Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution did not do

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Talk to the Fossils.jpg  From Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more:

Richard Dawkins: For over a century, Darwinism was the “must be” explanation, the only “scientific one.” As Dawkins put it (p. 287, Blind Watchmaker, 1986):

My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.

But Darwinism is not “the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life.” Claims that were formerly merely preferred must be tested against HGT. True, some of the example findings given above may need revision or replacement. But many more will likely turn up, as research uncovers HGT in many genomes.

Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution did not do. As more and more pieces are carved out of Darwin’s territory, just think of the impact on the vast project of “Darwinizing the culture.” More.

See also: Links to the rest of the series at Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Carpathian:
Our side argues logically
Your side doesn't have any logic. It doesn't have any evidence and it doesn't even have a methodology. And your side doesn't have any answers, either. It can't answer the most basic of biological questions.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian “argues” like the cupcake, Richard T Hughes.
Our side argues logically and your side argues emotionally. I can almost predict when the name calling starts. It starts right after it becomes obvious that your side can't answer simple questions about biological ID. Come up with answers and you won't have to resort to emotional outbursts.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Carpathian "argues" like the cupcake, Richard T Hughes.Virgil Cain
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Is Carpathian Keith S?Box
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
And more substance-free, nonsensical crap from the Carpathian.
Except it isn’t a good metaphor as that is not what is going on in nature, as Mayr said. Darwin used it to try to fool people. What do you understand from this?
LoserVirgil Cain
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: You are right about “selection” in nature. It is actually/explicitly/really , a process of elimination. What do you understand from this?
You can't even risk being right if it means you have to think for yourself. Ask Mayr what I meant. :)Carpathian
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
The term “selection” was used because it was a good metaphor for what’s going on in nature.
Except it isn't a good metaphor as that is not what is going on in nature, as Mayr said. Darwin used it to try to fool people. What do you understand from this?Virgil Cain
August 26, 2015
August
08
Aug
26
26
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Natural selection is mere elimination and as Mayr pointed out there is a huge difference between selection and elimination.
The term "selection" was used because it was a good metaphor for what's going on in nature. Now please read ....carefully.... You are right about "selection" in nature. It is actually/explicitly/really , a process of elimination. What do you understand from this?Carpathian
August 26, 2015
August
08
Aug
26
26
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Selection requires information Carpathian:
No, it doesn’t.
Of course it does. Show us selection in the absence of information.
“Selection” is a metaphor in evolution.
"Selection" was a nonsensical attempt to confuse the public. With evolution only artificial selection is actual selection. Natural selection is mere elimination and as Mayr pointed out there is a huge difference between selection and elimination.Virgil Cain
August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Selection requires information.
No, it doesn't. "Selection" is a metaphor in evolution. It's not like going to the record store and buying an album. It is a metaphor .Carpathian
August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
We are going to see what impact selection has on the building of “information”.
Selection requires information.Virgil Cain
August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic,
Carpathian: Here is selection without a target.
Let’s change the selection function again. Again, the selection function will print all the mutated text with a number beside each. The “environment”, i.e. a group of users, 10 times the size of the population and unknown to each other, will vote in secret on the number of the selected string. The text with the highest vote count will be the string sent for the next round of mutation and selection. There will be no input string or “target” so no one can say the algorithm has any idea of what the string should be. It will “evolve” a “fit” string for its “environment” without any preconceived idea of what that string should be. We use a string because a string contains "information", an attribute that ID should be comfortable working with. Note that we are not simulating every aspect of evolution . We are going to see what impact selection has on the building of "information".Carpathian
August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Mung would disagree with you.
This is not different than selecting a phrase from Shakespeare and locking random results that match it.
No results are locked. Ask Mung to explain the code of a "Weasel" program.Carpathian
