Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"Instead of being a problem, this lack of fossils of transitional lifeforms supports the theory of evolution."

Sorry that there is not enough "non evidence" to support the latest version of Darwinism. Maybe you all can figure out what exactly it is that you all are looking for. Darwin said that transitions would support his theory, you and other punctuated equilibrium types say that you don't need the transitions (now that you haven't found them). So which is it? Are you looking for less evidence or more? Would absolutely no evidence prove your case?

In other words the theory is a joke. It is based on a lack of evidence because none was found.

There are many transitional forms. When scientists are looking for new transitional forms they are trying to fill in smaller and smaller details of the picture.

The big picture is one of gradually increasing complexity, along with a few of obvious bumps due to an occassional catastrophe. A closer look reveals that evolution is not perfectly gradual, but takes many small discrete steps. There may also be periods of revolutionary experimentation, once a critical technological threshold has been reached.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Here is the watchmaker thing that I answered.

You might have answered this one thing, which I will not take time out to analyze right now.

But you have not answered my refutation of the "watchmaker analogy," which I have posted for you twice in this thread.

Lincoln,

Just for your convenience, I have quoted my rebuttal to the wristwach analogy:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The fundamental flaw is civilised humans have the prior knowledge of wrist watches (that they are manufactured), while we have no such knowledge of organisms or this universe.

Ask an African Bushman about the wristwatch. Go ahead. See if he knows that there is a type of professions called watchmakers.

Here's the deal. Either show me where I have used circular reasoning, or admit that this so called analogy is broken.

I'll keep reminding you of this until you have chosen one or the other.

P.S. I went to look at the website you have linked. It has absolutely no citations whatsoever. All those numbers in parantheses serve absolutely no purpose. To be expected from a creationist website, long on mumblejumble, nothing in evidence.

[Lincoln]

You can't be serious. Is this question really troubling you?:

"The fundamental flaw is civilised humans have the prior knowledge of wrist watches (that they are manufactured), while we have no such knowledge of organisms or this universe.

Ask an African Bushman about the wristwatch. Go ahead. See if he knows that there is a type of professions called watchmakers."

So an "African Bushman" doesn't know about watchmakers so that means that they don't exist?

Of course we have "prior knowledge". That is what science is based on -- repeatable experimentation. And the questions about biological organisms is the topic under discussion. Are we not allowed to use prior knowledge in discussing their nature? What do you suggest that we use -- soothsayers or fortuntellers or do we ask an African Bushman?

[loinburger]

While you're at it, Lincoln, I'd like a response to my argument to why the watchmaker analogy is fallacious.

The wristwatch/mousetrap argument (that neither can exist as a result of mutations) is not entirely valid. Genetic algorithms, given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to the chemical laws that molecules must adhere to), have been used to produce chip designs that are extremely efficient, yet which no human would never have come up with due to their extreme complexity. For example, most chips designed by humans have a global clock that keeps every chip part running synchronously--such a chip is unlikely to have been produced by a genetic algorithm, since there is no readily apparent "intermediate stage" to the chip. The chips that are produced by genetic algorithms almost always run asynchronously (I've never heard of one that doesn't, but I'm hedging my bets here ), making them difficult to design but easy to "mutate" into.

If we were to design a wristwatch using a genetic algorithm, it would almost certainly be more efficient and at the same time more complex than our current wristwatches. It would also have an intermediate form, unlike our current wristwatches. Substitute this genetic wristwatch for the engineered wristwatch, and the "wristwatch on the stump" example takes on a whole new meaning.

The statement "given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to the chemical laws that molecules must adhere to)" has been revised from "given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to natural selection)". The "natural selection" part comes into play when determining the survivability of the organism/chip design/wristwatch, not when the organism/chip design/wristwatch is actually being assembled.

[MrBaggins]

Just a note of interest... Discovery has a show tonight

The Real Eve premieres Sunday, April 21, at 9 p.m. ET/PT.

Which, may be of some interest...

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by loinburger
While you're at it, Lincoln, I'd like a response to my argument to why the watchmaker analogy is fallacious.



The statement "given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to the chemical laws that molecules must adhere to)" has been revised from "given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to natural selection)". The "natural selection" part comes into play when determining the survivability of the organism/chip design/wristwatch, not when the organism/chip design/wristwatch is actually being assembled.

From what I have seen of GA it is based upon the accuracy of the initial program in simulating the real world environment. So without seeing the actual steps and program I cannot say which parts are valid and which are not. For example many of the programs exaggerate mutations or fine tune them until the program nets the desired results. Others are programed with an unreasonable amount of intelligent intervention by the programmer both in the initial program or by manipulating it after it is running. Richard Dawkins for example did both and proved nothing except his own intelligent intervention.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
From what I have seen of GA it is based upon the accuracy of the initial program in simulating the real world environment.

Well, obviously there has to be a good pruning algorithm to simulate "natural selection" in a genetic algorithm. The pruning algorithm used by living organisms is "the organisms that survive and reproduce have the best design," but this doesn't have a direct correspondence in designing a genetic algorithm.

The point is that extreme complexity can spontaneously arise from very simple rules (chemical or algorithmic), and that a designer is not required for a viable end product to be generated. Watches are designed, barbie dolls are designed, but it is a false analogy to thereby assume that organisms must have been designed.

[Lincoln]

"The point is that extreme complexity can spontaneously arise from very simple rules (chemical or algorithmic), and that a designer is not required for a viable end product to be generated. Watches are designed, barbie dolls are designed, but it is a false analogy to thereby assume that organisms must have been designed."

Show me the very simple rules and if, where and when a human programer is involved. I don't doub't what you say but I really cannot comment until I see where the intelligent intervention takes place.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Show me the very simple rules and if, where and when a human programer is involved. I don't doub't what you say but I really cannot comment until I see where the intelligent intervention takes place.

This is the first hunk of C++ genetic algorithm code I found:

http://www.generation5.org/diophantine_ga.shtml, which solves diophantine equations (described at mathworld). I'll see if I can find a code example used in chip design, but I'm worried that most of that code is going to be proprietary.

[Lincoln]

Thanks for the link Loinburger. Here are a some excerpts from the site and my comments preceded by ***

“Since values that are lower are closer to the desired answer (30), these values are more desirable. In this case, higher fitness values are not desirable, while lower ones are. In order to create a system where chromosomes with more desirable fitness values are more likely to be chosen as parents, we must first calculate the percentages that each chromosome has of being picked.”

*** he is making a value judgment here and also setting a goal, i.e., “closer to the desired answer” and “higher fitness values are not desirable.”

The fitness functions calculate the fitness of each gene. In our case the fitness function is the difference between the calculated value of the gene and the result we want. This class uses two functions, one that calculates all the fitnesses and another smaller one (you should probably make the function inline) to calculate it per gene.

*** “the result we want” another goal set by the intelligent source.

Here are the basic steps of the program which look pretty good to me (even though he did exaggerate the mutations).


1.

Breeding Functions
The breeding functions are composed of three functions, one to get the gene index corresponding to a randomly generated number between 0 and 100, a function to actually calculate the crossover of two genes, and a main function to create the new population. We'll take the functions one at a time, seeing how they call each other. Here is the main breeding function:

2.

So, we firstly create a temporary population of genes. Then we loop through all the genes. Now, when choosing genes we don't want the genes to be the same (no point mating with yourself , and we don't need the genes to be the same either (that is where the operator== from the gene structure comes in handy). In choosing a parent, we generate a random number, then call the GetIndex function. GetIndex uses the idea of the cumulative likelihoods and merely iterates through the genes until it find the gene that contains that number:

3.

Returning to the CreateNewPopulation() function, you can also see that if the number of iterations exceeds MAXPOP squared, it will take any parents. After parents are chosen, we breed them, by passing the indices up to the Breed function. The Breed function returns a gene, which is put in the temporary population

4.

Firstly we determine the crossover point. Now remember, we don't want the crossover to be the first or the last, because that entails copying over all or none of the second parent - pointless. We then create a random number that will determine when the first parents takes the initial crossover or not. The rest is self-explanatory - you can see that I've added a tiny mutation factor to the breeding. There's a 5% chance that a new number will occur.

5.

And finally...
Now we can look at the Solve() function. It merely calls the above functions iteratively. Note that we test whether the function managed to find a result on the initial population - this is unlikely, but I thought I'd put it in.





*** overall it is a rather simple program like you said even though it is tainted some. I tend to agree with Steve Grand though when he replied to this question:

Many believe that the secret to a fully autonomous program will be one that is *relatively* simple in design - yet is capable of evolution and memory. What is your opinion on this?

I've no doubt that's true, but only if you're prepared to wait around for a bit (say 4 billion years or so) while it evolves into something more complex! High levels of intelligence necessarily require high levels of complexity (as I'm sure I could prove, given a bit of thought), and people do tend to underestimate how much time it takes to evolve things that complex, no matter what clever tricks you use. Personally I think the only practical approach to the problem is to think hard and do some engineering.

Answer by Steve Grand http://www.generation5.org/grand.shtml

As far as the watchmaker analogy goes it really is not a very good one nowdays because there are not many watches still made of gears and intedependant parts so much as they were before. I think now people think of a steady pulse (which exists in nature) as a pretty simple thing. A better analogy now days might be an automobile or what ever.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
*** he is making a value judgment here and also setting a goal, i.e., “closer to the desired answer” and “higher fitness values are not desirable.”

