"non-human, or human, but not human and non-human."
Lol, obviously, did he really think that an early transitional form to a human would also be a human? How can something be Human and non Human? Please actually read what you think disproves evolution or disputes it, you'll find quickly that it's ignorance on top of lies in ALL cases so far.
"Fossils that have been used to support human evolution, for example, have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes"
This is a lie, there has only been one such hoax that has been used to support human evolution and it was shown to be a hoax by "evolutionists". This person ignores the thousands of fossil individuals from dozens of transitional hominid species we have today then lies about it.
He lies multiple times throughout, I can keep going on it if you'd like.
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it ever got to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living! Read the popular Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! Just google the title.
"an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it."
You're missing the point of the mouse trap analogy, can you please point out how and when a designer "completed" anything living today? The mouse trap analogy is to show that a complex system can be put together using other functions one step at a time, biological systems do this naturally without a designer.
"partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate in the real world."
"It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living!"
In biological evolution there is no such thing as "completion", nothing ever stops evolving, nothing ever stops getting passed on with variation.
"WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!"
If you are referring to the article by Babu G. Ranganathan I am disappointed. What this person does is take a real somewhat disputed topic then dishonestly inflate it to biblical proportions then lie about random things.
· Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe. The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance are 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them (From the Internet article HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM)
Wow, Morgan, you really blew a head gasket! Spew lies all you want. I've caught you in enough of them that everyone knows you for what you really are.
@VictorLaszloLives Those who recognize the valid issues I have raised and see your avoidance of these, but who have no vested interest in propping up evolution, can certainly judge for themselves.
It isn't lying, per se, to avoid dealing with issues, but it isn't being totally honest with yourself.
I recognize that for someone who would like to forget about God the implications of design are pretty painful, but relief is just around the corner.
@MorganMarvinson I haven't avoided any issues that you've raised. You've simply repeated yourself in order to bury the replies. Yet another form of lying.
@MorganMarvinson It is indeed possible to get nine ones in 7 rolls using 9 dice. The rolls are after all a matter of luck. The point you seem to have missed is that natural selection *keeps* the favorable outcomes, making the process as a whole, *not* random.
@VictorLaszloLives "*not* random." If any part of a process is random, then it cannot be *not* random. A gun is a constrained device that doesn't fire randomly. (Or we would hope when faced with angry attacking animal!) However, if you only put one or two bullets in the chambers, it becomes a random device. Because of the "random" in random mutation, you don't know what you are going to get.
@MorganMarvinson You have that backwards. If any step in a process is not random, then the process is not random. Let's say candy is put in a box at random, and someone gives you this box. You select the chocolate covered cherries to eat, because that is what you like. Is it random that you are eating the chocolate covered cherries? No, of course not, because you *picked* them.
Let's say I get to "pick" one item out of the box each day. Some days I get candies; some days insects; some days random pieces of junk. I do have the power of choice, but what I have to choose from IS random.
Do either of these remove the randomness? This is parsing at its worst, but, of course, it's necessary to cover for the fact that the randomness of random mutation isn't a sufficient explanation for the development of new molecular machines within a type of organism to transform the population into something else.
@VictorLaszloLives "not random" Of course it isn't random at the point of selection--just as weather isn't random at the point that it has occurred. But the process by which it came into being IS ABSOLUTELY random. At least that is the evolutionary point of view. It has no direction ... according to the theory.
So don't give me the malarkey that evolution isn't random.
@MorganMarvinson You are so full of it. Mutations are random, yes. Natural selection is not. Because evolution is driven by natural selection, a non-random process, then evolution is not random.
@VictorLaszloLives I've been trying to avoid judgments about you. I suggest you do the same.
Saying "natural selection" drives evolution is ridiculous. It can only "select" what it is given.
There is no real-world evidence that random mutations will create new molecular machines within an organism. The evidence that random mutations can create a new molecular machine, needed for one type of organism morphing into another, is only hypothetical.
@MorganMarvinson Species have variation. The environment determines which individuals live, and which die. Those individuals that are well adapted tend to live and reproduce, thus their phenotypes become more common in the population over generations. These changes are evolution. Evolution by natural selection has been observed. Small changes accumulate into larger changes, beyond speciation. We've seen this in living species, look up Ensatina salamanders, and ring species.
@VictorLaszloLives "ring species" theory doesn't explain an increase in genetic information to move from simple to complex or to create all the necessary molecular machines that come from the transmigration of one body type to another. All the examples you have cited--and can cite--do not support what is necessary for evolution. Variation is something quite different. Evolutionary sleight of hand doesn't change the fact.
@MorganMarvinson Most of the examples that I've cited *are* evolution.
Regarding your claim that genetic information can not increase, I've already given you an example. The gene for the sandy color of the deer mice in the Nebraska dunes is a new gene, producing a new phenotype.
@VictorLaszloLives This is more evolutionary sleight of hand, which is why I wonder about the honesty of those who make the claim. If I paint my car a different color, have I added a new device?
@MorganMarvinson Observing evolution in living species is not slight of hand. I get what you are saying, you want larger changes. Small changes accumulate into large changes, which take longer. We can see larger changes in the fossil record. Take Tiktaalik for example, it is transitional between lobe finned fish and tetrapods.
@MorganMarvinson The discovery of Tiktaalik is very interesting. Using the theory of evolution, scientists predicted the existence, time period and location of an intermediate form between lobe finned fish and tetrapods. They went to the location, dug to the correct layer, and found Tiktaalik. If the theory were wrong, there would have been nothing to find.
@MorganMarvinson Now that you know about the sandy colored deer mouse, if I took two deer mice, one from the dunes, and one from outside the dunes, you would know which came from which environment. How would you know that? Because the information is in the mice. The environment in effect wrote information valuable for survival into the genome.
@VictorLaszloLives The environment didn't cause the deer mice to turn brown. This kind of variation is quite well tracked in genetics. But extrapolating that because a mouse can turn brown by genetics means that all organisms came from a single organism is a grand stretch of the imagination with only hypothetical evidence to back it.
@MorganMarvinson It's exactly because of genetics that we know how the sandy color came into existence. The brown mice don't have the gene, the sandy colored mice do have the gene. It's a new gene.
@MorganMarvinson Sorry, evolution is not hypothetical, it's been measured and even induced through experiments, and I've actually given you specifics earlier in the thread. For you to assert these real world events are hypothetical makes you an ourtright liar.
@MorganMarvinson Scientists have also conducted repeatable experiments demonstrating evolution by natural selection. Look up John Endler's guppy experiments. Others of conducted similar experiments with other species.
@VictorLaszloLives Saying "natural selection" DRIVES evolution is analogous to saying popular opinion drives the car market. Only there is one difference--auto factories can actually respond to popular opinion because they are run by intelligent agents. Building a car by random mistakes (and new molecular machines in an organism) is a "daft" idea .
@MorganMarvinson Are you aware that automotive companies have used genetic algorithms to generate some of their designs? It's not such a daft idea if fortune 500 companies employ the approach.
@VictorLaszloLives "Are you aware that automotive companies have used genetic algorithms to generate some of their designs?" Not surprising, an algorith isn't random. It's programmed for results.
Your point makes sense if you are saying mutations aren't random, but are based on a programmed algorithm. I'd buy that.
@MorganMarvinson 1 of 2. Evolution is not random. Mutations are random. Polulations have variation. The environment determines which individuals live and which die. Well adapted individuals tend to live and reproduce more than poorly adapted individuals. This leads to beneficial inherited traits spreading through the population, which is evolution. It's not random, it's systematic. Genetic algorithms model a population, variation, mutations, selection, and repproduction, leading to evolution.
2 of 2. Saying that the solutions are programmed is not correct. For complex problems, the programmer has no clue what solution will be produced, because the engineering problems where this approach is used have too many variables for an engineer to solve. That's why they've gone to the approach of genetic algorithms, because evolution works in nature. It's the theory of evolution that has been programmed, and the theory produces the engineering solutions.
@MorganMarvinson Of course if you set the algorithm to stop in a fixed number of generations, a satisfactory solution may not be found. That doesn't mean that the method fails, it means you didn't let the algorithm run long enough. It's interesting how you quote mined Wikipedia, the very next sentence says, "Genetic algorithms find application in bioinformatics, phylogenetics, computational science, engineering, economics, chemistry, manufacturing, mathematics, physics and other fields."