August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Carpathian, Implicit does not mean non-existent. You are still selecting. Read this paper: "Climbing the Steiner Tree" by Ewert, Dembski and Marks In your case, this is trivial as the user decides. Environment cannot decide anything. Environment is no oracle. You don't see the difference between the passive filtering of no-hopers by the environment and the active selection process, albeit sometimes implicit, that drives the search towards the area in the search space where the expected number of solutions is higher. This is called active information: you or your user inputs active information to the search algorithm. And then you take the onlooker 'by surprise'. One does not have to be an IDist to notice a gross error in Dawkins' Weasel and in your bogus claim. It just takes a graduate in computer science.EugeneS
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Carp: IDists claim there is one target all the time. SA: How many targets did Dawkins create in Weasel?
Carp: crickets, then change the topic. That's how a troll responds to a question which exposes his errors.Silver Asiatic
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
In real life, the environment doesn't choose a selected string. The environment is continually changing. Mutations also destroy things. They are not 'cumulative'. The target string in your example is the one the "user selects".
any particular user or groups of users are interested in
Evolution is not interested in anything. It doesn't care. It doesn't select. There are no targets. The environment changes continually, as does the population. Resources, competitors, environmental events. You're locking results to what you imagine "fitness" to be. That is the same as selecting and latching to a target.
That text will be the string sent for the next round of mutation and selection.
This is not different than selecting a phrase from Shakespeare and locking random results that match it.Silver Asiatic
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, Here is selection without a target.
Then let’s change the selection algorithm. Instead of matching a target string, the selection argument will print all the mutated text with a number beside each. The “environment”, i.e. the user, will enter the number of the selected string. That text will be the string sent for the next round of mutation and selection. There will be no input string or “target” so no one can say the algorithm has any idea of what the string should be. I predict that this program will generate strings that closely reflect what any particular user or groups of users are interested in. In other words, it will “evolve” a “fit” string for its “environment”.
Carpathian
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
IDists claim there is one target all the time.
There is with "weasel".
Anytime they post a comment that shows the improbability of getting a Royal Flush or unique “CSI” configuration, that is exactly what they are doing.
There are 4 possible royal flushes and if the CSI configuration is truly unique then it applies. However yours cannot account for any CSI.
When trying to find the best tire for a car, you don’t need to design a new car each time.
Nice attempt at distraction. I would not attempt to replicate and mutate tires to get a new tire.
“Selection” is just one part of evolution, it is not all of evolution.
"Selection" only applies to ARTIFICIAL selection. Also natural selection includes heritable variation (ie mutations). REPRODUCTION is still the very thing that requires an explanation.Virgil Cain
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Carp
IDists claim there is one target all the time.
How many targets did Dawkins create in Weasel?Silver Asiatic
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
There doesn't seem to be a million different opportunities to evolve a blood-clotting cascade. If evolution finds the wrong target then it can't just go to the simulator and say "run it again".Silver Asiatic
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
ID doesn’t say there is just one target. Yours doesn’t have a mechanism capable of finding any.
IDists claim there is one target all the time. Anytime they post a comment that shows the improbability of getting a Royal Flush or unique "CSI" configuration, that is exactly what they are doing. Look at kairosfocus' posts about CHI and 500 bits.
And AGAIN, Carpathian, reproduction is the very thing you need to explain. Using a program that grants reproduction is cheating.
When trying to find the best tire for a car, you don't need to design a new car each time. "Selection" is just one part of evolution, it is not all of evolution. This proves you are an IDist that does not understand selection.Carpathian
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
Then IDists should have recognized the selection algorithm at work,
We have and thus the argument that weasel is intelligent design evolution in action.
Finding one target is less probable than “finding” 1000000 targets that will somewhat do the job.
ID doesn't say there is just one target. Yours doesn't have a mechanism capable of finding any. And AGAIN, Carpathian, reproduction is the very thing you need to explain. Using a program that grants reproduction is cheating.Virgil Cain
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
EugeneS:
Weasel is an example of artificial selection. Whenever there is (even implicitly) a defined fitness function, it is not a model of evolution by definition. Instead it is a model of artificial selection. Another example is Genetic Algorithms.
