Jump to content


Photo

Entropy


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
186 replies to this topic

#21 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 10 March 2012 - 10:37 PM

You do have a point that thermodynamics technically doesn't cover genetics /DNA, however what I am referring to is self evident as you agreed.


One thing you must realize about "evolutionary algorithms / computing" has very little to do with evolution, in its strictest sense. Random mutations are random and thus cannot provide any form of mathematical formula, if there is a formula then the "random" mutations are not random which therefore means they are directed.... Directed by what....

If the formulas are about diversity then it is merely computational ecology- which itself has little to do with evolution

I also showed how selection is also random- (it isn't black or white as the evolutionist portrays it, Life itself is random)... Honestly as I studied this at uni last year, the lecturers were hinting that there must be something else that does the selecting since we are now finding that "natural selection" is not a very powerful selecting agent..

So... You have two choices

1- Admit that "evolutionary computing" has very little in the sense of evolution just due to the fact that random mutations are random
2- Admit that mutations are directed which therefore implies purpose- which defies the naturalist's worldview since if there is purpose then there is a purpose giver.


Further you haven't addressed my question as to the sheer lunacy of people believing that life can form naturally despite human ingenuity cannot accomplish what a mindless, (apparently) natural process did.


Yes this is referred to by creationists as genetic entropy, the longer we live, the more mutations change the DNA present. If we lived for millions of years given the current rates of mutation being passed from generation to generation, our DNA would be unreadable, and unable to produce any form of life.

#22 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 11 March 2012 - 02:59 PM

1/ You do have a point that thermodynamics technically doesn't cover genetics /DNA, however what I am referring to is self evident as you agreed.


2/ One thing you must realize about "evolutionary algorithms / computing" has very little to do with evolution, in its strictest sense. Random mutations are random and thus cannot provide any form of mathematical formula, if there is a formula then the "random" mutations are not random which therefore means they are directed.... Directed by what....

If the formulas are about diversity then it is merely computational ecology- which itself has little to do with evolution

3/ I also showed how selection is also random- (it isn't black or white as the evolutionist portrays it, Life itself is random)... Honestly as I studied this at uni last year, the lecturers were hinting that there must be something else that does the selecting since we are now finding that "natural selection" is not a very powerful selecting agent..

4/ So... You have two choices

1- Admit that "evolutionary computing" has very little in the sense of evolution just due to the fact that random mutations are random
2- Admit that mutations are directed which therefore implies purpose- which defies the naturalist's worldview since if there is purpose then there is a purpose giver.


5/ Further you haven't addressed my question as to the sheer lunacy of people believing that life can form naturally despite human ingenuity cannot accomplish what a mindless, (apparently) natural process did.


1/ I still do not concur that evolution defies the second law. All I agreed with is that the end result of only random mutations would in fact degrade our DNA. Both young earth and old earth agree that we exist for at least 6000 years so I'm thinking that either this process is very slow, or other factors influence the degradation caused by mutation. My guess would be the latter seen that mutations are common and that our DNA has not as much junk DNA as was previously believed. That alone is enough to conclude that evolution doesn't defy the law of entropy.

2/ You are correct. Not one random generator in computer science is truly random. The sequence will repeat itself after a certain amount of numbers. That's why you need to choose the random generator wisely in order to take one that fits your purpose (with a wide enough range).

3/ From not being black or white to random is a big step though. Any information or sources that natural selection isn't good enough to make the selections needed for evolution? I am aware of discussions about the change in speed of natural selection (the possibility of it being able to select faster when conditions change faster for instance and "slowing down" when conditions don't require fast selection).

4/ Evolutionary computing is deduced from the theory of evolution (GA follows the same mechanisms as evolution) as I said and different experiments/problems will probably require different algorythms (along with different random number generators for each mechanism). If the RNG is your only problem with it, I suggest you read up on how large we can make the range of randomly generated numbers thanks to computers and how, even though they do use algorythms, the range of numbers is no longer the same with each generation as they were about 10-20 years ago. I personally would have more problems with the implementation of the mechanisms of evolution being possibly outdated (as with your statement that natural selection isn't good enough to make the selection for instance). I merely provided this as an example of how one could create 'order' from randomness. I also said that this is how evolution could work. I never made the claim that it is how evolution, let alone how nature, actually works.

5/ What can I say about that? I have already made my claim that I do not agree that we are as smart as you think scientists are, nor that we are as powerful as we think we are. We can be wiped out by a simple comet despite or smarts and technology. That 'mindless' natural process might be a law or theory that we have not yet discovered. It might be something that we simply cannot repeat despite our smarts and technology.

I agree that:

"Scientists have intelligence - Nature has no intelligence"
"Scientists can direct their efforts - Nature has no direction"


But also

"Scientists have technology - Nature has none"

In the same way that we simply copy a lot of our technology from nature? I agree that nature cannot use that technology any way it seems fit though as we can.

And I simply disagree with

"Scientists have more resources, ( can concentrate resources) - Nature cannot"
"Scientists can bend natural laws / nature - Nature cannot"
"Scientists have resources that are outside the sphere of what would have been natural at the time - Nature doesn't"

How can we bend natural laws? At least nature 'knows' all the laws in full detail, we don't. We can only influence nature locally. Seen in the universe, we can hardly influence any resource. We cannot even influence our climate while nature can easily throw a comet at us, make volcanoes erupt, shake the earth...

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:42 PM

1/ I still do not concur that evolution defies the second law. All I agreed with is that the end result of only random mutations would in fact degrade our DNA. Both young earth and old earth agree that we exist for at least 6000 years so I'm thinking that either this process is very slow, or other factors influence the degradation caused by mutation. My guess would be the latter seen that mutations are common and that our DNA has not as much junk DNA as was previously believed. That alone is enough to conclude that evolution doesn't defy the law of entropy.

2/ You are correct. Not one random generator in computer science is truly random. The sequence will repeat itself after a certain amount of numbers. That's why you need to choose the random generator wisely in order to take one that fits your purpose (with a wide enough range).

3/ From not being black or white to random is a big step though. Any information or sources that natural selection isn't good enough to make the selections needed for evolution? I am aware of discussions about the change in speed of natural selection (the possibility of it being able to select faster when conditions change faster for instance and "slowing down" when conditions don't require fast selection).

4/ Evolutionary computing is deduced from the theory of evolution (GA follows the same mechanisms as evolution) as I said and different experiments/problems will probably require different algorythms (along with different random number generators for each mechanism). If the RNG is your only problem with it, I suggest you read up on how large we can make the range of randomly generated numbers thanks to computers and how, even though they do use algorythms, the range of numbers is no longer the same with each generation as they were about 10-20 years ago. I personally would have more problems with the implementation of the mechanisms of evolution being possibly outdated (as with your statement that natural selection isn't good enough to make the selection for instance). I merely provided this as an example of how one could create 'order' from randomness. I also said that this is how evolution could work. I never made the claim that it is how evolution, let alone how nature, actually works.

5/ What can I say about that? I have already made my claim that I do not agree that we are as smart as you think scientists are, nor that we are as powerful as we think we are. We can be wiped out by a simple comet despite or smarts and technology. That 'mindless' natural process might be a law or theory that we have not yet discovered. It might be something that we simply cannot repeat despite our smarts and technology.

I agree that:

"Scientists have intelligence - Nature has no intelligence"
"Scientists can direct their efforts - Nature has no direction"


But also

"Scientists have technology - Nature has none"

In the same way that we simply copy a lot of our technology from nature? I agree that nature cannot use that technology any way it seems fit though as we can.

And I simply disagree with

"Scientists have more resources, ( can concentrate resources) - Nature cannot"
"Scientists can bend natural laws / nature - Nature cannot"
"Scientists have resources that are outside the sphere of what would have been natural at the time - Nature doesn't"

How can we bend natural laws? At least nature 'knows' all the laws in full detail, we don't. We can only influence nature locally. Seen in the universe, we can hardly influence any resource. We cannot even influence our climate while nature can easily throw a comet at us, make volcanoes erupt, shake the earth...


1. So you didn't say this in post #18

"I agree that random mutations do in fact degrade DNA"

Hence agreeing to my point that random mutations have destructive purposes rather than enhancing ones... (Entropy = random = destroys code)


2. So there are no mathematics in evolution, (when I studied this we did algorithms for biodiversity.... yet that is not evolution, merely ecology)


3. I said life is random, (which it is), therefore it is random. Natural selection is based on the pressures of the environment that is a part of life, hence since life is random so are the environmental pressures.

The biggest strongest individual may get killed by falling branch or be surprised by a combined sneak attack from predators, hence the fittest doesn't ALWAYS survives, (unlike what evolutionists claim)


4. You said

" I merely provided this as an example of how one could create 'order' from randomness."

So "one" meaning an intelligent agent behind the programming.....


5. So that is a statement of faith- we do not know, but we will claim X because we can.... and here I thought science was about evidence, (as Dawkins urges people to only ever believe in things with evidence)...

"In the same way that we simply copy a lot of our technology from nature? I agree that nature cannot use that technology any way it seems fit though as we can."

Hence you agree with my point, the "technology" of nature is only to do the purpose it is designed to do, (governed by natural law or states), we can circumvent this and use such to do things that such technology would not do normally... (Also showing how we bend natural laws / nature itself)

"Scientists have more resources, ( can concentrate resources) - Nature cannot"

Scientists can concentrate natural resources beyond what nature could accomplish... Natural laws apply to the natural resources in that they be evenly distributed- like cordial poured into a cup of water. We can circumvent this. Further we can create more of the specific resource we require... want more amino acids, no problem... Need more nucleic bases, easy done.. Surely you can see my point and find this logical

"Scientists can bend natural laws / nature - Nature cannot"

An example of this can be the creation of "mulitcellular" life- (it isn't but that is what evolutionist claim), via use of a centrifuge. Surely you can agree that such is bending the laws of nature... Since 10xg or 100xg would not occur on Earth naturally at ground level.

"Scientists have resources that are outside the sphere of what would have been natural at the time - Nature doesn't"

Scientists can create a solution of 100% left handed amino acids or 100% right handed amino acids... Such a resource is not available in nature due to the laws of chirality. Over time this converts to become a 50/50 mix, however the creation of the 100% solution shows that we can make resources that are not available to nature. Further we can use resources from one sphere of nature to another... PCR is an example- we use the heat resistance of geyser bacteria as the basing point for the PCR process. We now use this outside of the geyser community of bacteria.



I have shown that all my claims are correct- Now the blind hope that life formed by chance despite all these points really is silly. Scientists overshadow nature in these points and yet we cannot create life unlike nature has been claimed to do...

#24 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:34 AM

1. So you didn't say this in post #18

"I agree that random mutations do in fact degrade DNA"

Hence agreeing to my point that random mutations have destructive purposes rather than enhancing ones... (Entropy = random = destroys code)


2. So there are no mathematics in evolution, (when I studied this we did algorithms for biodiversity.... yet that is not evolution, merely ecology)


3. I said life is random, (which it is), therefore it is random. Natural selection is based on the pressures of the environment that is a part of life, hence since life is random so are the environmental pressures.

The biggest strongest individual may get killed by falling branch or be surprised by a combined sneak attack from predators, hence the fittest doesn't ALWAYS survives, (unlike what evolutionists claim)


4. You said

" I merely provided this as an example of how one could create 'order' from randomness."

So "one" meaning an intelligent agent behind the programming.....


5. So that is a statement of faith- we do not know, but we will claim X because we can.... and here I thought science was about evidence, (as Dawkins urges people to only ever believe in things with evidence)...

"In the same way that we simply copy a lot of our technology from nature? I agree that nature cannot use that technology any way it seems fit though as we can."

Hence you agree with my point, the "technology" of nature is only to do the purpose it is designed to do, (governed by natural law or states), we can circumvent this and use such to do things that such technology would not do normally... (Also showing how we bend natural laws / nature itself)

"Scientists have more resources, ( can concentrate resources) - Nature cannot"

Scientists can concentrate natural resources beyond what nature could accomplish... Natural laws apply to the natural resources in that they be evenly distributed- like cordial poured into a cup of water. We can circumvent this. Further we can create more of the specific resource we require... want more amino acids, no problem... Need more nucleic bases, easy done.. Surely you can see my point and find this logical

"Scientists can bend natural laws / nature - Nature cannot"

An example of this can be the creation of "mulitcellular" life- (it isn't but that is what evolutionist claim), via use of a centrifuge. Surely you can agree that such is bending the laws of nature... Since 10xg or 100xg would not occur on Earth naturally at ground level.

"Scientists have resources that are outside the sphere of what would have been natural at the time - Nature doesn't"

Scientists can create a solution of 100% left handed amino acids or 100% right handed amino acids... Such a resource is not available in nature due to the laws of chirality. Over time this converts to become a 50/50 mix, however the creation of the 100% solution shows that we can make resources that are not available to nature. Further we can use resources from one sphere of nature to another... PCR is an example- we use the heat resistance of geyser bacteria as the basing point for the PCR process. We now use this outside of the geyser community of bacteria.



I have shown that all my claims are correct- Now the blind hope that life formed by chance despite all these points really is silly. Scientists overshadow nature in these points and yet we cannot create life unlike nature has been claimed to do...


1/ "random mutations have destructive purposes rather than enhancing ones"

Look, read what I wrote. I specifically wrote, twice now, that the end result of only random mutations would be the degradation of DNA. I never, ever said anything about destructive purposes. I specifically said TWICE that evolution isn't only about random mutations, that it includes other mechanisms so your claim that evolution defies the 2nd law is not correct (and that is hypothetically speaking as we do not even know that the extrapolation of the law is at all possible or valid) . So I agree with you on the degradation (without the purpose behind it) but I disagree with evolution defying the law of entropy. I also specifically said, numerous times, that entropy isn't defined as you are trying to pull of in these examples. Please research Gibbs entropy and Boltzmann entropy.

2/ If there would be, we would have laws of evolution so no, there aren't any.

3/ "The biggest strongest individual may get killed by falling branch or be surprised by a combined sneak attack from predators, hence the fittest doesn't ALWAYS survives, (unlike what evolutionists claim)"

Ummm... Survival of the fittest has been redefined for quite some time now. I think you are running behind a few years if you still believe evolution scientists advocate that claim.

It is true that environmental conditions do change and they can do this rather rapidly at times, which results in the discussion about the possibiliy of natural selection being able to select fast enough to compensate (otherwise the environmental conditions might as well be random), but are you going to tell me that this is the case all of the time? That environmental pressures can be considered completely random? I don't think I agree with this. It is not like the climate changes drastically from one year to the next, or that the make-up of the air differs greatly from year to year, or that your position in nature changes that fast to name a few conditions. How did the environmental pressures change for us for instance the last couple of years/decades?

4/ Yes, computers are made by humans with intelligence, yes software (OS and other layers) are written by smart people. However, in this kind of computer simulation, and yes the simulation is written by intelligent people, the entire idea of it is to have a process which is not guided by humans to get solutions to problems we couldn't think of ourselves. That's the whole point of evolutionary computing: take the process of evolution, put it into algorythms and use it to solve complex problems.

5/ As I stated a few couple of posts ago; these are my thoughts on the matter. I never intended them to be well-founded arguments (as I have already mentioned and agreed upon). I NEVER intended them to be scientific in any way. Because my thoughts are what I expect from the near to distant future, you can throw as much 'science' against it as you want, you will not be able to disprove those thoughts as you cannot predict the future either.

"technology" is not only tools and their application. Technology is also scaling, complexity, power etc.

I never said that we cannot in a lot of cases do more than nature can. We can in fact manipulate certain things under controlled environments where nature has no controlled environments. I agreed that we can direct our efforts and use our technology to actually accomplish things thanks to our intelligence whereas nature simply has resources, has technology but cannot use it intelligently or direct its efforts. On the other hand, can we create massive black holes? Can we create stars? Can we manipulate our atmosphere? Can we block out sunlight? Can we heat the water in our oceans? No we cannot. Do we know all of the laws of nature out there? Very unlikely. So both can do things the other cannot.

I'm sorry but if I think of natural laws, I mean actual laws like laws of motion, laws in physics etc.

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:16 AM

1/ "random mutations have destructive purposes rather than enhancing ones"

Look, read what I wrote. I specifically wrote, twice now, that the end result of only random mutations would be the degradation of DNA. I never, ever said anything about destructive purposes. I specifically said TWICE that evolution isn't only about random mutations, that it includes other mechanisms so your claim that evolution defies the 2nd law is not correct (and that is hypothetically speaking as we do not even know that the extrapolation of the law is at all possible or valid) . So I agree with you on the degradation (without the purpose behind it) but I disagree with evolution defying the law of entropy. I also specifically said, numerous times, that entropy isn't defined as you are trying to pull of in these examples. Please research Gibbs entropy and Boltzmann entropy.

2/ If there would be, we would have laws of evolution so no, there aren't any.

3/ "The biggest strongest individual may get killed by falling branch or be surprised by a combined sneak attack from predators, hence the fittest doesn't ALWAYS survives, (unlike what evolutionists claim)"

Ummm... Survival of the fittest has been redefined for quite some time now. I think you are running behind a few years if you still believe evolution scientists advocate that claim.

It is true that environmental conditions do change and they can do this rather rapidly at times, which results in the discussion about the possibiliy of natural selection being able to select fast enough to compensate (otherwise the environmental conditions might as well be random), but are you going to tell me that this is the case all of the time? That environmental pressures can be considered completely random? I don't think I agree with this. It is not like the climate changes drastically from one year to the next, or that the make-up of the air differs greatly from year to year, or that your position in nature changes that fast to name a few conditions. How did the environmental pressures change for us for instance the last couple of years/decades?

4/ Yes, computers are made by humans with intelligence, yes software (OS and other layers) are written by smart people. However, in this kind of computer simulation, and yes the simulation is written by intelligent people, the entire idea of it is to have a process which is not guided by humans to get solutions to problems we couldn't think of ourselves. That's the whole point of evolutionary computing: take the process of evolution, put it into algorythms and use it to solve complex problems.

5/ As I stated a few couple of posts ago; these are my thoughts on the matter. I never intended them to be well-founded arguments (as I have already mentioned and agreed upon). I NEVER intended them to be scientific in any way. Because my thoughts are what I expect from the near to distant future, you can throw as much 'science' against it as you want, you will not be able to disprove those thoughts as you cannot predict the future either.

"technology" is not only tools and their application. Technology is also scaling, complexity, power etc.

I never said that we cannot in a lot of cases do more than nature can. We can in fact manipulate certain things under controlled environments where nature has no controlled environments. I agreed that we can direct our efforts and use our technology to actually accomplish things thanks to our intelligence whereas nature simply has resources, has technology but cannot use it intelligently or direct its efforts. On the other hand, can we create massive black holes? Can we create stars? Can we manipulate our atmosphere? Can we block out sunlight? Can we heat the water in our oceans? No we cannot. Do we know all of the laws of nature out there? Very unlikely. So both can do things the other cannot.

I'm sorry but if I think of natural laws, I mean actual laws like laws of motion, laws in physics etc.

1/ "random mutations have destructive purposes rather than enhancing ones"

Look, read what I wrote. I specifically wrote, twice now, that the end result of only random mutations would be the degradation of DNA. I never, ever said anything about destructive purposes. I specifically said TWICE that evolution isn't only about random mutations, that it includes other mechanisms so your claim that evolution defies the 2nd law is not correct (and that is hypothetically speaking as we do not even know that the extrapolation of the law is at all possible or valid) . So I agree with you on the degradation (without the purpose behind it) but I disagree with evolution defying the law of entropy. I also specifically said, numerous times, that entropy isn't defined as you are trying to pull of in these examples. Please research Gibbs entropy and Boltzmann entropy.

2/ If there would be, we would have laws of evolution so no, there aren't any.

3/ "The biggest strongest individual may get killed by falling branch or be surprised by a combined sneak attack from predators, hence the fittest doesn't ALWAYS survives, (unlike what evolutionists claim)"

Ummm... Survival of the fittest has been redefined for quite some time now. I think you are running behind a few years if you still believe evolution scientists advocate that claim.

It is true that environmental conditions do change and they can do this rather rapidly at times, which results in the discussion about the possibiliy of natural selection being able to select fast enough to compensate (otherwise the environmental conditions might as well be random), but are you going to tell me that this is the case all of the time? That environmental pressures can be considered completely random? I don't think I agree with this. It is not like the climate changes drastically from one year to the next, or that the make-up of the air differs greatly from year to year, or that your position in nature changes that fast to name a few conditions. How did the environmental pressures change for us for instance the last couple of years/decades?

4/ Yes, computers are made by humans with intelligence, yes software (OS and other layers) are written by smart people. However, in this kind of computer simulation, and yes the simulation is written by intelligent people, the entire idea of it is to have a process which is not guided by humans to get solutions to problems we couldn't think of ourselves. That's the whole point of evolutionary computing: take the process of evolution, put it into algorythms and use it to solve complex problems.

5/ As I stated a few couple of posts ago; these are my thoughts on the matter. I never intended them to be well-founded arguments (as I have already mentioned and agreed upon). I NEVER intended them to be scientific in any way. Because my thoughts are what I expect from the near to distant future, you can throw as much 'science' against it as you want, you will not be able to disprove those thoughts as you cannot predict the future either.

"technology" is not only tools and their application. Technology is also scaling, complexity, power etc.

I never said that we cannot in a lot of cases do more than nature can. We can in fact manipulate certain things under controlled environments where nature has no controlled environments. I agreed that we can direct our efforts and use our technology to actually accomplish things thanks to our intelligence whereas nature simply has resources, has technology but cannot use it intelligently or direct its efforts. On the other hand, can we create massive black holes? Can we create stars? Can we manipulate our atmosphere? Can we block out sunlight? Can we heat the water in our oceans? No we cannot. Do we know all of the laws of nature out there? Very unlikely. So both can do things the other cannot.

I'm sorry but if I think of natural laws, I mean actual laws like laws of motion, laws in physics etc.


1. So you are claiming that (DNA) degradation is not a destructive process?

Please specifically state what these other mechanisms are? (The non-destructive ones)

I already agreed that perhaps my claim that evolution defies the laws of thermodynamics was unsupported.


2. Thanks for agreeing that evolution has nothing mathematical... Therefore following this it has very little to do with computer formulations- (if you claim that a random number generator is based on evolution, then that is a very weak claim)


3. Did I specifically state "survival of the fittest"?

I'm not talking about the macro environment ie climate. I already gave you an example of a sneak attack via predators or even a death from a random falling branch. THESE things are completely random and are not accounted from by evolutionists. In other words the evolutionist assumes that the fittest / most adapted etc will ALWAYS survive to reproduce, I have shown that in reality this is patently untrue.


4. So what "process of evolution" is being adhered to when intelligent agents make up new equations / formula? (You do realise that your claims here contradict your admittance that evolution is not mathematical)....


5. I cannot predict the future, but I can look at the scientific evidence and see what is BS and what remains to be a possibility.

I know you didn't specifically state that we cannot manipulate things... Yet your disagreement when I said that we do, is to be taken as an indirect claim of this.

To answer your questions...

can we create massive black holes?


No... But this has no relevance to the issue of where life came from... (hence it is a red herring)

Can we create stars?

Another red herring...

Can we manipulate our atmosphere?

In terms of creating life yes we can... Environmental atmospheres within a lab can be adjusted to almost anything, with the proper equipment

Can we block out sunlight?

I'll assume you live in a roofless house ;)

Can we heat the water in our oceans?

We can heat the solution in which we intend to create life in... Otherwise it is a red herring

Do we know all of the laws of nature out there? Very unlikely. So both can do things the other cannot.

Of course we don't yet if life created naturally then it why don't we observe it occurring now? Nature has no "off switch" so if it is a natural phenomenon we should be able to observe it.... (This is where people thought up spontaneous generation, which is now debunked)

#26 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:31 AM

I also specifically said, numerous times, that entropy isn't defined as you are trying to pull of in these examples. Please research Gibbs entropy and Boltzmann entropy.


But not Shannon entropy?

#27 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 12 March 2012 - 07:01 AM

1. So you are claiming that (DNA) degradation is not a destructive process?

Please specifically state what these other mechanisms are? (The non-destructive ones)

I already agreed that perhaps my claim that evolution defies the laws of thermodynamics was unsupported.


2. Thanks for agreeing that evolution has nothing mathematical... Therefore following this it has very little to do with computer formulations- (if you claim that a random number generator is based on evolution, then that is a very weak claim)


3. Did I specifically state "survival of the fittest"?

I'm not talking about the macro environment ie climate. I already gave you an example of a sneak attack via predators or even a death from a random falling branch. THESE things are completely random and are not accounted from by evolutionists. In other words the evolutionist assumes that the fittest / most adapted etc will ALWAYS survive to reproduce, I have shown that in reality this is patently untrue.


4. So what "process of evolution" is being adhered to when intelligent agents make up new equations / formula? (You do realise that your claims here contradict your admittance that evolution is not mathematical)....


5. I cannot predict the future, but I can look at the scientific evidence and see what is BS and what remains to be a possibility.

I know you didn't specifically state that we cannot manipulate things... Yet your disagreement when I said that we do, is to be taken as an indirect claim of this.

To answer your questions...

can we create massive black holes?


No... But this has no relevance to the issue of where life came from... (hence it is a red herring)

Can we create stars?

Another red herring...

Can we manipulate our atmosphere?

In terms of creating life yes we can... Environmental atmospheres within a lab can be adjusted to almost anything, with the proper equipment

Can we block out sunlight?

I'll assume you live in a roofless house ;)

Can we heat the water in our oceans?

We can heat the solution in which we intend to create life in... Otherwise it is a red herring

Do we know all of the laws of nature out there? Very unlikely. So both can do things the other cannot.

Of course we don't yet if life created naturally then it why don't we observe it occurring now? Nature has no "off switch" so if it is a natural phenomenon we should be able to observe it.... (This is where people thought up spontaneous generation, which is now debunked)


1/ Yes, DNA degradation is destructive. I never said it isn't. What I meant is that mutations aren't always destructive (destructive purpose) but that the end result of lots of mutations is DNA degradation. You know, just as I know, that not all mutations are bad ones.

I guess we can drop this point as we seem to agree with each other.

2/ I have never claimed evolution has mathematical equations. RNG isn't based upon evolution. I have once again never said anything of the like; How do you make the jump from mathematical to computer formulations? What do you mean with computer formulations?

3/ I quote: "...hence the fittest doesn't ALWAYS survives, (unlike what evolutionists claim)"

Afaik evolutionists do not claim that the 'fittest' or even best adapted always survives. Some luck is involved. When I hear environmental pressures I assume changing environmental conditions for instance not random events targeting an individual (branch, predator, illness, starvation...). I agree that sometimes the "most fit" specimen could and will die this way. So once again, I think we agree on this statement. However, that doesn't make natural selection completely random, does it? What about those macro environment changes?

4/ I am aware that this may sound like a contradiction but it is perfectly possible to code a desired behaviour without coding mathematical formula's. In evolutionary computing, they do not try to use equations to get the end result for problem, but they rather try to code behaviour of evolutionary mechanisms. In all of those steps, RNG are used to decide for instance what should be inherited, which genes should be mutated, some sort of survival conditions are set... Like I said, it is rather complex if you want to get to the bottom of it. Of course I expect that all algorythm use different methods. I haven't studied all of them. I expect that some will probably use series (which are mathematical equations) and other might use some kind of regression analyses to get a relation between result and conditions.

5/ Those were examples of things nature can do, which we cannot obviously. I do not know where life comes from so it is a bit unfair of you to expect me to give you specific examples of things nature can do to create life that we cannot. However, if you wish to interpret it that way, even though you don't know where life came from either and you really cannot disprove that stars for instance have nothing to do with the creation of life, then please by all means do so.

"Of course we don't"

So...? Nature might have the upper hand?

"yet if life created naturally then it why don't we observe it occurring now? Nature has no "off switch" so if it is a natural phenomenon we should be able to observe it.... (This is where people thought up spontaneous generation, which is now debunked)"

Imo this is an unfair question. How do you know we should be observing it, or could be observing it?

Lol, spontaneous generation. Would've been fun if that were true. Imagine all the toy stores stacking up on 'create your own life' toyboxes.

#28 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 12 March 2012 - 07:27 AM

But not Shannon entropy?



Shannon entropy is used in information theory and has to do with the uncertainty of a variable. The more certain you are of a specific outcome, the lower the entropy. Equally, different possible outcomes with evenly divided possibilities should increase the entropy. The formula of Shannon entropy is similar to the one of Gibbs entropy. I'm less familiar with Shannon's entropy though.

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 03:34 PM


4/ Yes, computers are made by humans with intelligence, yes software (OS and other layers) are written by smart people. However, in this kind of computer simulation, and yes the simulation is written by intelligent people, the entire idea of it is to have a process which is not guided by humans to get solutions to problems we couldn't think of ourselves. That's the whole point of evolutionary computing: take the process of evolution, put it into algorythms and use it to solve complex problems.



It then follows logically that even if the possibility arises that the computer somehow reaches sentience, it will be because it was designed to do so by intelligent humans. Therefore even IF the computer solves a problem (or problems) “we couldn't think of ourselves”, it couldn’t do so without the intelligence, design, testing, experimentation and construction of the intelligent human.

Conclusion, this isn’t evolution, its design.

Attached Files



#30 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 13 March 2012 - 05:17 PM

It then follows logically that even if the possibility arises that the computer somehow reaches sentience, it will be because it was designed to do so by intelligent humans. Therefore even IF the computer solves a problem (or problems) “we couldn't think of ourselves”, it couldn’t do so without the intelligence, design, testing, experimentation and construction of the intelligent human.

Conclusion, this isn’t evolution, its design.


Who said anything about sentience? That's still a big step further down the line.

Your conclusion is a bit too easy. It is a designed simulator to mimic evolutionary mechanisms in order to solve problems. To claim that the simulation is design and nothing about it has anything to do with mimicing evolution (while it is in fact both: it is a designed environment on which are are running your own simulations which were obviously designed by a computer engineer), means that you are practically saying that all other computer simulations are also only design and not offering anything useful to us about our view on nature. Take for instance gravity simulators. They are designed just as well. Are you also claiming that it is design, not gravity while it is in fact both?

#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:15 PM



It then follows logically that even if the possibility arises that the computer somehow reaches sentience, it will be because it was designed to do so by intelligent humans. Therefore even IF the computer solves a problem (or problems) “we couldn't think of ourselves”, it couldn’t do so without the intelligence, design, testing, experimentation and construction of the intelligent human.

Conclusion, this isn’t evolution, its design.



Who said anything about sentience? That's still a big step further down the line.



And exactly the fairytale you want to ‘eventually’ roll the conversation into. Unfortunately the entire premise leads to design, not evolution.



Your conclusion is a bit too easy. It is a designed simulator to mimic evolutionary mechanisms in order to solve problems. To claim that the simulation is design and nothing about it has anything to do with mimicing evolution (while it is in fact both: it is a designed environment on which are are running your own simulations which were obviously designed by a computer engineer), means that you are practically saying that all other computer simulations are also only design and not offering anything useful to us about our view on nature. Take for instance gravity simulators. They are designed just as well. Are you also claiming that it is design, not gravity while it is in fact both?



My conclusion “is a bit too easy” because it is the ONLY logical conclusion.

The computer program is DESIGNED to mimic (you do understand that, do you not?)

It was DESIGNED to mimic by intelligent people (you do understand that, do you not?)

Computers are DESIGNED to do what we want them to do (you do understand that, do you not?). Computers didn’t spring out of a pile of pieces and parts, and those pieces and parts didn’t spring out of materials from nature. Computers were designed by intelligence, testing, experimentation and construction of the intelligent human; just as the parts for the computer were designed by intelligence, testing, experimentation and construction of the intelligent human (you do understand that, do you not?).

Take for instance gravity simulators; they were DESIGNED by intelligent humans to simulate gravity! (You do understand that, do you not?)

#32 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 March 2012 - 01:37 AM

And exactly the fairytale you want to ‘eventually’ roll the conversation into. Unfortunately the entire premise leads to design, not evolution.


Ummm... No I don't. The entire discussion isn't about robotics but about how the mechanisms of evolution could lead to order. I also never said anything about a computer not being designed by humans.


My conclusion “is a bit too easy” because it is the ONLY logical conclusion.


No, it is a bit too easy because your conclusion is black or white while the answer is somewhere in the middle. Obviously we don't run real evolution (or gravity) on a computer (as that would be impossible). However we do run evolutionary algorythms on it.


The computer program is DESIGNED to mimic (you do understand that, do you not?)

It was DESIGNED to mimic by intelligent people (you do understand that, do you not?)

Computers are DESIGNED to do what we want them to do (you do understand that, do you not?). Computers didn’t spring out of a pile of pieces and parts, and those pieces and parts didn’t spring out of materials from nature. Computers were designed by intelligence, testing, experimentation and construction of the intelligent human; just as the parts for the computer were designed by intelligence, testing, experimentation and construction of the intelligent human (you do understand that, do you not?).


Which is literally what I said (you can read, can you?)

Take for instance gravity simulators; they were DESIGNED by intelligent humans to simulate gravity! (You do understand that, do you not?)



WHICH is LITERALLY what I said. And as you just admitted, they are simulating gravity, just as those people running evolutionary computing are simulating evolutionary algorythms.

#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:47 AM

1/ Yes, DNA degradation is destructive. I never said it isn't. What I meant is that mutations aren't always destructive (destructive purpose) but that the end result of lots of mutations is DNA degradation. You know, just as I know, that not all mutations are bad ones.

I guess we can drop this point as we seem to agree with each other.

2/ I have never claimed evolution has mathematical equations. RNG isn't based upon evolution. I have once again never said anything of the like; How do you make the jump from mathematical to computer formulations? What do you mean with computer formulations?

3/ I quote: "...hence the fittest doesn't ALWAYS survives, (unlike what evolutionists claim)"

Afaik evolutionists do not claim that the 'fittest' or even best adapted always survives. Some luck is involved. When I hear environmental pressures I assume changing environmental conditions for instance not random events targeting an individual (branch, predator, illness, starvation...). I agree that sometimes the "most fit" specimen could and will die this way. So once again, I think we agree on this statement. However, that doesn't make natural selection completely random, does it? What about those macro environment changes?

4/ I am aware that this may sound like a contradiction but it is perfectly possible to code a desired behaviour without coding mathematical formula's. In evolutionary computing, they do not try to use equations to get the end result for problem, but they rather try to code behaviour of evolutionary mechanisms. In all of those steps, RNG are used to decide for instance what should be inherited, which genes should be mutated, some sort of survival conditions are set... Like I said, it is rather complex if you want to get to the bottom of it. Of course I expect that all algorythm use different methods. I haven't studied all of them. I expect that some will probably use series (which are mathematical equations) and other might use some kind of regression analyses to get a relation between result and conditions.

5/ Those were examples of things nature can do, which we cannot obviously. I do not know where life comes from so it is a bit unfair of you to expect me to give you specific examples of things nature can do to create life that we cannot. However, if you wish to interpret it that way, even though you don't know where life came from either and you really cannot disprove that stars for instance have nothing to do with the creation of life, then please by all means do so.

"Of course we don't"

So...? Nature might have the upper hand?

"yet if life created naturally then it why don't we observe it occurring now? Nature has no "off switch" so if it is a natural phenomenon we should be able to observe it.... (This is where people thought up spontaneous generation, which is now debunked)"

Imo this is an unfair question. How do you know we should be observing it, or could be observing it?

Lol, spontaneous generation. Would've been fun if that were true. Imagine all the toy stores stacking up on 'create your own life' toyboxes.



1. Umm no, I asked for these other mechanisms you mentioned... Asking to drop the point is not specifying these other mechanisms....


2. You said that there are computational parts of evolution... In order to have this then evolution needs to be represented mathematically... Hence you indirectly said that evolution is mathematical... (I have already explained this)

3. If there is a random element to "natural selection" then it is random. You cannot say it is directed, since there is a random element. I don't think I said completely random, I just said random. Therefore, who is to say that the one time mutation for X will ALWAYS get passed down... IT is being taught that there is no randomness in natural selection


4. "They code behaviour of evolutionary mechanisms" I am going to assume "they" is an intelligent agent, who determines what "mechanisms" are used.... Considering you skipped mentioning of these mechanisms I am interested to hear what they are... Rather than hear you say, they do it, without reference to what is being done.

Random generators are not products of evolution theory... They didn't design dice based on evolution....

#34 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 March 2012 - 01:13 PM

1. Umm no, I asked for these other mechanisms you mentioned... Asking to drop the point is not specifying these other mechanisms....


2. You said that there are computational parts of evolution... In order to have this then evolution needs to be represented mathematically... Hence you indirectly said that evolution is mathematical... (I have already explained this)

3. If there is a random element to "natural selection" then it is random. You cannot say it is directed, since there is a random element. I don't think I said completely random, I just said random. Therefore, who is to say that the one time mutation for X will ALWAYS get passed down... IT is being taught that there is no randomness in natural selection


4. "They code behaviour of evolutionary mechanisms" I am going to assume "they" is an intelligent agent, who determines what "mechanisms" are used.... Considering you skipped mentioning of these mechanisms I am interested to hear what they are... Rather than hear you say, they do it, without reference to what is being done.

5. Random generators are not products of evolution theory... They didn't design dice based on evolution....


1/ I meant heredity and natural selection.

2/ Computer formulations, computational parts... you sure are doing your very best to be vague about this and equate it to mathematical equations. I specifically denied that evolution can be put into mathematical equations. Computer formulations (I'm going to assume you mean computer code) aren't necessarily mathematical equations. Computational parts?Nope, unless you are referring to the usage of the term evolutionary computation where the term computation is referring to a computer doing its work: it is computing.

3/ Ok the way I see natural selection in action: The more 'fit' (which are simply put the ones that will will end up reproducing or reproducing more often) will be those individuals that aren't destined to die young for instance because they have problems with their heatlh, or because they are less able to figure out how to escape predators or environmental dangers. I will agree that most of the reproducing individuals will be just normal individuals, but the week will probably die faster/easier. When environmental pressures are higher, expected lifespan is lower, reproduction is more difficult and the "more fit" will probably have more chances than average joes. Of course, you are correct when you say that there is a random factor: species have been known to die out, to not be able to survive so evolution doesn't always provide an adequate solution for survival. As you also stated; the most fit specimen could die because of an incident. Beneficial mutations might be present in an individual with a critical heart failure for instance. Lots of things can happen.

Since you are studying this at uni, feel free to give me more information on where I get this wrong or where my view on natural selection is limited.

The only reason I think evolution (macro) could work is because there is an abundance of life so that a dying species isn't a catastrophe and because that there is an abundance of time (in the evolution time frame) AND because life is without mercy for the weak. I have certain doubts about all life coming from one single ancestor, certainly because life is so fragile. On the other hand, if I see how life can life in every little corner of our planet, in most hostile environments, I start to think that it might be possible...

4/ You can correctly assume that software engineers are people with brains. Are you saying that you didn't even bother to look at evolutionary computing or the genetic algorythm in particular? If you did, you'd know what those mechanisms are within seconds. I'll list them here: you start with an initial population, set the fitness condition, then use selection, crossover and mutation.

5/ Why are you repeating that? I'm not making that claim.

#35 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:28 PM

1/ I meant heredity and natural selection.

2/ Computer formulations, computational parts... you sure are doing your very best to be vague about this and equate it to mathematical equations. I specifically denied that evolution can be put into mathematical equations. Computer formulations (I'm going to assume you mean computer code) aren't necessarily mathematical equations. Computational parts?Nope, unless you are referring to the usage of the term evolutionary computation where the term computation is referring to a computer doing its work: it is computing.

3/ Ok the way I see natural selection in action: The more 'fit' (which are simply put the ones that will will end up reproducing or reproducing more often) will be those individuals that aren't destined to die young for instance because they have problems with their heatlh, or because they are less able to figure out how to escape predators or environmental dangers. I will agree that most of the reproducing individuals will be just normal individuals, but the week will probably die faster/easier. When environmental pressures are higher, expected lifespan is lower, reproduction is more difficult and the "more fit" will probably have more chances than average joes. Of course, you are correct when you say that there is a random factor: species have been known to die out, to not be able to survive so evolution doesn't always provide an adequate solution for survival. As you also stated; the most fit specimen could die because of an incident. Beneficial mutations might be present in an individual with a critical heart failure for instance. Lots of things can happen.

Since you are studying this at uni, feel free to give me more information on where I get this wrong or where my view on natural selection is limited.

The only reason I think evolution (macro) could work is because there is an abundance of life so that a dying species isn't a catastrophe and because that there is an abundance of time (in the evolution time frame) AND because life is without mercy for the weak. I have certain doubts about all life coming from one single ancestor, certainly because life is so fragile. On the other hand, if I see how life can life in every little corner of our planet, in most hostile environments, I start to think that it might be possible...

4/ You can correctly assume that software engineers are people with brains. Are you saying that you didn't even bother to look at evolutionary computing or the genetic algorythm in particular? If you did, you'd know what those mechanisms are within seconds. I'll list them here: you start with an initial population, set the fitness condition, then use selection, crossover and mutation.

5/ Why are you repeating that? I'm not making that claim.



1. You didn't "mean" anything since all you said was to drop the point. Claiming retrospectively as if you already addressed the point is not being honest.


2. Ok then please describe how non-mathematical evolution is translated into computer algorithms.... Consider point 4


3. No that is how I see it too. The point of showing you where reality fails in the evolutionists own depiction of evolution is that it is not a perfect world as they claim. Hence the selective pressures will be much lower since they look at it in view of one thing at a time, and exclude any other factors that may affect the outcome. For example a pig with a larger frame may be more suitable to fight since it is bigger, however it will also run into more leg / foot troubles due to the increased load... There is almost always a detrimental outcome to every advantage... This is not what is being taught. Rather what is being taught is that organisms live in isolated systems whereby their advantage trait will only ever express its advantageous nature and nothing else can interfere with selection of that trait. Perhaps an individual with a trait for increased offspring per litter also had the detriment of being blind... Furthermore, it is also assumed that an advantageous trait will ALWAYS get close to 100% fixation over a very small period of time.

4. Now where do these co-efficients come from, and their values where do they come from within evolutionary theory... Further what value is used for "mutation" since we have already established that mutation is random and thus logically cannot be given a value.... Also what value is given to natural selection? Considering what I have already discussed about the randomness and greyness of life itself.

I can make equations too, the fact that you can make up equations doesn't prove your original claim of

" I provided you the field of evolutionary computing to allow you to see how you can create 'order' from randomness. The mutations make sure that the pool of possible outcomes will increase while selection will create the "order" to put it simple."- post #18

Thats a great story, only wish it was true. Consider that selection doesn't "build" code, thus cannot create order... It merely selects against the detrimental effects of random mutation, thus limiting the scope of the detriment..... It has nothing to do with the creation of new code which would be creating "order" in this case....


5. No problem, just covering my bases.

#36 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:15 PM

1. You didn't "mean" anything since all you said was to drop the point. Claiming retrospectively as if you already addressed the point is not being honest.


2. Ok then please describe how non-mathematical evolution is translated into computer algorithms.... Consider point 4


3. No that is how I see it too. The point of showing you where reality fails in the evolutionists own depiction of evolution is that it is not a perfect world as they claim. Hence the selective pressures will be much lower since they look at it in view of one thing at a time, and exclude any other factors that may affect the outcome. For example a pig with a larger frame may be more suitable to fight since it is bigger, however it will also run into more leg / foot troubles due to the increased load... There is almost always a detrimental outcome to every advantage... This is not what is being taught. Rather what is being taught is that organisms live in isolated systems whereby their advantage trait will only ever express its advantageous nature and nothing else can interfere with selection of that trait. Perhaps an individual with a trait for increased offspring per litter also had the detriment of being blind... Furthermore, it is also assumed that an advantageous trait will ALWAYS get close to 100% fixation over a very small period of time.

4. Now where do these co-efficients come from, and their values where do they come from within evolutionary theory... Further what value is used for "mutation" since we have already established that mutation is random and thus logically cannot be given a value.... Also what value is given to natural selection? Considering what I have already discussed about the randomness and greyness of life itself.

I can make equations too, the fact that you can make up equations doesn't prove your original claim of

" I provided you the field of evolutionary computing to allow you to see how you can create 'order' from randomness. The mutations make sure that the pool of possible outcomes will increase while selection will create the "order" to put it simple."- post #18

Thats a great story, only wish it was true. Consider that selection doesn't "build" code, thus cannot create order... It merely selects against the detrimental effects of random mutation, thus limiting the scope of the detriment..... It has nothing to do with the creation of new code which would be creating "order" in this case....


5. No problem, just covering my bases.


1. Ok 'I meant' might not be the best choice of words. Those were the mechanisms I had in mind when I was writing about the mechanisms of evolution in earlier posts. I thought we could drop the point because we seemed to agree with each other and I also thought it would be clearly those mechanisms because evolution doesn't have that many that can create or maintain order.

2. By coding the behaviours of all mechanisms. It is pretty easy for me to understand that you do not need mathematical equations to code something as I'm a computer engineer myself (and I mostly code behaviour for our applications (mostly logical statements that say something like if a happens, then do x, if b happens then do y, etc. Or do combined steps... where a and b can be logical tests, or triggered events, or whatnot and x and y can be pretty much anything you like). I can imagine mutations being an event that changes DNA code when procreation is triggered for instance. I hope this makes sense.

3. Yeah, I agree. I've always wondered if they believed that simplistic view of reality themselves. I can follow their reasoning to some point but when they oversimplify things, they lose their credibility. I'm glad to find a person who actually provides good arguments against evolution which don't seem biased towards something (I'm sorry but I've been spammed AiG links in the past which weren't helpful to say the least).

4. The primary goal of evolutionary computing is to use the mechanisms of evolution to get solutions to certain problems, not to simulate evolution itself. I posted it as an example of how the basic mechanisms of evolution can/could create order (and I specifically stated that it is not because it can be done in evolutionary computing that this is also true for evolution in the real world or nature in general). In fact I stated that my primary concern with it would be whether or not the mechanisms used in evolutionary computing are still up to date with the theory of evolution.

You are correct: mutations are random and are randomly generated in the bitstream at chosen rates (the simulation is re-iterated at different rates for mutations - remember, it is about getting a result, or more than one). About the natural selection part: they will procreate randomly but based on a fitness score. It is possible that the 'most fit' won't procreate but the least fit are not allowed to if I'm not mistaken. From both of the bitstreams of the procreating couple a randomly chosen crossover point will be taken after which mutation takes place and a fitness score is assigned to the new individual. The fitness condition is set according to the problem you would like to solve (and the fitness score will be assigned according to that condition). If you want more answers, just type genetic algorythm into youtube for instance.

You actually can create order that way as evolutionary computing clearly demonstrates but as I said: I do not vouch for it happening in real life (or having happened (?)). I only posted it as a possibility. I think I made that clear on numerous occasions.

#37 Nuada

Nuada

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Kirkcaldy, Scotland

Posted 14 March 2012 - 07:50 PM

Since introductions are somewhat of an implied social convention I shall start by saying my name is Nuada. I am new to this forum, so I apologize in advance for any formatting hiccups on my part.

To the initial question

Evolution defies the law of entropy, as it creates order from disorder when the natural state of the world is to form disorder... Like ice melting = liquid molecules are more random (disorderly) than solids... It also signifies decay, but that can be discussed later if need be.

http://hyperphysics....erm/entrop.html

Now how does evolution jump this hurdle?


Order and disorder are very ambiguous terms, in my honest opinion mushroom clouds look quite orderly, as do supernovas. I don't quite understand your analogy

Like ice melting = liquid molecules

. Water refreezes naturally....effectively creating the more orderly 'solids' from the 'random' 'liquid molecules'.

As for your hyperlink, there is very little application to Biological Systems. Newtonian Laws are not always in play in every part of the Universe, Einstein saw to this. In fact there have even been many challenges to Newtonian Gravity (nothing utterly conclusive as of yet). Furthermore Newtonian Gravity essentially nullifies that particular concept of Thermodynamical principles in such examples as the formation of stars where gravitation causes dispersed atoms to attract. The more atoms that are attracted and pulled in, the greater the gravitational force. The greater the gravitational force the higher the compression of atoms. The greater the compression of atoms the greater the amount of heat produced. The greater amount of heat produced, the higher the element that can form.

The aforementioned principle (particularly entropy) does not juxtaposition to a Biological setting. There are a few reasons for this:
a) Supernovas and star formations have dispersed and continue to disperse atoms essential for 'life' throughout our universe.
b ) The sun continues to enact upon our planet, giving energy in various forms (namely UV and heat).
c) Gravitation causes the condensing of iron and other higher elements within the earth's core, dispersing heat throughout our planet.
d) Atoms continue to attract often forming stable bonds, giving a semblance of order in our Universe.

And quickly before closing I would like to address

We already know that mutations cause DNA damage, (hence randomness destruction of ordered code), and we also know that there is no known process by which code can be created randomly... That pretty much wraps it up, but I was asking you guys to show how in this case order can come from disorder... Code from random mutation



DNA damage? I'm struggling to wrap my head around this idea... Certain kinds of mutations can cause limitations in an organisms ability to change or adapt (i.e. the acquisition of new mutations), but I wouldn't call this damage. You want us to show how code can come from 'random mutation', the code is the thing being mutated... I'm assuming you're not asking 'how can DNA spontaneously create itself' prior to it's existence, so I'm going to assume you mean 'how can DNA utilize random mutations'.

You asserted multiple times that 'Random Mutations = Chaos', again though, Chaos in a Biological setting is an ambiguity; the word has little to no meaning. Random mutations are as they are, it is just a simple biochemical change to a biochemical chain.. simple as that. These changes can create new proteins to synthesize foreign matter, or could cause an over release of something like Iron in the blood stream. Whether these mutations help or impede the organism comes down to allopatracism (environment). In the Savanna a Baboon may have a child (male) with an ability to synthesize protein at a greater factor than say the other Baboon children. The result may yield in improved muscle nourishment for that particular Baboon, and given the polygamous society that the Baboon has, as 'top ape' he will most likely produce far more children than the rival male apes. This mutation will then be of greater frequency in the Baboon deme (a local population).

For more information on mutations and how they take on their roles in various populations check out
http://www.microbema...-charles-darwin

- Nuada

#38 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:24 PM

1. Ok 'I meant' might not be the best choice of words. Those were the mechanisms I had in mind when I was writing about the mechanisms of evolution in earlier posts. I thought we could drop the point because we seemed to agree with each other and I also thought it would be clearly those mechanisms because evolution doesn't have that many that can create or maintain order.

2. By coding the behaviours of all mechanisms. It is pretty easy for me to understand that you do not need mathematical equations to code something as I'm a computer engineer myself (and I mostly code behaviour for our applications (mostly logical statements that say something like if a happens, then do x, if b happens then do y, etc. Or do combined steps... where a and b can be logical tests, or triggered events, or whatnot and x and y can be pretty much anything you like). I can imagine mutations being an event that changes DNA code when procreation is triggered for instance. I hope this makes sense.

3. Yeah, I agree. I've always wondered if they believed that simplistic view of reality themselves. I can follow their reasoning to some point but when they oversimplify things, they lose their credibility. I'm glad to find a person who actually provides good arguments against evolution which don't seem biased towards something (I'm sorry but I've been spammed AiG links in the past which weren't helpful to say the least).

4. The primary goal of evolutionary computing is to use the mechanisms of evolution to get solutions to certain problems, not to simulate evolution itself. I posted it as an example of how the basic mechanisms of evolution can/could create order (and I specifically stated that it is not because it can be done in evolutionary computing that this is also true for evolution in the real world or nature in general). In fact I stated that my primary concern with it would be whether or not the mechanisms used in evolutionary computing are still up to date with the theory of evolution.

You are correct: mutations are random and are randomly generated in the bitstream at chosen rates (the simulation is re-iterated at different rates for mutations - remember, it is about getting a result, or more than one). About the natural selection part: they will procreate randomly but based on a fitness score. It is possible that the 'most fit' won't procreate but the least fit are not allowed to if I'm not mistaken. From both of the bitstreams of the procreating couple a randomly chosen crossover point will be taken after which mutation takes place and a fitness score is assigned to the new individual. The fitness condition is set according to the problem you would like to solve (and the fitness score will be assigned according to that condition). If you want more answers, just type genetic algorythm into youtube for instance.

You actually can create order that way as evolutionary computing clearly demonstrates but as I said: I do not vouch for it happening in real life (or having happened (?)). I only posted it as a possibility. I think I made that clear on numerous occasions.



1. No-one can know what you are thinking. This is why we have the system of quoting available as then we ca n quote what people say, and is why the time available for editing of a post is limited.

2. That makes no sense. It was mostly an appeal to authority :(

3. Thank you, my disbelief in evolution has mainly come from my own ability to be critical of its main tenets and see how they are not logically coherent with what we see in reality.

4. and you reach that order via intelligent agents, (the programmers) hence you've proven my point!!!

#39 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:30 AM

1. No-one can know what you are thinking. This is why we have the system of quoting available as then we ca n quote what people say, and is why the time available for editing of a post is limited.
2. That makes no sense. It was mostly an appeal to authority
3. Thank you, my disbelief in evolution has mainly come from my own ability to be critical of its main tenets and see how they are not logically coherent with what we see in reality.
4. and you reach that order via intelligent agents, (the programmers) hence you've proven my point!!!


2. Let me explain events: events are functions that are called containing computer code when a certain action occurs. For instance: when you double-click with your mouse, the doubleclicked event will be triggered which will contain code. Depending on where your mouse pointer was on that moment, the code will either trigger the open event of an application (when for instance your mouse was on the MS Word icon, it'll start MS Word) or it will do nothing when your mouse pointer was on an empty piece of space of your task bar. The code to decide what needs to happen, is contained within this doubleclicked event. You also have clicked events, open window event, resize events, etc. Mousemove events will for instance redraw your mouse cursor to the left when your mouse moves to the left (based on your mouse speed configuration set in mouse options).

Of course, as a computer engineer, you can make your own events within your application with its own set of commands of what needs to happen; The mutations can be seen as an event that can be executed each time mutations would normally take place in nature and which will contain code to randomly change the bitstream that is up for mutation. When 'procreation' occurs, you could trigger the event 'mutation' to change the bitstream of the newly created individual. Procreation might be another event that will make a random crossover of the bitstreams of the procreating couple. Likewise you code the behaviour of each individual event and make an application.

If this doesn't make more sense, please let me know what exactly you do not understand and I'll try to explain it better.

4. Which is an oversimplification as I have already addressed in a reply to one of Ron's posts. Yes, ofcourse, everything is designed by intelligent agents. However, you still are using mechanisms of evolution that include random factors that the programmers cannot even predict (otherwise they wouldn't be random). Also the programmers aren't deciding the outcome of the application, they decide how the application is made. However, if you want to regard that as being design and nothing else, that's your call but I will firmly disagree with it.

#40 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:23 AM


4. Which is an oversimplification as I have already addressed in a reply to one of Ron's posts. Yes, ofcourse, everything is designed by intelligent agents. However, you still are using mechanisms of evolution that include random factors that the programmers cannot even predict (otherwise they wouldn't be random). Also the programmers aren't deciding the outcome of the application, they decide how the application is made. However, if you want to regard that as being design and nothing else, that's your call but I will firmly disagree with it.



Altheas, your attempted address of my comment, in no way refuted it. You simply attempted to brush it aside by admitting design with the “But” excuse! In fact, the “oversimplification” argument you are attempting to use is a rabbit trail you are trying to go down instead of actually addressing your fallacy.

Your claim that gilbo’s experiment is design BUT he’s “using mechanisms of evolution that include random factors” is spurious at best. You assert “mechanisms of evolution”, and “randomness”, but you cannot provide HOW these are “mechanisms of evolution”, and “randomness” you simply assert them; BUT you do so by your own evolutionistic world-view (the “it just is” or the “just so” excuse). In actuality everything within the experiment is designed to either VALIDATE or DISPROVE the hypothesis posited. There is absolutely NO evolution involved! The experiment is a logical step-by-step DESIGNED process to observe an outcome.

The “programmers” (programmers by definition use “a system of procedures or activities that has a specific purpose”) input information into a system in order to achieve a particular outcome. IF they don’t get the predicted outcome, they correct the programming or mechanism until they DO get the intended outcome. In other words, if you open your Dell computer and wait for a predicted outcome; if you don’t get the predicted outcome, you either fix your computer, OR you send it in to get fixed. You don’t accept “randomness” in the application of your computers output, you want a determinate outcome.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users