@VictorLaszloLives So the next sentence says nothing more than you did already, which underscores my point: an intelligently designed ALGORITHM finds solutions to PROBLEMS. Animals that are already "fit"--as seen by the pattern of their stasis in the palenatological record--are not problems. If the programmers of these algorithms are doing what they think nature does, then they believe that organisms are embedded with a problem-solving algorithm.
@MorganMarvinson 1 of 2. It is the theory of evolution that is programmed into the genetic algorithms. The algorithm finds solutions by using the theory. If the theory were wrong, then the algorithms would not find good solutions. The theory says that it is the environment that drives change, and indeed that is what we see in nature. Your statement, "the programmers ... believe that organisms are embedded with a problem-solving algorithm" is a complete bullshit straw man argument.
Since the driver lies outside the organism, there is no need for any stored algorithm in the organism.
By the way, my field is computer science, and I have implemented genetic algorithms, so I can tell you first hand, the programmers do not believe that organisms are embedded with a problem soving algorithm.
@VictorLaszloLives "Bullshit straw man argument" If it has been programmed, it took intelligence. If nature solves things through an algorithm, it has been programmed. "The theory says that it is the environment that drives change" Is that what industry is PROGRAMMING for their solutions? If industry ISN'T using environment to drive change, then how are they using an evolutionary algorithm?
Please try to remain consistent with your own claims.
@MorganMarvinson In the algorithms, there is a fitness calculation that determines which individuals live and which die. That is modeling natural selection.
@VictorLaszloLives So the one single factor that is similar to the view of evolution is fitness, but it isn't the same kind of fitness as in evolution. Then why claim it mirrors evolution?
@MorganMarvinson, liar for Christ. In an earlier post to you, I pointed out, "Genetic algorithms model a population, variation, mutations, selection, and reproduction, leading to evolution."
@VictorLaszloLives "It generates solutions without a designer." The software just happened to appear on my friend's computer one day at work. It's a miracle I tell you!
And the really cool thing about it is that it doesn't take an intelligent agent to evaluate the solutions that it generates. Of course, that has added to the jobless problem, but it works just like non-directed evolution!
@MorganMarvinson You are such a dim-wit! The programmer implements the theory of evolution. The programmer has no clue about what a good design is for the problem being solved. The algorithm which is based on the theory of evolution generates the solution. The solution therefore is no designed. Computers do not think, or create.
@VictorLaszloLives Concerned about the one who is not using his wits ... "Computers do not think, or create." Correct. They do what they are programmed to do. If the algorithm were not carefully designed it would find you no solution. If an intelligent technician weren't evaluating the results, they would be useless.
Parallel: if organisms weren't programmed to find solutions, they wouldn't. For those things they aren't programmed to do, they find no solution and die.
@MorganMarvinson Instead of actually listening to someone who understands genetic algorithms, and learning something, you keep returning to the same ignorant statements. The algorithm is not embedded in the individuals in the model implemented in genetic algorithms. There is no algorithm embedded in individuals in the theory of evolution. Why do you keep insisting there are???
@VictorLaszloLives "Why do you keep insisting there are?" My original statement was:
"'Are you aware that automotive companies have used genetic algorithms to generate some of their designs?'" Not surprising, an algorith isn't random. It's programmed for results.
"Your point MAKES SENSE if you are saying mutations aren't random, but are based on a programmed algorithm."
And, if your program doesn't randomly change a single point at a time to find a solution, it isn't following evolution.
@VictorLaszloLives I really don't need to reply to this, for your previous post already falsified this statement. You wrote: "Each possible solution has a set of defining characteristics [plural] that are encoded ..."
This does NOT parallel the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, you state here that possible solutions are encoded. That doesn't sound like the program comes up with solutions on its own.
Perhaps this is an unfortunate wording of the process, but these ARE your words.
@VictorLaszloLives Please! You stated: "Each possible SOLUTION has a set of defining characteristics [plural] that are encoded ..." Here you refer, not to the "problem," but to the "solution." But the "solution" in evolutionary terms is one single point change followed by another and another. There is no teleology in the theory to hold over points until all necessary changes are in place, unless, of course, a point change makes a change in the phenome. And that is the exception--not the rule.
@VictorLaszloLives "A solution in evolutionary terms would be the entire organism." Exactly--a noticeable change in the phenome. I'm really getting tired of having to restate the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Point by point the changes are supposedly made, with nothing to hold the random errors to in genome until they are apparent in the phenome. The mathematical probability of just two point changes toward a positive change is below believability. Yet, this is evolution's mechanism.
@MorganMarvinson Single mutations often do result in phenome changes. Those that are beneficial do tend to spread through the population. This has been observed.
@VictorLaszloLives "Single mutations often do result in phenome changes. Those that are beneficial do tend to spread through the population. This has been observed." We've already covered this ground. This may account for 1% of the changes (and that's being generous) in organisms. Changing the color of a mouse doesn't answer to the radical transformations of lungs, skin, eyes, heart, locomotion, etc. in the pakicetus-to-whale series.
@VictorLaszloLives "Please explain to me how small changes can not accumulate into large changes." I already have. The "small changes" are point changes that don't rise to the level of selection under Natural Selection. Evolution doesn't just require color, shape, and texture changes--which would be enough--it requires new molecular machines operating below the surface, it requires consistent coding that coordinates all the changes into new systems. Without teleology, it CANNOT occur.
@VictorLaszloLives You're misusing "straw man." The issues I raised are fundamental to the theory of evolution. I called you to question for claiming that your algorithms do what evolution does. I approached it from various angles. You spent your time ignoring the basic difference between the two, and squandered the opportunity to consider why your algorithms help generate working solutions (which were apparently entered as options by the programmer) when unintelligent "copy errors" don't.
@MorganMarvinson, liar for Christ. The algorithms do model the theory of evolution. You wasted your time, and mine, by insisting, and continuing to insist that it does not. As I've explained to you multiple times, the programmer doesn't even know what a good solution to the problem is, so how can you pretend that he/she entered it as an option? I've told you over and over again, and you remain willfully ignorant. I'm done with you now.
@VictorLaszloLives Yes, you have claimed that the programmer didn't enter it as an option, though that is the implication of your statement, "Each possible SOLUTION has a set of defining characteristics [plural] that are encoded ..." You then clarify: "The solutions are encoded by the algorithm." Thus, you are suggesting that the computer evaluates potential multi-characteristic solutions without the benefit of the intelligent programming for the algorithm.
Suspend critical thinking if you like and avoid the truth by referring to my call to consider evolution's fundamental flaws as "lying," but true science will go on without you.
@VictorLaszloLives "Nice projection" "It could happen" is the foundation of evolution--NOT "here's more than INFERENCE that it DID happen." Your request "Please explain to me how small changes can not accumulate into large changes" is a case in point. It is pure inference, and a wrong-headed one at that. Small losses of information to the genome could NEVER accumulate into an ADDITION of information, required for creating new molecular machines within the organism and a new body type.
@VictorLaszloLives Observation has never shown THAT it happens. No development of a molecular machine has ever been witnessed. Since we've never observed it, we can confidently say that evolution is an inference based on hypothetical evidence.
"Their light coloration stems from a novel banding pattern on individual hairs produced by an increase in Agouti expression caused by a cis-acting mutation (or mutations), which either is or is closely linked to A SINGLE AMINO ACID DELETION in Agouti that appears to be under selection."
This is a “variation [in] a gene that already exists, rather than [in] a new type of gene altogether.”
And, of course, this ISN'T a new molecular machine.
@MorganMarvinson "Furthermore, our data suggest that this derived Agouti allele arose de novo after the formation of the Sand Hills." From the abstract, Science, Vol. 325, No. 5944. (28 August 2009), pp. 1095-1098. doi:10.1126/science.1175826 Key: citeulike:5664670
@VictorLaszloLives Understand what the study is saying, "this DERIVED Agouti allele." "Derived" indicates It isn't a new gene. It is, as the BBC stated, a "variation [in] a gene that already exists, rather than [in] a new type of gene altogether.”
