask others to support your own claim. That's not how arguments work.

And for the record, you have been told how design is detected, but you keep ignoring those responses because those methods don't work with respect to your claims of being able to detect design in biology.

 

[xianghua]

Per the NASA paper on the subject they clearly state that the evolutionary algorithms could create designs that a human designer wouldn't likely be able to. Thus if the principles of evolution didn't work, the antenna they created wouldn't otherwise exist.

again: distinguish between what they call "evolutionary algorithms" and evolutionery theory. even if the theory is wrong we can still make that antenna. thats a fact. and by the way we can call it designed algorithms as well since they were made by design and not by a natural process like evolution.

 

[pitabread]

again: distinguish between what they call "evolutionary algorithms" and evolutionery theory. even if the theory is wrong we can still make that antenna. thats a fact. and by the way we can call it designed algorithms as well since they were made by design and not by a natural process like evolution.

The algorithms are based on the principles derived from the theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, the algorithms wouldn't exist.

And no, they are not called "designed algorithms". The correct term is evolutionary algorithms. You don't get to rebrand things just because you don't like the implications.

 

[xianghua]

The algorithms are based on the principles derived from the theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, the algorithms wouldn't exist.

And no, they are not called "designed algorithms". The correct term is evolutionary algorithms. You don't get to rebrand things just because you don't like the implications.

so according to you i cant choose a good apple (out of a pile of apples) without the theory of evolution since its base on evolutionery principles (natural selection)?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but i just showed you that even if evolution is false we still could make that antenna.

No; as I explained, if evolution was false we wouldn't be here. But specifically to your point, we also couldn't make the antenna via evolutionary algorithms - because, by your premise, they wouldn't work.

But they do. Not only do we use evolutionary algorithms in artificial 'design' processes, but we can manipulate them to our requirements in living creatures.

 

[pitabread]

so according to you i cant choose a good apple (out of a pile of apples) without the theory of evolution since its base on evolutionery principles (natural selection)?

Huh? This question doesn't make any sense.

Also, please don't use the "according to you" response. You're constantly twisting the meaning of what people are saying and then you try to put words into their mouths based on that twisted meaning.

It's a dishonest debate tactic and not one you should be using if you want to honestly engage people.

 

[xianghua]

Huh? This question doesn't make any sense.

you are basically suggesting that if some process mimmic evolutionery process (in this case evolutionary algorithms) then it means that we cant do that process without evolution to be true. am i right?

 

[pitabread]

you are basically suggesting that if some process mimmic evolutionery process (in this case evolutionary algorithms) then it means that we cant do that process without evolution to be true. am i right?

What I am saying is that if you have an algorithm derived from the theory of evolution, you first need the theory of evolution on which to derive said algorithm. Without the theory of evolution you can't have an algorithm derived from the theory of evolution.

Further, if the evolutionary processes as described by the theory of evolution didn't work, then we wouldn't expect those evolutionary algorithms to work either. Yet those evolutionary algorithms did work and in the case of the evolved antenna produced an output not otherwise possible with traditional design methods.

Per NASA:

Whereas the current practice of designing antennas by hand is severely limited because it is both time and labor intensive and requires a significant amount of domain knowledge, evolutionary algorithms can be used to search the design space and automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed.​

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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?

Stop avoiding the question. I asked you to talk us through how you detect something that is too complex to evolve naturally. If you can't do that, just say so.

 

[Kylie]

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.

 

[xianghua]

Without the theory of evolution you can't have an algorithm derived from the theory of evolution.

i dont think so. say that tomorrow someone will falsify evolution. are you saying hat we will not be able to use these algorithms anymore?. its irrelevant to biological evolution of course. so the fact that something mimmic evolution doesnt prove that evolution is true.

more than that: in reality evolution need small steps. but no one know if these small steps actually exist. thus again these algorithms are irrelevant to biological evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

i dont think so. say that tomorrow someone will falsify evolution. are you saying hat we will not be able to use these algorithms anymore?. its irrelevant to biological evolution of course. so the fact that something mimmic evolution doesnt prove that evolution is true.

more than that: in reality evolution need small steps. but no one know if these small steps actually exist. thus again these algorithms are irrelevant to biological evolution.

Are you kidding? It was the observance of these small steps which gave rise to the idea of evolution in the first place.