Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[McBell]

well I'd agree, incompetence delusion and fraud are a given- the problem is people enthusiastically embracing it where it supports a preferred conclusion, be it Piltdown man or CRU East Anglia.

Or their favourite religion...

 

[McBell]

Except when it was brought up for inspection it was found to be a fake.

It is most comical how he keeps flat out ignoring the fact that it was science, not religion, that outed the Piltman hoax.

 

[Parsimony]

vague patches on the CMBR being caused by bumping into other universes is quite a stretch, they are also consistent with the flying spaghetti monster's grasping noodles. This is one thing I'd agree with atheist Krauss on re. multiverses- "If your theory involves an invisible infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory"

I'm not sure what you mean by "invisible infinite probability machine", but I have to admit that I'm not convinced there is a multiverse either. However, the cold spot prediction at least suggests that, if other universes can interact with our own, then there should be detectable evidence of it in some form. If so, then it would be a matter of figuring out what that evidence would be and then searching for it.

gradually or suddenly- is not irrelevant.

I'm glad you agree.

Time is a key factor for significant changes to occur by random mutation and natural selection alone.
automobiles evolved over time and can be plotted on an identical tree of evolution, with similar sudden unbridged leaps, in itself, this does nothing to suggest the changes are accidental does it?

Automobiles don't have a genetic code nor do they reproduce and as such could not have evolved in the Darwinian sense. Whereas we know and can observe that populations of living organisms do evolve over time (Italian fence lizards, HIV, E.coli, etc.).

 

[Revoltingest]

It is most comical how he keeps flat out ignoring the fact that it was science, not religion, that outed the Piltman hoax.

I'm sure it's because he recognizes that the scientific process tends to be self-correcting.

Pssssst....it's "Piltdown".

 

[McBell]

I'm sure it's because he recognizes that the scientific process tends to be self-correcting.

That must be it...
I mean, it isn't like his posting history doesn't reveal his blatant dishonesty, bias, and prejudice....

Pssssst....it's "Piltdown".

Technically it is piltdown man....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not sure what you mean by "invisible infinite probability machine", but I have to admit that I'm not convinced there is a multiverse either. However, the cold spot prediction at least suggests that, if other universes can interact with our own, then there should be detectable evidence of it in some form. If so, then it would be a matter of figuring out what that evidence would be and then searching for it.

I think we agree at least that multiverses don't live up to most definitions of a scientific theory. as you noted- it's an idea an 'explanation' looking for evidence, rather than the other way around- which is precisely where Piltdown man came from isn't it?

That explicit idea, is trying to account for the universe without God, that if there were enough random universes, ours would bound to come into existence eventually- that's Hawking's own rationale.- hence the 'infinite probability machine' in Krauss' words.

Automobiles don't have a genetic code nor do they reproduce and as such could not have evolved in the Darwinian sense. Whereas we know and can observe that populations of living organisms do evolve over time (Italian fence lizards, HIV, E.coli, etc.).

well exactly, we know cars were designed, not evolved naturally, yet they fit the same tree of life pattern. so again in and of itself the evolutionary tree does not = proof of natural selection as is often suggested.
it merely represents a history of certain niches being filled in a certain logical order, and in sudden jumps rather than smooth graduations,- though obviously those are fairly subjective terms.

Likewise, computer viruses can also adapt and evolve as facilitated by specific functional code, and so likewise, this does not in itself suggest the code is without a specific goal, let alone accidentally wrote itself.

 

[Midnight Rain]

well exactly, we know cars were designed, not evolved naturally, yet they fit the same tree of life pattern. so again in and of itself the evolutionary tree does not = proof of natural selection as is often suggested.
it merely represents a history of certain niches being filled in a certain logical order, and in sudden jumps rather than smooth graduations,- though obviously those are fairly subjective terms.

Likewise, computer viruses can also adapt and evolve as facilitated by specific functional code, and so likewise, this does not in itself suggest the code is without a specific goal, let alone accidentally wrote itself.

It actually proves that the dynamic system of selecting traits that are favorable mixed with new concepts and gradual change of concepts over time creates a similar structure to the genetic evolutionary tree. This is to be expected. However it is not the "tree of evolution" that provides us with rock solid evidence of evolution but that along with the understanding of how mutations occur and how reproduction plays into it. Although it is notable that no one in the designed car industry tried to make vastly more mistakes than improvements to cars. That is where they start to differ.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It actually proves that the dynamic system of selecting traits that are favorable mixed with new concepts and gradual change of concepts over time creates a similar structure to the genetic evolutionary tree. This is to be expected. However it is not the "tree of evolution" that provides us with rock solid evidence of evolution but that along with the understanding of how mutations occur and how reproduction plays into it. Although it is notable that no one in the designed car industry tried to make vastly more mistakes than improvements to cars. That is where they start to differ.

That's a good analogy I think.

if manufacturers decided to save on R&D by simply making purely random changes to an existing car, similarly the vast majority would result in a defect of some kind.

