Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lucaspa" data-source="post: 1131047" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p>It's recently been done.</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"> Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out <span style="font-size: 9px"><strong><a href="http://www.genetic-programming.com" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">www.genetic-programming.co</span></u></a></strong><a href="http://www.genetic-programming.com" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">m</span></u></a></span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 9px">What we have here are computers making inventions the Patent Office is accepting without intelligent input into the inventions. The humans are setting up the environment in which natural selection works.'</span></span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>What "force"? Put the amino acids together in a "soup", and the chemistry happens. No direction from the humans at all. When you put oxygen and hydrogen together and add a spark, you get a chemical reaction to form water. Did <strong>you</strong> make the water? Do you think hydrogen and oxygen won't form water when you aren't around? Same principles here.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Again, been done. You simply aren't looking for the data.</p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">AI Samuel, Some studies on machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research Development, 3: 211-219, 1964. Reprinted in EA Feigenbaum and J Feldman, Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964 pp 71-105.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Here you have a computer program that wrote itself. A program to play checkers. The program got so good -- by Darwinian selection -- that it beat the human checkers champ. Samuel hadn't looked at the code while the program was evolving. When he did after the program beat the human, he found huge stretches of code <strong>that Samuel had no idea what it did! </strong>Now, how could Samuel be said to have been the "intelligent programmer" when he doesn't know how the program works?</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Dawkins did not select. He did set a "goal", but then, so does the environment. The environment does set the immediate "goal" for natural selection. So that wasn't out of bounds for duplicating what nature does. The "program" was simply the algorithm of selection. That is, he duplicated what goes on in nature with 1) random generation of letters for the initial sequences, 2) preserving the selected sequences (inheritance), and 3) the introduction of variation into the next generation (recombination and mutation). IOW, anything he set up is what is present in the natural system.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>1. Have you ever run a chemistry experiment? It is impossible to "make chemical wriggle and squirm". Instead, you put them together and they react or they don't. You can't reach in to each molecule and physically shove it toward and make it react with another molecule. </p><p> </p><p>2. No one said Fox's experiments produced a genetic code. But you don't have to have one to be alive. The protocells contain more information than modern cells, and that information arises thru chemistry, not intelligent intervention. </p><p> </p><p>3. Since the proteins can reproduce directly without a DNA template, you don't need DNA coding. And the protocells reproduce, dividing up the proteins and other chemicals among the daughter cells. Even the IDer Dean Kenyon wrote 1) that protocells were alive and 2) provided units for selection. <span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Dean H. Kenyon, Prefigured ordering and protoselection in the origin of life. In The Origins of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry, ed. Dose, Fox, Deborin, and Pavlovskaya, 1974, pg 211.</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Oh, that's <strong>easy!</strong> You do know that William Dembski has shown that information arises from <strong>selection</strong>, don't you? See No Free Lunch.</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">"<span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: #4600a5">Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of these N offspring M succeed in reproducing. The amount of information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. Take a simple non-biological example. If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them. Here N equals 2 and M equals 1. The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one. This is of course as things should be. Now this example from communication theory is mathematically isomorphic to the case of cell-division where only one of the daughter cells goes on to reproduce. On the other hand, <strong>if</strong> both daughter cells go on to reproduce, then N equals M equals 2, and thus -log2(M/N) = -log2(2/2) = 0, indicating that selection, by failing to eliminate any possibility failed also to introduce new information. "</span></span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black">Now, let's look at what happens in populations of organisms. Let's run a few calculations:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have <strong>gained </strong>2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has <strong>increased </strong>4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information. Not exactly what Dembski said.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this <em>one</em> generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Finally, note that selection <strong>must</strong> result in an increase of information by Dembski's equation. Any fraction <strong>always</strong> has a negative logarithm. With the negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for information <strong>must</strong> be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce (M) to be <strong>greater than</strong> the number born (N). This is obviously not possible.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">As to "communication", see </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">3. G Taubes, Evolving a conscious machine. Discover 19: 72-79. June1998. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Human "experience" here means ignoring that Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design. Our new experience, and expanding daily, is that information and communication do indeed arise out of the unintelligent process of Darwinian selection.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 1131047, member: 4882"] It's recently been done. [font=Arial] Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out [size=1][b][url="http://www.genetic-programming.com"][u][color=#0000ff]www.genetic-programming.co[/color][/u][/url][/b][url="http://www.genetic-programming.com"][u][color=#0000ff]m[/color][/u][/url][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1]What we have here are computers making inventions the Patent Office is accepting without intelligent input into the inventions. The humans are setting up the environment in which natural selection works.'[/size][/font] What "force"? Put the amino acids together in a "soup", and the chemistry happens. No direction from the humans at all. When you put oxygen and hydrogen together and add a spark, you get a chemical reaction to form water. Did [b]you[/b] make the water? Do you think hydrogen and oxygen won't form water when you aren't around? Same principles here. Again, been done. You simply aren't looking for the data. [font=Arial]AI Samuel, Some studies on machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research Development, 3: 211-219, 1964. Reprinted in EA Feigenbaum and J Feldman, Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964 pp 71-105.[/font] [font=Arial]Here you have a computer program that wrote itself. A program to play checkers. The program got so good -- by Darwinian selection -- that it beat the human checkers champ. Samuel hadn't looked at the code while the program was evolving. When he did after the program beat the human, he found huge stretches of code [b]that Samuel had no idea what it did! [/b]Now, how could Samuel be said to have been the "intelligent programmer" when he doesn't know how the program works?[/font] Dawkins did not select. He did set a "goal", but then, so does the environment. The environment does set the immediate "goal" for natural selection. So that wasn't out of bounds for duplicating what nature does. The "program" was simply the algorithm of selection. That is, he duplicated what goes on in nature with 1) random generation of letters for the initial sequences, 2) preserving the selected sequences (inheritance), and 3) the introduction of variation into the next generation (recombination and mutation). IOW, anything he set up is what is present in the natural system. 1. Have you ever run a chemistry experiment? It is impossible to "make chemical wriggle and squirm". Instead, you put them together and they react or they don't. You can't reach in to each molecule and physically shove it toward and make it react with another molecule. 2. No one said Fox's experiments produced a genetic code. But you don't have to have one to be alive. The protocells contain more information than modern cells, and that information arises thru chemistry, not intelligent intervention. 3. Since the proteins can reproduce directly without a DNA template, you don't need DNA coding. And the protocells reproduce, dividing up the proteins and other chemicals among the daughter cells. Even the IDer Dean Kenyon wrote 1) that protocells were alive and 2) provided units for selection. [font=Arial]Dean H. Kenyon, Prefigured ordering and protoselection in the origin of life. In The Origins of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry, ed. Dose, Fox, Deborin, and Pavlovskaya, 1974, pg 211.[/font] Oh, that's [b]easy![/b] You do know that William Dembski has shown that information arises from [b]selection[/b], don't you? See No Free Lunch. [font=Arial]"[size=2][color=#4600a5]Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of these N offspring M succeed in reproducing. The amount of information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. Take a simple non-biological example. If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them. Here N equals 2 and M equals 1. The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one. This is of course as things should be. Now this example from communication theory is mathematically isomorphic to the case of cell-division where only one of the daughter cells goes on to reproduce. On the other hand, [b]if[/b] both daughter cells go on to reproduce, then N equals M equals 2, and thus -log2(M/N) = -log2(2/2) = 0, indicating that selection, by failing to eliminate any possibility failed also to introduce new information. "[/color][/size][/font] [color=black]Now, let's look at what happens in populations of organisms. Let's run a few calculations:[/color] [font=Arial]1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have [b]gained [/b]2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information. 2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has [b]increased [/b]4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information. Not exactly what Dembski said. 3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01. So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this [i]one[/i] generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information. Finally, note that selection [b]must[/b] result in an increase of information by Dembski's equation. Any fraction [b]always[/b] has a negative logarithm. With the negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for information [b]must[/b] be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce (M) to be [b]greater than[/b] the number born (N). This is obviously not possible.[/font] [font=Arial]As to "communication", see [/font] [font=Arial]3. G Taubes, Evolving a conscious machine. Discover 19: 72-79. June1998. [/font] [font=Arial]Human "experience" here means ignoring that Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design. Our new experience, and expanding daily, is that information and communication do indeed arise out of the unintelligent process of Darwinian selection.[/font] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
Top
Bottom