Then let's change the selection algorithm. Instead of matching a target string, the selection argument will print all the mutated text with a number beside each. The "environment", i.e. the user, will enter the number of the selected string. That text will be the string sent for the next round of mutation and selection. There will be no input string or "target" so no one can say the algorithm has any idea of what the string should be. I predict that this program will generate strings that closely reflect what any particular user or groups of users are interested in. In other words, it will "evolve" a "fit" string for its "environment".Carpathian
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
EugeneS:
But the truth is that his theory cannot even get anywhere near addressing the problem of explaining the observed biological complexity.
Neither can ID. While "Darwinism" has no target to find, ID does. Finding one target is less probable than "finding" 1000000 targets that will somewhat do the job. Now take the number of species and populations and "find" a target that will benefit them all and not cause distress to other organisms. ID's second engineering problem is rolling out a new design and then fixing any problems out in the field. Before answering, take a look at the how difficult it is has been to design and then modify F-35 fighters in the field. Every time there is a redesign of a part, all the units that have already been built have to be modified. The cost is enormous. Now try this with billions of new organisms across millions of species spread over the planet.Carpathian
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Mung:
Carpathian: This is why Dawkins’ Weasel algorithm is so difficult to understand for IDists.
Mung: The algorithm is amazingly simple.
Then you should understand it, but you don't.
Mung: There’s nothing about it that is difficult to understand.
So why don't you understand it?
Mung: Even you can understand it.
Then you should be able to understand it too, but you don't.
Mung: It follows that it cannot possibly be difficult for any IDist to understand it.
Then IDists should have recognized the selection algorithm at work, but they haven't. A few years ago, there was a discussion that Weasel needed to latch its best selections, which is not true. If IDists had understood the algorithm they never would have said that.
Mung: You’re just making things up. Again.
Then you make up a simple paragraph which describes the Weasel algorithm. If you understand it, then it should match a description that I or anyone else who understands it would write.Carpathian
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Also, what amuses me is how people are resisting the idea that Darwinian evolution has been falsified, because by saying that it's been falsified we actually give it credit as a scientific theory. And yet people who vehemently oppose the facts are doing a bad service to Darwinian evolution :) It has played its role in science and can be put back on the shelf. It is a matter of the past. Things prove a lot more complicated than Darwin could even imagine. It is not his fault, of course. But the truth is that his theory cannot even get anywhere near addressing the problem of explaining the observed biological complexity.EugeneS
August 23, 2015
August
08
Aug
23
23
2015
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Carpathian, Weasel is notoriously known for being an incorrect model of evolution. Even Dawkins himself recognized that, after a while. It is amusing to see others defending the lost case, as the Russian saying goes, waving their hands after a fight. Weasel is an example of artificial selection. Whenever there is (even implicitly) a defined fitness function, it is not a model of evolution by definition. Instead it is a model of artificial selection. Another example is Genetic Algorithms.EugeneS
August 23, 2015
August
08
Aug
23
23
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
This is why Dawkins’ Weasel algorithm is so difficult to understand for IDists.
The algorithm is amazingly simple. There's nothing about it that is difficult to understand. Even you can understand it. It follows that it cannot possibly be difficult for any IDist to understand it. You're just making things up. Again. Carpathian:
“Selection” is a “concept” which Weasel does a good job of simulating.
Only a fool thinks that a computer simulation is needed to make selection understandable. Carpathian:
Weasel is not actually demonstrating every aspect of evolution.
Correction. Weasel is not actually demonstrating any aspect of evolution.Mung
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Natural selection is a subset of selection. Weasel demonstrates selection, but does not model natural selection. Yet another non-informative response from Zachriels. Which of you do I need to talk to to get an answer that actually addresses the question? According to Dawkins, Weasel demonstrates "the power of cumulative selection." Zachriel: Weasel demonstrates selection, but does not model natural selection. Is that because Weasel doesn't demonstrate cumulative selection or is that because natural selection is not cumulative selection?Mung
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
Virgil Cain, kairosfocus, Virgil Cain needs help in understanding “metaphors”.
Umm natural selection isn't a metaphor. Maybe it was supposed to be but, again, there isn't any selecting. It was a misleading metaphor.
Also, please explain to him how negative logic is used on a motherboard.
I know more about that than you ever will.
It may help him understand the concept of a “concept”.
It may help if you stop with your false accusations and actually make a case. So far all you have done is to prove that you are ignorant and in some cases willfully so.Virgil Cain
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply