Information and Genetics

quote:

---

So which program is it exactly which has run for more than 3-4 billion years?

---

You miss the point. I imagine a typical GA running on a modern system can achieve 3-4 billion years worth of generations in mere seconds. GAs must be very tolerant of extinction, or else they would be useless.

quote:

---

Fact is, trial&error programs in one shape or another have been around for a long time (trial&error itself has been around since the beginning of time),

---

GAs are not "trial and error". They are not "exhaustive search" algorithms. GAs run much faster than an exhaustive search because they base their next stage on what worked well during the previous stage.

quote:

---

Bottom line is that such programs do not emulate evolution for the reasons I previously mentioned, such as truncation selection, which does not occur in nature. I see you apparently agree truncation selection is predominant in commercial GAs. Given this, do you *still* defend commercial GAs as emulating evolution, knowing that the selection mechanisism (one of the two major tenets of evolution) is not Darwinian at all?

---

There is no sharp divider. Commercial GAs are designed to run *faster* than standard evolution. They're all still GA's, however. A genetic algorithm involves determining an optimal solution through successive generations being based on what worked well in the previous generation with slight changes. Boeing could equally well have made up some Earth-analogy to their GA, where they try and make the engines like animals which can fly around and compete with each other in a virtual world - but that isn't nearly as CPU-time efficient. Regardless, it still is the exact same mechanism that leads to advances in lifeforms in a given niche: things that suit that niche better survive better. In the case of aircraft engines, the advantageous traits in the "niche" are better airflow, fuel efficiency, noise reduction, and cost. They ran the program. That's what they got. Claim all you want that humans could have done it better. GE apparently disagrees. My experience with GAs also indicates that. They do a remarkable job.

quote:

---

So you are claiming that there was not an intelligent source poised to take advantage of the output of Engeneous?

---

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it sounded like you were saying that the algorithms only work with humans picking through the data and deciding what they like and what they don't like. GAs that work by rating each one individually and throwing away the worst performers do not require this, because they only ever get better. If you run it, and stop it in a week, you get one result. If you let it run another week and stop it, your result is guaranteed to be *at least as good*. It may not be better, but it's not going to be worse.

quote:

---

This is frankly getting ridiculous. I don't know what you do, but you claim you "take whatever it has at that point". The cow chips are really getting deep in this thread. I'm curious as to what you do, and why you would take "take whatever it has at that point". Do you think this is how commercial GAs have been used? Do engineers, "take whatever it has at that point"? Let's all hope you answer no. If you answer no, then how can you possibly defend your claim that intelligence is not required to prune results produced from a GA?

---

I am a software developer for the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics; in fact, stopping in here gives me something to do while I wait for brains2 to compile or test data to get backed up. We do studies of the human brain, and provide tools for others to do studies. The particular application that I was working on was an offshoot of SRBFS (SRB being a distributed filesystem being developed by BIRN (http://www.nbirn.net); SRBFS being a project to make SRB mountable). SRB contains what is known as "metadata" - descriptive tags that can be added to files. libsrbclient, being used by srbfs, needed the ability to do complex queries on this metadata. One common problem in dealing with hand-entered data is that different users phrase things differently. Thus, the ability to do a comparison which can tell how "off" from a given string whatever string the user typed in for the metadata was, is very useful.Stopping it after a given length of time - is this how commercial applications do it? YES! As I've stated several times, an algorithm that evaluates several possibilities and removes those who performed the worst, unless there is a randomness element in the evaluation, will always come up with the ones removed as being the ones that were the least "fit". As a consequence, it *always* either stays the same or gets better. Now, the downside to this method of conducting selection is that, because it lacks some of the parallelism found more in the "for research" sims and in the real world, it has more trouble coming up with the *best* answer. But its results are still very impressive, and are quite fast.In this case, we want metadata queries to be fast, but to be able to recognize different conventions of entering data. This is an ideal application for this type of GA.Likewise, our neural nets that are used for trimming out ROIs (Regions Of Interest) from the brain (these were, btw, developed before I came here) are trained for several days, and then we stop. Does it matter where we stop? No! They only ever get better. And it is worth adding that these nets don't use backtracing, so they are genetic algorithms, albeit without any parallelism.Can you see why this, what you call "truncation selection", is useful in commercial applications, but why researchers prefer the vast types of variety and forms that occur with a more "Earth-like" algorithm of an open-world with freedom to compete or not? Can you see why that type of algorithm, however, takes a lot longer to accomplish a task? Do you finally "get it"?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-09-2003]

Care to back up that assertion?Recent publications on both digital organisms (Lenski, 2003) and microbial experiments (MacLean, 2003) would suggest otherwise. The AVIDA program run by Lenski et al. covered 100,000 generations, a lot certainly but not requiring 3-4 bilion years an increase of 4 orders of magnitude. The microbial experiments done by MacLean et al. covered only 2000 generations, only 2 orders of magnitude below the artificial experiment. These scales don't seem wildly disparate given that one experiment, the AVIDA one, was looking for the evolution of complex features and the other for convergent evolution in adaptation to novel environments.*******************************************
Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C.
The evolutionary origin of complex features.
Nature. 2003 May 8;423(6936):139-44.MacLean RC, Bell G.
Divergent evolution during an experimental adaptive radiation.
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Aug 7;270(1524):1645-50.