The market would represent natural selection, they would for the most part simply select the one with the least defects- which do you select- the car with the broken passenger seat warmer, or the broken engine?

Even with a head start- natural selection would rapidly devolve the car into it's simplest barely functional form, resembling the earliest automobiles, the great diversity of models would eventually coalesce around the last remaining version that at least ran.

constantly improving, diversifying, requires creative design from the R&D dept- does it not?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a good analogy I think.
if manufacturers decided to save on R&D by simply making purely random changes to an existing car, similarly the vast majority would result in a defect of some kind.
The market would represent natural selection, they would for the most part simply select the one with the least defects- which do you select- the car with the broken passenger seat warmer, or the broken engine?
Even with a head start- natural selection would rapidly devolve the car into it's simplest barely functional form, resembling the earliest automobiles, the great diversity of models would eventually coalesce around the last remaining version that at least ran.
constantly improving, diversifying, requires creative design from the R&D dept- does it not?

One can design complex systems using random changes. But for this to work, the process must mimic evolution, ie, there must be a large population, a fitness function, & many generations of reproduction. This is already an engineering tool. To become practical, it's done by computer simulation rather than physically creating & testing the products.
Evolutionary computation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Genetic Algorithms and EvolutionaryComputation

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One can design complex systems using random changes. But for this to work, the process must mimic evolution, ie, there must be a large population, a fitness function, & many generations of reproduction. This is already an engineering tool. To become practical, it's done by computer simulation rather than physically creating & testing the products.
Evolutionary computation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Genetic Algorithms and EvolutionaryComputation

and a designer with a specific result in mind yes?

 

[Midnight Rain]

That's a good analogy I think.

if manufacturers decided to save on R&D by simply making purely random changes to an existing car, similarly the vast majority would result in a defect of some kind.

The market would represent natural selection, they would for the most part simply select the one with the least defects- which do you select- the car with the broken passenger seat warmer, or the broken engine?

Even with a head start- natural selection would rapidly devolve the car into it's simplest barely functional form, resembling the earliest automobiles, the great diversity of models would eventually coalesce around the last remaining version that at least ran.

If the changes were random then only the ones that were effective would be passed on. So the general design would be similar with gradual changes. If a car was made with a random defect or change then it wouldn't even go out to the market but removed. The problem here is that they don't pass on traits. There is a design and then a completely seperate design sometimes based off of an old one. But the concept of improvement and gradual change that creates a diversity based upon factors that remove ineffective ones still stands true.

constantly improving, diversifying, requires creative design from the R&D dept- does it not?

Given enough time and a proper way to week out the bad ideas no...no they don't.

 

[Revoltingest]

and a designer with a specific result in mind yes?

One doesn't need a specific result in mind for a design to emerge. The fitness function determines the result. In fact, the result often has an unexpected configuration in circuit & antenna design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One doesn't need a specific result in mind for a design to emerge. The fitness function determines the result. In fact, the result often has an unexpected configuration in circuit & antenna design.

right, the fitness function IS the intended result. you don't get a useful function that was not intended to be selected for in the first place, regardless of whether or not there are unexpected design elements right?

 

[outhouse]

I think we agree at least that multiverses don't live up to most definitions of a scientific theory.

That is pretty obvious because it was never put forth as a scientific theory.

 

[outhouse]

President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined [ Piltdown man] and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find

 

[Revoltingest]

right, the fitness function IS the intended result.[/.QUOTE]
Not to a design engineer. It's more the defining of goals.

you don't get a useful function that was not intended to be selected for in the first place, regardless of whether or not there are unexpected design elements right?

This is not necessarily true. The more complex the fitness function, the more unpredictable the results. Looking at evolution of biological organisms, the environment is so diverse with respect to location & time, we'd expect the results to be quite varied & extreme. And lo, they are!

 

[Revoltingest]

I cannot edit the above post to correct the corrupted quote function.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I cannot edit the above post to correct the corrupted quote function.

I've had that happen to me several times in the last few weeks. Is that a bug?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've had that happen to me several times in the last few weeks. Is that a bug?

It seems so.
It used to be that it only happened when I responded to Shadow Wolf with responses inserted with her post.
I cured it by only responding at the end of her posts.
I thought her magenta colored text was linked to the problem.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I cannot edit the above post to correct the corrupted quote function.

yeah they could have made it easier to use, talking about bad programming!

I've done a fair bit of it myself, including for some fairly complex commercial applications- not that this makes me Yoda, but it is an interesting analogy to life.

One task was to calculate the fastest way to drive a car with specific characteristics around a course.

Similarly, rather than attempt the ponderous math for optimum driving up front, it was more efficient to apply random changes in acceleration/braking, steering and record the fastest- since it's not restricted to real time, the simulation can take millions of practice runs

the most efficient way to then reproduce the fastest lap-was to record the particular sets of random numbers that produced the improvements

Point being then, that if the virtual car was intelligent enough to examine the code behind its own existence, it would only see 'random' changes being 'naturally selected' by a single fitness function, with no way of knowing these were previously selected random changes for a desired result.