By necessity the programmer must include a goal. Biological life has the "goal" of reproducing (since life forms that do not reproduce are unfit, that is, they will not continue to exist). Similarly, the program has the goal of getting the best answer. The better the answer, the better the program. The more likely a life form is to successfully propogate, the better the organism.

The program has limited memory, so the unfit algorithms must be pruned. The environment has a limited carrying capacity, so unfit organisms naturally die off while fit organisms take their place. The major difference here is that organisms naturally die off, while the unfit algorithms must be explicitely pruned by the programmer.

*** “the result we want” another goal set by the intelligent source.

An organism's "goal" of propogation needn't have an intelligent source behind it. By the very nature of the beast, an organism that successfully reproduces will produce more similar organisms, thereby keeping its genes in the gene pool. An organism that fails to successfully reproduce will have its genes removed from the gene pool. It isn't as though bolts of lightning smite creatures that fail to propogate.

*** overall it is a rather simple program like you said even though it is tainted some.

Without some way of pruning faulty algorithms, the program would eventually run out of RAM.

I tend to agree with Steve Grand though when he replied to this question:

I'm not sure if I agree with the four billion years estimate. It took the Earth about four billion years to produce intelligent life, but then again living organisms tends to grow and reproduce more slowly than a program. A good GA would be able to go though thousands or millions of generations per second, while even a very simple organism takes considerably more time to grow and propogate.

A better analogy now days might be an automobile or what ever.

The same problem holds, since an automobile is not derived from the repeated application of a few simple rules. It doesn't have "intermediate stages" like a GA or an organism.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


First thing is, where is this fact? Links? Sources? What?



So you are accepting that these are facts:

1. Genetic information is mutable by random, natural processes

2. Environmental pressure will select among indivduals with genetic alleles, causing a shift in their distribution.

You want a link to where you can find that stored, coded information derives from an intelligent source? Well look no further. There are several examples here. Where did all of the information come from that is on this website. Is it or is it not in coded form?

Answer: Yes, both the language and the hidden codes used in the transmission of the information. Or you can look at the source code and see other coded information that had has its source an inteligent agent.

And yes "information" of the Shannon variety can be produced by mutations and selection. But that variety of information cannot contribute to macro evolution because it is generated randomly. All you can get with more random "information" is more complexity with more confusion -- not evolution into a higher form.

[Lincoln]

"By necessity the programmer must include a goal. Biological life has the "goal" of reproducing (since life forms that do not reproduce are unfit, that is, they will not continue to exist). Similarly, the program has the goal of getting the best answer. The better the answer, the better the program. The more likely a life form is to successfully propogate, the better the organism."

If you are talking about existing life then yes there is a goal. I am talking about the origin of that life and the goal is either set by the designer or not. If it is not then the programmer that sets this goal is acting in the place of the designer.


"The same problem holds, since an automobile is not derived from the repeated application of a few simple rules. It doesn't have "intermediate stages" like a GA or an organism."

Well we haven't proved yet that a few simple rules make a life form. And an automobile does have intermediate stages. Of course the whole purpose of the machine analogy is to show the complexity of the interdependent parts and machines within the machine. There is no simple rules that can evolve the DNA code and the logical order of information that is within it that produce a biological machine. Likewise there are no simple rules that can bring an automobile into existence without a designer using those rules as tools.

[MrBaggins]

Perhaps the discussion of QT should be moved in a separate thread... but until we agree to that.. i'll post here.

Regarding Penrose>

Any experiment with regard to Quantum effects, are subject to a very problematic rule; Quanta resist being measured precisely, we have only ever, in any experiment been able to predict quantum behavior with a high degree of probability, rather than certainty.. We have to freeze ‘time’ to accurately and adequately investigate Quantum effects.

What Penrose is postulating is that there will be a limited (though not instantaneous) time limit on superposition. Infinite states do not presuppose permanent superposition. Infinite states are a function of Quantum Field Theory (which already supposes superpositional decay), not Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Field Theory
A theory developed by Paul Dirac in 1927 that explains the apparent paradox of wave/particle duality, by identifying a wave with the superposition of an indefinite number of particles. For example, if a wave is then interpreted as showing the probability of the location of a particle, then a "collapse" of the wave through measurement yields a particle sometimes found "here" and sometimes "there."
Notice that the identified wave does exist for a finite time, and collapse... A grouping of Atoms (a macro structure, if you will) would be a Quantum Wave construct, not a Quanta.
What is interesting, is that limited superposition may either indicate cross-state artifacts; the border between quantum states being fluid to a degree, or an identification of a fixed or variable wave-length of quantum waves.
===

To give you some idea that the interpretation of this or any quantum experiment, is not cut and dried, consider the following disussion (taken from http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-11/msg0029749.html)

Re: New Quantum Measurement Paradox?