I thank everyone for their replies. This will be my final reply on the topic. (I say this with no certainty, because something may pop up that I would like to reply to). This post will have various quotes from many different people. It is a bit long, but I ask that the admin not cut or shorten my post, since it will in all likelyhood be my last.
I
will first restate my main argument, and try to give some supporting examples for it. I said that the code system of the DNA cannot come about through only natural, unintelligent processes. First we must establish that the DNA is truly a code. I said that the requirements for a code system is that: 1. It contains statistics (in the Shannon sense) 2. It contains a syntax (definite rules of 'grammar' so that the code can maintain itself) 3. It contains semantics (so the information transfer can be understood) 4. It contains pragmatics (the reciever's action/non-action caused from the information transfer) 5. It must contain a representational function (like in the English language when certain words are used to represent topics and ideas that are completely different than the material used for the information transfer. It is basically an 'abstract' concept. The DNA has a representational function in that certain nucleotide sequences represent amino acids that may not be formed until later in the cell development processes. If someone inferred what my handwriting style was from a message I wrote, this is not a representational function-this message because the 'information' found was not encoded or intended to be sent. A representational function is exactly what tree rings, stars, etc. lack.) 6. It cannot be due to solely the inherent tendency of matter to form in such a way. (Like tree rings-physics and chemistry force the rings to align in a certain way. However there was no inherent tendency for random molecules to align themselves in such a way to produce life in, and only in, the origin of life event).Only intelligent code systems share the above properties and qualities. The DNA shares the above qualities. What does this imply?We can restate the argument in another way. Let us use the English language for an analogy. For the sake of the argument, let's pretend that we are drawing random letters from a hat. First we get a few random sequences, but later we get letter sequences like "BAT" and "BOY" and "GIFT". This is information, right? The same situation could have essentially occurred with nucleotides, since they are the chemical letters of the DNA, right?No. Why? Because the meaning of this sequence of letters can only be determined if we have a preexisting language structure. But where did the rules of English come from?Really the sequence of letters has meaning only when we assign the rules and the conventions of the English language on the sequences themselves. Just as dots and dashes are meaningless without a knowledge of the Morse Code, the random arrangements of any letters, chemicals, beads, or magnetic medium meaningless without rules and conventions by which we interpret the sequences. However the rules of any language system are themselves arbitrary, and are abstract agreements between at least two intelligences which declare that a specific sequence of letters has a certain meaning. Put another way, the rules of any language system are neither a part of nor conveyed by any natural laws of nature. Therefore, a language convention, with its rules and regulations, must be devised first.With that said, the only real thing to determine is if the DNA acts like human language. Certainly they both posses the properties that I assigned for a true code to exist above. Missler and Eastman state, "If we examine the sequence of nucleotides on the DNA molecule, they simply have the appearance of a long chain of chemicals and not the appearance of a message system or a code. It is only when one possesses a knowledge of the language convention (the genetic code) and the appropriate machinery to translate the coded information on the DNA molecule, that the nucleotide sequence becomes understandable. Without such knowledge and machinery, the sequences on a spontaneously derived DNA molecule are meaningless."Okay, so far so good. However, what do the experts have to say about it? Charles Thaxton states, "Molecular biology has shown us how extremely intricate living things are, especially the genetic code and the genetic process. Interestingly enough, the genetic code can be best understood as an analogue to human language. It functions exactly like a code -- indeed, it is a code: it is a molecular communication system within the cell.A sequence of chemical 'letters' stores and transmits the communication in the cell. Communication is possible whatever symbols used as an alphabet. The 26 letters we use in English, the 32 Cyrillic letters used in the Russian language, or the 4-letter genetic alphabet -- all serve in communication. ... Indeed, the letters that make up a message are in a sense random. There is nothing inherent in the letters "g-i-f-t" that tells us the word means "present." In fact, in German the same sequence of letters means "poison." In French the series is meaningless. If you came across a series of letters written in the Greek alphabet and didn't know Greek, you wouldn't be able to read it. Nor would you be able to tell if the letters formed Greek words or were just groupings of random letters. There is no detectable difference.What distinguishes a language is that certain random groupings of letters have come to symbolize meanings according to a given symbol convention. Nothing distinguishes the sequence a-n-d from n-a-d or n-d-a for a person who doesn't know any English. Within the English language, however, the sequence a-n-d is very specific, and carries a particular meaning.There is no detectable difference between the sequence of nucleotides in E. coli DNA and a random sequence of nucleotides. Yet within the E. coli cells, the sequence of "letters" of its DNA is very specific. Only that particular sequence is capable of biological function.The discovery that life in its essence is information inscribed on DNA has greatly narrowed the question of life's origin. It has become the question of the origin of information. We now know there is no connection at all between the origin of order and the origin of specified complexity. There is no connection between orderly repeating patterns and the specified complexity in protein and DNA. We cannot draw an analogy, as many do, between the formation of a crystal and the origin of life. We cannot argue that since natural forces can account for the crystal, then they can account for the structure of living things. The order we find in crystals and snowflakes is not analogous to the specified complexity we find in living things."Hubert Yockey says, "It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical." (Hubert P. Yockey, 1981. "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," J. Theoret. Biol. 91, 13. Quote on p. 16.)If language structures like English have never occurred by chance, what makes us think that the DNA molecule has, if they are mathematically identical? Both exhibit considerable levels of specified complexity. As a further example of the necessity for someone to set the code, consider this. The DNA letters are read in groups of three, it makes a huge difference which letter we start from. E.g. the sequence GTTCAACGCTGAA can be read from the first letter, GTT CAA CGC TGA A but a totally different protein will result from starting from the second letter, TTC AAC GCT GAA. This is sort of how a French and a German look at a word. The language system and the rules by which it operates must exist first for any sequence to contain meaning. In the example above, the way that the DNA presently reads nucleotide letters is a bit arbitrary. Why not two? why not four? Who sets the code? I may read from left to right, but a Jew may read from right to left. We must have some type of system for reading the DNA and interpreting it's meaning, which holds true for written language as well. I fully believe what Yockey has stated.At Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? » Internet Infidels, the authors state, "But this number also assumes that only, and exactly, twenty amino-acid types must be involved--but since there are thousands of types, and for all we know any combination of any of them may have begun a replicating life-form (the fact that our phylogeny ends up with these twenty is, after all, most likely chance, not necessity), it follows that this assumption of twenty kinds, no more and no less, also invalidates their statistic." If the information can in the cell can be conveyed using different amino acids (which is the material carrier), then the information is not an exclusive property of the material carrier, though it requires a material carrier to exist. How then can the material carrier create it, if information is not an exclusive property of the substance?Not only does the DNA need a pre-existing language code, it also needs machinery in translation.Eastman and Missler state, "Consequently, the enormous challenge facing the scientific materialist is to explain how a language convention (the genetic code) and the necessary cellular machinery to translate the information stored on the DNA molecule arose independently without intelligent guidance.The chicken-egg dilemma has confounded scientists for decades. Chemist John Walton noted the dilemma in 1977 when he stated:"The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in he nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for his machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information, the machinery cannot be produced. This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."By allowing the spontaneous generation of long chains of DNA, what would you have? Do those chains of nucleotides possess a code or a program? Of course not. What you have is an admittedly complex chemical which has the potential of carrying a code or information. However, there is no inherent information on such spontaneously generated DNA unless a system of interpreting those sequences exists first. A couple of simple examples will help us to understand the nature of this dilemma."Now there have been proposed solutions for the chicken-egg dilemma (mainly the RNA world hypothesis). Besides having many problems of its' own, (see Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that..., The RNA World and other origin-of-life theories. by Brig Klyce, and http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm) this still does not solve the information problem.Some more quotes from experts in the field:Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe:"From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called 'natural' processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed [for the origin of life]. We have argued that the requisite information came from an 'intelligence,' the beckoning spectre."Charles Thaxton, "The only remaining question is whether it is legitimate to use this reasoning to infer the existence of an intelligent cause before the existence of human beings. I would argue it is. A phenomenon from the past, known by uniform experience to be like that caused only by an intelligent source, is itself evidence that such a source existed. Even the simplest forms of life, with their store of DNA, are characterized by specified complexity. Therefore life itself is prima facie evidence that some form of intelligence was in existence at the time of its origin.{26}It is true that our actual experiential knowledge of intelligence is limited to carbon-based organisms, particularly human beings. However, scientists already speculate on some other kinds of intelligence, i.e., non-human, when they seriously seek to discover ETI's.{27} Some even argue that intelligence exists in complex non-biological computer circuitry. Scientists today conceive of intelligence freed from biology as we know it. Then why can we not conceive of an intelligent being existing before the appearance of biological life on this planet?Uniform Experience
In scientific terms, the analogy criterion is the same thing as the principle of uniformity. It is the dictum that our theories of the past must invoke causes similar to those acting in the present. David Hume was getting at the same idea with his phrase, "uniform experience."{28}As regards the origin of life, our uniform experience is that it takes an intelligent agent to generate information, codes, messages. As a result, it is reasonable to infer there was an intelligent cause of the original DNA code. DNA and written language both exhibit the property of specified complexity. Since we know an intelligent cause produces written language, it is legitimate to posit an intelligent cause as the source of DNA.We have now defined the DNA code as a message. It is now clear that the claim that DNA arose by material forces is to say that information can arise by material forces. However, the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. The material base could not have anything to do with the message's origin. The message transcends chemistry and physics.{29}When I say a message is independent of the medium which conveys it, I mean that the materials used to send a message have no affect whatever on the content of the message. The content of "Apples are sweet" does not change when I write it in crayon instead of ink. It is unaffected by a switch to chalk or pencil. I can say the same thing if I use my finger and write it in the sand. I can also use smoke and write it in the sky. I can translate it into the dots and dashes of Morse code. Even people holding up posters at a baseball game can transmit the same information.The point is, there is no relationship at all between information and the material base used to transmit it. The ink or chalk I use to write "Apples are sweet" does not itself look red, nor taste sweet like an apple. There is nothing in the ink molecules that compels me to write precisely or only that particular sentence. The information transmitted by my writing is not within the ink I use to write it. Instead, an outside source imposes information upon the ink using the elements of a particular linguistic symbol system.The information within the genetic code is likewise entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule. The information transmitted by the sequence of bases has nothing to do with the bases themselves. There is nothing in the chemicals themselves that originates the communication transmitted to the cell by the DNA molecule.These rather obvious facts are devastating to any theory that assumes life first arose by natural forces."So, where are the naturally occurring information systems to counter Gitt's notions? All I have seen are examples of codes related exclusively to their physical properties with no representational function. What counterexample do we have of specified complex language structures like the English language and the genetic code coming about by chance?[note: I notice what has conveniently never been mentioned is the natural formation of hydrophobic-hydrophilic environments by carbon based molecules. This thermodynamic and equilibrium based reality is plausibly the reason protective barriers formed isolating and allowing for complex organic combinations-recombinations, including the ultimate formation of actual porous membranes.]This was not my argument. See:Austin, Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchAw, The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models
http://www.answersingenesis.org...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}Kenyon & Mills, RNA World: A Critique
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htmKlyce, The RNA World
The RNA World and other origin-of-life theories. by Brig KlyceC.M., Life by Design or Chance?
http://www.idurc.org/designorchance.htmlMeyer, DNA and the Origin of Life (pdf)
http://www.discovery.org/...leFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdfMeyer, The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&c...Peet, The Quest for a Chemical Origin of Life
http://www.mesozoic.demon.co.uk/chemical.htmRosevear, The Myth of Chemical Evolution
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchSarfati, Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks
http://www.trueorigin.org/originoflife.aspSarfati, Hydrothermal Origin of Life?
http://www.trueorigin.org/hydrothermal.aspSarfati, Self-replicating Enzymes? A Critique of Some Current Origin of Life Models
http://answersingenesis.org/docs/3974.aspSarfati, Origin of Life: the Polymerization Problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3998.aspSarfati, Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life: Summary
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.aspThaxton, DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life
http://www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.htmlThaxton, et al., The Mystery of Life's Origin (chs. 7, 8 & 9)
http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/Walton, Organization and the Origin of Life
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...The only SCIENTIFIC question worth investigating, given thermodynamic realities, is under what nonbiotic environmental conditions could a self-generating organic system form?

