Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[Revoltingest]

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.

It's difficult to be both randomly generated & previously selected.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's difficult to be both randomly generated & previously selected.

It's a design tool as you said, you use random changes to aid design.

And you can use the design method as part of the production method, repeating the design method- but this time the key random numbers which produced the desired result are pre-selected,
if you get my drift

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a design tool as you said, you use random changes to aid design.

And you can use the design method as part of the production method, repeating the design method- but this time the key random numbers which produced the desired result are pre-selected
if you get my drift

Of course, our aping evolution for design purposes does not preclude evolution's being able to "design" without a designer. All it needs to function is initial conditions & laws of physics conducive to evolution of life. Stuff happens.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course, our aping evolution for design purposes does not preclude evolution's being able to "design" without a designer. All it needs to function is initial conditions & laws of physics conducive to evolution of life. Stuff happens.

well kinda I think it does, because we can ape evolution's simple design algorithms of random mutation and natural selection for the simple fitness function of reproduction.. and get diddly squat-
just as we do when we model the universe under the simple laws of classical physics.

Both fall foul to the same enemy; entropy. Both instantly collapse into their simplest states without underlying specific instructions, blueprints, specifying particular more complex, rich, diverse results.

 

[Midnight Rain]

well kinda I think it does, because we can ape evolution's simple design algorithms of random mutation and natural selection for the simple fitness function of reproduction.. and get diddly squat-
just as we do when we model the universe under the simple laws of classical physics.

Both fall foul to the same enemy; entropy. Both instantly collapse into their simplest states without underlying specific instructions, blueprints, specifying particular more complex, rich, diverse results.

Why do you keep stating that it would fall back into its simplest state? I honestly can't understand why you would assume this. Unless you think that there is some sort of base level that is the most stable?

 

[Revoltingest]

Both fall foul to the same enemy; entropy. Both instantly collapse into their simplest states without underlying specific instructions, blueprints, specifying particular more complex, rich, diverse results.

Entropy (thermodynamics or info theory) doesn't prohibit evolution at all.
The thermodynamic argument fails because life evolved in an open system, ie, entropy of the system (Earth) did not increase.
The info theory argument fails because nothing in physics precludes inanimate matter or life from increasing in local complexity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Entropy (thermodynamics or info theory) doesn't prohibit evolution at all.
The thermodynamic argument fails because life evolved in an open system, ie, entropy of the system (Earth) did not increase.
The info theory argument fails because nothing in physics precludes inanimate matter or life from increasing in local complexity.

In computing it refers to some of the principles we were talking about- random numbers that aren't really random...

But I meant in the general definition of

deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse

of life itself reverting to equilibrium, the entropy that would collapse atoms under classical physics is the same entropy that would incline life towards it's simplest state- without further instructions combating this entropy.

The same way our bodies must fight entropy every day, regardless of other definitions

 

[Revoltingest]

In computing it refers to some of the principles we were talking about- random numbers that aren't really random...
But I meant in the general definition of
deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse
of life itself reverting to equilibrium, the entropy that would collapse atoms under classical physics is the same entropy that would incline life towards it's simplest state- without further instructions combating this entropy.
The same way our bodies must fight entropy every day, regardless of other definitions

Despite the existence of all those big words, what argument is there that life cannot evolve increasing sophistication by natural processes?

Again, the thermodynamic argument simply does not apply because the biome of Earth is an open system with continual influx of energy. Even if entropy were increasing, this doesn't preclude there being enuf availiability for life & evolution to continue. "Entropy" is not deterioration, degeneration, decay, etc. It's a measure of the inability of a system to do thermodynamic work, eg, a heat engine which uses temperature differentials to perform work will lose this ability when the available temperatures equalize, which is a state of higher entropy.

I'm much more familiar with thermodyanmics than info theory, but in perusing the latter, I find no argument against the informational aspects of evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Despite the existence of all those big words, what argument is there that life cannot evolve increasing sophistication by natural processes?

Again, the thermodynamic argument simply does not apply because the biome of Earth is an open system with continual influx of energy. Even if entropy were increasing, this doesn't preclude there being enuf availiability for live & evolution to continue.

I'm much more familiar with thermodyanmics than info theory, but in perusing the latter, I find no argument against the informational aspects of evolution.

As above I'm not talking about any overarching thermodynamic or info theory argument..