@MorganMarvinson 1 of 2. I dont know where you are getting your info from, the BBC article I'm looking at says, "They discovered that the light coat colour is coded by a single gene, dubbed Agouti. This is expressed at a higher amount, and for longer, than the genes that code for dark hair.
"Most animals known to quickly evolve new features do so by expressing a variation of a gene that already exists, rather than evolving a new type of gene altogether.
2 of 2. "But the researchers found that the Agouti gene only appeared among wild deer mice in Sand Hills around 4,000 years ago, just a few thousand years after dark mice colonised their new home. That means it first evolved 8000 generations of mice ago."
@VictorLaszloLives I've read through the article, and it would appear that you are correct--and I am wrong--of their claims. They do claim that this is a new gene--and that this is the first time scientists have been able to "document" its appearance.
"The researchers say it is the FIRST TIME that it has been possible to document the appearance of a gene, its selection and subsequent spread through a population of wild animals."
Of course, this isn't in "real time," but an inference from data.
@MorganMarvinson If you ever want to learn, you need to stop assuming that you know more than the person expaining the concept. You can't correct what you don't understand.
@VictorLaszloLives To believe what evolution assumes requires the suspension of disbelief. Do you claim some other mechanism for the actual changes in evolution besides random point changes and lateral gene transfer?
@MorganMarvinson It takes no suspension of disbelief when evolution is seen in living species.
Of course there is another mechanism, it's called natural selection. You claim that you've studied all the details of evolution before making your decision, and yet you don't realize that natural selection is the driver?
@VictorLaszloLives "It takes no suspension of disbelief when evolution is seen in living species." If it WERE seen in living species, that would be true. But the "evolution" we see in living species isn't what the theory requires.
Natural selection doesn't throw out new variables. GET REAL! A steering wheel does not a working car make.
@MorganMarvinson Please explain to me why we have seen speciation as a result of the accumulation of small changes, driven by natural selection, exactly as the theory of evolution explains (look up ring species, Ensatina salamanders).
"'Ring species' theory doesn't explain an increase in genetic information to move from simple to complex or to create all the necessary molecular machines that come from the transmigration of one body type to another. All the examples you have cited--and can cite--do not support what is necessary for evolution. Variation is something quite different. Evolutionary sleight of hand doesn't change the fact."
@VictorLaszloLives Ring species result from DELETION of genetic information--not ADDITION. Ring species are "living examples" of DE-volution. It goes the wrong direction to support the general theory of common descent.
@MorganMarvinson "They also ascertained that this new gene has since become very common among the Sand Hills mice.
'The light gene wasn't in existence, so the mice had to "wait" until a particular mutation occurred and then selection had to act on that new mutation,' says team member Professor Hopi Hoekstra, also of Harvard University."
@VictorLaszloLives Please explain why the nested hierarchies have been rearranged numerous times and why genetic is both rewriting the nested hierarchies as well as confusing the nested hierarchies, depending on which gene one chooses to correlate.
@VictorLaszloLives Because the hierarchy was developed from the fossil record--generally--and rewriiten when variances were found in the fossil record.
Now tell me why the index fossils are all seashells--at every level.
@VictorLaszloLives I am sure you know that genetics can only deal with a very small portion of the evolutionary "tree of life" since we don't have DNA for the vast majority of organisms that were buried. Of that small portion for which we do have DNA, there has been much rewriting of the tree--so much so, in fact, that taxonomy has been increasingly abandoned for that which we have genetics to make a comparison. Moreover, depending on the chromosome compared, we get different trees.
@MorganMarvinson So the tree of life is actually a web in about 10% of the tree. Is that all you can muster? By the way, the scientists who put his forward are *evolutionary* biologists. I think you know that. Yet here you are, spinning with quote mining again.
You know that quote mining is a form of *lying*, right? You are a liar for Christ.
@VictorLaszloLives YouTube allows 500 characters per post. I suggested you read each of the quotations in context, so I've done all that is fair and expected. Of course these are "evolutionary" biologists. You would dismiss them if they weren't. They are willing to acknowledge--as experts in the field--precisely what I posted before you accused me of repeating a falsehood.
I don't call you a liar. I just call you a guy with his head in the sand.
"... confidence in some of the tree's early branches has recently been shaken, ... More challenging is evidence that most archaeal and bacterial genomes (and the inferred ancestral eukaryotic nuclear genome) contain genes from multiple sources. If "chimerism" or "lateral gene transfer" cannot be dismissed as trivial in extent or limited to special categories of genes, then no hierarchical universal classification can be taken as natural."
"... this type of artificial classification scheme has been abandoned in favor of hierarchical taxonomic schemes based on comparative genetic analysis of the nucleotide sequences of the small subunit ribosomal RNA that is contained in all cellular organisms."
"Encumbered with vague and slippery ideas about adaptation, fitness, biological species and natural selection, neo-Darwinism ... not only lacked a definable investigatory method, but came to depend, both for evolutionary interpretation and classification, on consensus or authority."
"If you want to know how all living things are related, don't bother looking in any textbook that's more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong. Since they began delving into DNA, biologists have been finding that organisms with features that look alike are often not as closely related as they had thought. These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny ... "
@VictorLaszloLives "science advances" Right. In this case, it can advance if it recognizes how wrong it has been. It must admit that it is wrong to advance.
@VictorLaszloLives "Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."
@MorganMarvinson Did you happen to notice that your source is the discovery institute? These guys are not scientists. They start from the premise that their narrow minded literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, and then spin to try to convince people they have evidence (much like you do). Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason he failed to find the tree of life is that he didn't want to find it? Real scientists have succeeded.
@VictorLaszloLives Perhaps you missed the point that the website is referencing a scientific study.
Secondly, they do NOT begin with a narrow and literal view of the Bible. If they did, they would be young earth creationists, which most of the fellows (and even the key leaders) at the Discovery Institute are not.
"the reason he failed to find the tree of life" I refer you again to the quotation from J. Craig Ventnor above, who was on a program with Richard Dawkins when he made the statement.
@MorganMarvinson Ventnor is not God, and you are ripping a quote out of context. You fail to mention that Dawkins is able to put him in a position where he can't answer to the very strong evidence for the tree of life.
@VictorLaszloLives When the answer to a question is obvious (and has previously been articulated, as in this case), sometimes it is best to answer with just a smile. :)
@MorganMarvinson I just watched the video. Venter was advocating that there might be other trees of life, not one monolithic tree. That's what you are claiming shatters the theory of evolution? You silly twit!
@VictorLaszloLives Kudos for going to the trouble to watch the video. "TREES of life" would not be a unified "TREE of life" ... and it creates a tremendous challenge to common origin of all life.
@VictorLaszloLives We've seen species lose information. But evolution requires that species GAIN information. Losing or altering a gene for dark fur isn't a gain in information. The "poster child" for evolution and genetic studies point to de-volution rather than evolution. vvvvvv[dot]freerepublic[dot]com[slash]focus[slash]f-news[slash]1925867[slash]posts
Furthermore if have multiple first ancestors isn't a challenge to having a single "common ancestor," then evolution has just been rewritten.
@MorganMarvinson A new gene that brings with it a new phenotype is new information, and that's what we see in the sandy color fur of the deer mice in the dunes.
If you put a polar bear next to a brown bear, you know which lives in snow, because the information is there in the animal itself! Nature has written information for survival into the DNA, via natural selection. Information for survival is definitely a *gain*.
@VictorLaszloLives Changing colors IS a change of information, but it was accomplished by the alteration of an existing gene, not the addition of more genes. It is called a "new gene" in the study because it tells the deer mouse to do something "new"--NOT turn on the brown color in its fur. If this is what evolution claims to do, then we should start out with an organism rich in genetic instructions and then, point by point, "turn off the switches." But that goes from complex to simple.
@MorganMarvinson It is a new gene, producing a new protien, yielding a new phenotype. The new protien that creates the sandy color outproduces the protein that generates a brown color. It *is* new, and you need to stop lying.
@MorganMarvinson The mutation does not exist in the brown deer mice that live outside of the dunes. The fact that the phenotype does not spread to the populations beyond the dunes is evidence of natural selection at work. How would you explain it?
