Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Information and Genetics
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 241 of 262 (60060)
10-08-2003 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Fred Williams
10-07-2003 7:46 PM


Selection in Avida
And Fred, I'm quite willing to explain how selection happens in the particular Avida scenario under discussion. All you have to do is admit that you don't know.
(Really it's quite easy to work out from a basic knowledge of evolution).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Fred Williams, posted 10-07-2003 7:46 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
vik
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 262 (60080)
10-08-2003 10:32 AM


just an aside
Dean Kenyon was an up-and-coming OOL researcher. He did indeed write a textbook, though it apparently did not sell well. However, when he had his religious conversion in the early 1970s and adopted creationism, he dropped off thew face of the earth, science-wise. He has failed to produce a single scientific research paper since then, his creationist essays - which do not really count - and his creationist grade-school 'text' notwithstanding.
It seems to me that if all this talk of "Darwinism" shackling the mind and creationism/ID being this paradigm of freedom and open inquiry, that the opposite should have occurred - Kenyon's career should have taken off after his religious conversion. I know - the atheistic evilutionist conspiracy kept him down....
No, fact is, he just stopped doing reserch.
As for Parker, well, I have not met him and do not care to, but meeting someone does not make them 'right', though I have strangely found this attempt at support offered by creationists in the past, to no avail.
[This message has been edited by vik, 10-08-2003]

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 243 of 262 (60082)
10-08-2003 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Fred Williams
10-07-2003 7:46 PM


Re: Hooks, Trap doors, and Catapults
Hi Fred!
I don't have time to reply right now, but about this comment:
Percy then backtracked...
I won't speculate on how you might have reached such a bizarre interpretation of what was nothing more than then the nth attempt to explain something to you, but you might ponder whether being so far off the mark could indicate that there's some merit behind the recent complaints that you don't understand what you're criticizing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Fred Williams, posted 10-07-2003 7:46 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Fred Williams, posted 10-08-2003 6:48 PM Percy has replied

  
vik
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 262 (60083)
10-08-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by zephyr
10-07-2003 11:01 PM


Re: Engineering special: take whatever it has at that point.
Parker's "conversion" story is reminiscent of Steve Austin's "conversion" story...
A big lie, basically. But it does impress the Faithful and strengthen their preconceived biases and prejudices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by zephyr, posted 10-07-2003 11:01 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 245 of 262 (60145)
10-08-2003 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Fred Williams
10-07-2003 8:10 PM


Re: Engineering special: take whatever it has at that point.
quote:
So for the record, are you prepared to claim that such an accomplished individual who wrote a standard college textbook that dealt with evolution does not know anything about evolution?
yes I am prepared to say he does not given what he currently writes...guess conversions to religion make you forgetful...and by the way, why is writing a textbook particularly a sign of a huge accomplishment? I wrote a chapter of a textbook..I guess I am also "such an accomplished individual"...you may now grovel at my feet...but I wont VOUCH FOR THE ODOR
quote:
You rely/trust an internet hack for your information? I perused his page and found what I expected, the usual poor scholarship nonsense full of unsubstantiated, hazy innuendo from a Talk.Origins wacko. I have met Gary Parker, and I trust his version, some of which you’ll find here:
You are an internet hack and I dont trust you. If the school and those in attendance deny what he said why should I trust him? Why should I trust you either? Given your record of distortion and sloppy research I have no reason to take your word. You only accept what he says because to do otherwise would weaken your original fallacious point that lots of creationists were evolutionary biologists to start with...but why let a little thing like honesty get in the way of your agenda?
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Fred Williams, posted 10-07-2003 8:10 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Fred Williams, posted 10-08-2003 6:39 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 246 of 262 (60164)
10-08-2003 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Mammuthus
10-08-2003 4:23 PM


Mammuthus must be mad about Arnold...
I always chuckle when I read comments like yours, considering you are an anonymous poster. Don’t you know that elitists only impress their own kind?
It seems if you were so confident in your religion of evolution you wouldn’t have to resort to bogus attacks and rely on poor scholarship such as the Parker hack job. I know plenty of PhD biologists working in the real world, many who remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs, who for many years held the evolutionary religion dear to their heart. There is a leading scientist on the genome project who privately talked of the huge elephant in the room (intelligent design) that he has to pretend isn’t there so the funding won’t dry up or find himself pounding pavement. I also have read many a testimony of biologists who were once evolutionists. But what does this matter? It won’t convince someone as committed to his religion as you are. The final irony is your boast of relying on a careful, meticulous approach to science, yet at the same time relies on the word of an internet hack with an agenda. You go guy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Mammuthus, posted 10-08-2003 4:23 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Wounded King, posted 10-09-2003 7:21 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 253 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2003 11:16 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 10-11-2003 10:25 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 247 of 262 (60166)
10-08-2003 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
10-08-2003 10:35 AM


