What are we?

[Gold Dragon]

Thanks seebs!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Several objections:
1. Actually, we've had our first "wild" virus already; a virus that resulted from two other viral programs crashing and producing an offshoot.
2. You need to read more computer science and less science fiction.

Seriously, the notion of "rogue" programs doesn't even make sense in this context. Evolutionary programming happens in fairly controlled environments. Programs can't just jump magically from one computer to another. They run in their little sandboxes.

No one is leaving unsupervised programs reproducing themselves wandering over networks. That'd be silly, and not useful.

So, we have no reason to expect "rogue" programs. What we do have reason to expect is, for instance, programs which "cheat" at assigned projects. For instance, someone was using evolutionary programming to engineer circuits to produce tones. One of the resulting designs that worked very well was cheating; it wasn't producing a tone, it was building an antenna to pick up a signal that was already present in the environment they were testing in.

But there was nothing anywhere in the code about antennae, or anything else. Just random shuffles of components looking for ones that did well.

Has anyone seen or read Ghost in the Shell?

 

[seebs]

Has anyone seen or read Ghost in the Shell?

Saw the original one, although I've long since forgotten it.

The question of whether rogue programs might someday exist is a fascinating one. The technology we're using right now mostly doesn't allow it, but it's worth noting that wild viruses have recombined in the past.

 

[JohnJones]

No one is leaving unsupervised programs reproducing themselves wandering over networks. That'd be silly, and not useful.

So, we have no reason to expect "rogue" programs. What we do have reason to expect is, for instance, programs which "cheat" at assigned projects.

Like I said, nothing is truly "emerging." You just train programs lazily to cheat; it's not evolution at all.

 

[seebs]

Like I said, nothing is truly "emerging." You just train programs lazily to cheat; it's not evolution at all.

Er. I don't even see what distinction you're trying to draw here.

This looks exactly like evolution by any definition I've ever seen. We have a population (check) with some kind of coding for traits (check) which change over time (check). That's evolution. To make it even more like the kind we see in the rest of the world, we have those traits recombine (check) and the ones that are successful are reproductive advantages (check).

In short, it's random changes and natural selection, and it does exactly the same thing on programs or simple electronics that it does on life forms; makes gradually more and more complicated things, some of them much more complicated than the process used to produce them, which we don't understand without a lot of study, or possibly at all.

 

[ethos]

I don't know the first thing about computer programs. But I do have a reasonable grasp of natural selection. It's a rather simple idea really.

Yes, I would agree, natural selection is an acceptable scientific platform, much more so than the stretch you call evolution. Intelligent design and natural selection fit my personal understanding quite nicely without one species changing into an entirely different form. And yes, I believe that God created man in his own image and placed him in the garden complete and whole. Do you really think that God needs 4 million years of time to complete his work, and if you do, why do you call him God. My God is equipped with all the power he needs to get this task done most efficiently. Say like 7 days?

 

[gluadys]

Yes, I would agree, natural selection is an acceptable scientific platform, much more so than the stretch you call evolution. Intelligent design and natural selection fit my personal understanding quite nicely without one species changing into an entirely different form.

If by "entirely different form" you mean something like a dog turning into a cat, it is not evolution you have a problem with but your fictitious version of evolution. You might check out the thread

The Systematic Classification of Life

to get a better appreciation of how evolution works.

It is surprising how many people won't accept evolution until they see an event which would actually falsifiy evolution. It is not surprising that science can show no such observation.

And yes, I believe that God created man in his own image and placed him in the garden complete and whole. Do you really think that God needs 4 million years of time to complete his work, and if you do, why do you call him God. My God is equipped with all the power he needs to get this task done most efficiently. Say like 7 days?

You are pulling the predictable bait and switch between "can" and "does". God can create anything in any time frame God wishes. The evidence is overwhelming that God did create species via evolution over billions of years.

 

[seebs]

If I say I don't have an ice cream cone, am I saying God isn't powerful enough to give me one, or am I merely observing that, for reasons of His own, He hasn't?

 

[SBG]

If by "entirely different form" you mean something like a dog turning into a cat, it is not evolution you have a problem with but your fictitious version of evolution.

How about a lizard that has a bird as an offspring? Or would you rather go with gradual evolution instead of punctual, which is still waiting for the transistional fossils to turn up?

 

[seebs]

How about a lizard that has a bird as an offspring? Or would you rather go with gradual evolution instead of punctual, which is still waiting for the transistional fossils to turn up?

Er. You have a serious misconception about the scale on which people mean "punctuated". We have lots of interesting intermediate forms.

Complaining about the lack of transitional fossils, at this point, is like complaining that I90 doesn't go all the way from Minnesota to Montana because the tenth-of-a-mile mileposts don't run the whole way, and sometimes you have to go a WHOLE MILE between signs.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

How about a lizard that has a bird as an offspring? Or would you rather go with gradual evolution instead of punctual, which is still waiting for the transistional fossils to turn up?

OK. Who lied and told you that Punk Eek meant a lizard having a bird as offspring?

I've seen this before, and I'd love to know what lying toad invented this particular piece of misinformation.

 

[Vance]

You forgot the part about the transitionals not having shown up. Can we get Lucaspa's list of dozens and dozens of transitionals? There will, of course, be transitions for which no fossil evidence remains, and the faster this development takes place, the less likely a fossil will exist. But to say that a more rapid development will be like one species giving birth to an entirely different species makes no sense in evolutionary terms. In fact, if that ever happened, the theory of evolution would be falsified. Punk eek is talking about a transition over maybe hundreds of years rather than thousands or millions, depending upon the generational lengths.

 

[ethos]

If by "entirely different form" you mean something like a dog turning into a cat, it is not evolution you have a problem with but your fictitious version of evolution. You might check out the thread

The Systematic Classification of Life

to get a better appreciation of how evolution works.

It is surprising how many people won't accept evolution until they see an event which would actually falsifiy evolution. It is not surprising that science can show no such observation.




You are pulling the predictable bait and switch between "can" and "does". God can create anything in any time frame God wishes. The evidence is overwhelming that God did create species via evolution over billions of years.

If this is actually what God did, then why did he mislead us with the Genesis version, or don't you believe in the "inspired word of God" as delivered by the Holy Spirit? Man is not evolving, if you'll read the scripture, it defines man's state as a continual desent into depravity. God created man in a complete and perfect form, then man fell. Only the blood of Jesus can redeem us from our fallen state. To claim that man is improving as time passes goes against what scripture says. Do any evolutionists here at this forum believe that the scripture is the inspired word of God, and if not, what book would you substitute?

 

[gluadys]

If this is actually what God did, then why did he mislead us with the Genesis version, or don't you believe in the "inspired word of God" as delivered by the Holy Spirit?

God didn’t mislead us in scripture. God never told us Gen. 1-3 must be interpreted as a literal historical account. Given the typical way people of ancient times wrote “history” it is much more likely that it is not to be interpreted by our notion of literal history. We see from many other passages of scripture that God is just as willing to inspire non-literal as well as literal writing.

Man is not evolving, if you'll read the scripture, it defines man's state as a continual desent into depravity. God created man in a complete and perfect form, then man fell. Only the blood of Jesus can redeem us from our fallen state.

Our fallen state has to do with a broken relationship with God. It has nothing to do with the biological origin of our species.

To claim that man is improving as time passes goes against what scripture says.

Evolution does not claim that humanity or any other species is improving. It does say that species adapt to their environment. We see this in humans as well. People who live in high altitudes adapt to air with less oxygen in it. People who live in high latitudes develop adaptations to the cold. Skin colour reflects ancient adaptations to the need to deflect UV radiation in equatorial regions, but absorb Vitamin D in temperate/sub-arctic climates. Sickle-cell trait is virtually unknown outside of malaria regions, but continues where malaria is a serious threat. People, like all other animals, adapt to their environment.

Do any evolutionists here at this forum believe that the scripture is the inspired word of God, and if not, what book would you substitute?

I believe all scripture is inspired of God, just as Paul wrote to Timothy.

 

[ethos]

God didn’t mislead us in scripture. God never told us Gen. 1-3 must be interpreted as a literal historical account. Given the typical way people of ancient times wrote “history” it is much more likely that it is not to be interpreted by our notion of literal history. We see from many other passages of scripture that God is just as willing to inspire non-literal as well as literal writing.



Our fallen state has to do with a broken relationship with God. It has nothing to do with the biological origin of our species.



Evolution does not claim that humanity or any other species is improving. It does say that species adapt to their environment. We see this in humans as well. People who live in high altitudes adapt to air with less oxygen in it. People who live in high latitudes develop adaptations to the cold. Skin colour reflects ancient adaptations to the need to deflect UV radiation in equatorial regions, but absorb Vitamin D in temperate/sub-arctic climates. Sickle-cell trait is virtually unknown outside of malaria regions, but continues where malaria is a serious threat. People, like all other animals, adapt to their environment.



I believe that you are speaking about natural selection here and not about evolution. I two believe in natural selection, the need for species to adapt to enviornmental circumstances, but not as evolution suggests that one species can evolve into an entirely different form. I am encouraged however to learn that you do believe in the inspired word of God.

 

[Vance]

Natural selection is simply one of the primary mechanics behind evolutionary development and this process is, indeed, based on simply adapting to it's environment. We have seen instances of changes in a given species to adapt to its environment to such a degree that a new species actually develops. This is not speculation, it is observed fact.

Evolution does not say that any species just changes into another. It says that a species can change a little bit, and then a little bit more, etc, etc, until eventually it is very, very different than its starting point. All the while, another branch of that original species, given different environmental pressures, will change differently, ore more quickly or more slowly, or maybe not at all.

The difference between what you believe in (micro-evolution) and what is the accepted explanation for diversity of species (macro-evolution) is not a difference in substance at all. Macro-evolution is simply a whole bunch of micro-evolutions added up.

 

[JohnJones]

Natural selection is simply one of the primary mechanics behind evolutionary development and this process is, indeed, based on simply adapting to it's environment.

Natural Selection doesn't have anthing to do with adaptation at all - it does not cause nor guide adaptation. Natural Selection is simply death. Animals die and evolutionists assume that it is because they don't adapt. That's all fine and good, but it fails to exaplain how adaptation takes place. If the will of the animal is not involved, what is? Certianly not natural selection which merely renders verdict on adaptation and does not produce adaptation. (I'm speaking as if this all takes place, although I know evolution is a big croc.)

We have seen instances of changes in a given species to adapt to its environment to such a degree that a new species actually develops. This is not speculation, it is observed fact.

Describe your observations then, if that be the case.

Evolution does not say that any species just changes into another. It says that a species can change a little bit, and then a little bit more, etc, etc, until eventually it is very, very different than its starting point.

Here, you disagree with your other quote above. But, lets examine this claim none the less: essentially even by what you say here, it changes into another species eventually. How can fish grow legs and become salamanders and still be the same species? and how can those salamanders eventually give rise to rats and still be the same species? and how can those rats give rise to bear-like mamals that eventually go back to the water and become whales, and still be the same species? By your above statement, you are saying that every living thing is the same species, if you buy evolution, which you do.

 

[JohnJones]

Evolution does not claim that humanity or any other species is improving. It does say that species adapt to their environment. We see this in humans as well. People who live in high altitudes adapt to air with less oxygen in it. People who live in high latitudes develop adaptations to the cold. Skin colour reflects ancient adaptations to the need to deflect UV radiation in equatorial regions, but absorb Vitamin D in temperate/sub-arctic climates. Sickle-cell trait is virtually unknown outside of malaria regions, but continues where malaria is a serious threat. People, like all other animals, adapt to their environment.

All pre-programmed responses. When God created man from the dust of the ground he programmed his DNA to make these adaptations - these are not adaptation created by evolution nor learned by man - that's why they're constant!

The FACT that these are pre-programmed responses explains why a hog in the wild grows tusks while one in captivity does not - it isn't evolution - it's the absence or non-absence of a condition. It's like God said "If (incaptivity(hog)){ hog->growTusks=false; }" -- This shows why hogs in the wild don't change into a new species! If you take the wild hog and the domestic hog and put them together they can still mate. It's the same with people: skin color is a pre-programmed adaptation not evolutionary, therefore all diferrent colors of skinned people are still the same species and can still mate with each other. This shows evolution is a croc.

This is also why evolutionists ignorantly think fish can give birth to salamanders, whereas God being much smarter than they tells us plainly "every creature reproduces only after its own kind."

 

[seebs]

Natural Selection doesn't have anthing to do with adaptation at all - it does not cause nor guide adaptation.

And yet, we can clearly demonstrate that it does.

If animals with one trait die more often than animals with another, the trait becomes rarer. How tricky is that?

If the will of the animal is not involved, what is? Certianly not natural selection which merely renders verdict on adaptation and does not produce adaptation. (I'm speaking as if this all takes place, although I know evolution is a big croc.)

Okay, let's try a thought experiment. Imagine a dog breeder. He is breeding for long fur. When dogs in his kennel are getting on towards breeding age, he measures their fur. If it's long, he lets them breed, if it's short, he kills them.

Would you agree that, in this "unnatural selection" case, the dogs would gradually tend to have longer fur over time?

If so, what's so odd about a cold environment, which tends to kill dogs with short fur, having the exact same effect, resulting in dogs adapted for colder weather over a number of generations?

 

[Vance]

JohnJones:

When fish develop to the point of having legs and becoming salamanders, yes, they are a new species (actually, they are a new species long before that). I did not contradict myself, what I said was that the change from one species to another happens by tiny increments, not one creature giving birth to a creature that is a whole new species.

So, you are wrong, there is no scientist who believes a fish can give birth to a salamander.

I was just praised by a YEC in a PM for having so much patience and maintaining a civil approach to these discussions. But if you can't bother to learn anything at all about how evolution works (and that means from a source other than a creationist source) then I can't be bothered to discuss it with you.