​

Only if such conditions are impossible to be met, can abiogenesis be discarded.The topic was not thermodynamics; it was information.Other than repetitively quoting finger pointing at what scientists have already acknowledged (ie, AT PRESENT there is no satisfactory answer to what the exact conditions actually were), the only counterargument you gave was incredulity from Gish.I didn't actually mean to include the material from Gish. The bit that I posted about thermodynamics was written to another fellow that I was discussing the matter with before. I agree that Gish's claims don't make sense without substantiating it. However, what about all the other material? What about my quote from Blum, who basically said that the DNA information system was needed from the beginning for order to increase? A bull in a china shop performs work, but it does not create order. Similarly we need some type of mechanism for order and organization to come about in the prebiotic earth.

quote:

---

Is it reasonable to believe such a 'hidden' coupling mechanism will be found in the future that can play this crucial role of a template, metabolic motor, etc., directing the flow of energy in such a way as to create new information?

​

Yes. Why would it not be reasonable? Chiral clays have been mentioned as possible templates. Although I would caution the use of the word information; it should be in quotes. A template is simply a physical form exhibiting the property for producing set or similar chemical structures. There are countless templates (even an accidental scratch on the inside of a beaker can act as one).

---

This does not help with the coupling mechanism, or the need of some type of metabolic motor. The best 'solution' to the thermodynamic problem is that which was put forth by Prigogine. However Thaxton states, " There is no apparent connection
between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through such systems
and the work required to build aperiodic information-intensive macromolecules likeDNA and protein. Prigogine, et al.22 suggest that the energy flow through the system
decreases the system entropy, leading potentially to the highly organized structure of DNA
and protein. Yet they offer no suggestion as to how the decrease in thermal entropy from
energy flow through the system could be coupled to do the configurational entropy
work required.A second reason for skepticism about the relevance of the models developed
by Prigogine, et al.23 and others is that ordering produced within the
system arises through constraints imposed in an implicit way at the system boundary. Thus, the
system order,and more importantly the system complexity, cannot exceed that of the
environment....Finally, Nicolis and Prigogine have postulated that a system of chemical reactions which explicitly shows autocatalytic activity may ultimately be able to
circumvent the problems now associated with synthesis of prebiotic DNA and protein. It remains
to be demonstrated experimentally, however, that these models have any real
correspondence to prebiotic condensation reactions. At best, these models predict
higher yields without any mechanism to control sequencing. Accordingly, no experimental
evidence has been reported to show how such models could have produced any significant
degree of coding.
No, the models of Prigogine et al., based on non-equilibrium
thermodynamics, do not at present offer an explanation as to how the configurational entropy work
is accomplished under prebiotic conditions. The problem of how to couple energy flow
through the system to do the required configurational entropy work remains."

quote:

---

Or let me put it another way. How is that any less reasonable a hypothesis than ascribing this creation of information in lifeless molecules to a supernatural template maker?