4000 years is very new in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet.
@VictorLaszloLives Here is how it is NEW: "Agouti gene expression can establish a completely new color pattern"
From the report: "On the basis of these results, we cannot determine whether the serine deletion, a linked mutation, or both cause wide bands and light coats."
"the genetic variation involved is linked to a 'single amino acid deletion' in the Agouti gene."
@VictorLaszloLives "I've caught you ..." My response was based on your own unfortunately worded statement. In setting up what the scientist does, you stated that the characteristics of the SOLUTION--not the characteristics of the PROBLEM--are encoded. Later, you noted that you MEANT that the characteristics of the solution are encoded by the algorithm.
That drastically changes what your statement meant at first reading.
@MorganMarvinson Stop spewing crap! It *IS* the solution that is encoded, analogous to DNA encoding characteristics of living organisms. In the software, it *IS* the algorithm that does the encoding. *I HAVE NEVER SAID OTHERWISE*! It is you, in your ignorant misunderstanding, who keeps injecting false assumptions to meet your needs, instead of actually listening, asking questions, and reaching understanding.
@VictorLaszloLives Note your statement: "Each possible solution has a set of defining characteristics that are encoded, analogous to DNA in living organisms. [You set up the experiment by describing the encoding of "each possible solution."] The values in the encoding are randomly reset, thereby simulating random mutation. [Now you describe what the algorithm does.]"
If you did not mean that the solutions were encoded to set up the experiment, then your wording does not express what you mean.
@MorganMarvinson The characteristics of any individual must be encoded, regardless of if we are talking about a model in software, or DNA in living organisms. In the case of the software, *THE PROGRAMMER DOES NOT ENCODE SOLUTIONS*!!! I have explained this to you several times now, and in your beligerent ignorance, you are making up crap about subjects you do not know, and that makes you a liar. Every solution modeled requires an encoding, it is the software that encodes the solutions.
@VictorLaszloLives You are apparently unable to see that you set up my response by your statement. I understand now that you did not mean what you wrote and I have acknowledged this several times.
If you want to be upset with someone, aim it where it belongs--at yourself, for making the first misstatement about the encoding of "each possible solution" BEFORE talking about the random resetting of values. Then, rectify the problem--not by projecting on me--but by acknowledging the misstatement.
@MorganMarvinson Yes, I meant what I wrote. I have been precise with my words. You have made assertions that are false, such as stating that genetic algorithms are not based on the theory of evolution (a truly ridiculous assertion). You have asserted wrongly that any process which has a step that is random, is random as a whole. When you make such false assertions, even after being corrected, that makes you a liar.
@VictorLaszloLives If you "meant what [you] wrote," then writing "Each possible solution has a set of defining characteristics that are encoded" before writing "the values in the encoding are randomly reset" means, in plain English, that the possible solutions are encoded before the values are reset. That you don't recognize the meaning of your own words doesn't make you a liar (or me either), it just makes you thickheaded.
@MorganMarvinson Again, I never said that it was the programmer that encodes the solutions. That was *your* assumption, based on a bias that encoding must be done by an intelligence. Even after I clarified to you that it is the program that encodes the solutions, here you are raising hell! You are the thickheaded one.
@VictorLaszloLives Apparently you still don't understand what is inferred by describing "each possible solution" being "encoded" before describing the "values" of these "defining characteristics" being randomly "reset." I understand what you meant by this--since you have further clarified your meaning--but the original meaning of the sentences is not what you have clarified them to be. The second you understand what your sentences originally conveyed, that second your thickheadedness goes away.
@VictorLaszloLives We have a difference of opinion on whether a random step makes a process random. Somehow you think that adding a non-random step to randomness takes away the randomness of what the outcome can be. "Non-directed" equals random, i.e. one cannot predict which direction it will go. Evolutionary theory maintains that we do not know what changes will take place in a population of organisms. Yes, it will be constrained by NS to kill the inefficient, but there is no specific goal.
@MorganMarvinson Natural selection is the result of the environment, which is not intelligent. Goals are not required. As humans, we can concieve of a principle, that well adapted individuals tend to flourish, and their phenotypes tend to be come more common over generations, but nature does not think in terms of principle, natural selection is just a result of reality.
@VictorLaszloLives I understand what you are saying, Natural Selection just kills off inefficiency. Where we come into disagreement is in thinking that random mutations within the cell are sufficient to routinely produce efficiency if the cell were not designed to do so.
Nature does not think in terms of principle--in fact, it does not think at all. It--like the algorithm--does what it is programmed to do.
@MorganMarvinson No, I didn't write all that there is to write on genetic algorithms. It would take about 30 pages to describe properly. Just because someone doesn't tell you all the details doesn't mean you can just fill in the blanks, and then criticize what you've made up. That's a straw man argument. It’s deceptive and a waste of time.
Go read about genetic algorithms if you actually want to know about them.
@VictorLaszloLives You are still missing my point. Your two-sentence summary left a different impression of the overall process than you intended. In including "each possible solution" in that which sets up the study, you inadvertently indicate that solutions are programmed before the "values" of these "defining characteristics" are randomly "reset."
From what you have since clarified, that is NOT what you meant.
@MorganMarvinson You have implied that the programmer of genetic algorithms encodes the solution, which is a lie, directed at discrediting genetic algorithms, the theory of evolution, and those who accept the theory of evolution.
Regardless of your false assertions (i.e. lies), genetic algorithms are based on the theory of evolution, and they produce solutions that have not been designed.
Sorry, didnt catch the last part of that quote;
"non-human, or human, but not human and non-human."
Lol, obviously, did he really think that an early transitional form to a human would also be a human? How can something be Human and non Human? Please actually read what you think disproves evolution or disputes it, you'll find quickly that it's ignorance on top of lies in ALL cases so far.
Feralus69 3 months ago
For instance;
"Fossils that have been used to support human evolution, for example, have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes"
This is a lie, there has only been one such hoax that has been used to support human evolution and it was shown to be a hoax by "evolutionists". This person ignores the thousands of fossil individuals from dozens of transitional hominid species we have today then lies about it.
He lies multiple times throughout, I can keep going on it if you'd like.
Feralus69 3 months ago
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it ever got to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living! Read the popular Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! Just google the title.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52
"an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it."
You're missing the point of the mouse trap analogy, can you please point out how and when a designer "completed" anything living today? The mouse trap analogy is to show that a complex system can be put together using other functions one step at a time, biological systems do this naturally without a designer.
"partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate in the real world."
Why dont viruses
Feralus69 3 months ago
@Mogley52
"It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living!"
In biological evolution there is no such thing as "completion", nothing ever stops evolving, nothing ever stops getting passed on with variation.
"WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!"
If you are referring to the article by Babu G. Ranganathan I am disappointed. What this person does is take a real somewhat disputed topic then dishonestly inflate it to biblical proportions then lie about random things.
Feralus69 3 months ago
· Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe. The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance are 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them (From the Internet article HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM)
Mogley52 6 months ago
The following partial list of hominids shows increasing brain size
7-6 million years ago (mya), Sahelanthropus tchadensis, brain capacity 350 cc
5.5-4.4 mya, Ardipithecus ramidus, 400 cc
3.9-2.9 mya, Australopithecus afarensis, 500 cc
2.4-1.4 mya, Homo habilis, 650 cc
1.8 mya to 70,000 years ago, Homo erectus, starting 900 cc, ending 1100 cc
250,000 years ago to present, Homo sapiens, 1350 cc
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
Wow, Morgan, you really blew a head gasket! Spew lies all you want. I've caught you in enough of them that everyone knows you for what you really are.
TTFN
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Those who recognize the valid issues I have raised and see your avoidance of these, but who have no vested interest in propping up evolution, can certainly judge for themselves.
It isn't lying, per se, to avoid dealing with issues, but it isn't being totally honest with yourself.
I recognize that for someone who would like to forget about God the implications of design are pretty painful, but relief is just around the corner.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I haven't avoided any issues that you've raised. You've simply repeated yourself in order to bury the replies. Yet another form of lying.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLaszloLives Some sand you've got there!
