Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Simply Not Credible

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

Comments
Hey Sev, thanks for completely ignoring the real argument. What a gambit! I've never seen that one before. It's called the ostrich maneuver. If I ignore his argument it will go away and I won't ever have to deal with it. Come on, man, bring it on. Let's go. Dueling ontologies. One that espouses materialism and one that claims Theism is true. It will be fun. After you finish not being able to explain life, information, or language by means of physics then you can not explain how physics tells us some things are wrong and others right. And then you can not explain how quarks and leptons can be self-aware and reason and choose. And then you can not explain how mathematics, a completely abstract enterprise, can communicate the deepest truths about the material universe. For extra credit you can not throw in how quarks and leptons, which are material, can interact with the immaterial world of mathematics. Oh, I forgot, mathematics must not exist in your universe either. Let me refresh the argument in case you forgot. If you are going to explain life then you must be able to explain information. If you are going to explain information you must be able to explain language. If you are going to explain language you must be able to explain symbols and rules. But physics (which is all the neo-Darwinian account has to explain anything) cannot explain, in fact, it can't ever explain, either symbols or rules. Because those are acts of the MIND and physics pertains to the material world. So you have two choices. You can come over to the light and realize that there is more to it than Darwin and his minions would have you believe or you can deny that information really exists. Of course, that statement contradicts itself and thus commits logical suicide, but those are your options.tgpeeler
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee: "As the WEASEL program demonstrated, cumulative selection does not work without a target." The "target" is to reproduce as well as it is currently doing or better. As I said in yesterday's response to one of your messages, Dawkins told us upfront that he wrote a specific target because he was just illustrating the fantastic difference between cumulative selection, as it is found in evolution, and single-step selection as it is found in ID complaints about evolution. The "target" in real life is a DNA pattern that reproduces better than the current pattern.djmullen
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
tgpeeler: "Therefore I have a prediction. I’m throwing this one in for free. Mankind will never create life from non-life." Which individual parts of a cell are alive? tgpeeler: "I call this one “Dawkins on reason” and it’s from the same book. He says: “Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes." Complicated parts, like eyes, have to evolve gradually by cumulative selection. Trying to evolve them suddenly would be switching to ID-style single-step selection, which does not work. Once those complex parts have slowly evolved, a hit or two to regulatory genes can cause them to suddenly change size or number. That's what Dawkins is talking about.djmullen
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
To tgpeeler, And why isnt a rule information ? A rule contains information about how some action will proceed, eg: the crystal will be exactly hexagonal. If the rule didnt contain this information, it wouldnt be a rule. I think the real problem here is the theological hair-splitting about what 'information' means, what 'language' means etc etc. As I say, the Jesuits would love you.Graham
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
tgpeeler @ 56
Or how’s this. I call this one “Dawkins on reason” and it’s from the same book. He says: “Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.” So get this, in English, he’s just said that it isn’t always gradual (like the theory claims) but for it to be useful, it HAS to be gradual, therefore it IS gradual!!!!
This is not hard. Think about it. Evolution can be gradual as in proceeding in small, incremental steps while still varying the rate at which things change between, say, incredibly slow and not-quite-so-incredibly slow. It's all relative. To paleontologists, what happened in the Cambrian is an explosion. To you and I, something that takes 70 million years may be a lot of things - like really, really slow - but explosive it ain't.Seversky
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
CY, you say: "A target implies a purpose. A ‘fitness drive’ implies a purpose as well, but Darwinists are so vague about this in order to escape the realization that evolution has a goal. Why are they so opposed to a goal for evolution? Because methodological naturalism is their metaphysical assumption, and it postulates that only natural processes can account for complexity in nature. Natural processes cannot have a target or goal. Darwinism is non-goal directed, and as such, is self-refuting and circular." Exactly. Here's a quote from my 'favorite' evangelist of evolution, Richard Dawkins. It's from his book, River Out of Eden. He says: "The true process that has endowed wings and eyes, beaks, nesting instincts and everything else about life with the strong illusion of purposeful design is now well understood. It is Darwinian natural selection." Note the "strong illusion" of design. So we have a process that is not forward looking, is not goal directed, cannot see into the future to know what will 'work' and what will not 'work' but somehow this mysterious force, that's not recognized by physics, by the way, creates a "strong illusion" of design. It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. That kind of obstinacy in the face of so much evidence and reason. Or how's this. I call this one "Dawkins on reason" and it's from the same book. He says: "Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation." So get this, in English, he's just said that it isn't always gradual (like the theory claims) but for it to be useful, it HAS to be gradual, therefore it IS gradual!!!! The real problem here is that we are attempting to reason with people who reject reason even as they accuse us of rejecting it. I have come to know what Alice in Wonderland felt like. :-)tgpeeler
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
"What about a crystal ? There is ‘information’ ‘encoded’ somewhere, thats how crystals keep forming the way they do. Is there a ‘language’ here ? Do we need God to make crystals ?" Graham, I am not a crystal expert (or any other kind) but the way I understand it, crystals form strictly due to the laws of physics. It's just how the lattices are created. There is no information involved in their formation. There is no language anywhere, thus no information. I just did a google search on crystal formation and none of the articles mentions anything about information being involved in their formation. Not to say that information could not be encoded somehow in a crystal. I suppose there is someone out there smart enough to do that. The answer to your question is, though, yes, we do need God to make crystals. Otherwise whence the stuff from which they are made? :-) It seems to me that reason is the ultimate authority regarding truth claims. It's inescapable. To deny that is to confirm it. If I claim that reason is not the ultimate authority of truth, in order to defend that position, I must reason. We cannot get away from that. No one can. So I go where the reason and the facts go. I'm personally not interested in believing anything that's not true. I've bought BS before, we all have, and in my experience, and I'll bet yours too, it never did me any good. Meanwhile, back at the argument, do you agree or disagree? If so, why? Thanks.tgpeeler
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Ritchie, "I hadn’t heard of this WEASEL programme before, but I have no idea why people are calling evolution an ‘entropic process’ or that there is no ‘fitness drive’ in nature…" I don't think anybody is saying that there is no 'fitness drive' in nature. There is a fitness drive, but Darwinian rationalizations cannot account for it. As the WEASEL program demonstrated, cumulative selection does not work without a target. A target implies a purpose. A 'fitness drive' implies a purpose as well, but Darwinists are so vague about this in order to escape the realization that evolution has a goal. Why are they so opposed to a goal for evolution? Because methodological naturalism is their metaphysical assumption, and it postulates that only natural processes can account for complexity in nature. Natural processes cannot have a target or goal. Darwinism is non-goal directed, and as such, is self-refuting and circular.CannuckianYankee
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Ritchie, "Can someone please help me out here? I hadn’t heard of this WEASEL programme before, but I have no idea why people are calling evolution an ‘entropic process’ or that there is no ‘fitness drive’ in nature…" The WEASEL argument originated from Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker." Dawkins was attempting to counter a common argument against evolution by creationists, such as: that a tornado going through a junkyard cannot produce a 747 - or other such arguments. Dawkins' counter argument is that evolution doesn't work that way, it works through cumulative selection. The WEASEL program was intended to show that cumulative selection is not random like a tornado going through a junkyard. Cumulative selection works faster and is more efficient than those types of scenarios. The whole problem with the WEASEL program in demonstrating Darwinian cumulative selection, is that it started with a goal - the Phrase from Shakespear's 'Hamlet' "ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL." The program was designed to use random processes for the computer to eventually acquire the goal phrase. While this program demonstrated designed cumulative selection, and how it is faster and more efficient than designed blind selection, it did not demonstrate that Darwinian processes, which do not offer a goal or target, can work. 'Fitness' again is a vague term, and does not explain how Darwinian processes could at all be concerned with it other than for 'survival.' Survival itself is a goal, but why do blind consecutive selective processes desire or even require survival? Besides, Dawkins admitted that his WEASEL program was "a bit of a cheat," because it started with a target phrase. This admission implies then, that Darwinism does not start with a target. So 'fitness' and 'survival' are then irrelevant. Survival implies a purpose, for which Darwinists are understandably vague. The only arguments we get concerning survival are non-rigorous just-so stories about how fitness and survival instincts work within a species - but such stories only beg the question. The question: why survival? Why not death, chaos and destruction? The Darwinian answer? Because death, chaos and destruction do not lead to survival. Do you see the circularity?CannuckianYankee
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Ritchie, Fitness (biology):
Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation.
fitness:
In biology, fitness is the number of offspring of a particular organism which survive to reproductive age. In other words, fitness may be thought of as the ability of an organism to pass on its genes.
I will find more references for tomorrow.Joseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
ROb:
Joseph, the Evo Info Lab models Darwinian evolution as a search for a target.
Didn't we agree "survival" was the target? I remember saying that we can't search for what doesn't yet exist- meaning tat there wasn't a "search" for a flagellum.Joseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Ritchie, "Animals may indeed co-operate, but that is in cases where co-operation is what is best for them as an individual! They are giving themselves an advantage by co-operating. Though they may be co-operating, they are still very much competing from an evolutionary point of view." Gee, that explanation throws altruism in the human species right out the window. The only reason Mother Theresa cooperated by sacrificing for the needs of Calcutta's poorest, was to gain a survival advantage - even though she died in poverty. I'm sorry, but these just-so stories (which are typical Dariwnists) you're giving us leave much that they cannot explain.CannuckianYankee
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
To tgpeeler, The Jesuits would love you. What about a crystal ? There is 'information' 'encoded' somewhere, thats how crystals keep forming the way they do. Is there a 'language' here ? Do we need God to make crystals ?Graham
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
To Seversky (and others who share his enthusiasm for neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory). May we agree that in order for an explanation to be useful it must actually explain what needs to be explained? If we can agree on that then maybe we can also agree that, when it comes to life, information is what must be explained. Richard Dawkins says in River Out of Eden that "life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information." For once he got something at least partially right so I will be happy to agree with him except for the word “just.” The prominent origin of life researcher Bernd-Olaf Küppers says in the introduction to his book Information and the Origin of Life that “To start with, a brief introduction to modern evolution theory is given. A central and fundamental concept of this theory is that of “biological information,…” This means that in order to have a good explanation for life, one must have a good explanation for information. So far so good? If not, please reflect on the essential difference between living and non-living things. DNA. So, if we want to explain life then we need to explain information. Now, if we want to explain information, we must explain language. For without language there is no information. This is a matter of definition. Languages are what encode information into physical substrates and enable it to be decoded on the receiving end. If you think that you, or anyone, or anything, can generate information apart from a language you just haven't thought about it very hard. So now we have life, information, and language in our explanatory chain. But what about language? What is a language? Essentially, all languages consist of two things: symbols, and rules for the use of those symbols. To use English for example, we have a 26 character alphabet and a bunch of rules. The characters are combined in various ways to form words which are then combined in various ways to form sentences and paragraphs and so on in order to convey a message. So now our explanatory chain is life, information, language, symbols and rules. There is nothing beyond symbols and rules to explain. These are the rock bottom issue that must be dealt with. Are we still good? But now we must examine the explanatory resources of the competing explanations for life. On the one hand we have the materialist/naturalist story of neo-Darwinian evolution (by natural selection and genetic mutation) and we have this competing thesis of Intelligent Design. If you are a materialist, and all serious evolutionists are, then you understand that in your universe the intellectual commitment that you make is that all that exists is matter and energy in various combinations and that the various combinations that exist on this planet today, at any time, have come about without any intervention from "outside of nature," that is, apart from the laws of physics just doing what they do over billions of years. This is materialism/evolution doctrine 101. This means that physics is all that you have to explain anything, which would include life which would include information which would include language which would include symbols and rules. But here’s your fatal problem. You can’t explain either symbols or rules with the laws of physics. Physics never can and never will be able to explain symbols and rules. Physics doesn’t even claim to address these issues. Physics is about the material world and since you deny the existence of the abstract world (which the laws of physics are a part of, by the way – they are themselves written in the language of mathematics, which has, you guessed it, its own set of symbols and rules) well then it would follow that physics is all you need. Right? It’s called in philosophical circles the idea that nature is “causally closed” and it means that all explanations boil down to the laws of physics and only the laws of physics. Oddly enough, many philosophers actually believe that our “minds” have no causal power in nature. Since materialism rejects minds apart from brains it follows that if minds don’t exist then how could they have causal power? This is obviously nonsense and I’ll leave that for another time. Meanwhile we were discussing the ability of physics to inform us about symbols and rules, thus language, thus information, thus life. Symbols being the representation of one thing for another and rules being the conventions that govern the manipulation of those symbols to encode, transmit, and decode information. Very unfortunately for the proponent of evolution, there is nothing in physics that tells us why “CAT” means a certain kind of mammal and why “ACT” means to do something, something done, or a segment of a play. Physics has NOTHING to say about either the symbols that comprise those words or the rules that govern their use and it NEVER WILL. The only thing that can account for symbols and rules, and thus language, and thus information, and thus life, is a mind. It takes something outside of quarks and leptons to be aware of quarks and leptons. We create information every day and we do it effortlessly. I will not attempt a formal proof here that it is our minds that are doing this since I’m sure your good sense has granted me that. If not, we can discuss it later. I will say that to defeat my argument what you need to do is attack either the structure of the argument or the truth of the premises. If you can’t successfully do that (you cannot) then the truth of Mind wins over the falsehood of matter creating life. When I make this argument I hear some pretty amazing things but for once if you could just stick to the argument itself and try to defeat that I’d appreciate it. Here’s a recap, sort of a study guide on what you need to do. - You can say that evolution makes use of “mind” to create information (or manipulate it once it’s created) BUT that’s not what evolution claims. - You can say that life and information aren’t inextricably linked together BUT there is a mountain range of empirical data (and rational arguments too) that say they are. - You can say that information is possible without language but I frankly don’t think you’ll be able to make that case without using language. - You can say that language does not consist of symbols and rules but that will be equally difficult since that’s what a language is. - Or perhaps you can tell me what law or laws of physics tell us about “CAT” and “ACT.” Why they mean what they do. I’ll be very interested in your reply because from where I sit, in this universe, where reason is supreme in matters of truth, not only is evolution not true, it’s not even possible for it to be true. I believe it’s the greatest intellectual scandal of human history. It’s shameful, actually, that so many otherwise intelligent people buy into such obvious hogwash. Cell theory even says that living cells only come from other living cells. So where did the first life come from? It had to come from some pre-existing intelligence (a Mind) that could create information, that is, life. (Thus Intelligent Design) The genetic code or language is the language of life and there is only one Author. Therefore I have a prediction. I'm throwing this one in for free. Mankind will never create life from non-life. We can't write in that language. We may twist it and bend it and mutilate it but we will NEVER create it. If mankind does do that someday then I lose. I only hope I'm still here if that happens (it won't) and it's not too late to change my mind. Because if it did happen, I would be forced to do exactly that. What I have shown, until you defeat my argument, is that the explanatory power of evolution commits suicide. I don't even have to argue with you. Your only remaining move is to deny the existence of information, but you must use information to do that. In the past, materialists/evolutionists have gotten away with denying all kinds of things. Everything from mind to purpose, design, morality, agency, blah, blah, blah. But now I'd like to see you deny, with a straight face, the existence of information. If you refuse to do that, then YOU MUST acknowledge that physics couldn't have done it and that a Mind did. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards,tgpeeler
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Joseph [from 38] "Except that the fittest is determined by the number of viable offspring." Where are you getting this idea that fittest is defined as 'thouse who have the most offspring?' The theory of evolution predicts that the fittest indiviuals WILL, on balance, have the most offspring, but that is not how it DEFINES the term. That would make the assertion totally circular. It would be to say, 'the individuals who have most offspring have most offspring.' 'Fittest' is in fact defined as "better adapted for immediate, local environment." Here is an essay by Stephen Jay Gould on this very misunderstanding by critics of evolution, from which I got this definition: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_tautology.html "Not according to the paper I told you to read." I could not understand the paper you told me to read. It is very dense and I can't really make head nor tail of it. Perhaps you could explain it to me a little more simply? Say we have 1,000 animals (let's say lizards) who live on an island. If the climate starts to become significantly drier, it seems logical to me that the individuals who are best suited (however slightly) to a drier climate will be the most sucessful. Where is the flaw in that reasoning? " -But not for any PARTICULAR species. -Why not?" Because there is variation in each generation