---

The object here is not to gain credit for the supernatural, but rather to show the insufficiencies of natural processes..

quote:

---

As I stated, and gave some descriptive evidence for, information in its literal sense is purely an abstract reality. It is a mental construct used by minds to comprehend physical realities, and communicate them to others.

​

It is not quantitative as are matter and energy. For example if a library burns down there is no measurably greater fuel for the fire than the matter and potential energy provided by the physical contents within.

---

I am sure that all the information scientists with you in the world would disagree. You may say that information isn't real just because it represents other things. It may represent other things, but it is still a reality in itself. You cannot just blindly assert that because information is nonmaterial in nature, it can come about under any circumstance. But let me take your side for a minute. Let's say that our communication only represents other physical realities.I said that no 'information system' can come about by chance. That means that no physical entity possessing the qualities I have suggested above can come about by chance. Can you give me a counterexample? This doesn't mean that the DNA was created to sustain life, but we see from experience that physical entities containing systems of information transfer do not come about except through volition. That implies that an intelligence indeed created the DNA.

quote:

---

The answer is location location location. Location for energy input and heat sink (this is why deep ocean vents offer prospects), location for protective interaction with other carbon chain molecules, and location for proper site bonding.

---

Simple input of energy is not enough to overcome the problem of thermodynamics, as I explained earlier. Refer to my links above. Even if a molecule did align in the order that we find it in today, it is unlikely to function, because the language system of the DNA was not present. Refer to what I said above for this.

quote:

---

You conveniently did not address--- and I wish you had--- my analogy of prebiotic systems to a library. In fact, you dodged the implications that libraries serve in order to state your final sentence above.

---

I didn't mean to "dodge" anything. I was just running short on time. It happens when you have many people replying to you at once.

quote:

---

Storage of information within some entity, results in accumulation of information, which incidentally and generally results in that entity having more and wholly separate information than the sum of the information "pieces" stored within. Again this is dependent on the mind interpreting the information, but this information REALITY both defies Dembski's 4th law and shows that volition is unnecessary to the transfer or creation of information.

---

First of all, the information system would exist whether we were around to call it information or not. Proteins would still be manufactured in the cell, and the cell itself would still replicate. This does not change the fact that these types of systems to not occur without an intelligence behind them. I am a bit confused about your analogy of an information increase. I am not arguing that information cannot increase; in fact I think it is possible. The key is that the language system used to express information does not come about by chance. What if a random typo changed the word CAT to the word BAT. I could understand the information 'increase' and the new information present, however I need the language convention to first understand how to read it.

quote:

---

Like a library, organic bits of all sorts of manner would accumulate and interact within the protective barriers which FORM NATURALLY. Eventually when the correct "volumes" have entered the collection, these "organic libraries" may contain more "life" information than the sum of the bits which entered it. Such entities did not know they were accumulating the "secrets" of life. It was simply accumulating chemicals until the correct chemicals were present to form autocatalytic cycles necessary for life.

---

According to my websites above, the accumulation of the material carriers of information wouldn't actually form. However, even if they did they would just be a string of random characters without a language convention. You need a genetic code to interpret them.

quote:

---

This is all pure assertion, and self-serving assertion at that. Please construct a proper logical argument, with evidence where evidence is required, to make these statements.

---

And evolution has a logical argument for the origin of information systems? Naturalistic, mechanistic evolution is bound only by laws of nature. If it only obeys natural laws, then according to Gitt's information system the codes in the DNA could not be here. Since this is a contradiction, we must assume that life was a result of intelligence. (We base this on uniform experience.) However, if this intelligence was supernatural, it would not be bound by natural laws. Indeed this supernatural being would have created the natural laws himself. This is really the only solution.According to information theory, including the argument I quoted from you earlier, information is just as real as matter or energy and beholden to laws applicable to information.I don't know if this has answered your question about the supernatural. You cannot apply natural laws to supernatural beings. This would be like comparing apples and oranges. I cannot prove that God exists. Likewise you cannot prove that large scale evolution happened in the past. In fact, you cannot prove the atomic theory of matter. All we have is logic and inference. I think the best inference is to assume some type of intelligence in the origin of life event.

quote:

---

You also dodged another important point. Let's say everything points to a supernatural information producing agency. Where can you possibly come to the conclusion it is a biblically related entity? There is little to no correlation between the universe described by information theory and the one in scripture. It appears you simply ignore the vigorous logic you claim must be applied to understanding to world, to this part of the world.

---

I never said that the information theory proved the God of the Bible to be real. I accept the God of the Bible for other reasons. However it does suggest that some type of creative force was present at the origin of life event.

quote:

---

In the origin of a star, there is no organizing force needed more complex than gravity (as easily represented in particle physics simulations). In the origin of a fire, there needs be no more complex of a force than a single input of some raw energy. That energy can come from one of innumerable natural sources of energy, as you may well know (if you want, we can trace back a couple... ).

---

The order in a star, in ripples on a beach, in a snowflake, etc. is a different kind of order than that required for the origin of life. Charles Thaxton has explained this in the article at http://www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.htmlThe difference would be like comparing a naturally weathered rock to Mount Rushmore. These are two different kinds of order. Stars, snowflakes, etc. are associated with the first type of order. Language, genetic code, etc. are associated with the second type of order-order that is not inherent to the substance in and of itself. Also there is no representational function in these codes, thus it does not qualify for the type of code I have mentioned.
It does not share the same properties. You can give all the examples you like, but it does not help your argument unless you produce an example like the English language, which is relevant to the DNA.

quote:

---

Would you, for example, describe fire as sending a message from the sender (a chemical reaction) to the recipient (other flammable molecules)? Or would wou describe fusion as sending a message from the sender (four hydrogen atoms merging into a helium atom) to the recipient (other hydrogen atoms which are not yet at a temperature capable of allowing fusion)? You're reliant on the assumption that there's something more "special" here than just chemistry for your "message" analogy. Please understand that the people you are debating with view the reactions in DNA as merely complex chemistry. You are assuming that there is some sort of "message" in the DNA distinct from the carrier (the DNA itself). We disagree.

---

The first question I have for you, is 'Who is we?' (Last sentence). If you are referring to the scientific community, then refer to my quote from Yockey above. The genetic code is exactly like the English language. Your fire example is of the first type of order. DNA and language is a type of the second. Also refer to the problems I listed with the origin of the code above.

quote:

---

First off, you're repeating a common creationist mistake about abiogenesis - that there was some sort of special "event" in which life occured. Supporters of abiogenesis typically do not believe this. The standard view for abiogenesis involves a natural energy source (such as an oceanic geothermal vent) that provides highly reducable chemicals into the system - in addition to lots of simple carbon-based matter. In such an environment, addition polymerization is quite a simple process. Some carbon chains will be more likely to be stable in the long term than their predecessors, and those will accumulate. If one were to become functionalized in a way that was likely to functionalize others, in its particular high-energy environment, it would tend to functionalize much of the remaining molecules. If other functional groups tend to, say, give it more ideal properties for remaining close to the entrance to the vents, or to be able to help functionalize molecules that had drifted further way, these would be likely to spread more. Etc. There is no particular "moment" - and in fact, in the beginning, it can hardly be viewed as "self-replication", just simply increasing the likelyhood of molecules like themselves forming in the vent. It's not really a stretch. Polymerization and functionalization occur every day in rather simple conditions in oil refineries and chemical plants. In fact, apart from things like platinum catylists designed to speed up the reactions, you'll find that the conditions inside a refinery are quite similar to those in a deep sea vent - except that the vent has a much wider variety of chemical possibilities to work with.

---

Even if the correct nucleotides aligned in the correct order for life, this would do about as much good as trying to make a dog spell out and understand the meaning of random combinations of letters in alphabet soup. Also, for hydrothermal vents, thermodynamics, etc., refer to my links above. I did not want to get into these other subjects. It is doubtful that many of the people who read my messages will bother to read the links. They really address some of the points you raise. However the topic of the thread is information, not origin of life conditions.

quote:

---

Not true. You should read about the progress that has occurred in alife thusfar. Self replicating behavior has occurred in random sets of executing data. And it's hardly "front-loading". All the person who writes the alife program does is write an environment in which code can execute - i.e., a "virtual machine". The code that's running is as random as grabbing marbles from a bag. You could, of course, say that this model represents one in which God creates a universe, and then abiogenesis occurs on it's own.

---

Are you referring to ribozyme experiments? If so, take a look at the links for the RNA origin of life I have listed above. I don't know too much about computers, so if you are referring to some type of computer program then I have no idea.

quote:

---

Corrected analogy: First, we need to assume that floppy disks can spread themselves and reproduce.

---

Reproduction requires some type of code. A code cannot come about by chance.

quote:

---

Then would be like saying that reactions between iron oxide and plastic could produce plastic with bits of iron oxide embedded in them which tend to encourage more reactions of a roughly similar kind - somewhat closer to spreading and being able to reproduce, but hardly there. And that things that are more similar to floppy disks encourage more reactions similar to them, so that (as an example) if the iron was deposited in a way that was easily magnetized, it would be more likely to occur... etc. Before long, it's close enough to a floppy disk that it can spread fairly effectively, and outcompete simpler forms of floppy disks.... (I could go on, but I think you get the picture).

---

I will reiterate my point above. A code must be in place for reproduction to exist. No counterexample to Gitt's arguments have been shown. Therefore they stand until proven incorrect.I have had a wonderful time discussing this concept. However it is very time consuming, and it is doubtful that I will post again. I thank everyone for their time and patience.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-14-2003]

I have looked over the debate and do not see any equivocation on the part of crashfrog, but do see equivocation on your part. This is what I find when I look up "code" in the merriam-webster dictionary...1 : a systematic statement of a body of law; especially : one given statutory force
2 : a system of principles or rules
3 a : a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings
4 : GENETIC CODE [note, which if looked up gives this definition: the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for all known forms of life]
5 : a set of instructions for a computerYou are equivocating between 3,4, and 5.If crashfrog was equivocating, could you please be more clear as to what different definitions he was confusing together? If your definition of code is loose enough to see no distinction between the genetic code (which is merely a group of chemicals that exhibit autocatalytic properties which have come to be important to living organisms) and codes preconceived of and written by human beings, then your claim is not indisputable.Some have already claimed that nature can produce, through randomprocess etc etc, codes along the lines of the genetic code.Your response was to assert that only intelligence can produce codes, the only plausible evidence to support your argument apparently being that every other code humans can point to have been made by intelligent beings.Thumbing your nose at evolutionists you provide a test... Assuming such things as interactions of subatomic particles, or the "program code" of heredited instincts (including birdsongs) don't count, you feel the evolutionist is disarmed and until such a proof is brought forth... Unfortunately your syllogism is not correct. No codes I know of have been created by the disembodied abstract concept of "intelligence". They have been created by specific intelligent beings... intelligent NATURAL beings.What is totally unsupported is the idea that some supernatural force outside of NATURE may contain intelligence--- much less can create or impose upon natural entities a code of some kind.To rephrase your own challenge...All you need to do is to produce one SUPERnaturalistic-emulating simulation to produce a code and you falsify my truth statement.Until then your logical argument must be as follows:1) All codes are written by intelligent corporal beings (in fact, only human beings)
2) DNA is a code
therefore 3) humans created DNAIt is possible to widen the horizon to some as yet unknown intelligent agency like aliens, but not to any omnipotent supernatural "intelligence".My argument only acts as a reductio if you are trying to point to god as the ultimate source of life codes, but either way I am interested if you understand this is the position where your logic leaves you.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-09-2003]

Hi Fred,I think Rei's response already covers the issues you raise pretty well, so I thought I'd just nibble around the edges a bit and comment on a few of the other things you say in passing. I don't know about the "1 of every 1000" part, but I get your point and it is probably true. But of what possible relevance to the validity of genetic algorithms (GA's) is their current utilization rate in engineering projects? Once again, of what possible relevance are these comments to the validity of GA's? I would think it would be more productive to stay focused on the specifics of GA's rather than upon subjective ruminations about the people working on it. When Rei says that GA's are not trial and error I think he was trying to say that they are not *merely* trial and error. Certainly each mutation is a "trial", and each entity not selected is an "error", but just saying trial and error leaves an awful lot out, since the mutation algorithm and selection criteria can be highly complex and difficult to design and implement. I think it might also be argued that GA's also have some similarity to successive approximation approaches.I strongly disagree with you that GA's have limited usefulness. In fact, as computer power becomes more and more ubiquitous the ability of GA's to provide solutions to complex problems will become of greater and greater value. Perhaps you've heard of Blondie24, the commercial Checkers with an Attitude program developed using GA's. (I wonder why none of the opponents are male? ) It was also described in a recent article in the Communications of the ACM, or maybe it was IEEE's Computer magazine. Anyway, the point is that GA's not only have definite utility, but they're out of the lab and developing commercial products, as Rei also pointed out to you. It's true that very little information was provided about Engeneous, but stating that "it clearly was a trial&error program that I'm sure uses 100% pure truncation selection" completely ignores that information (Forbidden): Further, about your assumption that it used pure truncation selection, first, it is irrelevant. If it helps the engineers improve the design, then it makes no difference what type of selection was used.Second, you have no information upon which to base this assumption. Maybe it used truncation selection, easily possible since this is the simplest approach, and maybe it didn't. The article simply doesn't say.Third, your statement that other types of selection wouldn't make sense is baseless. For example, rather than only selecting the n best in each generation, it might select all that surpass the performance of the previous generation by at least an amount x, with the simulation halting when no member of a new generation accomplishes this. GA's don't even have to take a truncation approach. Instead of generating m new approaches and taking the n best, which is truncation, it might instead just keep generating new approaches until it has n that exceed the previous generations average performance by x, and giving up when the computational time for a new generation exceeds some set limit. There are plenty of selection approaches that make sense beyond simple truncation. First, challenging GA's based on the type of selection criteria used has no validity. GA's are simply software, and the selection criteria can be modified to fit requirements. You specify the type of selection criteria you want, and I'll write a GA program that uses it. From Rei's job description he could obviously do the same thing for you.Second, truncation selection most certainly occurs in nature. For example, in many ecological niches offspring produced in excess of the environment's ability to sustain them die, ie, get truncated. I applaud Rei's not responding in kind.--Percy

You know dillan, I was willing to wait for a quality response.I am surprised though to hear formulating responses are consuming so much time for you. Most of your posts are pointless cut and pastes showing you either don't really understand what your clips are saying, or what you should be addressing.I don't know why I am about to do this to myself but here goes nothing... It suggests to me that you and Gitt do not understand chemistry, the suggested plausible processes of abiogenesis, and evolution.Here's one big clue, DNA as it appears in eukaryotic organisms today is not what you need to be considering when looking at its "information" content, and what "programs" were required to properly utilize the "code".Unless you are throwing out the geologic record the first organisms (ie life) were unicellular at best and did not need codes for what a cell will "later become". That would have occurred much later due to the evolution of DNA in prokaryotes and then much later still in multicellular organisms.In fact, the first life may not have been "cellular" as we know of it today. Or is that vice versa? Either way it did not jump from nothing to large DNA structures projecting longrange multicellular entities. Why don't you answer your own question. Existing how? It would have to have been made by someone or come about naturally. Scientists today conceive of intelligence freed from biology (as in carbon-based organisms) not physical reality and nature. So what were your massive clips regarding thermodynamics about? No it is to show the insufficiency of our current knowledge of natural processes as they would have affected the process of abiogenesis. Haven't you noticed almost all of your quotes include terms such as "right now", or "at present".Unfortunately you seem to miss that your logic cuts in both directions. If natural processes are discredited according to your methods, the supernatural is discredited much much much more so. Information scientists will not disagree, information priests might. I already agreed that information cannot come about under any circumstance. I only disagreed with your assertion that information was a real quantitative and qualitative entity such as matter or energy. It is purely a subjective, man made entity."Information" by which I mean the physical qualities of unintelligent phenomena that are best described through metaphor, may be quantitative, or qualitative. Most certainly it seems to contain a quality that distinguishes it from manmade information. You are confused by more than just my analogy. First of all you still haven't proven the "fact" you assert in your first sentence. Second you have just proven my point that chemical "information" systems are qualitatively different than linguistic information systems. You realize that all the above says is that if Gitt can't figure out what caused something with his linguistic theories, whatever we decide to make up is the only solution?You keep talking about this "supernatural" thing. What is that? I have never seen an example of it at all. And according to Gitt's own logic if it cannot be shown then it must simply not exist. Wait a minute that must mean that naturalistic evolution is right... Oh yeah, but Gitt is the expert who can say I am wrong and still be right.Hey, isn't this the same negative circular logic Captain Kirk used to kill that supercomputer? Again, laws pertain to everything that might effect what I am saying, but nothing that you are talking about.The fact is I can point to chemicals, autocatalytic cycles, numerous potential environments, and the fact that "information" systems CAN BUILD NATURALLY WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENCE GUIDING IT.You cannot point to one single example of a "supernatural" being. It is simply a fairy-tale until you have some sort of example of its existence.Calculated odds of "information" systems forming randomly may be long (especially given the limits of our knowledge of how life could form), but at least those odds are POSSIBLE. The last time I checked if a particular entity does not exist at all, then the chance that it could have played a role in anything is absolute 0. So vigorous adherence to logic (even if flawed) as long as it strikes ones enemies, then abandonment as soon as it comes back to cut down your own.Ah the priests of information theory preach a very wicked religion. And my guess is he will reiterate that point no matter how much counterevidence and solid logic stands in his way.Goodbye dillan. I can only hope one day you will begin to see that Gitt doesn't really know what he is talking about.My first suggestion toward this end would be to take a chemistry course and discover how chemicals, even biochemicals, don't actually speak to each other.------------------
holmes

Hi Dillan!5,659 words! Wow! I hope this isn't really your last, at least not at the forum generally, but I'd like to comment about length. I only edited one of your posts, and that was to replace a lengthy cut-n-paste with the web address that the original text came from. I would never edit anyone's actual words, and I don't think any other admin here would, either.However, in this post you've not only once again cut-n-pasted a lengthy section from another webpage, it's the exact same webpage that I cautioned you about earlier from Charles Thaxton. The excerpt is shorter this time, but it's still lengthy, and I defy anyone to detect where Thaxton's words end and yours begin without referring to the Thaxton article webpage (http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html).I'll leave your post alone, but would like to request of everyone that even if it's only just in the interest of writing posts other people can follow and understand to keep them as short and to the point as possible, and to use some type of quoting to keep separate your words from the words of others. This isn't to say that posts should be short, but beyond a certain point length begins to work against you.Dillan, I admire your energy, stamina and determination, but keep in mind what Shakespeare said, that brevity is the soul of wisdom.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

I would be more inclined to believe a world class zoologist than some guy I met on the internet.

---

This is a fallacy known as an appeal to authority. The problem is that it doesn't matter who said what. What matters is the argument.

quote:

---

I do not mean this to be offensive; you are clearly a very intelligent fellow.

---

It is. You may not realize this but you are also jsut some guy on the internet. Perhaps I'll refuse to take your ideas seriously for that reason and that alone? Sound like a good plan?

quote:

---

However I believe Dawkins' and "The Genetic Book of the Dead" (this was a chapter in one of his books dealing with information in the DNA and what it is about).

---

"The genetic book of the dead" is chapter ten in "Unweaving the Rainbow."Why do you talk about who you believe, rather than what and why you believe?

quote:

---

This still does not clear up the issue that no code in the Gitt sense has been shown to occur naturally. I have failed to see one counter example to Gitt's notion that codes only come about through intelligence.

---

Hang on, now. I knew something was wrong with this objection but I had to read through it a few times and crawl into bed for it to hit me. If you allow what you allowed just previously... ... then you can no longer claim that DNA fits Gitt's definitions. Allowing that we cannot know whether DNA was created for a purpose, means that we cannot know that it meets Gitt's fifth element-- apobetics.In fact, it seems to me that this consideration will make any argument fatally circular. If these five elements are necessary conditions for identifying information, then you need external support for each of the five elements. You can't infer from some to all. Checkmate.

quote:

---

See? the physio-chemical properties has little to nothing to do with the organization of the DNA, whereas this is all that is involved in tree rings.

---

No. I don't see. The bonds between the atoms of DNA follow the same rules as any other molecule.

quote:

---

No one reads a book and wonders "Wow! I wonder where I can a bottle of that ink. This was such a good book." Similarly we cannot give the ink (DNA base codes) and paper (proteins) credit for composing the code.

---

DNA is not remotely like ink on paper.

quote:

---

Please do not confuse the material carrier of information with the information itself.

---

You are talking about one and the same thing with a DNA molecule. It is more like a clock than a computer. The springs and gears are material to the information it carries-- a measure of time. You cannot print it to paper or you destroy the information-- the clock won't work. Likewise, you can't copy DNA to any other molecule and have it do the same thing the original does. You cannot replace the atoms and have it work.

quote:

---

Refer to my above quotes from Yockey, etc..

---

You've not answered the question. What does DNA do that does not conform to normal everday rules of chemistry? You repeatedly claim that DNA is special, yet you cannot tell what it does that is special?

quote:

---

The material carrier (the DNA molecule) obeys chemical laws and has a very organized structure.

---

Are you joking? DNA is a mess.

quote:

---

Even if there were long strands of DNA molecules, that would be the equivalent of many blank floppy disks floating around in the ocean.

---

The floppy disk analogy is so bad it makes me weep. I believe the problems have been pointed out to you.

quote:

---

What are you refering to here? Do you propose a mechanism like that of Prigogine's? If so, then there are many holes in it. Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

---

Why are you quoting something about violating the second law? I said nothing about violating the second law. With an energy supply, you can have local increases of complexity. Without an energy supply, the system winds down until it reaches equilibrium. Nothing here violates the second law.This John Ross wouldn't be the lawyer would he?

quote:

---

Bacteria do follow their natural need to reproduce.

---

That's just it. Do bacteria need? Do viruses need? Like I said, it is an improper application of the idea of voliton.

quote:

---

So what do molecules "actually do".

---

React with other atoms and molecules according to some basic rules, all of which have to do with very physical and natural forces. What do you think they do?

quote:

---

The DNA in bacteria is designed to reproduce to keep life going.

---

Begging the question.

quote:

---

The computer must produce heat to perform other required tasks. This is just like a gar that must use gasoline to run.

---

The two are very different. The analogy is terrible.

quote:

---

The information in the DNA is used for survival regardless of whether it meant to or not.

---

That is exactly right. This, however, cuts the legs right out from under you. You can't infer design from here.

quote:

---

So, what are the characteristics of these patterns that makes us classify them as resulting from intelligence?

---

Did I not just answer that? We recognize the results of our own behavior. We know what stone tools do the bone. We know what teeth do to bone. The marks on a bone look like stone tool marks so we conclude that they were made by a human and, by extension, by an intelligent being. SETI was similar, but with math. We know what patterns our mathematics produce, etc.

quote:

---

In relation to this, let's say that a different type of chemistry was used in the origin of life event, with different rules and laws. Life could indeed be created and expressed using this new chemistry, just like I could convey the same message using paper and ink, sound waves, writing in the sand, etc..

---

You have got to be joking? Imagining an imaginary chemistry with imaginary laws is your response? The fact is that you would have to imagine the exact same chemistry that we have now in order to get the SAME information in the molecule. That is because the molecular bonds cannot be ignored. They are part and parcel of the molecule. You could get a DIFFERENT life, perhaps, but that is not the same information is it?

quote:

---

Then I guess by your standards we couldn't separate the information in a book from the paper and ink.

---

The book analogy is ridiculous. Manipulating ink on paper is nothing like manipulating the structure of a DNA molecule.

quote:

---

Could life be expressed using other amino acids?

---

Sure, but that isn't the point is it? The correct question should be "Can one get the same reactions-- the same information-- with other amino acids?" Not likely.I really have no idea what the point was of the lengthy Contact discourse.

quote:

---

And computer programs don't react the same way as books. We could go on and on.

---

But you miss the importance of it. You can put ink on paper in any configuration you choose, because all the ink sticks to all the bits of paper equally. All the bits of DNA do not stick to all other bits equally. That is a big difference.

quote:

---

Is it really so different?

---

The researcher says the TREATMENT is identical. He is not trying to infer design. That is a very big difference. You, however, are trying to infer design.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I note that the arguments requires DNA to include (Gitt) information including all the levels from semantics on up. I still see no clear argument that any of these levels are to be found in DNA (the closest has been a set of assertions that certain aspects of the "decoding" represent these level without clear explanation. Moreover, as I have pointed out assigning these levels contradicts statements made by Gitt in a paper from AiG's top journal concerning semantics (similar views are also held by at least one signficant figure - Searle - in modern philosophy working on the nature of intelligence) and beg the question of an intellignet origin at the levels above that.

quote:

---

The first question I have for you, is 'Who is we?' (Last sentence).

---

Given your focus on language, it should be quite clear in context that "we" is those who accept abiogenesis.

quote:

---

If you are referring to the scientific community, then refer to my quote from Yockey above.

---

I searched for "Yockey" on the page, and found nothing except for that line.

quote:

---

Your fire example is of the first type of order. DNA and language is a type of the second. Also refer to the problems I listed with the origin of the code above.

---

"First" and "second" order are your own constructs, which you define as "Stars, snowflakes, etc. are associated with the first type of order. Language, genetic code, etc. are associated with the second type of order-order that is not inherent to the substance in and of itself".However, this is silly. Ok, so, say, methane and oxygen and heat - the reaction is "first order", right? And DNA and ATP and sugars is "second order", right? Ok, what about platinum and long hydrocarbon chains? First or second? Branched chains - first or second? What if the hydrocarbons are functionalized with a carboxyl group, or an amino group - first or second? What about both? But wait! We're now talking about a reaction between a platinum catalyst and an amino acid! Want me to make a steady progression from a reaction with a platinum catalyst to something else?Do you understand? There Is No Cutoff Between Organic Chemistry And Inorganic Chemistry. This has been known since urea was synthesized. Organic chemistry is the same as regular chemistry - you just usually deal with bigger molecules. *There Are No Orders*. There is no cutoff.

quote:

---

Even if the correct nucleotides aligned in the correct order for life, this would do about as much good as trying to make a dog spell out and understand the meaning of random combinations of letters in alphabet soup.