• Subject: Re: New Quantum Measurement Paradox?
• Wrom: XUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHD
• Date: 23 Nov 2000 11:20:19 GMT
• Approved: helbig@astro.rug.nl (sci.physics.research)
• Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
• Organization: Clef Digital Systems Ltd
• References: <8tnv80$2u6n$1@mortar.ucr.edu>

In article <8v7bta$2gdg$1@mortar.ucr.edu>, thus spake Toby Bartels

>Charles Francis wrote:
>
>>Kinsler wrote:
>
>>>This means that a photon cannot really be said to have a wavefunction at
>>>all ... it is the QSHO's that have wavefunctions, and any given QSHO
>>>wavefunction could correspond to a superposition of any number of
>>>photons.
>
>>This is a matter of opinion. The interpretation of quantum mechanics is
>>not a resolved problem, and there are in my view more severe problems
>>with this type of idea than there are with the simple notion that
>>photons are just particles which can be treated on an equal footing with
>>other fundamental particles like the electron, and has a wave function
>>in just the same way.
>
>Treat photons on the same footing as electrons?
>I'd agree with that. Trouble is,
>I'd say that an electron cannot really be said to have a wavefunction at
>all ... it is the QSHO's that have wavefunctions, and any given QSHO
>wavefunction could correspond to a superposition of any number of
>electrons.
>
>This doesn't seem an issue for the interpretation of QM to me;
>it's more an issue of understanding what quantum field theory is:
>a theory of quantum *fields*.

Are you using a mathematical definition of a field or a physical one?
There is a massive difference. The question isn't so much whether
quantum field theory is a theory of fields, but how you interpret what a
field actually is.
>
>I understand that your discrete QED is not a theory of quantum fields at all,
>and that's fine

Discrete QED uses a mathematical definition of a field.

>-- but that's not an issue of interpretation either
>but instead a matter of differences between competing theories.

The major significant difference between these competing theories is
that they are interpreted differently. Discrete qed is really little
more than an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Along with it comes an
interpretation of what a field is, and of what quantum field theory
means.

===================================



Proof of QT, including QFT and hence infinite states.


Now… for a more concrete and understandable ‘proof’ of QFT and infinite states,
Do you believe that aeroplanes and birds fly?

Q) By what means do they fly?
A) An effect described by Bernoulli’s law. Lower pressure above a wing and higher pressure below, caused by a specific shape.

Q) Is this law trusted and taken as fact?
A) Yes

Q) Why is it trusted and taken as fact?
A) The principal has been tested for proof, and found to be consistently valid. Ultimately the best proof is its practical implementation of flying machines.

Now… what does this have to do with Quantum Theory you might ask?

Quantum Computing. The major area for the implemented manifestation of QT, including QFT, the ‘infinite state theory’.

Quantum computing although in its infancy, is leveraging quantum theory to create different and infinitely more capable machines, which deal with information as a whole, rather than breaking it down and dealing with it piece meal, as well as introducing new types of security (individual photons on demand) and information teleportation.

Issues with the number of steps before decoherence are difficult to resolve, but as the formulaic quality and complexity increases, so does the stability of the system.

That existing Quantum Computers have been implemented prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that quantum effects, including Quanta, Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields exist, as behavior, just like the effect that existing Airplanes prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bernoulli effect exists, as behavior.

A “universal” quantum computer is some way off, yet given the progress, it will forseeably be produced.

The state of QC in 98 was…

Milestones in the development of quantum computer technology (from Physics magazine 1998)
Type of hardware Number of qubits needed Number of steps before decoherence Status
Quantum Cryptography 1 1 Already implemented
Entanglement-based quantum cryptography 2 1 Demonstrated in lab
Quantum controlled-NOT gate 2 1 Demonstrated in lab
Composition of quantum gates 2 2 Demonstrated in lab
Deutsch's algorithm 2 3 Demonstrated in NMR quantum computer
*snip*

Several companies and organizations are leveraging quantum effects to fulfill quantum computing, including Los Alamos, AT&T and Bell among others.

To say that researchers will disprove QT is as untrue as them saying that they will disprove Bernoulli. Planes will continue to fly. Quantum computers will continue to compute.

The task for researchers is to reconcile what we understand as quanta, with General Relativity. This may require more complex constructs than Quanta, or additional general Theorems, or a revision of GR.

[Jack_www]

Many of you claim that life evolving form one biological family to anther is an established fact. Like apes evolving into humans. Or fish evolving into the first land animals. When I look at the evidence that has been provided, it is not conclusive. As Lincoln brought out there have been many examples of misstakes made. The problem I have is you people trying to say it is an established fact. I can accept as fact minor changes occuring in living things, and natural selection, or survival of fittest. But the rest seems to me as hypthesis, that has very little backing it.