seems like your evolutionary pathfinder gets itself stuck at local minima. Have you (since the creation of this video) found a way of assessing fitness that doesn't result in greedy behaviour?
Ah, I get what you are saying now. This does not work as natural selection. All artificial selection acts, as you say, with greediness. Natural selection only removes the LEAST fit from any given generation. All other pass go and get to give their genes to the next generation. It's not hard at all to implement in an evolutionary algorithm. The main reason for not doing so is speed of execution.
1. The 'information' in DNA is its ability to code for these proteins, as I've described. It's a well-known fact.
2. I never identified Yockey as a creationist. I merely stated that YOU were attempting to make the same arguments against evolution that many other creationists (and other opponents of the theory) attempt to make as well, such as the moral implications of eugenics versus that of the theory's uses in something beneficial, such as medicine.
3. The reason that I suspected you might be a Christian is that I noticed you had a video by Emil Silvestru favorited. I've spoken with someone who claims to be a colleague of Mr. Silvestru, who directed me to some of his works regarding the Beijing Anomaly with respect to Noah's Flood. With a little mathematics and the assistance of my friend Karlo, Emil's arguments were reduced to rubbish.
4. I did some research concerning the Climate Gate incident as well.
The scandal was the err of the particular research facility with which it was involved. The University of East Anglia was the organization at fault. Peer review is not conducted by any particular organism, rather a more or less non-structured group of experts in their respective fields freely able to view such documents at their leisure. It would be immensely difficult for the entire system to withhold the amount of data you're claiming they do.
5. I'll check out your link later, Mmem. My personal computer's been undergoing some repairs for the past week and a half and it should be back in a few days. The one that I'm on is rather old and not entirely suitable for any manner of research. Once I get the opportunity, however, I'll further look into that site, and come to my conclusion after I've done so. (I'm not entirely familiar with Talk Origins' conduct either, so I'll check that out too)
6. There are many other factors that go into the identification of fossil species other than simply stating what the fossil looks like, but one more, when the opportunity presents itself, I'll look more into Yockey's works and see first-hand what evidence and citations he has for his claims.
You've never responded to my mentioning of endogenous retroviruses, however. I'll look into your claims, but I'd like it if you'd acknowledge mine as well.
We have studied this subject for 20 years, and have found that when you patiently walk down every claimed "evidence" for evolution, you discover that they are all based on false assertions and vast assumptions.
In fact, the same type of data-manipulation and word-redefinition tactics that occurred in climate-gate are exactly the same kind that have occurred in paleontology for decades.
In short, this lie is being used for monetary and power gain. Complex machines simply don't self-assemble.
I wait for your excuses just like the erroneous excuse about the information discovered in dna and how you as a true believer can explain how incorrectly reading significant portions of the fossil record should not be taken as a reason to doubt any conclusions that were made based on the incorrectly interpreted fossil record.
It's astounding that grown-ups still believe that highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (2 organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems) self-reproducing machines self-assemble.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
That is something i was thinking about funnily enough to post about the reproductive systems etc
I cannot remember his name exactly, i think it it richard lewtonin, he said words to the effect that they take the side of science no matter how ridiculous some of its constructs as they have a prior commitment to naturalism,if we limit science to the natural then of course people have to believe these absurd stories, design is not a problem for evolution but a problem for atheistm.
"Many dinosaurs may be facing a new kind of extinction—a controversial theory suggests as many as a third of all known dinosaur species never existed in the first place.
That's because young dinosaurs didn't look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.
If we cannot rely on these paleontologists to correctly identify between mature and immature examples of the exact same species, this obviously casts tremendous doubts on the credibility of the fossil transitional sequences between species that they have put together.
There is a guy who experiments with algorithms shown by nature to learn how they work and sharing what he finds out on youtube. Then comes another guy who doesnt have a clue about what that guy is talking about ... ProudToBLoud, why dont u read a serious book about evolution and programming instead of collecting creationism videos and writing these dumb comments? Do Evolution a favor and get a life! Thanks!
And finally concerning both your claims against the veracity of evolution and this program you speak of: Firstly, I'd like to point you in the right direction on this matter.
Evolution has been observed. For one of SEVERAL examples, do some research into the Drosophila genera. (fruit flies) They're among several to be observed to evolve into new species.
As for evolution's proof, I'll only offer you one piece of evidence, despite the myriad other evidences for the theory's truth: ERV's.
Ignoring hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers and figurative and literal mountains of evidence, endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) are nigh irrefutable proof of evolution's veracity. Look into them if you'd like.
And then to your program, which you claim to falsify evolution as a result of random mutations. First of all, evolution is NOT random, natural selection (that the most adaptable creatures will survive) is a nonrandom process. Secondly, the mutations only provide the
-- means for evolution to occur (in just such a way as the flow of time allows a clock to work) They provide the template, but the entire theory does not consist solely of mutations. In fact, it focuses mainly on the principles acting on those mutations and the results thereof.
But link me to that program, if you will. Once I get my computer back in around a week (It's undergoing some repairs and I'm on a friend's) I'll take a look and then offer you a few programs of my own.
if it passes the gatekeeper it goes in, as long as you go along with the program you will get published and get funding, paying lip service to just so stories does not demonstrate anything, molecules to man evolution lies outside of emperical science, it is historical science but this is inferred evidence, the kind of evidence that evolutionists reject elsewhere, cant have it both ways.
I'm not too familiar with the climate gate incident personally so I can't offer too much of an opinion concerning the topic, but I can assure you that this is not the norm.
On the topic of natural selection, you're incorrect in your assertions. Natural selection is an abstract principle when you look at the essence of what it is. Basically, the organism most likely to survive and reproduce, will, and the genes responsible for these advantages will be passed on more frequently.
Natural selection" is an oxymoron. Do not say "natural selection" when you mean "random outcome." In atheistic evolution, nature has no mind or will, Selection means "this, instead of that." It always requires a selector. Selection is an intentional act, while an outcome may or not be. Strictly speaking (and scientists should always speak strictly), if it is selective, it cannot be natural; if it is natural, it cannot be selective
Scientists might have conducted science in the past but science got corrupted long ago, scientists pass of conjecture and assumptions and just down right nonsense as science even though it is not testable, repeatable or observable, I mean look at nonsense like evolutionary psychology, even the late stephen jay gould said these are just so stories, but scientists pass off these silly stories as fact, what passes for science these days is no better than silly stories in the national enquirer.
Concerning scientists and Steven Jay Gould: The opinions of a single person do not affect the veracity of any particular claims they either support or oppose. Concerning your statement on the corruption of science, this is false.
I tell you something what evolution gave us, it gave francis galton endorsing his cousin charlies work and then it encouraged charlie to write that dreadful descent of man where he wrote terrible things about lower races and the detriment to society of such people like the handicapped reproducing, sure charlie said that we should help them anyway but he opened up that line of thinking, cont:,
On the topic of Francis Galton and Charles Darwin: This is an ad hominem attack. The political or moral opinions of any one person in particular do, in no way, affect any contributions they make to the academic fields. Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic, for example. This does not make Catholicism an immoral belief by proxy; it just makes Hitler a bad person for what he did, regardless of his connection to the religion.
Beliefs of all forms and kinds have been used to justify inhumane acts of all forms and kinds. The corrupt use of these beliefs does not make the belief corrupt in and of itself.
Darwin did not support forced eugenics and he may well have been horrified of what happened in nazi germany, but seriously darwinism is more of a faith than science, I have no problem with peoples faith, I just wish they would not pretend that it is emperical science when it is not.
if you mean neo-darwinism is scientific then you are wrong, it is not repeatable, observable or testable, it is fully of assumptions, conjecture and is nothing but a load of just so stories.
Evolution is scientific at the minor level where it is not really evolution but simple adaptation and variation, it is not one kind of animal evolving into another, that is your faith but it is not science.
then what happened, his son lenoard who was chairman of the eugenics society spoke about how evolution and eugenics were entwined and they even had a logo for it at the international eugenics society, then what happened darwinists like the racist madison grant who were connected to galton and the eugenicist supporters like leonard darwin, well he helped to set up the galton society in america, hitler sent a letter to madison grant saying he couldnt wait to instigate the eugenics program there,
And that grants book was like his bible, and we saw what happened with the eugenics program that killed so many jews, richard heydrich the second in command of the ss at the wanasee conference spoke about natural selection and applying the final solution to the jews, the anti defamation league has the numbers of how many died.
If you go on eugenicsarchive which is a scholarly site and has archived documents from major universities it shows you how ideas from evolution were employed into the eugenics program, so what has darwin given us? except death and disater and silly just so stories,cont:
And Darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution was natural selection; he did not discover evolution entirely.
But evolution has been applied to several other biological fields, for example. In addition to learning more about ourselves and our ancestors, evolution has greatly assisted medicinal research, which has, needless to say, given us many benefits.
Did you know that the evolution in biology is nothing more than things like adaptation and variation, even the die hard evolutionist jerry coyne admitted this? even those that are skeptical of the grand claims of darwinists accept this, so we get the bullshit lies of darwinism is central to biology crap, Why is this lie repeated when even jerry coyne exposes it as crap.
Concerning evolution being "nothing but adaptation and variation."
At its simplest level, yes, this is correct. But by "nothing but adaptation and variation," you're referring to the vast collection of biological processes which make these adaptations and variations possible. The grammatical intensifier "nothing but" has no place here.
I tell you my old friend damian laughs and scoffs at design, but scientists only play lip service to charles these days, do you know where the science is? it is in design, you see damian scoffed that in biological organisms that things are poorly designed, so why are humans bypassing human design solutions and studying the designs in nature eh? the designs being found in nature are bypassing the solutions of humans,biomimicry is studying human functions and the functions of animals and applying
But I've done enough explaining on my part for now. I'd like to hear your side, ProudToBLoud. I'd like to hear the "science behind design" you speak of.
what is learnt to technology, biological organisms are giving rise to human design solutions that are designed and then the darwinists are telling us the things that these things are designed off of are obviously not designed LOL, go figure, the other point is that design is not a problem for evolution, design is a problem for atheism, that is why they have to borrow terms that infer sentience and then say that it is a non sentient process, but language is flexible, logic not so, cont:
i do not have faith in these evolutionary just so stories that have not been tested, observerd or repeated, btw, you and me both disbelieve evolutionary just so stories, there are so many stories floating about, I just believe one less just so story than you do LOL
information only comes from a mind, we know that from experience.
Do you believe that science deals with proof or with probabilities? do you not believe proof is for mathematics.
If you believe that information arose by chance then there is no point in even trying to show you, because it would be like trying to show a theif where a police station is, they will take a different route.
1. "Information" is a term used by scientists to describe the blueprint that DNA is; DNA codes triplet codons for amino acids, which code for protein sequences. Within the process of DNA transcription, the DNA is converted into different types of RNA, which interact with polypeptide bonded structures to eventually give rise to proteins. The "information" is in the ability to code for these genes, and yes, the nucleotides required for RNA formation and subsequent DNA DO form naturally.
A collection of small adaptations over a large period of time is equal to large adaptations. It's really that simple.
7. Yes, I do trust the fossil evidence, considering that we've discovered thousands of transitional species and even used the theory of evolution to predict what species should be found and where.
8. Again, the opinions of a single person do not affect any claims made by them or others. This is the definition of "information" as used in the theory of evolution.
The late stephen jay gould who also was not a creationist and was against creationism himself brought out punctuated equillibrium and was a proponent that we do not witness transitions but stasis in the fossil record.
The reason he and the ridiculous loon dawkins (who cannot even encourage donations to haiti without turning it into a silly atheist vs religion point scoring contest) Well they had a debate about gradualism,Gould was skeptical of gradualism because the fossil record did not show this transitional pattern.
Darwins primary contribution was natural selection you are right, but the idea of natural selection predated darwin, in fact darwin had a poor record of prediction.
So you do not believe in darwins theory, i dont either, we both are skeptical of evolutionary stories. I just believe one less than you do.
The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions
Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005"
Well I am off to sleep, i will check on your special pleading tommorow that information does not really mean information and code does not really mean code etc LOL
Good night, ProudToBLoud. Despite all your LOL'ing, I find it rather amusing that the only arguments you've made thus far have been
a. Erroneous in nature
b. False conjectures against my own arguments and my ability to make these arguments or strawmen attacks or ad hominems against reputable scientists, as if their dissent from my own acknowledgements would affect them in any way.
or c. Quoting the (often erroneous) arguments that seem to be mindlessly repeated by creationists.
1. Evolutionists have no choice to call it information that is stored within dna, they have to go along with the discoveries in moecular biology because it is based on observable science, unlike naturalistic animal to animal evolution which is nothing more than conjecture.
2. I never quoted any creationist, yockey is an evolutionist and if you want to talk about strawmen then you raised it with the same old creationist cannard, these mindless retorts come from evolutionists.
You just made a false conjecture about me, i am not a student of the bible, that does not change the fact that you conjectured creationism and used that same old lame strawman as some kind of putdown, as for strawmen attacks and ad hominems against scientists who dissent from your acknowledgements affecting them, what the hell are you bleating on about, you are hallucinating.
"When any single source of funding dominates, science will almost certainly become the handmaiden of politics. There is no recognition in our leading journals that this is a problem. cont:
Government funding has also promoted the idea that a theory can be regarded as true if it enjoys enough support.... Consensus discourages dissent, however. It is the enemy of science, just as it is the triumph of politics. A theory accepted by 99 percent of scientists may be wrong.
—Tom Bethell, The Politically-Incorrect Guide to Science (Regnery, 2005), Introduction."
