Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Jack by the hedge]

If ID is a dead end then 175,000,000 are wrong about their world view...

So?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Garden variety argumentum ad populum.

 

[Patrick1000]

For someone who is never an expert, you seem to know quite a bit about this stuff....

In the way of criticism I was rather hoping for a more concise criticism of important distinctions between computer models of biological evolution like that of Karl Sims, or indeed evolutionary computational models that can be used to find engineering solutions like this example.

The computers are of course programed but not in a way that many people might find intuitively the best way to achieve the end result that we see. Consider one of those walking or swimming creatures in the Karl Sims video on YouTube. You might think the best and perhaps only way to achieve the result would be to program the moves in their entirety into the system as well as perhaps some scripted reactions to given stimuli.

But that is not what is happening here. I am far from an expert on this field and look for correction to any errors that I may make but my understanding is this: The creatures begin in the first generation by making random movements based on a population of algorithms that include variation. We see little more than random flailing and twitching at this point. The programer then sets a measure of success that is applied as a selective criteria on the population. For example if we want to create walkers or swimmers, our selection criteria might be distance traveled from the starting point in a given time. Those that traveled furthest are selected for the second generation and minor mutations are applied to the algorithms prior to round two. Following the rinse and repeat over a number of generations and we get surprising complex and often unexpected behavior emerging.

For someone who is never an expert, you seem to know quite a bit about this stuff....

I shall take a look and give you feedback, for what it is worth.

 

[Patrick1000]

Well the point then becomes one of educating the public....

So?

Well the point then becomes one of educating the public....

If there indeed is strong evidence for purposeless, undirected, mindless, unintentional change of biologic systems, including the changes that created you and me Jack by the hedge, this is very important stuff. Obviously we are not doing a very good job with education, public awareness.

We have a gobbledygook world, where people are Christians and sort of buy into evolution at the same time. Not the best thing really. Very confused actually.

 

[steenkh]

If there indeed is strong evidence for purposeless, undirected, mindless, unintentional change of biologic systems, including the changes that created you and me Jack by the hedge, this is very important stuff. Obviously we are not doing a very good job with education, public awareness.

You are again displaying an appalling lack of understanding of evolution after this has been pointed out to you repeatedly: Evolution is directed by selection. It is not undirected: if having shorter legs is a disadvantage evolution will not produce shorter legs! There is a direction away from shorter legs!

One thing is the important task of educating the public, but it seems to be a much more difficult task to educate you after so many pages where this has been pointed out.

 

[Mojo]

Well the point then becomes one of educating the public....

What has your argumentum ad populum got to do with "educating the public"?

You won't educate them by agreeing with them.

 

[Mojo]

Obviously we are not doing a very good job with education, public awareness.

Obviously. But what do you mean, "we"?

 

[Mojo]

We have a gobbledygook world, where people are Christians and sort of buy into evolution at the same time. Not the best thing really. Very confused actually.

If the two are (as you are implying) incompatible, which do you think should be abandoned?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Fast Eddie, very cool article/paper, thanks for that.....If you look a little at the "details" here, the thread's focus is on evolutionary mechanism primarily, though your article is somewhat relevant in that it alludes to the phenotypic steps taken.

My general challenge has been that mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition do not collectively have the requisite creative power to affect the cold to warm blooded phenotypic change presented in your reference article.

Bolding mine.

So where is your proof that it is not?

I can wave my arms and shout loudly too. But I can't seem to do it with my fingers simultaneously in my ears like you do.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Obviously. But what do you mean, "we"?

As my mom used to say, he's probably talking about himself and the mouse in his pocket!

 

[Dinwar]

Nice summary.....

That said, after I made reference to the fact that I am an atheist, and in addition, after I offered an alternative to converntional ID, albeit an odd one(internally as opposed to externally directed), you nevertheless seem to be implying I must at root be a "creationist".

First of all, there is a difference between creation science and creationism. I am neither a subscriber to creation science nor a creationist. Additionally, though I offered my internally directed design as a possible option, I for the most part have been emphasizing my personal view is that more likely than not, biology, and in particular, the understanding of the origins and evolution of living systems, is not something we in all likelihood will be able to understand based on the outrageous complexity of the subject.

So how is it Dinwar that you get from my atheism, and my emphasis on our probable inability to make much progress on this stuff to at least implying that I am a creationist?

If that is not/was not your intention, then please forgive me for assuming it was, but it would hardly make sense in my continuing on with you if it were the case, that I would tell you directly that I was an atheist and you would continue with the debate under the assumption I was a creationist. I believe you can see my point here.

So before moving on, is that what you mean to say? That I am a creationist?

If you're not going to read what I write, don't bother to reply.

I said your ARGUMENTS were those of a Creationist. And they are--I've pointed out numerous times where your arguments are identical to those of Creationists. If you don't like that, too bad. I've said nothing about your religious affiliation or lack there of, merely that your arguments tend to be identical to Creationist arguments, and that I doubt your honesty in this discussion.

Since when is the world of "yes microevolution no macroevolution" the sole purview of creationists?

No serious scientist would say something this outrageously stupid. People who study this stuff understand that what Creationists call "macroevolution" is merely the accumulation of numerous exampels of microevolution, in the manner I described.

I pointed out that "yes microevolution no macroevolution" was not inherently "creationist". This was/is a rather major point about the science being presented here wouldn't you say?

No. It was a minor quibble about a side comment I'd made. You said NOTHING about the science in my post--nothing about HOW minor evolutionary changes are stopped from accumulating, on geologic time scales, into what people call macroevolution. You evaded that entire issue, merely pointing out that a few biologists don't agree (which isn't an argument at all).

I think I'm done with you for a while. It's really agrivating to see someone so casually dismiss that much effort, and focus instead on extremely minor side-issues. When you actually want to discuss the science, let me know.

 

[Sideroxylon]

For someone who is never an expert, you seem to know quite a bit about this stuff....

I shall take a look and give you feedback, for what it is worth.

The fact that a lot of this is so counter intuitive and surprising is what makes it all the more fascinating. Do take a look.

From my last link about evolutionary computing and its engineering applications:

Let me repeat the key thing here: a bunch of engineers wanted a better antenna. They had no idea what that better antenna would look like. But by throwing it into an evolutionary algorithm, they produced an antenna better than anything designed by a human being.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/11/evolution_produces_better_ante.php

I enjoy this quote from the BBC documentary "The Secret Life of Chaos", which I linked earlier:

Unthinking simple rules have the power to create amazingly complex systems without any concious thought [...] Design does not need an active interfering designer; its an inerrant part of the universe.

 

[Wowbagger]

If you are asking me why computing models are not good for this sort of thing...I would tell you that someone programmed the computer, and for the most part, that is "cheating".

I suspect you have little to no understanding of computer algorithms. But, I could be wrong.

I would like you to describe, for us, what you think is going on in a typical computer simulation of evolution. Perhaps describe the steps the computer takes, through the algorithm. And/or describe how new design innovations are introduced into the virtual entities, (and why they often surprise the authors of the program).

You said, once, that "any program starting with any set of simple givens" could not do it. ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7698720#post7698720 )
I would like to know more about what you meant by this. What sort of 'simple givens' do you think are being made in evolutionary algorithms, that are indicative of cheating?

Please write in your own words, if you can. Avoid copying and pasting stuff. The idea is to measure your understanding of these sorts of systems.

Not in every case of course. One might envision loading a string of base pairs into a memory and letting some random generating function rip for 20,000,000 years give or take. But I don't think you'd get much out of that.

Simulations of evolution are not mere random generators.

There is a selection process you persistently seem to leave out of everything you are arguing, including your description of evolution simulations. This concern of mine is a key reason I am asking to write up your understanding of the process.

Are you sure they are wrong, and if so, how is it that you know they are mistaken in this world view of their's?

We know their world view is not productive, at all, in solving important problems in biological fields.

That doesn't prove they are wrong. But, it demonstrates they are likely on the wrong track. Evolution (even macro-scale evolution) has been profoundly useful in all fields of biology, and some surrounding those. This doesn't prove evolution is right, but at least it demonstrates it is likely on the right track.

If you were a scientist, with the real responsibility to solve some problem in biology, which would you go with?

What important contributions does ID make, to science?

 

[Dinwar]

This shows that you lack in general knowledge of evolutionary biology, who said that warm blooded creatures evolved from lizards?

It's worse than that, Dancing David. "Lizard" refers to a polyphyletic group--which means that it is not, biologically speaking, a real thing. You can't discuss "lizards" in biology, and anyone who tries doesn't know enough about taxonomy or phylogeny to make a coherent argument.

Birds DID evolve from reptiles--we have the evidence of that, both in terms of the fossil evidence and in terms of the mollecular evidence (Horner's given chicken or emu embryos, I forget which, dinosaur claws, scales, teeth, tails, etc) and in terms of the fossil evidence (we've got a very good set of transitional forms). To argue otherwise without addressing the data is dishonest.

The problem Patrick1000 is going to run into is that osteologic evidence supports the notion that at least therapods were warm-blooded. They certainly grow like warm-blooded critters (The Dinosauria provides a great deal of evidence for this, as well as the modern [well, 10 years ago] view of Avian evolution). Really, that's a common theme in Patrick1000's challange. Warm-blooded, feathered dinosaurs started to glide, then to fly. These traits evolved piecemeal over a few million to tens of milllions of years (I'm honestly not up on the specifics, as I focus on mammals). What we call "birds" are only the tail end of a very long accumulation of minor adaptations, and only one surviving branch of a previously much richer fauna which represent the alternate pathways (ie, cold blooded, simpler feathers, and the like).

The other problem is that Patrick1000 is looking at adult modern animals. If you want to know what evolution happened to change the bodyplan of an animal, you have to look at the development. The specific genes which govern development are those genes which cause the things Patrick1000 is having so much trouble wrapping his head around.

In the way of criticism I was rather hoping for a more concise criticism of important distinctions between computer models of biological evolution like that of Karl Sims

Out of curiosity, know any good free evolution simulation software? I've always wanted to play around with some. I know they're out there, I just don't know much about that particular aspect of evolutionary theory, and I think it would help me wrap my head around my own difficulties with the theory (not whether or not it happens, but rather the tempo and mode of evolution, and the whole crown/stem group thing as it applies over geologic time--it's easier to use a computer simulation for this because I have all the data, where as even with really, really well known fossil lineages I can't say that with much certainty).

 

[Sideroxylon]

Out of curiosity, know any good free evolution simulation software? I've always wanted to play around with some. I know they're out there, I just don't know much about that particular aspect of evolutionary theory, and I think it would help me wrap my head around my own difficulties with the theory (not whether or not it happens, but rather the tempo and mode of evolution, and the whole crown/stem group thing as it applies over geologic time--it's easier to use a computer simulation for this because I have all the data, where as even with really, really well known fossil lineages I can't say that with much certainty).

I don't but I would love to have a bit of a play myself. I have recently installed linux and have seen some in the libraries but not tried them. Wowbagger, do you have an idea?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Fast Eddie B
Observations...

1) On the one hand, it seems as though the entire thread is a colossal waste of time. Patrick1000 is arguing almost exclusively from the "argument from ignorance" or "argument from personal incredulity".
...

8,...9,...10. You're out!

 

[Patrick1000]

"Lizard" is a figure of speech.....a literary and not a scientific reference....

It's worse than that, Dancing David. "Lizard" refers to a polyphyletic group--which means that it is not, biologically speaking, a real thing. You can't discuss "lizards" in biology, and anyone who tries doesn't know enough about taxonomy or phylogeny to make a coherent argument.

Birds DID evolve from reptiles--we have the evidence of that, both in terms of the fossil evidence and in terms of the mollecular evidence (Horner's given chicken or emu embryos, I forget which, dinosaur claws, scales, teeth, tails, etc) and in terms of the fossil evidence (we've got a very good set of transitional forms). To argue otherwise without addressing the data is dishonest.

The problem Patrick1000 is going to run into is that osteologic evidence supports the notion that at least therapods were warm-blooded. They certainly grow like warm-blooded critters (The Dinosauria provides a great deal of evidence for this, as well as the modern [well, 10 years ago] view of Avian evolution). Really, that's a common theme in Patrick1000's challange. Warm-blooded, feathered dinosaurs started to glide, then to fly. These traits evolved piecemeal over a few million to tens of milllions of years (I'm honestly not up on the specifics, as I focus on mammals). What we call "birds" are only the tail end of a very long accumulation of minor adaptations, and only one surviving branch of a previously much richer fauna which represent the alternate pathways (ie, cold blooded, simpler feathers, and the like).

The other problem is that Patrick1000 is looking at adult modern animals. If you want to know what evolution happened to change the bodyplan of an animal, you have to look at the development. The specific genes which govern development are those genes which cause the things Patrick1000 is having so much trouble wrapping his head around.

Out of curiosity, know any good free evolution simulation software? I've always wanted to play around with some. I know they're out there, I just don't know much about that particular aspect of evolutionary theory, and I think it would help me wrap my head around my own difficulties with the theory (not whether or not it happens, but rather the tempo and mode of evolution, and the whole crown/stem group thing as it applies over geologic time--it's easier to use a computer simulation for this because I have all the data, where as even with really, really well known fossil lineages I can't say that with much certainty).

"Lizard" is a figure of speech.....a literary and not a scientific reference....But it does the trick I think anyhoo.

 

[Mojo]

But it does the trick I think anyhoo.

Is this something to do with a "no true Scotsman" argument?

 

[Dancing David]

If ID is a dead end then 175,000,000 are wrong about their world view....

Can you be so sure that it is a dead end Krikkiter? The majority of adult Americans(at the very least, 75%) say you are wrong. The majority of adult Americans believe they were created in the image and likeness of God, created with fabulous attention to every detail, with exacting purpose, with nothing less than LOVE!

Are you sure they are wrong, and if so, how is it that you know they are mistaken in this world view of their's?

Yeah and at one point most USers thought racism was true as well, so the fallacy of popularity?

 

[Dancing David]

Well the point then becomes one of educating the public....

If there indeed is strong evidence for purposeless, undirected, mindless, unintentional change of biologic systems, including the changes that created you and me Jack by the hedge, this is very important stuff. Obviously we are not doing a very good job with education, public awareness.

Obviously there is a large political faction that fights the ToE in text books.

We have a gobbledygook world, where people are Christians and sort of buy into evolution at the same time. Not the best thing really. Very confused actually.

Why because you define a true chistian, many christians do not think the bible is inerrant.

And so all the evidence for random kludges in nature just doesn't matter to you?