Re: Hooks, Trap doors, and Catapults
You may disagree that you "backtracked" but in the very least you wrote something that can easily be misunderstood. How can it be any more clear when you stated "I don't believe either Rei or myself are implying that GAs emulate biological evolution."? You subsequently qualified this by seperating research from commercial GAs. This is either backtracking or clarifying. I will accept you were "clarifying", but this still doesn't change the fact that Rei was clearly implying that she beleives commercial GAs also emulate evolution. Otherwise, why even bother bringing them up?
Perhaps Rei will state once and for all that commercial GAs do not emulate evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 10-08-2003 10:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 10-09-2003 10:36 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 251 by Dr Jack, posted 10-10-2003 7:08 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 248 of 262 (60242)
10-09-2003 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Fred Williams
10-08-2003 6:39 PM


Re: Mammuthus must be mad about Arnold...
Could you tell us who this mystery geneticist was? I have a link to a christian courier articlewhere he is quoted as saying
quote:
Nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved.
Where "it" reffered to the information in the genome. All this suggests to me is that for someone working in molecular biology, and certainly on the HGP, he doesn't know very many people in his profession. If nobody in molecular biology believes in evolution, and I know this is untrue but lets take it as a given, then who is it exactly that is holding up the "evolutionist conspiracy"? None of the various articles talking about this chap, only some of which say he works on the HGP, actually say who he is. So an argument from an anonymouse authority, how strangely unconvincing.
If elitists only impress their own kind how come so many people are impressed by Nobel prizes?
I have now found the original George Caylor interview which doesn't say that the guy was involved with the HGP, or was it a different mol. biol. specialist with an elephant fixation that you were talking about?
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 10-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Fred Williams, posted 10-08-2003 6:39 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2003 11:18 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 255 by sfs, posted 10-11-2003 1:00 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 249 of 262 (60256)
10-09-2003 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Fred Williams
10-08-2003 6:48 PM


Re: Hooks, Trap doors, and Catapults
Fred Williams writes:
You may disagree that you "backtracked" but in the very least you wrote something that can easily be misunderstood. How can it be any more clear when you stated "I don't believe either Rei or myself are implying that GAs emulate biological evolution."? You subsequently qualified this by seperating research from commercial GAs.
Rei and I are two different people, and you will rarely find two different people explaining things the same way. Even so, our views and terminology are nonetheless pretty similar, and the difficulty we're having making things clear to you is puzzling. I'll commit to trying to be more clear, but would ask in return that when you draw more than one response that you try to push past the superficial differences to reach the actual meaning of what is being said.
You use the term "biological evolution" and "evolution" in the same context, and I think this may point to a possible source of your confusion. GA's are implementations of the principles of evolution, ie, descent with modification through natural selection. They are not emulations of biological evolution, ie, cells, DNA, metabolism, self-replication, direct competition, resources, environment, etc. But both research and commercial GA's (a terminological distinction I don't myself feel comfortable with, but I'll defer to Rei who actually works in this field) apply the exact same princples of evolution.
The method of selection is not a fixed principle of evolution and can be anything. Objections that GA's are not illustrative of evolution on the basis of the selection mechanism are red herrings. It's as silly as Syamsu's objection that simulations are invalid if they're based on pseudo-randomness rather than actual randomness.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Fred Williams, posted 10-08-2003 6:48 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 250 of 262 (60400)
10-10-2003 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Fred Williams
10-07-2003 7:46 PM


Re: Hooks, Trap doors, and Catapults
quote:
* I claimed GAs are rarely used in engineering. Rei objected and provided a few examples (fallacy of exception supporting the rule).
In what way is the frequency of use of such techniques relevant to
the discussion of whether or not they can illuminate the issue
of natural processes being capable of design?
quote:
1) unrealistic truncation selection,
2) unrealistic assumption of positive mutations, both in quantity and frequency,
3) extinction is ignored or not permitted,
4) an information source is always required to prune any useful information created by a GA.
In no particular order:
Re (2): Mutations are allowed, they are random ... that some help
to progress toward an acceptable solution suggests that mutation
can lead to design-like qualities (when coupled with selection).
In EA's the mutations are not directed, they are simply governed
by 'natural' laws and minimal components.
Re (3): How do you develop a solution with a EA without rejecting
some 'results' completely? That is extinction.
Re (4): Depending on your definition. The selection criteria are
just that something to compare outputs to ... that's what natural
selection is saying -- the outputs tend toward a fit with the
environmental conditions.
Re (1): Eh? EA's use the supposed mechanism of evolution, but act
upon different components. The results are designs which were
not generated by an 'intelligence' but by a mechanistic process

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Fred Williams, posted 10-07-2003 7:46 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 251 of 262 (60403)
10-10-2003 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Fred Williams
10-08-2003 6:48 PM


Re: Hooks, Trap doors, and Catapults
Some GAs model biological evolution, some don't. All show the power of random variation with selection to solve a problem. Hell, even iterated local search (ILS) - which is what I use to solve some of the problems I face in my job - demonstrates the power of random variation with selection. But in no way does it model biological evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Fred Williams, posted 10-08-2003 6:48 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 252 of 262 (60415)
10-10-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Fred Williams
10-07-2003 7:46 PM


Re: Hooks, Trap doors, and Catapults
Hi, Fred!
I wanted to reply more fully to this post now that I have time, but I guess I'm satisified with my previous brief reply pointing out that it is the principles of evolution that are important in GA's, that whether they emulate biological evolution as realized by life on this planet is not the relevant issue.
The only remaining part I wanted to comment on was this:
GAs and Information
I will try one last time with Rei. If her answer requires invoking the hook, or pulling the lever that opens the trap floor, or engaging the catapult, then IGNORE mode will be reinstated!
Scenario: I am the lead engineer on a project to build an ASIC or FPGA that will perform some function, say regulation of an airplane carburetor, or convert one protocol to another (such as ESCON to Fibre Channel). We decide to use a GA to assist us. Before the GA completes its run, Rei the author of the GA, raises her hand and gleefully says we should use the result of the GA no matter what. She assures us it will be the best solution. After we finish laughing (and calling personnel...etc...
You're as entertaining as ever (your "everyone would laugh at you" type of lines are now so much a part of your MO that everyone uses something like it when imitating you, eg, Message 8 of the Fred Williams' Mutation Rate Article Obsolete thread and Message 32 of the Impersonations thread), but I wonder if the possibility ever occurred to you that the ridiculous caricature you present here means only that you still haven't quite grasped what Rei was explaining to you.
If this were a central issue then perhaps it would be worth the abuse endured while trying to explain the actual point to you ten more times, but it's a side issue. If you want to make a serious effort to understand the point, fine, we'll be glad to work with you to reach a common understanding. But otherwise just lay off the circus antics and the abusive tactics and return to the main topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Fred Williams, posted 10-07-2003 7:46 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 253 of 262 (60418)
10-10-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Fred Williams
10-08-2003 6:39 PM


Re: Mammuthus must be mad about Arnold...
and I chuckle at people like you who make claims about suppression in the scientific establishment when you don't know anything about science, have never been to a scientific meeting, have never had any interactions with real scientists outside of internet forums yet make claims about other peoples supposed sloppy research "tranposon disproves evolution" guy...great research on that one...show me the creationist literature where I can find which tRNA primes reverse transcripition of HERV-L class retroelements and how they are related to foamy viruses?
I am not committed to any religion as I am an atheist. However, your dim witted defense "notably not of the two supposed converters to creationism (boy what a huge number of conversions)" shows that you in fact don't know if there are huge numbers of evolutionists getting lobotomies and suddenly believing in creationism. Neither can you support your claim that people who believe in intelligent design or other controversial ideas are living in "funding fear". Your "some guy me so therefore there is a huge conspiracy" suggests you should team up with Oliver Stone and make a movie about Jimmy Hoffa's murder...or the death of Robert Kennedy.
Considering your own website is an example of misinformation, distortion, and the poorest possible scholarship you are really in no position to make any claims about science...go learn what it is and how it works before shooting off your mouth....if you are defining elitism as actually knowing what one is talking about then it is hard to understand that you are so against elitism....on the other hand you certainly are not among the elite...and don't you know, creationists only impress their own kind? Even if they cannot tell you what a "kind" is?
by the way, this is one of the best examples of projecting I have seen from you yet
quote:
The final irony is your boast of relying on a careful, meticulous approach to science, yet at the same time relies on the word of an internet hack with an agenda. You go guy!
Now, do you have anything substantive to say?
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-10-2003]
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Fred Williams, posted 10-08-2003 6:39 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 254 of 262 (60419)
10-10-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Wounded King
10-09-2003 7:21 AM


Re: Mammuthus must be mad about Arnold...
dont bother WK, Fred defines facts and evidence as lies he hopes will be overlooked when he bails out of the thread for extended periods...maybe he could use Syamsu's tactic and say things and then in the next post deny he said them?
however, the most outspokenly religious person of the HGP is Francis Collins..and he is hardly out there condemning evolutionary research but is one of the main forces promoting it...there goes Fred's conspiracy theory...I'll try to get him Oliver Stone's phone number.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Wounded King, posted 10-09-2003 7:21 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 255 of 262 (60493)
10-11-2003 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Wounded King
10-09-2003 7:21 AM


I'd be interested in finding a single scientist on the HGP who thinks the information in the genome didn't evolve. You can certainly find people who think it's ultimately the product of a creator, but I've yet to run into anyone who thinks it didn't evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Wounded King, posted 10-09-2003 7:21 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Joralex, posted 10-13-2003 3:53 PM sfs has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024