Sorry. Symmetry is not explainable via evolutionary processes.
Your explanation assumes that non-symmetrical mutations would be selected out. The truth is, symmetrical mutations will not occur, the probability being virtually zero, so selection is irrelevant.
Evolution is a joke and it's astounding that people every accepted it. It is not based in science. It is based in political engineering.
Now consider different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems.
Symmetry can be explained more so in embryology than anything else. When the organism is developing, both sides adhere to a roughly similar blueprint when they are growing. Additionally, as Bokonon suggested, it does have several advantages over asymmetry. (Imagine an asymmetrical land-based organism trying to walk, adding onto his example.) It was likely first evolved as a result of the notochord, however, which is in essence a primeval spine with nerve endings symmetrically connected.
The symmetry of the notochord makes the nervous synapses that much more coordinated, and the creature's movements all the more precise and efficient. There are numerous other advantages of a symmetrical creature over an asymmetrical one; just as well, these are only a few: Ease of active transportation such as walking, swimming, or flying; the easy repetition of successful prior structures; ease of embryonic formation in lieu of asymmetry, and many others still unmentioned.
A computer program trying to show life evolving is artifical.
You need to show life evolving in a natural enviroment not by an artifical simulation.
have you checked out the random mutations program and shows the failure of random mutations, you cannot rely on simulations that are not natural and then ignore the online program random mutations which shows the failure of mutations.
"A computer program trying to show life evolving is artificial."
WOW, we have a genius in the crowd. Give him room to talk everyone.
I'm not trying to simulate life. I'm showing an example of evolutionary principles at work in real time. Snicker all you want, but you can't deny they results are obtained through crossbreeding of the most fit individuals and random mutation which is all that happens biologically.
Concerning the program he's using being "an artificial simulation of life"
As far as I know, Damianpoirier is not attempting to mimic the specificities of life in any way whatsoever, all he's doing is applying the same laws of natural selection and mutation rates that we can observe in real life to a simulation to give a demonstrable display of the FACT that evolution will work under these principles.
Really, you observed molecules to man evolution occur by the processes of random outcome, oops i mean natural selection and mutations, is that a FACT or is this simply letting your imagination run wild?
@ ProudToBLoud: That's a strawman argument, completely worthless. Judging by your channel, you seem to be a Christian. Have you witnessed the creation of the universe by your personal creator deity? Have you witnessed the conception of your holy book? Have you witnessed ANYTHING that's written down in it occur? No, you have not. The variable between both of us and these ideologies is time.
Furthermore, you're additionally mistaking the theory of evolution with the secondary theory of abiogenesis. Evolution occurs once a population is already present; abiogenesis is the explanation of how it got there.
The bump is only impassable because you have a small indentation in the surface where it gets stuck. Evolution doesn't usually move backwards, and that's what it would have to do to get out of that indentation. The same is true for the other place it got stuck
Quite true. Perhaps with an extremely high mutation rate? And yet, I do have the mutation rate cycle from 2% to about 40% and back through the course of about 50 generations. Keep in mind this IS an artificial selection method. Retaining the best is a very narrowing operation. Much more so than losing the worst. The later operation gets to be very 'creative' in its range of solutions.
damianpoirier, there is no need to argue with this imbecile posting comments. He knows nothing about evolution, and nor does he understand that it is not random mutations. The "intelligent criteria" he is arguing with is just what natural selection provides, therefore nullifying his entire argument.
Many aspects of evolution present obstacles to logic, like symmetry.
The eye: A lens focused perfectly on rods and cones designed to convert light into electrical signals connected to a nervous system routed to the brain. The skull having sockets, and muscles connecting in just the right places. Internal pressure is regulated using feedback systems.
Then, it all happened again in perfect symmetry and on the same horizontal plane.
It is not rational to believe that mutation produced this.
It didn't happen all at once. Richard Dawkins has a good video that explains how the eye might have evolved and he even shows animals that show eyes that have eyes that are similar to what could be earlier versions of our eyes.
Two eyes on the same plane is better for stereo vision, and could be selected for. It might also be more attractive and thus also sexually selected. Humans don't find asymmetry attractive.
I think stereo vision would have evolved at or very near the time of bilateral symmetry itself. Even stereo eye spots are quite a bit more useful than single ones or no eye spot at all.
Note: my reply to mmem701 merely agreed that 'mutation' could not produce it. Of course we all know that mutation without selection yields pure crap. I simply tired of feeding the troll.
This entire premise is working within an intelligently-designed algorithm. My term: "computer program".
This proves nothing. My position has nothing to do with any religious position. Regardless of what I believe, I would be thoroughly embarrassed to believe in evolution.
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."
Well, since you seem to have such a firm grasp on it all, perhaps you could try to make one of these 'computer programs" that uses random mutation and nonrandom selection in which the population DOESN'T evolve.
Since you contend that evolution is impossible it should be quite easy to do. Right?
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes." —Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." —John Ambrose Fleming, President, British A. for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." —Bounoure
Well I wish you luck. All evolutionary algorithms I have ever seen suffer from the same goal driven problem. When the goal is removed the algorithm fails. In computer programming IF / THEN is a logical opertaor and I guess it could concieveably be used to model natural selection, but scientists can't really agree what evolutionary fitness is in the first place.
not so. All agree that fitness is reproductive success. What neither we nor evolution 'knows' is what "fittest" is. I can say that "fittest" is an aspect of artificial selection. In nature what is fit is everything except that which fails to reproduce.(vicarious reproduction works as well as in the case of hives and colonies). The aforementioned simulation is a mere academic exercise and as such is merely awaiting someone OCD enough to actually create such an environment. Myself perhaps. :-)
well yes. Wanting to produce something that illustrates evolution in real time makes liberal use of the computers facilities to make something graphical and to the point. Artificial selection is as close as it gets to intelligent design in evolving systems. Experimental GA makers have rarely taken the effort to make a complex and dynamic environment and stocked it with replicators that can do that trick of adding new functions that makes for new species like in real life. I'm working on it.
That is quite true. I guess you don't care that the goal is constantly shifting and changing. It certainly does take intelligence to make an evolutionary algorithm function on a computer. Computers are designed to only work that way. Nevertheless as you say, evolution in nature IS goalless and as such isn't intelligent design. You are quite correct in that.
Very cool, but it seems the relationships with real evolution are extremely shakey.
For example. Why does your starting point never change?
Also, you're misrepresenting punctuated equalibrium as rapididy in the speed of evolution. Punctuated equalibrium is characterized by apparently instant introduction of new speciese in the fossil record. It's a migration event, not an evolutionary event.
This proves that mutation + natural selection is indeed a non-random process.
By "real" I meant biological evolution in the real world.
I thought this video was like CDk007s in that it was rhetorical. It seems I was mistaken. My apologies.
I did DL the program (or source code, rather) After looking at it I realized it does exactly what it's supposed to. :)
I guess I don't understand the point of it all. Just practicing your genetic algorithms? Are you trying to make something that can evolve around mazes maybe?
Simply trying to be persuasive and prove a point.
He used his simulation to demonstrate to Creationists and IDers that random mutation and natural selection can indeed make non-random progress towords a goal, because they often assert that natural mutation and selection can't make foreword progress.
In the real world it would be to survive. In your simulation it would be the target. In CDKs is was to be as accurate a clock as possible (using evolving gears, pendulums and things).
that's only half of it. It's reproduction that is the thing. Survival is only incidentally relevant(sort of a default). If it reproduces then by definition it is fit.
no purpose really. Just something so as to not have RANDOM selection. It doesn't really matter WHAT your selection criteria is. This just happens to be within the area of programming i was familliar with at the time.
Punctuated equalibrium is still a gradual process that's not analagous to changing the goal slightly and suddenly being able to overcome an evolutionary pressure. It's simply having two different environments alltogether and having that second organism migrate to the location of the first. In your simulation you don't have an allagory for similer environments in different locations because location and veriability share the same 2d space.
2.IDrs. I mistook this for being rhetorical. Sorry!
Um, It's the same environment? Did you notice that the goal is changing? Analogy would be a prey evolving some eveasive strategy. The line then represents the evolution of the predetory equiping itself to acquire the prey.
So you understand programming? Would you be interested in my challenge? Write an evolutionary algorithm that doesn't evolve. No cheating(100% mutation, random selection,etc). Think you can do it?
1. I meant that it's not two or more seperate, changing environments. It's 1 changing environment.
2. Lol, I couldn't imagine how to do that... Maybe if I cranked up the minimum mutation rate extremely high...Maybe it would never make progress towords the target...Oh, I know, what if selection pressure kills everything instantly!
So, like everyone else , you have no idea. Hardly surprising. It can't be done. I wouldn't really want to send people on a fools errand(unless they are fools).
A single changing environment can still bifurcate a population into separate species as long as they as reproductively isolated.
So the target is set by the mouse pointer, right? Would the line try (in open space) to wrap itself around the mouse pointer after a while?
A GA algorithm might make a good celestial mechanics orbit solver for a long and complex trip around planets etc. and using low continuous thrust settings. The fitness would be using either the least fuel and/or time taken, for a given thrust, duration, fuel available,... Obviously it must arrive at the correct destination!
LOL. Environments CAN be controlled. It HAS been proposed by some as an IDers way of implimenting its design. Would naturally occuring environmental changes(or alternatly population migration into different environments) not produce effects/products not acheivable in a static realm?
I could comment more but I won't at the moment because it would be unfounded. Except to agree that the 'target' due to an environment would be changing, and also, I suspect it would move around a lot. And maybe move around fast too. (supercharged!)
"Would naturally occuring environmental changes(or alternatly population migration into different environments) not produce effects/products not acheivable in a static realm?"
That question? Ok. It must be the case that a change in environment would alter the (what I would call) the 'trait attractor'. I can't say a lot about it though. I'd speculate that for only few traits, would the attractor/target be acting consistently. For the rest I think it would be weak, and rapidly fluctuating.
To be honest I don't know. I am out of my depth at the moment. My point which is somewhat speculative at the moment, was that a weak rapidly changing target or attractor would not have a significant effect on the majority of the traits. Just on a few perhaps. But don't hold me to any of that because I don't know enough about it.
Thanks h8ual66, I sould do more, but setting up a good demo is not so easy. I like this venue because the line's forms are the actual genes themselves. Most other GA's genes are hidden in databanks of the form which then is built or activated behind the scenes.
I welcome any suggestion for annotations for this vid(now that i know how to do them).
So that's how you find the G spot; with an etch'a'sketch.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz as if you didn't know. :-)
damianpoirier 1 year ago
seems like your evolutionary pathfinder gets itself stuck at local minima. Have you (since the creation of this video) found a way of assessing fitness that doesn't result in greedy behaviour?
chaOsMastaGuru 2 years ago
wow, did you not watch the video past the one minute mark? Getting past the local minima was a huge point of the video.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
hardly, you just moved the point around to guide the thing. I watched most of the video.
chaOsMastaGuru 2 years ago
Ah, I get what you are saying now. This does not work as natural selection. All artificial selection acts, as you say, with greediness. Natural selection only removes the LEAST fit from any given generation. All other pass go and get to give their genes to the next generation. It's not hard at all to implement in an evolutionary algorithm. The main reason for not doing so is speed of execution.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
1. The 'information' in DNA is its ability to code for these proteins, as I've described. It's a well-known fact.
2. I never identified Yockey as a creationist. I merely stated that YOU were attempting to make the same arguments against evolution that many other creationists (and other opponents of the theory) attempt to make as well, such as the moral implications of eugenics versus that of the theory's uses in something beneficial, such as medicine.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
3. The reason that I suspected you might be a Christian is that I noticed you had a video by Emil Silvestru favorited. I've spoken with someone who claims to be a colleague of Mr. Silvestru, who directed me to some of his works regarding the Beijing Anomaly with respect to Noah's Flood. With a little mathematics and the assistance of my friend Karlo, Emil's arguments were reduced to rubbish.
4. I did some research concerning the Climate Gate incident as well.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
The scandal was the err of the particular research facility with which it was involved. The University of East Anglia was the organization at fault. Peer review is not conducted by any particular organism, rather a more or less non-structured group of experts in their respective fields freely able to view such documents at their leisure. It would be immensely difficult for the entire system to withhold the amount of data you're claiming they do.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
5. I'll check out your link later, Mmem. My personal computer's been undergoing some repairs for the past week and a half and it should be back in a few days. The one that I'm on is rather old and not entirely suitable for any manner of research. Once I get the opportunity, however, I'll further look into that site, and come to my conclusion after I've done so. (I'm not entirely familiar with Talk Origins' conduct either, so I'll check that out too)
BlahKing101 2 years ago
6. There are many other factors that go into the identification of fossil species other than simply stating what the fossil looks like, but one more, when the opportunity presents itself, I'll look more into Yockey's works and see first-hand what evidence and citations he has for his claims.
You've never responded to my mentioning of endogenous retroviruses, however. I'll look into your claims, but I'd like it if you'd acknowledge mine as well.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Any particular organization (Typo in the statement about peer review)
BlahKing101 2 years ago
One of the most widely-known word games is played with the term "transitional fossils". This term is a redefinition for the purpose of deceit.
For details about how this disinformation tactic is implemented, see this link:
urlbam - com/ha/M002A
mmem701 2 years ago
We have studied this subject for 20 years, and have found that when you patiently walk down every claimed "evidence" for evolution, you discover that they are all based on false assertions and vast assumptions.
In fact, the same type of data-manipulation and word-redefinition tactics that occurred in climate-gate are exactly the same kind that have occurred in paleontology for decades.
In short, this lie is being used for monetary and power gain. Complex machines simply don't self-assemble.
mmem701 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wait for your excuses just like the erroneous excuse about the information discovered in dna and how you as a true believer can explain how incorrectly reading significant portions of the fossil record should not be taken as a reason to doubt any conclusions that were made based on the incorrectly interpreted fossil record.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
It's astounding that grown-ups still believe that highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (2 organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems) self-reproducing machines self-assemble.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
mmem701 2 years ago
Great post
That is something i was thinking about funnily enough to post about the reproductive systems etc
I cannot remember his name exactly, i think it it richard lewtonin, he said words to the effect that they take the side of science no matter how ridiculous some of its constructs as they have a prior commitment to naturalism,if we limit science to the natural then of course people have to believe these absurd stories, design is not a problem for evolution but a problem for atheistm.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"Many dinosaurs may be facing a new kind of extinction—a controversial theory suggests as many as a third of all known dinosaur species never existed in the first place.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
That's because young dinosaurs didn't look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Instead, like birds and some other living animals, the juveniles went through dramatic physical changes during adulthood.
.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
This means many fossils of young dinosaurs, including T. rex relatives, have been misidentified as unique species, the researchers argue."
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
If we cannot rely on these paleontologists to correctly identify between mature and immature examples of the exact same species, this obviously casts tremendous doubts on the credibility of the fossil transitional sequences between species that they have put together.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Comment removed
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
You can appeal to ridicule all you like, but it is absurd to pass off a computer program as evidence for the theory of evolution.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
There is a guy who experiments with algorithms shown by nature to learn how they work and sharing what he finds out on youtube. Then comes another guy who doesnt have a clue about what that guy is talking about ... ProudToBLoud, why dont u read a serious book about evolution and programming instead of collecting creationism videos and writing these dumb comments? Do Evolution a favor and get a life! Thanks!
1stSilence 2 years ago
Thanks for showing that emotionalism drives your belief in evolution and not rationality.
lol
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
And finally concerning both your claims against the veracity of evolution and this program you speak of: Firstly, I'd like to point you in the right direction on this matter.
Evolution has been observed. For one of SEVERAL examples, do some research into the Drosophila genera. (fruit flies) They're among several to be observed to evolve into new species.
As for evolution's proof, I'll only offer you one piece of evidence, despite the myriad other evidences for the theory's truth: ERV's.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Ignoring hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers and figurative and literal mountains of evidence, endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) are nigh irrefutable proof of evolution's veracity. Look into them if you'd like.
And then to your program, which you claim to falsify evolution as a result of random mutations. First of all, evolution is NOT random, natural selection (that the most adaptable creatures will survive) is a nonrandom process. Secondly, the mutations only provide the
BlahKing101 2 years ago
-- means for evolution to occur (in just such a way as the flow of time allows a clock to work) They provide the template, but the entire theory does not consist solely of mutations. In fact, it focuses mainly on the principles acting on those mutations and the results thereof.
But link me to that program, if you will. Once I get my computer back in around a week (It's undergoing some repairs and I'm on a friend's) I'll take a look and then offer you a few programs of my own.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Peer review?
You are appealing to peer review after the climate gate scandal, peer review is nothing more than editing, same thing that goes on in a newspaper,
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
if it passes the gatekeeper it goes in, as long as you go along with the program you will get published and get funding, paying lip service to just so stories does not demonstrate anything, molecules to man evolution lies outside of emperical science, it is historical science but this is inferred evidence, the kind of evidence that evolutionists reject elsewhere, cant have it both ways.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
I'm not too familiar with the climate gate incident personally so I can't offer too much of an opinion concerning the topic, but I can assure you that this is not the norm.
On the topic of natural selection, you're incorrect in your assertions. Natural selection is an abstract principle when you look at the essence of what it is. Basically, the organism most likely to survive and reproduce, will, and the genes responsible for these advantages will be passed on more frequently.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Natural selection" is an oxymoron. Do not say "natural selection" when you mean "random outcome." In atheistic evolution, nature has no mind or will, Selection means "this, instead of that." It always requires a selector. Selection is an intentional act, while an outcome may or not be. Strictly speaking (and scientists should always speak strictly), if it is selective, it cannot be natural; if it is natural, it cannot be selective
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Scientists might have conducted science in the past but science got corrupted long ago, scientists pass of conjecture and assumptions and just down right nonsense as science even though it is not testable, repeatable or observable, I mean look at nonsense like evolutionary psychology, even the late stephen jay gould said these are just so stories, but scientists pass off these silly stories as fact, what passes for science these days is no better than silly stories in the national enquirer.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Concerning scientists and Steven Jay Gould: The opinions of a single person do not affect the veracity of any particular claims they either support or oppose. Concerning your statement on the corruption of science, this is false.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
I tell you something what evolution gave us, it gave francis galton endorsing his cousin charlies work and then it encouraged charlie to write that dreadful descent of man where he wrote terrible things about lower races and the detriment to society of such people like the handicapped reproducing, sure charlie said that we should help them anyway but he opened up that line of thinking, cont:,
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
On the topic of Francis Galton and Charles Darwin: This is an ad hominem attack. The political or moral opinions of any one person in particular do, in no way, affect any contributions they make to the academic fields. Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic, for example. This does not make Catholicism an immoral belief by proxy; it just makes Hitler a bad person for what he did, regardless of his connection to the religion.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Beliefs of all forms and kinds have been used to justify inhumane acts of all forms and kinds. The corrupt use of these beliefs does not make the belief corrupt in and of itself.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Darwin did not support forced eugenics and he may well have been horrified of what happened in nazi germany, but seriously darwinism is more of a faith than science, I have no problem with peoples faith, I just wish they would not pretend that it is emperical science when it is not.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"I have no problem with peoples faith, I just wish they would not pretend that it is emperical science when it is not."
I'd agree with you on this of all things. But evolution is scientific and I've offered you proof for this statement; intelligent design is not.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
if you mean neo-darwinism is scientific then you are wrong, it is not repeatable, observable or testable, it is fully of assumptions, conjecture and is nothing but a load of just so stories.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Evolution is scientific at the minor level where it is not really evolution but simple adaptation and variation, it is not one kind of animal evolving into another, that is your faith but it is not science.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
then what happened, his son lenoard who was chairman of the eugenics society spoke about how evolution and eugenics were entwined and they even had a logo for it at the international eugenics society, then what happened darwinists like the racist madison grant who were connected to galton and the eugenicist supporters like leonard darwin, well he helped to set up the galton society in america, hitler sent a letter to madison grant saying he couldnt wait to instigate the eugenics program there,
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
And that grants book was like his bible, and we saw what happened with the eugenics program that killed so many jews, richard heydrich the second in command of the ss at the wanasee conference spoke about natural selection and applying the final solution to the jews, the anti defamation league has the numbers of how many died.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
If you go on eugenicsarchive which is a scholarly site and has archived documents from major universities it shows you how ideas from evolution were employed into the eugenics program, so what has darwin given us? except death and disater and silly just so stories,cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
And Darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution was natural selection; he did not discover evolution entirely.
But evolution has been applied to several other biological fields, for example. In addition to learning more about ourselves and our ancestors, evolution has greatly assisted medicinal research, which has, needless to say, given us many benefits.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Did you know that the evolution in biology is nothing more than things like adaptation and variation, even the die hard evolutionist jerry coyne admitted this? even those that are skeptical of the grand claims of darwinists accept this, so we get the bullshit lies of darwinism is central to biology crap, Why is this lie repeated when even jerry coyne exposes it as crap.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Concerning evolution being "nothing but adaptation and variation."
At its simplest level, yes, this is correct. But by "nothing but adaptation and variation," you're referring to the vast collection of biological processes which make these adaptations and variations possible. The grammatical intensifier "nothing but" has no place here.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
I tell you my old friend damian laughs and scoffs at design, but scientists only play lip service to charles these days, do you know where the science is? it is in design, you see damian scoffed that in biological organisms that things are poorly designed, so why are humans bypassing human design solutions and studying the designs in nature eh? the designs being found in nature are bypassing the solutions of humans,biomimicry is studying human functions and the functions of animals and applying
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
But I've done enough explaining on my part for now. I'd like to hear your side, ProudToBLoud. I'd like to hear the "science behind design" you speak of.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
what is learnt to technology, biological organisms are giving rise to human design solutions that are designed and then the darwinists are telling us the things that these things are designed off of are obviously not designed LOL, go figure, the other point is that design is not a problem for evolution, design is a problem for atheism, that is why they have to borrow terms that infer sentience and then say that it is a non sentient process, but language is flexible, logic not so, cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
i do not have faith in these evolutionary just so stories that have not been tested, observerd or repeated, btw, you and me both disbelieve evolutionary just so stories, there are so many stories floating about, I just believe one less just so story than you do LOL
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Ignoring that these claims of yours are entirely composed of bullshit conjectures and fallacious arguments, I'll repeat my request.
Show me the scientific proof behind design.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
The code and information in dna.
information only comes from a mind, we know that from experience.
Do you believe that science deals with proof or with probabilities? do you not believe proof is for mathematics.
If you believe that information arose by chance then there is no point in even trying to show you, because it would be like trying to show a theif where a police station is, they will take a different route.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
1. "Information" is a term used by scientists to describe the blueprint that DNA is; DNA codes triplet codons for amino acids, which code for protein sequences. Within the process of DNA transcription, the DNA is converted into different types of RNA, which interact with polypeptide bonded structures to eventually give rise to proteins. The "information" is in the ability to code for these genes, and yes, the nucleotides required for RNA formation and subsequent DNA DO form naturally.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
And do not special plead about what information means.
Look up yockey, he explains that these terms in biology are meant literally not as a figure of speech.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
2. Mathematics is applied to science all the time.
3. Again with the chance? The attractive forces of molecules are, all the same as natural selection, not the product of chance.
4. Again, Darwin's theory of evolution is not the exact same theory as is studied these days. Darwin's primary contribution was natural selection.
5. It has been tested, observed, and repeated. Again, look at various species of Drosophila.
6. The only variable in new 'kinds' of organisms evolving is time.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
A collection of small adaptations over a large period of time is equal to large adaptations. It's really that simple.
7. Yes, I do trust the fossil evidence, considering that we've discovered thousands of transitional species and even used the theory of evolution to predict what species should be found and where.
8. Again, the opinions of a single person do not affect any claims made by them or others. This is the definition of "information" as used in the theory of evolution.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Why do you trust the fossil evidence.
The late stephen jay gould who also was not a creationist and was against creationism himself brought out punctuated equillibrium and was a proponent that we do not witness transitions but stasis in the fossil record.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
The reason he and the ridiculous loon dawkins (who cannot even encourage donations to haiti without turning it into a silly atheist vs religion point scoring contest) Well they had a debate about gradualism,Gould was skeptical of gradualism because the fossil record did not show this transitional pattern.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Darwins primary contribution was natural selection you are right, but the idea of natural selection predated darwin, in fact darwin had a poor record of prediction.
So you do not believe in darwins theory, i dont either, we both are skeptical of evolutionary stories. I just believe one less than you do.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005"
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Well I am off to sleep, i will check on your special pleading tommorow that information does not really mean information and code does not really mean code etc LOL
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Good night, ProudToBLoud. Despite all your LOL'ing, I find it rather amusing that the only arguments you've made thus far have been
a. Erroneous in nature
b. False conjectures against my own arguments and my ability to make these arguments or strawmen attacks or ad hominems against reputable scientists, as if their dissent from my own acknowledgements would affect them in any way.
or c. Quoting the (often erroneous) arguments that seem to be mindlessly repeated by creationists.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
1. Evolutionists have no choice to call it information that is stored within dna, they have to go along with the discoveries in moecular biology because it is based on observable science, unlike naturalistic animal to animal evolution which is nothing more than conjecture.
2. I never quoted any creationist, yockey is an evolutionist and if you want to talk about strawmen then you raised it with the same old creationist cannard, these mindless retorts come from evolutionists.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
You just made a false conjecture about me, i am not a student of the bible, that does not change the fact that you conjectured creationism and used that same old lame strawman as some kind of putdown, as for strawmen attacks and ad hominems against scientists who dissent from your acknowledgements affecting them, what the hell are you bleating on about, you are hallucinating.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"When any single source of funding dominates, science will almost certainly become the handmaiden of politics. There is no recognition in our leading journals that this is a problem. cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Science magazine, for example, keeps a vigilant watch on government science spending, unhesitatingly equating more with better.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Government funding has also promoted the idea that a theory can be regarded as true if it enjoys enough support.... Consensus discourages dissent, however. It is the enemy of science, just as it is the triumph of politics. A theory accepted by 99 percent of scientists may be wrong.
—Tom Bethell, The Politically-Incorrect Guide to Science (Regnery, 2005), Introduction."
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
it is 3.30 in the morning here in the uk so i am going to bed.
Tell me do you trust the fossil evidence for evolution?
i will see your answer next time.
good night.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Sorry. Symmetry is not explainable via evolutionary processes.
Your explanation assumes that non-symmetrical mutations would be selected out. The truth is, symmetrical mutations will not occur, the probability being virtually zero, so selection is irrelevant.
Evolution is a joke and it's astounding that people every accepted it. It is not based in science. It is based in political engineering.
Now consider different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems.
mmem701 2 years ago
Symmetry can be explained more so in embryology than anything else. When the organism is developing, both sides adhere to a roughly similar blueprint when they are growing. Additionally, as Bokonon suggested, it does have several advantages over asymmetry. (Imagine an asymmetrical land-based organism trying to walk, adding onto his example.) It was likely first evolved as a result of the notochord, however, which is in essence a primeval spine with nerve endings symmetrically connected.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
The symmetry of the notochord makes the nervous synapses that much more coordinated, and the creature's movements all the more precise and efficient. There are numerous other advantages of a symmetrical creature over an asymmetrical one; just as well, these are only a few: Ease of active transportation such as walking, swimming, or flying; the easy repetition of successful prior structures; ease of embryonic formation in lieu of asymmetry, and many others still unmentioned.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
A computer program trying to show life evolving is artifical.
You need to show life evolving in a natural enviroment not by an artifical simulation.
have you checked out the random mutations program and shows the failure of random mutations, you cannot rely on simulations that are not natural and then ignore the online program random mutations which shows the failure of mutations.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Negative. One can also show this stuff happening in labs, one can see this stuff happening in nature.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
"A computer program trying to show life evolving is artificial."
WOW, we have a genius in the crowd. Give him room to talk everyone.
I'm not trying to simulate life. I'm showing an example of evolutionary principles at work in real time. Snicker all you want, but you can't deny they results are obtained through crossbreeding of the most fit individuals and random mutation which is all that happens biologically.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
Concerning the program he's using being "an artificial simulation of life"
As far as I know, Damianpoirier is not attempting to mimic the specificities of life in any way whatsoever, all he's doing is applying the same laws of natural selection and mutation rates that we can observe in real life to a simulation to give a demonstrable display of the FACT that evolution will work under these principles.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
"we can observe in real life"
Really, you observed molecules to man evolution occur by the processes of random outcome, oops i mean natural selection and mutations, is that a FACT or is this simply letting your imagination run wild?
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
@ ProudToBLoud: That's a strawman argument, completely worthless. Judging by your channel, you seem to be a Christian. Have you witnessed the creation of the universe by your personal creator deity? Have you witnessed the conception of your holy book? Have you witnessed ANYTHING that's written down in it occur? No, you have not. The variable between both of us and these ideologies is time.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Furthermore, you're additionally mistaking the theory of evolution with the secondary theory of abiogenesis. Evolution occurs once a population is already present; abiogenesis is the explanation of how it got there.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Comment removed
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
The bump is only impassable because you have a small indentation in the surface where it gets stuck. Evolution doesn't usually move backwards, and that's what it would have to do to get out of that indentation. The same is true for the other place it got stuck
There are many peaks on mount improbability.
sjh7132 2 years ago
Quite true. Perhaps with an extremely high mutation rate? And yet, I do have the mutation rate cycle from 2% to about 40% and back through the course of about 50 generations. Keep in mind this IS an artificial selection method. Retaining the best is a very narrowing operation. Much more so than losing the worst. The later operation gets to be very 'creative' in its range of solutions.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
damianpoirier, there is no need to argue with this imbecile posting comments. He knows nothing about evolution, and nor does he understand that it is not random mutations. The "intelligent criteria" he is arguing with is just what natural selection provides, therefore nullifying his entire argument.
WecksyRex 2 years ago
Many aspects of evolution present obstacles to logic, like symmetry.
The eye: A lens focused perfectly on rods and cones designed to convert light into electrical signals connected to a nervous system routed to the brain. The skull having sockets, and muscles connecting in just the right places. Internal pressure is regulated using feedback systems.
Then, it all happened again in perfect symmetry and on the same horizontal plane.
It is not rational to believe that mutation produced this.
mmem701 2 years ago
of course. It would be completely irrational to say mutation could produce that. Why do you even bother to mention it?
damianpoirier 2 years ago
It didn't happen all at once. Richard Dawkins has a good video that explains how the eye might have evolved and he even shows animals that show eyes that have eyes that are similar to what could be earlier versions of our eyes.
Two eyes on the same plane is better for stereo vision, and could be selected for. It might also be more attractive and thus also sexually selected. Humans don't find asymmetry attractive.
sjh7132 2 years ago
I think stereo vision would have evolved at or very near the time of bilateral symmetry itself. Even stereo eye spots are quite a bit more useful than single ones or no eye spot at all.
Note: my reply to mmem701 merely agreed that 'mutation' could not produce it. Of course we all know that mutation without selection yields pure crap. I simply tired of feeding the troll.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
This entire premise is working within an intelligently-designed algorithm. My term: "computer program".
This proves nothing. My position has nothing to do with any religious position. Regardless of what I believe, I would be thoroughly embarrassed to believe in evolution.
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."
—Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
mmem701 2 years ago
Well, since you seem to have such a firm grasp on it all, perhaps you could try to make one of these 'computer programs" that uses random mutation and nonrandom selection in which the population DOESN'T evolve.
Since you contend that evolution is impossible it should be quite easy to do. Right?
damianpoirier 2 years ago
I'll allow someone else to speak for me.
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes." —Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." —John Ambrose Fleming, President, British A. for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." —Bounoure
mmem701 2 years ago
hmm these assertion exhibit a certain lack of je ne c'est quoi. Oh that's it analysis of data.
second you avoided the question. If not 'evolution' what term WOULD apply?
damianpoirier 2 years ago
You've got to be kidding. You call this evolution?
This is the same mentality that renames "mosaic" fossils as "transitional" fossils.
Evolution is an irrational myth.
mmem701 2 years ago
you have a different name for it perhaps?
damianpoirier 2 years ago
Well I wish you luck. All evolutionary algorithms I have ever seen suffer from the same goal driven problem. When the goal is removed the algorithm fails. In computer programming IF / THEN is a logical opertaor and I guess it could concieveably be used to model natural selection, but scientists can't really agree what evolutionary fitness is in the first place.
RTyp06 2 years ago
not so. All agree that fitness is reproductive success. What neither we nor evolution 'knows' is what "fittest" is. I can say that "fittest" is an aspect of artificial selection. In nature what is fit is everything except that which fails to reproduce.(vicarious reproduction works as well as in the case of hives and colonies). The aforementioned simulation is a mere academic exercise and as such is merely awaiting someone OCD enough to actually create such an environment. Myself perhaps. :-)
damianpoirier 2 years ago
"New mating protocal and my evolving line acquires the target AND minimises distance."
Yes becuase you intelligently programmed it to do so.
RTyp06 2 years ago
well yes. Wanting to produce something that illustrates evolution in real time makes liberal use of the computers facilities to make something graphical and to the point. Artificial selection is as close as it gets to intelligent design in evolving systems. Experimental GA makers have rarely taken the effort to make a complex and dynamic environment and stocked it with replicators that can do that trick of adding new functions that makes for new species like in real life. I'm working on it.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
Hunh? I'm not seeing how this has realevance to evolution... or anything at all for that matter. Please elaborate.
RTyp06 2 years ago
You can lead a horse to water...
damianpoirier 2 years ago
If your evolution has a predetermined goal, it is intelligent design. Thus you have designed it to evolve in such a manner.
RTyp06 2 years ago
That is quite true. I guess you don't care that the goal is constantly shifting and changing. It certainly does take intelligence to make an evolutionary algorithm function on a computer. Computers are designed to only work that way. Nevertheless as you say, evolution in nature IS goalless and as such isn't intelligent design. You are quite correct in that.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
brilliant my young man, evolution at its best!!
youwillBsorry 2 years ago
Very cool, but it seems the relationships with real evolution are extremely shakey.
For example. Why does your starting point never change?
Also, you're misrepresenting punctuated equalibrium as rapididy in the speed of evolution. Punctuated equalibrium is characterized by apparently instant introduction of new speciese in the fossil record. It's a migration event, not an evolutionary event.
This proves that mutation + natural selection is indeed a non-random process.
Very cool.
paulmarko 3 years ago
What do you mean 'real evolution'? What part of this is not real?
"Why does your starting point never change?"
why do you ask? Do you think it should? Does that have any bearing on the program find solutions? Did you DL the program? Look it over?
"Also, you're misrepresenting punctuated equilibrium as rapidity(?) in the speed of evolution."
Um what else would you call it?
"Punctuated equalibrium is characterized.."
yes "characterized". Any need to go further?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
By "real" I meant biological evolution in the real world.
I thought this video was like CDk007s in that it was rhetorical. It seems I was mistaken. My apologies.
I did DL the program (or source code, rather) After looking at it I realized it does exactly what it's supposed to. :)
I guess I don't understand the point of it all. Just practicing your genetic algorithms? Are you trying to make something that can evolve around mazes maybe?
paulmarko 3 years ago
"Are you trying to make something that can evolve around mazes maybe?"
you're very quick. It was indeed the original intent long ago when I actually had an application in mind for it.
Fast isn't it?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
It looks fast to me. But I'm not much of a programmer or anything so I'm a poor judge.
paulmarko 3 years ago
"I thought this video was like CDk007s in that it was rhetorical."
What do you mean "rhetorical"?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Simply trying to be persuasive and prove a point.
He used his simulation to demonstrate to Creationists and IDers that random mutation and natural selection can indeed make non-random progress towords a goal, because they often assert that natural mutation and selection can't make foreword progress.
In the real world it would be to survive. In your simulation it would be the target. In CDKs is was to be as accurate a clock as possible (using evolving gears, pendulums and things).
paulmarko 3 years ago
"In the real world it would be to survive."
that's only half of it. It's reproduction that is the thing. Survival is only incidentally relevant(sort of a default). If it reproduces then by definition it is fit.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I agree. "survive long enough to reproduce" would be a more accurate descriptor.
I think "survival of the fittist" is all too often misunderstood as "kill all the jews"
paulmarko 3 years ago
I only thought the line start point should change because I mistook your simulation space as multiple environments instead of one environment.
Although I've having trouble determening the purpose of the "target" or if there exists an analogy in the real world at all.
paulmarko 3 years ago
"determening the purpose of the "target""
no purpose really. Just something so as to not have RANDOM selection. It doesn't really matter WHAT your selection criteria is. This just happens to be within the area of programming i was familliar with at the time.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"It's a migration event, not an evolutionary event."
Wait. What?
"This proves that mutation + natural selection is indeed a non-random process."
who ever said it was?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Punctuated equalibrium is still a gradual process that's not analagous to changing the goal slightly and suddenly being able to overcome an evolutionary pressure. It's simply having two different environments alltogether and having that second organism migrate to the location of the first. In your simulation you don't have an allagory for similer environments in different locations because location and veriability share the same 2d space.
2.IDrs. I mistook this for being rhetorical. Sorry!
paulmarko 3 years ago
Um, It's the same environment? Did you notice that the goal is changing? Analogy would be a prey evolving some eveasive strategy. The line then represents the evolution of the predetory equiping itself to acquire the prey.
So you understand programming? Would you be interested in my challenge? Write an evolutionary algorithm that doesn't evolve. No cheating(100% mutation, random selection,etc). Think you can do it?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
1. I meant that it's not two or more seperate, changing environments. It's 1 changing environment.
2. Lol, I couldn't imagine how to do that... Maybe if I cranked up the minimum mutation rate extremely high...Maybe it would never make progress towords the target...Oh, I know, what if selection pressure kills everything instantly!
paulmarko 3 years ago
So, like everyone else , you have no idea. Hardly surprising. It can't be done. I wouldn't really want to send people on a fools errand(unless they are fools).
A single changing environment can still bifurcate a population into separate species as long as they as reproductively isolated.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
True. Although geographical seperation is far and away the most common type of reproductive isolation.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Sorry, you seemed to infer that geographical separation meant different environment. It does not.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Checking this out. Nice!
So the target is set by the mouse pointer, right? Would the line try (in open space) to wrap itself around the mouse pointer after a while?
A GA algorithm might make a good celestial mechanics orbit solver for a long and complex trip around planets etc. and using low continuous thrust settings. The fitness would be using either the least fuel and/or time taken, for a given thrust, duration, fuel available,... Obviously it must arrive at the correct destination!
tubewatch59 3 years ago
IGNORE THAT CONTROLLER BEHIND THE MOUSE!
LOL. Environments CAN be controlled. It HAS been proposed by some as an IDers way of implimenting its design. Would naturally occuring environmental changes(or alternatly population migration into different environments) not produce effects/products not acheivable in a static realm?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I could comment more but I won't at the moment because it would be unfounded. Except to agree that the 'target' due to an environment would be changing, and also, I suspect it would move around a lot. And maybe move around fast too. (supercharged!)
tubewatch59 3 years ago
Will you try (at some time) to concider the question?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"Would naturally occuring environmental changes(or alternatly population migration into different environments) not produce effects/products not acheivable in a static realm?"
That question? Ok. It must be the case that a change in environment would alter the (what I would call) the 'trait attractor'. I can't say a lot about it though. I'd speculate that for only few traits, would the attractor/target be acting consistently. For the rest I think it would be weak, and rapidly fluctuating.
tubewatch59 3 years ago
And what happens to a ratchet system in the presence of rapid fluctuations?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
To be honest I don't know. I am out of my depth at the moment. My point which is somewhat speculative at the moment, was that a weak rapidly changing target or attractor would not have a significant effect on the majority of the traits. Just on a few perhaps. But don't hold me to any of that because I don't know enough about it.
tubewatch59 3 years ago
"A GA algorithm might make a good celestial mechanics orbit solver"
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find it had already been done. People have been applying them to a wide range of different problems.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Cool! Good to see you are making videos again!
h8uall66 3 years ago
Thanks h8ual66, I sould do more, but setting up a good demo is not so easy. I like this venue because the line's forms are the actual genes themselves. Most other GA's genes are hidden in databanks of the form which then is built or activated behind the scenes.
I welcome any suggestion for annotations for this vid(now that i know how to do them).
damianpoirier 3 years ago