of creature. Some will be bigger than most, some slightly smaller, some slightly faster, some slightly slower, etc. But not all of these traits will be an advantage. If the climate in which a group of creatures lives is becoming drier, then being well adapted for wetter conditions is not really an advantage, is it? It is a disadvantage. " - A fast cheetah is one with an advantage. - Prove it." Well, cheetahs rely on speed to hunt. So a cheetah who is slightly faster (than other cheetahs) may catch prey which could outrun a slightly slower cheetah. Thus, being faster is an advantage (over other cheetahs). " - But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not. - Prove it. Ya see a bigger cheetah can just take the kill of the faster cheetah." Good point! Yes, perhaps my example here isn't very solid. A cheetah who is bigger than most may have an advantage in that it can bully other cheetahs for their kills. This cheetah would enjoy a different advantage to the cheetah who was faster than most, but an advantage nonetheless. However, it is difficult to see how, for example, being a slightly better digger than average would be an advantage for cheetahs - creatures who do not greatly rely on digging to survive. Yes we may imagine unlikely scenarios where digging might turn out to be a handy attribute, but the reality is that cheetahs do not often dig much (to my knowledge. If I'm wrong here, it is a flaw in my knowledge, not my argument). Being fast would be a much greater help to a cheetah than being good at digging. "Not necessarily. Perhaps you could go an interview them." Obviously you are being facetious. Can you give me an example of an animal which co-operates in spite of it being disadvantageous to its genes to do so? " - Bats share food because they themselves may be on the receiving end when they have found none. - Keep grasping." You find this example tenuous? Why? In every act of sharing food there is a giver and a recipient. If you live in a group where, as a rule, individuals share food with those who have found none, then that means you have a very good chance of being fed on the nights that you have found no food. " - But that doesn’t mean they don’t still compete for mates and resources. They do. - Prove it." For which species?Ritchie
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Joseph, the Evo Info Lab models Darwinian evolution as a search for a target. Recall your disagreement with Dr. Dembski on the issue.R0b
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
R0b:
Remember that the Evo Info Lab’s attempted contribution to ID is premised on modeling evolution as a search for a target.
A targeted search makes sense given what we know. What's the option? Things just appeared and if useful were kept?Joseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
R0b #39
If Gil’s position is that evolution has no target, then he is siding with Dawkins and against the Evolutionary Informatics Lab on the issue. Remember that the Evo Info Lab’s attempted contribution to ID is premised on modeling evolution as a search for a target.
Dawkins is correct if says that Darwinian evolution has no target. But then he cannot declare a target at the beginning of its evolution simulator as he did (this is Gil’s position). The Evolutionary Informatics Lab studies the relations between evolutionary systems and information. Besides its researchers study how much intelligent assistance is necessary to obtain a goal in a given type of search with certain efficiency. They deal also with Weasel ware but nowhere they write this target-oriented simulator is truly Darwinian.niwrad
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
As a (hopefully clear-thinking) layman, I also struggle with the concept of fitness. It seems a bit circular, or at best, post facto. A population survives because it is more fit and it is more fit because it survives. The number of viable offspring left behind could provide a more concrete expression of fitness, but then we are left with the uncomfortable realization that bacteria are way more fit than humans. I suppose the objection would be that bacteria don't compete with humans, and I can understand that. However, if gradualism is to be believed, then somewhere along the line, bacteria competed with something that was slightly closer to humans; that is to say, it was slightly more complex. While I have yet to see anyone describe a method for comparing bacteria and humans on a fitness continuum, it is trivial to compare them on a complexity continuum. In general, it also seems that movement toward complexity involves movement away from the number of viable offspring left behind. So, at the macro level, there appears to be a trend to less fitness. If evolution has a big arrow, that arrow seems to be pointing toward complexity moreso than toward fitness. Even if you set aside the more concrete method for calculating fitness and slide back to a muddier definition, it seems to me that there is an intuitive connection between simple and fit. In coding, the simpler solution is likely to introduce the fewest errors. Elegance is often preferred in design, not just for aesthetic reasons. This trend even shows up in Occam's razor. Yet when we look around, something appears to be favoring complexity, either over fitness or without regard to it. And that doesn't seem very Darwinian.Phinehas
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
niwrad:
Of course GilDodgen is right. Evolution is not teleological, has no target.
