Video: Randomness vs Evolution

[_____a_____]

Hello! I've been working on other things for a few months. Some of you may remember me from my notorious thread asking Christians whether or not they believe in evolution. I am not here to deconvert you. There is no possible way for me to convince you of anything because you will simply dismiss it with some biblical verse. I am simply here to disprove the intelligent design argument of it being unlikely that life exists in its current state by chance. Allow me to disprove this.

I made a video showing the difference between random chance and natural selection. In the first part, it executes a Python script (here it is for the people who are curious) which generates random strings (collections of letters) until it reaches the string "Fifty". Obviously I sped it up, and obviously, it fails because of the 380204032 variations of 5 character strings.

However, when you attempt the same thing, but it automatically selects strings which are closer to "Fifty", which is much more similar to natural selection (though if you want to see a more realistic version of computerised evolution simulations, see Evolution by Keiwan), you get a much shorter attempt number (see the script here, I used Zivia's [an excellent programming YouTube channel if you are into that] script to save time).

NOTES:

• Music during the video is Ashterra - Worlds Inside The Worlds, but I pulled it from the Space Engine soundtrack, which you should check out
• Sorry about the watermark, but I have had hours and hours of work stolen by people claiming it as their own before and I'm not going to let it happen again.
• Please don't just dismiss this and continue to make the argument. Reject this on its merit, not on whether or not it clashes with your beliefs.
• I used this as the background for the video.
• I made the background of the Command Prompt window transparent in the post-production, the rainbow of the text was also added in post.
• I also want to address the comment of "Well evolution is supposed to be over millions of years, this is over a few seconds." - Yes, evolution does occur over millions of years. But this is simply showing an acceleration of the process.
  

 

[AV1611VET]

Reject this on its merit,

Will do.

All I got out of this video was reminiscent of the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with numbers and letters on the left side incrementing at a speed beyond my capacity to read them.

This is like trying to convince someone of UFOs or Big Foot by showing them fuzzy photographs and grainy videos.

If you want someone to drop Intelligent Design, you're going to have to come up with something other than a computer simulation of a light show.

The music was groovy though.

 

[Ophiolite]

Two independent points:
1. Just a reminder that there are plenty of Christians (probably the majority) who have no problem with evolution, or evolutionary theory and certainly do not feel threatened by it.
2. The standard of debating skills, general courtesy and scientific knowledge is typically low amongst the YEC's posting on this forum. Consequently attempting a reasoned discussion with them is nearly always frustrating and, in the long term, probably impossible. Therefore, in order to retain my sanity and, perhaps, have a productive conversation, I shall play devil's advocate on this thread. (I like the irony in that.)

As you note in your video, your Python routine only works because you have introduced a goal into the process. If you were asserting that the routine can still represent the evolutionary process then you are equating a teleological process with a non-teleological process. That is equivocation.

Alternatively you may believe that this is a good analogy for the evolutionary process. That may be so, but an analogy is only effective as an explanatory tool, not as a proof statement.

Therefore, unless you are able to satisfactorily address these two points, your video (regardless of how competently made) may be disregarded as an argument in favour of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Therefore, unless you are able to satisfactorily address these two points, your video (regardless of how competently made) may be disregarded as an argument in favour of evolution.

It looks like someone standing in front of a group of motorcyclists who are racing toward you.

I don't see evolution in that video.

The music was groovy though.

 

[AV1611VET]

The video says: "It will seem to be moving slower than it was in real time ..."

What is "It" in that sentence?

And what is moving at 5x the speed?

 

[Ophiolite]

It looks like someone standing in front of a group of motorcyclists who are racing toward you.

I don't see evolution in that video.

The music was groovy though.

You have completely missed the point of the video and your objection is consequently meaningless.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have completely missed the point of the video and your objection is consequently meaningless.

Then by all means, tell me how you see evolution in that video.

If I showed it to someone, would they nod their head in agreement with the OP? or would they have to be coached?

 

[Belk]

Then by all means, tell me how you see evolution in that video.

If I showed it to someone, would they nod their head in agreement with the OP? or would they have to be coached?

Perhaps you should perform an experiment? Show it to someone and let us know the results.

 

[DamianWarS]

Hello! I've been working on other things for a few months. Some of you may remember me from my notorious thread asking Christians whether or not they believe in evolution. I am not here to deconvert you. There is no possible way for me to convince you of anything because you will simply dismiss it with some biblical verse. I am simply here to disprove the intelligent design argument of it being unlikely that life exists in its current state by chance. Allow me to disprove this.

I made a video showing the difference between random chance and natural selection. In the first part, it executes a Python script (here it is for the people who are curious) which generates random strings (collections of letters) until it reaches the string "Fifty". Obviously I sped it up, and obviously, it fails because of the 380204032 variations of 5 character strings.

However, when you attempt the same thing, but it automatically selects strings which are closer to "Fifty", which is much more similar to natural selection (though if you want to see a more realistic version of computerised evolution simulations, see Evolution by Keiwan), you get a much shorter attempt number (see the script here, I used Zivia's [an excellent programming YouTube channel if you are into that] script to save time).

NOTES:

• Music during the video is Ashterra - Worlds Inside The Worlds, but I pulled it from the Space Engine soundtrack, which you should check out
• Sorry about the watermark, but I have had hours and hours of work stolen by people claiming it as their own before and I'm not going to let it happen again.
• Please don't just dismiss this and continue to make the argument. Reject this on its merit, not on whether or not it clashes with your beliefs.
• I used this as the background for the video.
• I made the background of the Command Prompt window transparent in the post-production, the rainbow of the text was also added in post.
• I also want to address the comment of "Well evolution is supposed to be over millions of years, this is over a few seconds." - Yes, evolution does occur over millions of years. But this is simply showing an acceleration of the process.
  

as your video hints, trying to find the string "Fifty" or strings that are a close match is not really random at all. The nature of your simulation actually uses an outside intelligent measure to judge and determine the outcome and control when it is successfull and when it is not. You can actually stop the script and tweak it to get a faster result.

I never looked at the scripted but based on the output of the second simulation it starts off with the string "Fifty" and randomly removes 2 characters and then randomly puts them back in, then stops once the string is restored. So it's really the difference between 5 random characters and 2 random characters

Do you not see the issue with this? the second simulation is by nature intelligent design. You are actually stepping in and manipulating randomness to get the result faster. So if the string was "Fxxty" (x being the removed characters) where did "F-t-y" come from?

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you should perform an experiment?

Hollywood already beat me to it with 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Show it to someone and let us know the results.

Take your pick: Interpretations

The music in the OP was cool though.

 

[pitabread]

Then by all means, tell me how you see evolution in that video.

If I showed it to someone, would they nod their head in agreement with the OP? or would they have to be coached?

The purpose of the video is to demonstrate the effect selection has when it comes to seeking a viable outcome from randomized changes over time.

This seems clearly described in the OP's post.

 

[AV1611VET]

The purpose of the video is to demonstrate the effect selection has when it comes to seeking a viable outcome from randomized changes over time.

In your opinion (as if you're going to start answering my questions), but in your opinion, does the video accomplish its purpose?

If I showed it to ... skip it ... you won't answer me.

This seems clearly described in the OP's post.

Right.

That's why the viewer needs to be coached first, isn't it?

And even then, the video doesn't make sense.

 

[pitabread]

In your opinion (as if you're going to start answering my questions), but in your opinion, does the video accomplish its purpose?

I do believe there is a minimal threshold of understanding required to understand the point of that video.

That's why the viewer needs to be coached first, isn't it?

Explaining what the experiment was is hardly "coaching". It's just saying, "here is how I did a thing, and here is a video showing the output from that thing."

And even then, the video doesn't make sense.

Yes it does. If you understand what is written in the OP's post.

Your responses in this thread indicate you don't understand.

 

[_____a_____]

as your video hints, trying to find the string "Fifty" or strings that are a close match is not really random at all. The nature of your simulation actually uses an outside intelligent measure to judge and determine the outcome and control when it is successfull and when it is not. You can actually stop the script and tweak it to get a faster result.

I never looked at the scripted but based on the output of the second simulation it starts off with the string "Fifty" and randomly removes 2 characters and then randomly puts them back in, then stops once the string is restored. So it's really the difference between 5 random characters and 2 random characters

Do you not see the issue with this? the second simulation is by nature intelligent design. You are actually stepping in and manipulating randomness to get the result faster. So if the string was "Fxxty" (x being the removed characters) where did "F-t-y" come from?

Hmm... my simulation never actually started with the string "Fifty". If you take a look at the script you can confirm that. When testing it I had a wide variety of starting strings, some of which only resulted in one hundred iterations. If it seemed to have started with a string close to "Fifty" that was a random coincidence.

And to clarify, the fitness test is supposed to show that the strongest breeds off its traits and the weakest die out. So I wouldn't consider it an outside intelligence.

As you note in your video, your Python routine only works because you have introduced a goal into the process. If you were asserting that the routine can still represent the evolutionary process then you are equating a teleological process with a non-teleological process. That is equivocation.

Fair point, however, I do think I can equate them fairly well. As I eluded to in the video, it would be impossible to demonstrate the difference between random chance and evolution if there was no specific goal in which I could change one factor to get to. It would be unscientific of me to do otherwise. I also repeatedly mentioned Evolution by Keiwan throughout the post which shows evolution without a defined goal, it also is (cough) pretty fun (/cough).

To prove my point once and for all, I guess I will have to demonstrate that my genetic algorithm is an equivalent for a real genetic trait. So what if we change the string "Fifty" to a genetic trait that is necessary for a species to evolve to survive a new environment (assuming that that trait is the only possible long-term survival method and that the species isn't currently surviving very well [ie. many are dying but not all]). If we equate it with a necessary trait, then the python routine is appropriate as an experiment proving evolution.

 

[_____a_____]

The video says: "It will seem to be moving slower than it was in real time ..."

What is "It" in that sentence?

And what is moving at 5x the speed?

I screwed up a bit with the wording in that. I mean that doesn't look like it did on my screen, because on my screen the text was flying across at insane speeds. I was saying that the FPS of my recording couldn't truly capture the speed of the text moving. You will notice that the text moved at several thousand lines per second.

The recording is being played back at 5x speed.

 

[_____a_____]

UPDATE: I had to remove the song from the video because it was copyright claimed (ineligibly given that the band who wrote the song didn't even claim it, it was an unaffiliated production company that doesn't exist. YouTube copyright is truly broken.) I will put in Hathor Hymnal instead.

 

[AV1611VET]

UPDATE: I had to remove the song from the video because it was copyright claimed (ineligibly given that the band who wrote the song didn't even claim it, it was an unaffiliated production company that doesn't exist. YouTube copyright is truly broken.) I will put one of my own songs in instead.

 

[DamianWarS]

Hmm... my simulation never actually started with the string "Fifty". If you take a look at the script you can confirm that. When testing it I had a wide variety of starting strings, some of which only resulted in one hundred iterations. If it seemed to have started with a string close to "Fifty" that was a random coincidence.

And to clarify, the fitness test is supposed to show that the strongest breeds off its traits and the weakest die out. So I wouldn't consider it an outside intelligence.

where is the link to the script for the second anyway? I see links to youtube channels and better scripts but not the actual script for the second one. I'm sure I've missed it but could you link to it anyway.

or you could just explain how in the second each string manages to have 4 of the 6 characters the same.

 

[_____a_____]

where is the link to the script for the second anyway? I see links to youtube channels and better scripts but not the actual script for the second one. I'm sure I've missed it but could you link to it anyway.

or you could just explain how in the second each string manages to have 4 of the 6 characters the same.

Second script.

Ok. I'll try to explain it.

So pretend it randomly generates the string "Fargi". It would get scored higher because the F makes it more similar to "Fifty". The next generation might randomly generate "Fafgi", that is closer to "Fifty", so it would be scored higher, meaning that the next generation will have that string, with a small change. The next generation might have "Fifgi", closer to "Fifty", and so on until you get "Fifty".

 

[DamianWarS]

Second script.

Ok. I'll try to explain it.

So pretend it randomly generates the string "Fargi". It would get scored higher because the F makes it more similar to "Fifty". The next generation might randomly generate "Fafgi", that is closer to "Fifty", so it would be scored higher, meaning that the next generation will have that string, with a small change. The next generation might have "Fifgi", closer to "Fifty", and so on until you get "Fifty".

I get it, I was looking at the last lines of the output thus my false conclusions.

What your scripture accomplished is proving you can manipulate the result with a bias. You could use the same script to favour intelligent design.