---

Um... if they form life, they've *formed life*. You're saying that it wouldn't have meaning. That's right - it *doesn't have meaning*! It's just alive. That's what life is.

quote:

---

Also, for hydrothermal vents, thermodynamics, etc., refer to my links above.

---

Your thermodynamics post shows that you have precisely zero understanding of thermodynamics. Take your argument to apply to an ice cube tray in the freezer. What is happening to the water in the ice cube tray? Why, it's losing entropy! But you just argued (if I read you correctly) that a system cannot become more ordered than the environment around it! Your argument ignores the most basic principles of thermodynamics. A closed system cannot become more ordered. Just like your freezer is not a "closed system", neither is a geothermal vent. Non-closed systems are constantly becoming more ordered throughout the universe .

quote:

---

Are you referring to ribozyme experiments? If so, take a look at the links for the RNA origin of life I have listed above. I don't know too much about computers, so if you are referring to some type of computer program then I have no idea.

---

No. I'm talking about alife. Do you not know what alife is? Check out a book on it from your local library. You'll find it quite interesting, even if you don't believe that the models demonstrate that organic evolution is possible. (BTW, if you come to that conclusion, please come in and discuss why you do!)

quote:

---

Reproduction requires some type of code. A code cannot come about by chance.

---

Ah, so BSE was a miracle from God? Gee, thanks God! Humans really wanted Mad Cow Disease, thanks for answering our prayers! (ok, I'll turn the sarcasm tag off... ).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

If you let it run another week and stop it, your result is guaranteed to be *at least as good*. It may not be better, but it's not going to be worse.

---

I agree! But I thought evolution isn’t just uphill progress! Isn't this the common spin evolutionists invoke when creationists say that evolution requires uphill, simple-to-complex movement? The evolutionist response is usually something like, evolution doesn’t say that things must move uphill. Here is the important question: If this GA truly emulates evolution as you have clearly implied, then why do GAs only permit uphill movement on the fitness terrain? If we let evolution go for another 100K years, does evolution guarantee that life will be just as good? You are trapped. Either you admit that GAs do not emulate evolution in this regard, or you admit to being in a small minority of evolutionists who think evolution always moves ever upward. Which one is it? These are the only two possibilities.

quote:

---

That's what they got. Claim all you want that humans could have done it better.

---

This is a strawman, albeit not a big one. I never claimed ‘humans could have done it better’, any more than a human hand can pound in a nail better than a hammer. My claim has always been that GAs can only produce useful information within the presence of already-existing information, ie an intelligent sender. They have a limited usefulness (which is different than saying they are totally useless; a hammer has limited usefulness in building a house) because they represent trial&error experimentation, despite your tireless attempts to claim otherwise. Here’s a test for you. Next time you are within a group of engineers who are not up on the origins debate, make this comment You know, GAs really boil down to souped-up trial&error experimentation. Notice how no one will disagree with you! (Now if there is an evobabbler in the crowd, you might get lucky and he’ll say Oh, you can’t say that! )

quote:

---

Stopping it after a given length of time - is this how commercial applications do it? YES!

---

Whooppie! That is not what I asked! I will ask you again. After the specified length of time has been reached, do engineers, "take whatever it has at that point"? Yes or no. If no, why? If yes, seek help soon.

quote:

---

Can you see why this, what you call "truncation selection", is useful in commercial applications, but why researchers prefer the vast types of variety and forms that occur with a more "Earth-like" algorithm of an open-world with freedom to compete or not? Can you see why that type of algorithm, however, takes a lot longer to accomplish a task? Do you finally "get it"?

---

What I get is that you are committed to naturalism so much you cannot see that GAs do not emulate what occurs in nature, and that GAs cannot produce useful information outside the presence of already-existing information (ie intelligence).

LOL! Wounded Knee, I think it is goo the weekend is approaching for you to clear the cobwebs. You are severeley confused. You seem to be in a parallel universe somewhere. When you ask me "Care to back up that assertion?" what assertion are you claiming I made? Before telling me what I said, I think you should first re-read my posts.

Natural selection selects for fitness for the environment, not for better or bigger or fancier or more complex. That's why an evolutionist will always tell you that evolution doesn't require that things move "uphill", as you describe it.But quite clearly the history of evolution is one of increasing complexity, and this is because genomes are accumulative. Much of the genetic history of an organism remains as a storehouse of knowledge upon which to draw. Depending upon the type of mutation, new mutations add to old, and the genomes can grow ever more complex with time.And it is also because of increasing competition and the changing environment. Sometime increased complexity isn't called for, as when moths change color (back and forth, apparently) to take advantage of the predominate background shade. Sometimes increased complexity *is* called for, such as when a faster predator moves into an area thereby causing selection pressures for greater quickness or evasiveness among prey species, which often requires innovation which in turn often requires increased complexity. I don't believe either Rei or myself are implying that GAs emulate biological evolution. The GA's we've been describing are being employed as design tools that are based upon the principles of evolution, and they are designed to encourage as much improvement as possible because the goal is to achieve the best design in as short a time as possible.Evolutionary biologists would, of course, have different goals than design engineers. They wouldn't be employing GA's as a means to design commercial products, but would instead be attempting to model evolution in nature as accurately as possible. It you're looking for accurate modeling of evolution in nature then you would do best to look to the field of biology, not to design engineering where GA's are but a design tool.It's important not to lose the original point, that GA's are an excellent example of how the application of the principles behind evolution can provide unique and original solutions to complex problems. And the result has always been that you've been unable to support this point. If there was any legitimacy to this point then you'd be able to look at a GA program and point to where the information for the designs it produces are stored. Why don't you look at my C++ GA program (Ring Counter Evolution) and point to where the information for all the ring counter designs it produces are represented?You also contradict yourself later when you claim that GA's are nothing more than trial and error programs, which you seem to understand do not already contain the answers they produce. You can't have it both ways. If GA's already contain preconceived solutions then they aren't trial and error programs. Of course, at a coarse level of detail you can view GA's as trial and error programs if that helps you understand them, but be sure to realize that there's also the mutation and selection algorithms.--Percy

OK. Technically this is not an assertion as it is a statment about what you yourself imagine, but given the way it is presented I don't feel it is unreasonable to ask you to back up what is otherwise mere conjecture. Do you, therefore, have any evidence whatsoever that modern systems, I take it you mean state of the art supercomputers rather than my lab desktop, can achieve 3-4 billion years worth of generations of GA evolution in mere seconds, assuming 'mere seconds' is less than a minute for arguments sake.I don't know how many generations you think there are in a billion years, it obviously varies from organism to organism. To make things simple we could just stipulate that one generation is one year, obviously ridiculous for humans but generous considering how many yeast generations you could fit into a year. So do you have an example of a typical GA program running 3-4 billion generations in less than a minute on any computer system?Do your imaginings have any basis in fact, or are they purely for your own amusement?