If Gil's position is that evolution has no target, then he is siding with Dawkins and against the Evolutionary Informatics Lab on the issue. Remember that the Evo Info Lab's attempted contribution to ID is premised on modeling evolution as a search for a target.R0b
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
ellazimm
Can I also just say thanks for letting me ask questions! It is so helpful to be able to ask questions and get some very smart people to answer.
I'm new to this site also and I hope to be able to get the same response you've had here. There's lots of useful information in this single thread alone!Moseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Joseph
All the cheetah has to be is faster than its prey. And even that isn’t necessary. Ya see a bigger cheetah can just take the kill of the faster cheetah.
Not only that, but intelligence could play a significant role too. The most intelligent cheetah might be the one that will wait for the prey to walk past and so does not even have to chase it!Moseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Ritchie:
For example, if the habitat of a species becomes drier, the ‘fittest’ individuals are ones who adapt to these drier conditions.
Except that the fittest is determined by the number of viable offspring.
Generally, the creatures who possess genes which help them cope in drier climaes are the sucessful ones – the ones who live long enough to reproduce.
Not according to the paper I told you to read. “Faster vs taller vs stronger vs smarter vs normal vs better climber vs better hider vs higher jumper.”
But not for any PARTICULAR species.
Why not?
A fast cheetah is one with an advantage.
Prove it.
But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not.
Prove it. All the cheetah has to be is faster than its prey. And even that isn't necessary. Ya see a bigger cheetah can just take the kill of the faster cheetah.
All of these examples show animals who are doing what is best for THEIR OWN GENES.
Not necessarily. Perhaps you could go an interview them.
Bats share food because they themselves may be on the receiving end when they have found none.
Keep grasping.
But that doesn’t mean they don’t still compete for mates and resources. They do.
Prove it.Joseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee [from 29] and Joseph [from 35] "There is no measurable quality to ‘fittest’ or as you prefer “best suited to survive.” It’s a rather vague depiction of what Darwinists think is happening." "Well, yeah if you define the “fittest” as those who leave behind the most viable offspring." Oh right! I see what you're saying now. Yes, that's true, there is no objective way to measure 'fittest' in a general sense. This is kept vague, not to keep it from ever being tested, but because the definition of 'fittest' is different in each case. For example, if the habitat of a species becomes drier, the 'fittest' individuals are ones who adapt to these drier conditions. This is not measured by how many offspring they have. It is measured by the appearance of adaptive features to help them cope with these conditions. Generally, the creatures who possess genes which help them cope in drier climaes are the sucessful ones - the ones who live long enough to reproduce. "Faster vs taller vs stronger vs smarter vs normal vs better climber vs better hider vs higher jumper." But not for any PARTICULAR species. Being fast (compared to its fellows) is good for a cheetah. A fast cheetah is one with an advantage. But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not. It is slightly more obvious when stalking and needs to eat more to maintain its body. So we can say that there is a selection pressure on cheetahs to be fast, but not to be big. Again, we need to consider each case individually. "No cooperation seems to be the norm. We have bats giving up some of their food to neighbors who didn’t get any that night. We have ants giving up reproduction just to help out the colony- the same for termites, bees. Lions in their pride cooperate. Many (most?) mammals cooperate in some way. Then there are all those symbiotic relationships…" All of these examples show animals who are doing what is best for THEIR OWN GENES. Bats share food because they themselves may be on the receiving end when they have found none. But that doesn't mean they don't still compete for mates and resources. They do. A pride of lions is more sucessful and can bring down bigger prey than a lone lion. But again, indiviuals within a pride still fight to establish themselves in the pecking order - for the right for mates and the 'lion's share' of the food. Ants and bees are a very interesting example because it is so counter-intuitive. The bottom line is that any individual sterile worker/soldier ant or bee is more closely related to a sister worker/soldier than she would be to her own child (if she were to have any). From the perspective of the individual worker/soldier, she can better preserve and propagate her own genes by helping her sisters than by reproducing herself. It's a little complicated, but I'm happy to explain this more thoroughly if you like. Animals may indeed co-operate, but that is in cases where co-operation is what is best for them as an individual! They are giving themselves an advantage by co-operating. Though they may be co-operating, they are still very much competing from an evolutionary point of view.Ritchie
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Clive, please allow me to try. CY says, "Dawkins’ overall point in the program is to demonstrate cumulative selection as a feasible process for Darwinian evolution." That's not really true. He wants to demonstrate the enormous advantage that cumulative selection has over single-step selection and he does so very successfully. This is important to ID because all of the YEC/ID calculations of the incredible unlikelyhood of generating anything as complicated as a 100 base-pair gene are based on single step selection and Weasel shows how cumulative selection is so much more effective that single step selection that it eviscerates those claims. The "bit of a cheat" that Dawkins talks about is, IIRC, using a fixed target instead of a moving one, which was done to simplify the demonstration. Gazillions of "natural versions" of the Weasel program have been set up by nature and they are operating right now in every organism. Everytime DNA mutates during reproduction, that mutation of a tiny portion of the genome IS cumulative selection. Nature doesn't change the whole genome at once, it passes the vast majority of it on unchanged and only mutates a tiny portion - like mutating only one or two letters of the sentence in Weasel. There's no mystery about where CY's "fitness drive" comes from. If the mutation really screws up the function of the DNA, your offspring dies and the new DNA pattern dies with it. If it screws it up a little, your offspring die more often and the mutation eventually goes extinct. And if the mutation makes your DNA operate more effectively, your offspring is a winner and it has more descendents and that new DNA pattern tends to increase. There's no mystery there, natural selection is just shorthand for trying to make a living with a slightly new DNA pattern and seeing how it works out. To answer CY's and Gil's complaint about the fixed target, think of the sentences as being DNA patterns and "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" as being the best possible DNA pattern for the environment the organism is in. Every time a mutation creates another letter that matches the pattern, the DNA works better and the organism has more offspring than the unmutated DNA until finally every letter matches the best possible DNA phrase. If the environment changes, that is like changing "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" to some other sentence and evolution will home in on the new sentence via cumulative selection just like it homes in on "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".djmullen
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
Seversky, Do you have a response to CunnukianYankee at comment 11?Clive Hayden
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
Ritchie:
But generally the fasters runners do win races, just as the fittest individuals are generally the ones to survive to reproduce.
Well, yeah if you define the "fittest" as those who leave behind the most viable offspring. You should read The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations. It doesn't work in reality the way it works on paper. “Also there could be many variations which provide the same amount of fitness.”
Explain please.
Faster vs taller vs stronger vs smarter vs normal vs better climber vs better hider vs higher jumper “Also when put to the test we see cooperation more than competeion.”
You mean in nature? There is more co-operation between animals than there is competition? You’ve got to be kidding, right?
No cooperation seems to be the norm. We have bats giving up some of their food to neighbors who didn't get any that night. We have ants giving up reproduction just to help out the colony- the same for termites, bees. Lions in their pride cooperate. Many (most?) mammals cooperate in some way. Then there are all those symbiotic relationships...Joseph
September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
ellazimm, The vast majority of the fossil record consists of marine invertebrates (>95%). In that vast majority there isn't any evidence for universal common descent. Phenotypic plasticity can explain the appearance of transitionals. What a biological theory needs though is biological data- imagine that- which demonstrates the transformations required are possible. Something that tells us what determines form would also be nice.Joseph
September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
"Your work is software development for avionics and missile guidance systems isn’t it?" No. Robot-controlled, smart parachute delivery systems, which is much more difficult, because of the lag time in control system response and the need for immediately reliable wind information. Our team has solved these problems -- and it wasn't easy. One of my several other software-engineering specialties is AI in games of logic. Click on my name for more information.GilDodgen
September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee @24 "For the Darwinist, it’s imperative to keep these terms vague so they don’t appear to be purposeful or goal directed." 'What we mean by' (insert vague, non-descriptive just-so story here). It's no wonder we (layman) don't understand the ToE. It's not meant to be understood, but obeyed.IRQ Conflict
September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply