|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
In other words, program used a priori knowledge of the goal before the goal has been reached. Nothing new. Indeed, Dawkins himself discussed that in the original book. Your "objection" is no show stopper. In many genetic algorithm experiments the final goal is not known a priori, but rather there is a functionality that needs to be optimized. The results are the same as in the WEASEL experiment in comparable times. Compare that to single-step selection, which is the basis of most creationist misrepresentations of the probabilities of evolution working (evolution uses cumulative selection, which is what WEASEL demonstrates). Even though the single-step selection version of WEASEL uses the exact same "a priori" selection test, namely comparing the intermediate results to the target string, single-step selection fails so abysmally that it would thousands or millions of times the accepted age of the universe for it to have any chance of succeeding. If the fact that a "a priori" test is used, then why doesn't single-step selection, which uses the exactly same "a priori" test, work as well as cumulative selection. It doesn't even begin to come close. Therefore, it's not that the fitness test depends on a priori knowledge that matters, but rather how cumulative selections works versus single-step selection. IOW, your objections mean nothing. I didn't believe what Dawkins claimed about WEASEL, so I used Dawkins' description of WEASEL as a specification to write my own program, MONKEY. When it ran phenomenally successfully, I couldn't believe that either, so I analyzed the probabilities involved. You can find that analysis in my document (link is to the HTML'ized version), "Monkey Probabilities" (MPROBS, also linked to through my MONKEY page). After that analysis, I finally understood why it works so well. And, no, knowing the target in advance has absolutely nothing to do with that. BTW, if you are going to rely on Royal Truman's article and Remine's book, they both grossly misrepresent who WEASEL and MONKEY work. I discuss that on my MONKEY page. To recap, when a creationist misrepresents, as you have, that evolution uses single-step selection, that is a good indication that that creationist does not know what he is talking about. Or else he's lying (though most often it's that he is ignorant).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The thing is, of course, that the program would work just as well with any phrase. My own example, MONKEY (which has been described as being the closest to what Dawkins described), uses the Roman alphabet in alphabetical order as the default and as the example using in analyzing the probabilities involved (see MPROBS). I also give the user the option of using his own string, though I seem to recall that MONKEY only uses capital letters (that was nearly three decades ago, after all).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2095 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
You just keep demonstrating that you don't understand not only evolution but biology also. You, yourself, are the one who set up the challenge to have a target goal in mind! In reality, there is no target goal so your analogy is off to begin with. You obviously don't know that a random bag of molecules cannot fertilize the egg cell, convert substrate into product, cut the introns and rearrange the exons, etc. So, according to you -"there is no target goal in mind, but the environment is what it is". So, if the enviornment is egg cell then molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a sperm cell. If the enviornment is a specific substrate then again, molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a specific functional enzyme to achieve enzyme-substrate specificity. If the enviornment is intron-exon gene structure then molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a 200 specific proteins to gain RNA splicing ability. Because the environment is what it is... you just wave your magic wand of 'selective pressure' and molecules will just start flying around to form whatever shape you wish. Your mantras about environment clearly demonstrates that you don't have the capacity for rational discussion about the issue at hand. How does the phrase "selective pressure" explain bio-organization? Just like magic, the use of this phrase invokes mysterious powers within unseen universes that are capable of leaping over enormous practical obstacles without having to provide any scientific consideration for how a particular physical result was achieved. These kind of phrases convey wish-like convictions that if you just believe deeply enough, your explanation must be true and someday will be true though currently resisted by all scientific evidence. Explaining bio-organization by believing it arose due to "selective pressure", appeals to imaginary special forces which help you to connect the evolutionary dots. But as in any magical kingdom, the connections are mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality. I will leave you in your magical kingdom with your 'selective pressure' because in your posts there is nothing of substance worth rebutting. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2095 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
My objections mean that in evolutionary programing, targets are a priori selected by intelligent agents. Without this information about the search space structure evolutionary programing does no better than blind search.
IOW, your objections mean nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Forexhr writes: My objections mean that in evolutionary programing, targets are a priori selected by intelligent agents. Without this information about the search space structure evolutionary programing does no better than blind search. You've just explained why you're wrong. Well done. Evolution is not searching for a target. Nor would it know one if it was. It is indeed blind, but it isn't searching.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Evolutionary programs are written by people, but they model evolution, not intelligent design. The programmer defines the "natural environment" so as to model the real world to the degree of accuracy necessary.
Just as an experimental biologist doesn't change selection into an intelligent process by manipulating an organism's environment, neither does a programmer by manipulating a program's "environment". The process modeled is still one of descent with modification and selection. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
into a 200 specific proteins to gain RNA splicing ability. I am calling you out on this again. This is a false or misleading statement. There are not 200 proteins that associate into a massive complex that is a spliceosome. Do you have a source for your information regarding this claim and the 200 associated proteins? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2095 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Tangle writes: You've just explained why you're wrong. Well done.Evolution is not searching for a target. Nor would it know one if it was. It is indeed blind, but it isn't searching. WOW, you also don't know how evolution works. Evolution is ALWAYS searching for a target. Whatever the environment looks like, in order to adapt to it, evolution MUST find a solution. Solution in biology is the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA. If the environment is a specific nutrient - a component in foods that an organism uses to survive and grow, then in order to metabolize it, evolution must find a solution, meaning if must find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that codes for specific enzymes. If the environment is water then evolution must find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that contains the information necessary to build respiratory organ that extracts dissolved oxygen from water and excretes carbon dioxide. If the enviornment is intron-exon gene structure then evolution must find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that contains the information to build mRNA splicing machinery. Hence, in order to adapt to a specific environment evolution must search for a specific target - a specific combination of nucleotides in the DNA. It is really mind blowing that people who argue for evolution exhibit lack of knowledge about the first precondition for adaptation to a specific environment - evolution MUST find a solution to cope with this environment. This is other words means - evolution must search for a TARGET.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2095 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
herebedragons writes: I am calling you out on this again. This is a false or misleading statement. There are not 200 proteins that associate into a massive complex that is a spliceosome. Do you have a source for your information regarding this claim and the 200 associated proteins? You are calling out for red herrings because this does not change the essence of my argument. But anyway here's the link: Protein-free spliceosomal snRNAs catalyze a reaction that resembles the first step of splicing - PMC "Splicing of introns from mRNA precursors is a two-step reaction performed by the spliceosome, an immense cellular machine consisting of over 200 different proteins and five small RNAs (snRNAs)."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2095 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Percy writes: Evolutionary programs are written by people, but they model evolution, not intelligent design. The programmer defines the "natural environment" so as to model the real world to the degree of accuracy necessary.Just as an experimental biologist doesn't change selection into an intelligent process by manipulating an organism's environment, neither does a programmer by manipulating a program's "environment". The process modeled is still one of descent with modification and selection. Wrong. Evolutionary programs all have something that is called active information(fitness function) which is a form of intelligent guidance. To illustrate this consider the following example: you start with the population of 20 individuals located at the center of the soccer field. Individuals will be rewarded(selected) if they manage to reach the right corner of the field by using the following metod: they are alowed to move one step at a time, in one of four different directions; left, right, forward, or backward. Direction of every step is determined randomly. We know that chances of finding the righr corner by using this type of random search are extremely low. This is similar of finding "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" phrase in Dawkins' weasel, by chance. But, we can do the following. We start our simulation and every individual is randomly moved one step in one of the four mentioned directions. When this is done we measure the distance between individual and the right corner of the field. We repeat this calculation for every individual. Now using this data we calculate fitness of each individual. Next step is the selection process - we want to be constantly improving our overall fitness. Selection helps us to keep the best individuals in the population - so individuals who are the most distant from the right corner are out. Now we have our next generation and we can start again the whole process until we reach the right corner. As we can see in this example, at each step of the simulation we have a communication bettwen a solution(location of the right corner) and the current position of the individual. In other words, we have a priori knowledge of the location of the right corner before the right corner is reached. Without this a priori knowledge about the location of the right corner (active information - provided by an intelligent agent), our simulation is left with blind search. In evolution this active information does not exist, meaning evolution can select only those individuals who manage to reach the right corner of the field. In other words, in the real world the path towards this corner is not guided but is carried by random means. So yes, evolutionary programs model intelligent design. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
forexhr writes: WOW, you also don't know how evolution works. Evolution is ALWAYS searching for a target. Whatever the environment looks like, in order to adapt to it, evolution MUST find a solution. Utter crap and the reason why everybody is telling you you're wrong. Evolution is not a thinking process, it does not search or have a target. Evolution doesn't have to do anything. The most likely event in a change of environment is death. You're making a basic error in thinking a particular outcome could be expected.
It is really mind blowing that people who argue for evolution exhibit lack of knowledge about the first precondition for adaptation to a specific environment - evolution MUST find a solution to cope with this environment. This is other words means - evolution must search for a TARGET. Repeating it doesn't make it any less crappy. There is no target, there is only a random change in a gene that may or may not help an organism in a particular situation. You are committing the sharp-shooter fallacy by looking in hindsight at an outcome and trying to calculate the odds of it happening. That fact is, it didn't have to happen at all or not in that way. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2095 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Unbelievable, after I gave you clear examples that adapting to an environment means targeting a specific solution you still deny that evolution process must find a target. Since you cannot comprehend something so simple, it is no wonder you are left with nothing except standard evolutionary magic phrases. Just like flat earthers who repeat their mantras in defiance of all evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
forexhr writes: As we can see in this example, at each step of the simulation we have a communication between a solution(location of the right corner) and the current position of the individual. In other words, we have a priori knowledge of the location of the right corner before the right corner is reached. Without this a priori knowledge about the location of the right corner (active information - provided by an intelligent agent), our simulation is left with blind search. This misunderstands how evolution works. Evolution, analogously, also knows where the right corner is. Adaptation might be served by longer fur or larger beaks or larger size, and each increment is better adaptation, just as in your analogy each step toward the right corner is better adaptation. In an evolutionary program the fitness function models the impact of the environment, which in the real world will have multiple adaptive forces. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2095 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Percy writes: This misunderstands how evolution works. Evolution, analogously, also knows where the right corner is. Adaptation might be served by longer fur or larger beaks or larger size, and each increment is better adaptation, just as in your analogy each step toward the right corner is better adaptation. In an evolutionary program the fitness function models the impact of the environment, which in the real world will have multiple adaptive forces. This is not Darwinian evolution but phenotypic plasticity. Every organism has the ability to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment. Ability to have longer fur or larger beaks or larger size is already built into an organisam. On the other hand Darwinian evolution is concerned with the origin of fur or beaks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
forexhr writes: This is not Darwinian evolution but phenotypic plasticity. Whether change originates with inherent variation or mutation, descent with modification and natural selection is evolution. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024