|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3400 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution as an Algorithm | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I have to agree that more than just an abstract mathematical theorem or a computer simulator is neccesary to to bring the ToE out of its arcane understanding. There are programs that simulate how diversity can arise within a population, none of which anyone is in disagreement about. However, this is precisely why there are multiple threads open on the differences between a macroevolutionary process and a microadaptive process. Furthermore, models tend to be grossly oversimplified to the point that it cannot be cited as a proof in defense of the theory.
As well, computer simulations of an evolutionary process seem to imply that the development which is being measured over so many generations is independent of development of other structures which are necessary for basic function. This, of course, is what IC "Irreducible Complexity" is all about. And perhaps this is what Darwin was alluding to when he said that if it can be demonstrated that nothing could have come together by successive chance, my theroy would utterly break down. Lastly, the changes observed from the simulation are dependent on the original data input which could clearly be construed as biased reserch or leading the research in the direction of the programer desires. When the theory is still lacking evidential credibility, why abandon the field and the lab and grind out abstract theorems or abstruse computer simulations? We need something far more laudable than these to seal the deal on the plausibility of the ToE. “It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Being a programmer, I have tried it myself, and seen with my own eyes that the simple repeated application of random variation with selection does indeed result in evolution of whatever is being subjected to this procedure. For me, what you suggest has been demonstrated. Having written an evolutionary algorithm myself, I know that I have accurately implemented random variation with selection. I have seen evolution to be the result. I am totally convinced. Did you take into consideration my objections? Aside from my previous objections, I think you would be able to appreciate that no amount of algorithmic or logarithmic expressions could ever substitute actual empirical data. Perhaps you are looking at the substrate, the material, and the very clinical definitions of what these algorithms are able to produce. The way it makes it happen, there are no catastrophic variables that would throw these readings in a tizzy. But as we should all know quite well, nothing in life is free, and things don't organize themselves by chance innumerable times. “It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you mean by that first sentence. Could you please explain? My apologies. In retrospect I barely understood it myself. Allow me to clarify. What I meant to say is that I doubt variables, such as catastrophes are not introduced as possible scenarios that would effect the outcome. In other words, it makes the presumption that life just kinda organizes itself beneficially without assistance. If ever there was one single argument that is truly presenting a problem for pro-evolutionists is IC. Are these evolutionary programs advanced enough to factor in such improbablities? I say that I doubt it because I've seen a few evolution simulators that are about as complex as "Pong."
You are making an oft repeated mistake: you leave out selection. Evolution is not just a jumble a random events. It's the non-random selection that produces the interesting results. How did you determine that I leave out selection? There is only so far the genes can drift in a population before you hit a brick wall. The fallacy is that the genome of any given organism is basically infinite in its variability. That's obviously not the case. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo “"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
And it's funny you should say that, because a catastrophy is what I had to introduce to overcome the problem of so-called 'local minima'. This is a technical term which means that sometimes an evolutionary path leads to a solution that cannot be improved upon other than by an enormous change at once. But evolution only proceeds by small changes. Since any small change to a local minimum will most likely diminish its fitness, it is therefore less likely to be selected for. Only a catastrophy once in a while will make sure that the gene pool is "cleaned up" as it were, wiping out successful and less successfull solutions alike. So, in short, your doubt is unfounded. I'm glad you added that element, because history is full of catastrophe's that surely would effect numerous populations and how and when they would evolve, supposing that would at all.
But you're forgetting that it's the genome that determines the organism, not vice versa. Yes, for a given organism, it's obviously true that its genome cannot be endlessly varied upon, or it would cease to be that given organism. Well, this a chicken-egg argument I suppose. But you make the distinction for me that if organisms were so prone to variabilty, we would not have the populations that we do. In fact, if evolution were true why wouldn't we see so much more variabilty than we do? There are some common objections to evolutionary simulators and their applicable feasibility. For instance, AiG feels that algorithms cannot mimic biological evolution for the following reasons:
(And this objection could be applied to your introduction of the catastrophe. I agree that such variables should exist simply because they surely exist in actual nature, however, one cannot introduce a catastrophe simply because their algorithm is no longer producing viable organisms any longer).
Those are just a few objections to the simulator/algorithm programs. “"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
A long time falsification for evolution, Darwin mentioned it in 'The Origin'. It's the Holy Grail of the ID Movement, but all they have is irreducible complexity which has so far been thwarted by redundant complexity. If any of these traits you mention were out there, then a thread could dedicated to exploring them. As it stands, nobody has come forward with hard evidence that there is no step-wise way to get to them. I don't know how much its a Holy Grail as opposed to just being a good argument in support of an ID and a conundrum for pro-evo's to overcome. As far as redundant complexity supplanting or claiming parity with ID is misleading. I assume you are referring to Behe's Blood Clotting Cascade and Kenneth Miller's refutation on that as not having to necessarily have to do with intelligence. I have to disagree with that and I feel that the 'evidence' compiled had more to do with circular reasoning than it did anything else. As for your last bit, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking for an example of something that could not have come about by random, successive copying errors? “"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
And as far as I can see none of them acctually address that difference. Can you please explain to me what the hack is Macroevolution Macroevolution is the major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. To be sure, I would expect a microevolutionary process, i.e., a form of evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies, to precipitate the possibility. But unfortunately, all we see is subspecies, not the advent new species, genera, etc, either in the fossil record, walking amongst us today, or in our imaginations. We just see organisms well-defined, not any in a state of transition, or as Darwin called it, "in a state of confusion." “"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024