1. Any part random can't be non-random.
2. An intelligently designed algorithm is not a good example of transformation by non-directed forces.
3. Examples of variation by loss of information not evidence of evolution by increase of information.
4. No real-world evidence that random mutations will create new molecular machines.
5. Natural selection isn't responsible for throwing out new variables for adaptation.
6. The Tree of Life is in disarray.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives 7. Most changes required by evolution would be point changes that could not be acted upon by NS.
8. Evolution provides no link between the genes and the environment to assist NS in finding "solutions."
8. An inference based on evidence not in the fossil record is not observable.
9. Rather than confirming the Tree of Life, the genetics of living species have introduced new difficulties.
10. Massive changes would be required to change Pakicetus' breathing apparatus to a whale's.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
haha that first "biologist" has no idea what hes talking about with the eye. The eye is backwards and upside down. what kind of design is that?
keithrose4227 11 months ago
"7 rolls" for nine dice? What in the world? With three dice it took 11--by your own experimentation.
This is supposed to illustrate how the "blind [and stupid] watchmaker" to create novel machines within the cell to help it adapt to its environment?
Pardon my bluntness, but I think this falls into the category of "Why do people laugh at evolutionists?"
MorganMarvinson 11 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL! WHAHHH
srexob715 11 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It is indeed possible to get nine ones in 7 rolls using 9 dice. The rolls are after all a matter of luck. The point you seem to have missed is that natural selection *keeps* the favorable outcomes, making the process as a whole, *not* random.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "*not* random." If any part of a process is random, then it cannot be *not* random. A gun is a constrained device that doesn't fire randomly. (Or we would hope when faced with angry attacking animal!) However, if you only put one or two bullets in the chambers, it becomes a random device. Because of the "random" in random mutation, you don't know what you are going to get.
By definition, that's random.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You have that backwards. If any step in a process is not random, then the process is not random. Let's say candy is put in a box at random, and someone gives you this box. You select the chocolate covered cherries to eat, because that is what you like. Is it random that you are eating the chocolate covered cherries? No, of course not, because you *picked* them.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Sweet example. :)
Let's say I get to "pick" one item out of the box each day. Some days I get candies; some days insects; some days random pieces of junk. I do have the power of choice, but what I have to choose from IS random.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson So what's your point? If you are selecting, then the result is no longer random.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Once the weather is here; it is no longer random.
Do either of these remove the randomness? This is parsing at its worst, but, of course, it's necessary to cover for the fact that the randomness of random mutation isn't a sufficient explanation for the development of new molecular machines within a type of organism to transform the population into something else.
I don't buy it and neither should you.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You are completely daft! If something is selected, it is not random.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "not random" Of course it isn't random at the point of selection--just as weather isn't random at the point that it has occurred. But the process by which it came into being IS ABSOLUTELY random. At least that is the evolutionary point of view. It has no direction ... according to the theory.
So don't give me the malarkey that evolution isn't random.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You are so full of it. Mutations are random, yes. Natural selection is not. Because evolution is driven by natural selection, a non-random process, then evolution is not random.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives I've been trying to avoid judgments about you. I suggest you do the same.
Saying "natural selection" drives evolution is ridiculous. It can only "select" what it is given.
There is no real-world evidence that random mutations will create new molecular machines within an organism. The evidence that random mutations can create a new molecular machine, needed for one type of organism morphing into another, is only hypothetical.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Species have variation. The environment determines which individuals live, and which die. Those individuals that are well adapted tend to live and reproduce, thus their phenotypes become more common in the population over generations. These changes are evolution. Evolution by natural selection has been observed. Small changes accumulate into larger changes, beyond speciation. We've seen this in living species, look up Ensatina salamanders, and ring species.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "ring species" theory doesn't explain an increase in genetic information to move from simple to complex or to create all the necessary molecular machines that come from the transmigration of one body type to another. All the examples you have cited--and can cite--do not support what is necessary for evolution. Variation is something quite different. Evolutionary sleight of hand doesn't change the fact.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Most of the examples that I've cited *are* evolution.
Regarding your claim that genetic information can not increase, I've already given you an example. The gene for the sandy color of the deer mice in the Nebraska dunes is a new gene, producing a new phenotype.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives This is more evolutionary sleight of hand, which is why I wonder about the honesty of those who make the claim. If I paint my car a different color, have I added a new device?
Please.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Observing evolution in living species is not slight of hand. I get what you are saying, you want larger changes. Small changes accumulate into large changes, which take longer. We can see larger changes in the fossil record. Take Tiktaalik for example, it is transitional between lobe finned fish and tetrapods.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson The discovery of Tiktaalik is very interesting. Using the theory of evolution, scientists predicted the existence, time period and location of an intermediate form between lobe finned fish and tetrapods. They went to the location, dug to the correct layer, and found Tiktaalik. If the theory were wrong, there would have been nothing to find.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Now that you know about the sandy colored deer mouse, if I took two deer mice, one from the dunes, and one from outside the dunes, you would know which came from which environment. How would you know that? Because the information is in the mice. The environment in effect wrote information valuable for survival into the genome.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives The environment didn't cause the deer mice to turn brown. This kind of variation is quite well tracked in genetics. But extrapolating that because a mouse can turn brown by genetics means that all organisms came from a single organism is a grand stretch of the imagination with only hypothetical evidence to back it.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You think that the existence sandy color vs brown, due to a new gene resulting from a mutation is hypothetical? It exists.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It's exactly because of genetics that we know how the sandy color came into existence. The brown mice don't have the gene, the sandy colored mice do have the gene. It's a new gene.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Don't waste my time with this sleight of hand.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson How do you explain that the sandy color has spread through the dune population, without using natural selection and evolution?
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Natural selection is intuitive. Variation is obvious. Evolution is an inference based on hypothetical evidence.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Sorry, evolution is not hypothetical, it's been measured and even induced through experiments, and I've actually given you specifics earlier in the thread. For you to assert these real world events are hypothetical makes you an ourtright liar.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Tell me when you wake up.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I'm wide awake, and quite aware of the real world. It's awesome.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives SNAP! SNAP! Victor, Victor.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Scientists have also conducted repeatable experiments demonstrating evolution by natural selection. Look up John Endler's guppy experiments. Others of conducted similar experiments with other species.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Saying "natural selection" DRIVES evolution is analogous to saying popular opinion drives the car market. Only there is one difference--auto factories can actually respond to popular opinion because they are run by intelligent agents. Building a car by random mistakes (and new molecular machines in an organism) is a "daft" idea .
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Are you aware that automotive companies have used genetic algorithms to generate some of their designs? It's not such a daft idea if fortune 500 companies employ the approach.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLaszloLives "Are you aware that automotive companies have used genetic algorithms to generate some of their designs?" Not surprising, an algorith isn't random. It's programmed for results.
Your point makes sense if you are saying mutations aren't random, but are based on a programmed algorithm. I'd buy that.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson 1 of 2. Evolution is not random. Mutations are random. Polulations have variation. The environment determines which individuals live and which die. Well adapted individuals tend to live and reproduce more than poorly adapted individuals. This leads to beneficial inherited traits spreading through the population, which is evolution. It's not random, it's systematic. Genetic algorithms model a population, variation, mutations, selection, and repproduction, leading to evolution.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
2 of 2. Saying that the solutions are programmed is not correct. For complex problems, the programmer has no clue what solution will be produced, because the engineering problems where this approach is used have too many variables for an engineer to solve. That's why they've gone to the approach of genetic algorithms, because evolution works in nature. It's the theory of evolution that has been programmed, and the theory produces the engineering solutions.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Rather it is the application of the theory that produces the engineering solutions.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
2/2
@VictorLaszloLives Wikipedia goes on to say:
If the algorithm has terminated due to a maximum number of generations, a satisfactory solution may or may not have been reached.
This method may or may not work.
The organisms in nature that we can identify were fit. That is why there is so much stasis in the paleantological record.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Of course if you set the algorithm to stop in a fixed number of generations, a satisfactory solution may not be found. That doesn't mean that the method fails, it means you didn't let the algorithm run long enough. It's interesting how you quote mined Wikipedia, the very next sentence says, "Genetic algorithms find application in bioinformatics, phylogenetics, computational science, engineering, economics, chemistry, manufacturing, mathematics, physics and other fields."
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives So the next sentence says nothing more than you did already, which underscores my point: an intelligently designed ALGORITHM finds solutions to PROBLEMS. Animals that are already "fit"--as seen by the pattern of their stasis in the palenatological record--are not problems. If the programmers of these algorithms are doing what they think nature does, then they believe that organisms are embedded with a problem-solving algorithm.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson 1 of 2. It is the theory of evolution that is programmed into the genetic algorithms. The algorithm finds solutions by using the theory. If the theory were wrong, then the algorithms would not find good solutions. The theory says that it is the environment that drives change, and indeed that is what we see in nature. Your statement, "the programmers ... believe that organisms are embedded with a problem-solving algorithm" is a complete bullshit straw man argument.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
2 of 2. The cause and effect chain is like this:
environment -> natural selection -> evolution
Since the driver lies outside the organism, there is no need for any stored algorithm in the organism.
By the way, my field is computer science, and I have implemented genetic algorithms, so I can tell you first hand, the programmers do not believe that organisms are embedded with a problem soving algorithm.
Stop bullshitting.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "Bullshit straw man argument" If it has been programmed, it took intelligence. If nature solves things through an algorithm, it has been programmed. "The theory says that it is the environment that drives change" Is that what industry is PROGRAMMING for their solutions? If industry ISN'T using environment to drive change, then how are they using an evolutionary algorithm?
Please try to remain consistent with your own claims.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson In the algorithms, there is a fitness calculation that determines which individuals live and which die. That is modeling natural selection.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives So the one single factor that is similar to the view of evolution is fitness, but it isn't the same kind of fitness as in evolution. Then why claim it mirrors evolution?
I know, you're into cowdung.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson, liar for Christ. In an earlier post to you, I pointed out, "Genetic algorithms model a population, variation, mutations, selection, and reproduction, leading to evolution."
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Here are your claims:
"Genetic algorithms model a population, variation, mutations, selection, and repproduction [sic], leading to evolution."
"In the algorithms, there is a fitness calculation that determines which individuals live and which die."
"Genetic algorithms find application in bioinformatics, phylogenetics, computational science, engineering, economics, chemistry, manufacturing, mathematics, physics and other fields."
This certainly isn't RM/NS.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It's a simulation that does include mutation and selection, and it generates solutions without a designer. You lose again.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "It generates solutions without a designer." The software just happened to appear on my friend's computer one day at work. It's a miracle I tell you!
And the really cool thing about it is that it doesn't take an intelligent agent to evaluate the solutions that it generates. Of course, that has added to the jobless problem, but it works just like non-directed evolution!
Right. *rolleyes*
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You are such a dim-wit! The programmer implements the theory of evolution. The programmer has no clue about what a good design is for the problem being solved. The algorithm which is based on the theory of evolution generates the solution. The solution therefore is no designed. Computers do not think, or create.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Concerned about the one who is not using his wits ... "Computers do not think, or create." Correct. They do what they are programmed to do. If the algorithm were not carefully designed it would find you no solution. If an intelligent technician weren't evaluating the results, they would be useless.
Parallel: if organisms weren't programmed to find solutions, they wouldn't. For those things they aren't programmed to do, they find no solution and die.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Instead of actually listening to someone who understands genetic algorithms, and learning something, you keep returning to the same ignorant statements. The algorithm is not embedded in the individuals in the model implemented in genetic algorithms. There is no algorithm embedded in individuals in the theory of evolution. Why do you keep insisting there are???
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "Why do you keep insisting there are?" My original statement was:
"'Are you aware that automotive companies have used genetic algorithms to generate some of their designs?'" Not surprising, an algorith isn't random. It's programmed for results.
"Your point MAKES SENSE if you are saying mutations aren't random, but are based on a programmed algorithm."
And, if your program doesn't randomly change a single point at a time to find a solution, it isn't following evolution.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson " if your program doesn't randomly change a single point at a time to find a solution, it isn't following evolution."
Ah, but it is!
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Why would you think otherwise? Stop making up crap.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives I really don't need to reply to this, for your previous post already falsified this statement. You wrote: "Each possible solution has a set of defining characteristics [plural] that are encoded ..."
This does NOT parallel the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, you state here that possible solutions are encoded. That doesn't sound like the program comes up with solutions on its own.
Perhaps this is an unfortunate wording of the process, but these ARE your words.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It most certainly does parallel evolution. Your DNA encodes *many* characteristics. Likewise in genetic algorithms.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Please! You stated: "Each possible SOLUTION has a set of defining characteristics [plural] that are encoded ..." Here you refer, not to the "problem," but to the "solution." But the "solution" in evolutionary terms is one single point change followed by another and another. There is no teleology in the theory to hold over points until all necessary changes are in place, unless, of course, a point change makes a change in the phenome. And that is the exception--not the rule.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson A solution in evolutionary terms would be the entire organism.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "A solution in evolutionary terms would be the entire organism." Exactly--a noticeable change in the phenome. I'm really getting tired of having to restate the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Point by point the changes are supposedly made, with nothing to hold the random errors to in genome until they are apparent in the phenome. The mathematical probability of just two point changes toward a positive change is below believability. Yet, this is evolution's mechanism.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Single mutations often do result in phenome changes. Those that are beneficial do tend to spread through the population. This has been observed.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "Single mutations often do result in phenome changes. Those that are beneficial do tend to spread through the population. This has been observed." We've already covered this ground. This may account for 1% of the changes (and that's being generous) in organisms. Changing the color of a mouse doesn't answer to the radical transformations of lungs, skin, eyes, heart, locomotion, etc. in the pakicetus-to-whale series.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Please explain to me the pakicetus-to-whale series, without using evolution.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLaszloLives "Please explain to me the pakicetus-to-whale series, without using evolution."
This is fantasy, Greg! It didn't happen.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Please explain to me how small changes can not accumulate into large changes.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
1/2
@VictorLaszloLives "Please explain to me how small changes can not accumulate into large changes." I already have. The "small changes" are point changes that don't rise to the level of selection under Natural Selection. Evolution doesn't just require color, shape, and texture changes--which would be enough--it requires new molecular machines operating below the surface, it requires consistent coding that coordinates all the changes into new systems. Without teleology, it CANNOT occur.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Sorry, you don't get to decide that evolution requires multiple simultanious mutations. That simply is not true.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives When you are ready to deal with evidence in the real world--and not just hypothetical "it could happen" evidence--ring me up.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Nice projection. I've been giving you very specific real world examples. You've given no contrary evidence whatsoever.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "You've given no contrary evidence whatsoever." You could only say such a preposterous thing honestly if you hadn't read my posts.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You've spent all of your time making up straw man arguments, and nothing of substance.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives You're misusing "straw man." The issues I raised are fundamental to the theory of evolution. I called you to question for claiming that your algorithms do what evolution does. I approached it from various angles. You spent your time ignoring the basic difference between the two, and squandered the opportunity to consider why your algorithms help generate working solutions (which were apparently entered as options by the programmer) when unintelligent "copy errors" don't.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson, liar for Christ. The algorithms do model the theory of evolution. You wasted your time, and mine, by insisting, and continuing to insist that it does not. As I've explained to you multiple times, the programmer doesn't even know what a good solution to the problem is, so how can you pretend that he/she entered it as an option? I've told you over and over again, and you remain willfully ignorant. I'm done with you now.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Yes, you have claimed that the programmer didn't enter it as an option, though that is the implication of your statement, "Each possible SOLUTION has a set of defining characteristics [plural] that are encoded ..." You then clarify: "The solutions are encoded by the algorithm." Thus, you are suggesting that the computer evaluates potential multi-characteristic solutions without the benefit of the intelligent programming for the algorithm.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Evolutionary true believer:
Suspend critical thinking if you like and avoid the truth by referring to my call to consider evolution's fundamental flaws as "lying," but true science will go on without you.
Morgan.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "Nice projection" "It could happen" is the foundation of evolution--NOT "here's more than INFERENCE that it DID happen." Your request "Please explain to me how small changes can not accumulate into large changes" is a case in point. It is pure inference, and a wrong-headed one at that. Small losses of information to the genome could NEVER accumulate into an ADDITION of information, required for creating new molecular machines within the organism and a new body type.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
2/2
@VictorLaszloLives Observation has never shown THAT it happens. No development of a molecular machine has ever been witnessed. Since we've never observed it, we can confidently say that evolution is an inference based on hypothetical evidence.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson The new gene in the deer mice is exactly that. A new gene producing a new phenotype.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "A new gene" eh?
"Their light coloration stems from a novel banding pattern on individual hairs produced by an increase in Agouti expression caused by a cis-acting mutation (or mutations), which either is or is closely linked to A SINGLE AMINO ACID DELETION in Agouti that appears to be under selection."
This is a “variation [in] a gene that already exists, rather than [in] a new type of gene altogether.”
And, of course, this ISN'T a new molecular machine.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "Furthermore, our data suggest that this derived Agouti allele arose de novo after the formation of the Sand Hills." From the abstract, Science, Vol. 325, No. 5944. (28 August 2009), pp. 1095-1098. doi:10.1126/science.1175826 Key: citeulike:5664670
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Understand what the study is saying, "this DERIVED Agouti allele." "Derived" indicates It isn't a new gene. It is, as the BBC stated, a "variation [in] a gene that already exists, rather than [in] a new type of gene altogether.”
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson 1 of 2. I dont know where you are getting your info from, the BBC article I'm looking at says, "They discovered that the light coat colour is coded by a single gene, dubbed Agouti. This is expressed at a higher amount, and for longer, than the genes that code for dark hair.
"Most animals known to quickly evolve new features do so by expressing a variation of a gene that already exists, rather than evolving a new type of gene altogether.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
2 of 2. "But the researchers found that the Agouti gene only appeared among wild deer mice in Sand Hills around 4,000 years ago, just a few thousand years after dark mice colonised their new home. That means it first evolved 8000 generations of mice ago."
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives I've read through the article, and it would appear that you are correct--and I am wrong--of their claims. They do claim that this is a new gene--and that this is the first time scientists have been able to "document" its appearance.
"The researchers say it is the FIRST TIME that it has been possible to document the appearance of a gene, its selection and subsequent spread through a population of wild animals."
Of course, this isn't in "real time," but an inference from data.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson If you ever want to learn, you need to stop assuming that you know more than the person expaining the concept. You can't correct what you don't understand.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives To believe what evolution assumes requires the suspension of disbelief. Do you claim some other mechanism for the actual changes in evolution besides random point changes and lateral gene transfer?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It takes no suspension of disbelief when evolution is seen in living species.
Of course there is another mechanism, it's called natural selection. You claim that you've studied all the details of evolution before making your decision, and yet you don't realize that natural selection is the driver?
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "It takes no suspension of disbelief when evolution is seen in living species." If it WERE seen in living species, that would be true. But the "evolution" we see in living species isn't what the theory requires.
Natural selection doesn't throw out new variables. GET REAL! A steering wheel does not a working car make.
Do you want me to take you seriously?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Please explain to me why we have seen speciation as a result of the accumulation of small changes, driven by natural selection, exactly as the theory of evolution explains (look up ring species, Ensatina salamanders).
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "Please explain ..." Again, I already have.
"'Ring species' theory doesn't explain an increase in genetic information to move from simple to complex or to create all the necessary molecular machines that come from the transmigration of one body type to another. All the examples you have cited--and can cite--do not support what is necessary for evolution. Variation is something quite different. Evolutionary sleight of hand doesn't change the fact."
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Ring species are not theory, they are living examples of speciation.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Ring species result from DELETION of genetic information--not ADDITION. Ring species are "living examples" of DE-volution. It goes the wrong direction to support the general theory of common descent.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "They also ascertained that this new gene has since become very common among the Sand Hills mice.
'The light gene wasn't in existence, so the mice had to "wait" until a particular mutation occurred and then selection had to act on that new mutation,' says team member Professor Hopi Hoekstra, also of Harvard University."
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Please explain to me why living species fall into nested heirarchies, as if they were produced by a branching process.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Please explain why the nested hierarchies have been rearranged numerous times and why genetic is both rewriting the nested hierarchies as well as confusing the nested hierarchies, depending on which gene one chooses to correlate.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Please explain to me why the sequences in the fossil record follow the same branching tree as the nested heirarchy.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Because the hierarchy was developed from the fossil record--generally--and rewriiten when variances were found in the fossil record.
Now tell me why the index fossils are all seashells--at every level.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Please explain to my why the genetics of living species confirm the tree of life.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives I am sure you know that genetics can only deal with a very small portion of the evolutionary "tree of life" since we don't have DNA for the vast majority of organisms that were buried. Of that small portion for which we do have DNA, there has been much rewriting of the tree--so much so, in fact, that taxonomy has been increasingly abandoned for that which we have genetics to make a comparison. Moreover, depending on the chromosome compared, we get different trees.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "depending on the chromosome compared, we get different trees."
That is an outright lie.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Norwegian and Swiss researchers state:
"We first had to reconstruct the entire eukaryote tree with the help of these 123 genes."
The Guardian writes:
"...crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches."
Genome guru J. Craig Ventnor says:
"The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up ... So there is not a tree of life."
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson So the tree of life is actually a web in about 10% of the tree. Is that all you can muster? By the way, the scientists who put his forward are *evolutionary* biologists. I think you know that. Yet here you are, spinning with quote mining again.
You know that quote mining is a form of *lying*, right? You are a liar for Christ.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives YouTube allows 500 characters per post. I suggested you read each of the quotations in context, so I've done all that is fair and expected. Of course these are "evolutionary" biologists. You would dismiss them if they weren't. They are willing to acknowledge--as experts in the field--precisely what I posted before you accused me of repeating a falsehood.
I don't call you a liar. I just call you a guy with his head in the sand.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives W. Ford Doolittle writes:
"... confidence in some of the tree's early branches has recently been shaken, ... More challenging is evidence that most archaeal and bacterial genomes (and the inferred ancestral eukaryotic nuclear genome) contain genes from multiple sources. If "chimerism" or "lateral gene transfer" cannot be dismissed as trivial in extent or limited to special categories of genes, then no hierarchical universal classification can be taken as natural."
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Kenneth Todar, PhD, writes:
"... this type of artificial classification scheme has been abandoned in favor of hierarchical taxonomic schemes based on comparative genetic analysis of the nucleotide sequences of the small subunit ribosomal RNA that is contained in all cellular organisms."
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Rossen, lson, and Patterson write:
"Encumbered with vague and slippery ideas about adaptation, fitness, biological species and natural selection, neo-Darwinism ... not only lacked a definable investigatory method, but came to depend, both for evolutionary interpretation and classification, on consensus or authority."
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Laura Spinney, at NewScientist writes:
"If you want to know how all living things are related, don't bother looking in any textbook that's more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong. Since they began delving into DNA, biologists have been finding that organisms with features that look alike are often not as closely related as they had thought. These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny ... "
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Gee wiz, science advances, and that's evidence that it's wrong???
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "science advances" Right. In this case, it can advance if it recognizes how wrong it has been. It must admit that it is wrong to advance.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."
source: vvvvvv[dot]evolutionnews[dot]org[slash]2009[slash]05[slash]a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1020151[dot]html
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Did you happen to notice that your source is the discovery institute? These guys are not scientists. They start from the premise that their narrow minded literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, and then spin to try to convince people they have evidence (much like you do). Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason he failed to find the tree of life is that he didn't want to find it? Real scientists have succeeded.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Perhaps you missed the point that the website is referencing a scientific study.
Secondly, they do NOT begin with a narrow and literal view of the Bible. If they did, they would be young earth creationists, which most of the fellows (and even the key leaders) at the Discovery Institute are not.
"the reason he failed to find the tree of life" I refer you again to the quotation from J. Craig Ventnor above, who was on a program with Richard Dawkins when he made the statement.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives The quotation is taken from
Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009).
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Ventnor is not God, and you are ripping a quote out of context. You fail to mention that Dawkins is able to put him in a position where he can't answer to the very strong evidence for the tree of life.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives When the answer to a question is obvious (and has previously been articulated, as in this case), sometimes it is best to answer with just a smile. :)
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I just watched the video. Venter was advocating that there might be other trees of life, not one monolithic tree. That's what you are claiming shatters the theory of evolution? You silly twit!
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Kudos for going to the trouble to watch the video. "TREES of life" would not be a unified "TREE of life" ... and it creates a tremendous challenge to common origin of all life.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Yet it's not at alll a challenge to the theory of evolution. Species evolve, driven by natural selection. We've seen it.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives We've seen species lose information. But evolution requires that species GAIN information. Losing or altering a gene for dark fur isn't a gain in information. The "poster child" for evolution and genetic studies point to de-volution rather than evolution. vvvvvv[dot]freerepublic[dot]com[slash]focus[slash]f-news[slash]1925867[slash]posts
Furthermore if have multiple first ancestors isn't a challenge to having a single "common ancestor," then evolution has just been rewritten.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson A new gene that brings with it a new phenotype is new information, and that's what we see in the sandy color fur of the deer mice in the dunes.
If you put a polar bear next to a brown bear, you know which lives in snow, because the information is there in the animal itself! Nature has written information for survival into the DNA, via natural selection. Information for survival is definitely a *gain*.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Changing colors IS a change of information, but it was accomplished by the alteration of an existing gene, not the addition of more genes. It is called a "new gene" in the study because it tells the deer mouse to do something "new"--NOT turn on the brown color in its fur. If this is what evolution claims to do, then we should start out with an organism rich in genetic instructions and then, point by point, "turn off the switches." But that goes from complex to simple.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It is a new gene, producing a new protien, yielding a new phenotype. The new protien that creates the sandy color outproduces the protein that generates a brown color. It *is* new, and you need to stop lying.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "It *is* new, and you need to stop lying." I'm afraid I can't--because I never STARTED.
I'd certainly up your creds for civility if you were to deal with the issues without the unwarranted attacks.
This "new" gene has apparently been around for a while.
"The gene, which is known as Agouti, first appeared in deer mice in the Sand Hills about 4,000 years ago."
Do you know how they can verify that it wasn't in the gene pool at the time?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson The mutation does not exist in the brown deer mice that live outside of the dunes. The fact that the phenotype does not spread to the populations beyond the dunes is evidence of natural selection at work. How would you explain it?
4000 years is very new in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Here is how it is NEW: "Agouti gene expression can establish a completely new color pattern"
From the report: "On the basis of these results, we cannot determine whether the serine deletion, a linked mutation, or both cause wide bands and light coats."
"the genetic variation involved is linked to a 'single amino acid deletion' in the Agouti gene."
"both types of deer mouse interbreed readily"
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
Comment removed
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "Comment removed" Thank you.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I've caught you in many lies. Here's one example, to refresh your memory.
"consider why your algorithms help generate working solutions (which were apparently entered as options by the programmer)"
The solutions are not entered as options, this is a complete fabrication on your part.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "I've caught you ..." My response was based on your own unfortunately worded statement. In setting up what the scientist does, you stated that the characteristics of the SOLUTION--not the characteristics of the PROBLEM--are encoded. Later, you noted that you MEANT that the characteristics of the solution are encoded by the algorithm.
That drastically changes what your statement meant at first reading.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Stop spewing crap! It *IS* the solution that is encoded, analogous to DNA encoding characteristics of living organisms. In the software, it *IS* the algorithm that does the encoding. *I HAVE NEVER SAID OTHERWISE*! It is you, in your ignorant misunderstanding, who keeps injecting false assumptions to meet your needs, instead of actually listening, asking questions, and reaching understanding.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Note your statement: "Each possible solution has a set of defining characteristics that are encoded, analogous to DNA in living organisms. [You set up the experiment by describing the encoding of "each possible solution."] The values in the encoding are randomly reset, thereby simulating random mutation. [Now you describe what the algorithm does.]"
If you did not mean that the solutions were encoded to set up the experiment, then your wording does not express what you mean.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson The characteristics of any individual must be encoded, regardless of if we are talking about a model in software, or DNA in living organisms. In the case of the software, *THE PROGRAMMER DOES NOT ENCODE SOLUTIONS*!!! I have explained this to you several times now, and in your beligerent ignorance, you are making up crap about subjects you do not know, and that makes you a liar. Every solution modeled requires an encoding, it is the software that encodes the solutions.
VictorLaszloLives 9 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives You are apparently unable to see that you set up my response by your statement. I understand now that you did not mean what you wrote and I have acknowledged this several times.
If you want to be upset with someone, aim it where it belongs--at yourself, for making the first misstatement about the encoding of "each possible solution" BEFORE talking about the random resetting of values. Then, rectify the problem--not by projecting on me--but by acknowledging the misstatement.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
Comment removed
VictorLaszloLives 8 months ago
Comment removed
VictorLaszloLives 8 months ago
Comment removed
VictorLaszloLives 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes, I meant what I wrote. I have been precise with my words. You have made assertions that are false, such as stating that genetic algorithms are not based on the theory of evolution (a truly ridiculous assertion). You have asserted wrongly that any process which has a step that is random, is random as a whole. When you make such false assertions, even after being corrected, that makes you a liar.
VictorLaszloLives 8 months ago
1/2
@VictorLaszloLives If you "meant what [you] wrote," then writing "Each possible solution has a set of defining characteristics that are encoded" before writing "the values in the encoding are randomly reset" means, in plain English, that the possible solutions are encoded before the values are reset. That you don't recognize the meaning of your own words doesn't make you a liar (or me either), it just makes you thickheaded.
Obviously you DIDN'T mean what you wrote.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Again, I never said that it was the programmer that encodes the solutions. That was *your* assumption, based on a bias that encoding must be done by an intelligence. Even after I clarified to you that it is the program that encodes the solutions, here you are raising hell! You are the thickheaded one.
VictorLaszloLives 8 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Apparently you still don't understand what is inferred by describing "each possible solution" being "encoded" before describing the "values" of these "defining characteristics" being randomly "reset." I understand what you meant by this--since you have further clarified your meaning--but the original meaning of the sentences is not what you have clarified them to be. The second you understand what your sentences originally conveyed, that second your thickheadedness goes away.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
2/2
@VictorLaszloLives We have a difference of opinion on whether a random step makes a process random. Somehow you think that adding a non-random step to randomness takes away the randomness of what the outcome can be. "Non-directed" equals random, i.e. one cannot predict which direction it will go. Evolutionary theory maintains that we do not know what changes will take place in a population of organisms. Yes, it will be constrained by NS to kill the inefficient, but there is no specific goal.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Natural selection is the result of the environment, which is not intelligent. Goals are not required. As humans, we can concieve of a principle, that well adapted individuals tend to flourish, and their phenotypes tend to be come more common over generations, but nature does not think in terms of principle, natural selection is just a result of reality.
VictorLaszloLives 8 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives I understand what you are saying, Natural Selection just kills off inefficiency. Where we come into disagreement is in thinking that random mutations within the cell are sufficient to routinely produce efficiency if the cell were not designed to do so.
Nature does not think in terms of principle--in fact, it does not think at all. It--like the algorithm--does what it is programmed to do.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives "Obviously you didn't mean what you wrote." Or, better said ...
obviously you didn't write what you meant.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson No, I didn't write all that there is to write on genetic algorithms. It would take about 30 pages to describe properly. Just because someone doesn't tell you all the details doesn't mean you can just fill in the blanks, and then criticize what you've made up. That's a straw man argument. It’s deceptive and a waste of time.
Go read about genetic algorithms if you actually want to know about them.
VictorLaszloLives 8 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives You are still missing my point. Your two-sentence summary left a different impression of the overall process than you intended. In including "each possible solution" in that which sets up the study, you inadvertently indicate that solutions are programmed before the "values" of these "defining characteristics" are randomly "reset."
From what you have since clarified, that is NOT what you meant.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson You have implied that the programmer of genetic algorithms encodes the solution, which is a lie, directed at discrediting genetic algorithms, the theory of evolution, and those who accept the theory of evolution.
Regardless of your false assertions (i.e. lies), genetic algorithms are based on the theory of evolution, and they produce solutions that have not been designed.
VictorLaszloLives 8 months ago