But entropy as defined by deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse, it's quicker just to say entropy

A snowman also exists in the open system of Earth's biome, this does not protect it from melting, falling foul to entropy. yes?

The fitness function for the theory of evolution is reproduction, not sophistication, not being good at chess.

It's extremely intuitive and tempting to imagine that survival of the fittest lends itself naturally to sophistication, complexity, diversity. they are advantages after all. But as in our analogy earlier, a seat warmer will never be selected over a defective engine, the fitness function rules.

This is a problem I ran into while attempted to demonstrate the power of natural selection in a computer sim, as a staunch atheist and believer in evolution many moons ago, to a very intelligent friend, a surgeon, who's skepticism of evolution I found unfathomable.

It's a little much to go into, but at the very least- the simple process of random mutation- natural selection, is not as simple as I had imagined it to be, and I think many do. Successful populations quickly stop evolving, reach a dead end, as we see in horseshoe crabs. So significant change can only occur in very small stressed populations which are susceptible to extinction, diversity depends entirely on diversity of environments- but not too much or too little, and interconnected in particular ways. In the end I think evolution walks the same knife edge that modern physics does to combat entropy.- nothing is inevitable, 'stuff' really doesn't just 'happen' as I had thought-
in life as in physics, the superficial observations we take for granted are superficial observations we take for granted, underwritten by specific code that I suspect is not truly random at all.

must run though but will respond later

 

[outhouse]

Anyone can use intelligent imagination to debate the imaginary.

But can they bring up some credible evidence in support is the real question, to date the answer is still factually NO.

 

[Midnight Rain]

As above I'm not talking about any overarching thermodynamic or info theory argument..

But entropy as defined by deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse, it's quicker just to say entropy

A snowman also exists in the open system of Earth's biome, this does not protect it from melting, falling foul to entropy. yes?

Try rivers and ocean currents. Shouldn't they degrade and simply go into a state where they just mellow out rather than flow in complex and defined patterns?

The fitness function for the theory of evolution is reproduction, not sophistication, not being good at chess.

It's extremely intuitive and tempting to imagine that survival of the fittest lends itself naturally to sophistication, complexity, diversity. they are advantages after all. But as in our analogy earlier, a seat warmer will never be selected over a defective engine, the fitness function rules.

But one does not have to have a defective engine to have a seat warmer. If there was a seat warmer with an engine that was better then that car would survive and all of its little car offspring would have both traits. It would then be part of the gene pool of those cars. It would not arbitrarily be removed except in some case where it would be fundamentally better to do so.

This is a problem I ran into while attempted to demonstrate the power of natural selection in a computer sim, as a staunch atheist and believer in evolution many moons ago, to a very intelligent friend, a surgeon, who's skepticism of evolution I found unfathomable.

It's a little much to go into, but at the very least- the simple process of random mutation- natural selection, is not as simple as I had imagined it to be, and I think many do. Successful populations quickly stop evolving, reach a dead end, as we see in horseshoe crabs. So significant change can only occur in very small stressed populations which are susceptible to extinction, diversity depends entirely on diversity of environments- but not too much or too little, and interconnected in particular ways. In the end I think evolution walks the same knife edge that modern physics does to combat entropy.- nothing is inevitable, 'stuff' really doesn't just 'happen' as I had thought-
in life as in physics, the superficial observations we take for granted are superficial observations we take for granted, underwritten by specific code that I suspect is not truly random at all.

must run though but will respond later

Nothing about this was an argument against evolution. Evolution can occur in larger populations.

 

[Revoltingest]

As above I'm not talking about any overarching thermodynamic or info theory argument..
But entropy as defined by deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse, it's quicker just to say entropy
A snowman also exists in the open system of Earth's biome, this does not protect it from melting, falling foul to entropy. yes?

Snowmen (& snowwomen...& instersex snowpeople) melt, just as humans decay & die. The difference is that humans reproduce, & this (combined with mutation & natural selection over time) is what causes evolution. So the individuals decay, but not the system or the species produced by it.

The fitness function for the theory of evolution is reproduction, not sophistication, not being good at chess.

Chess is an inferior game anyway. (Go is much better.)

It's extremely intuitive and tempting to imagine that survival of the fittest lends itself naturally to sophistication, complexity, diversity. they are advantages after all. But as in our analogy earlier, a seat warmer will never be selected over a defective engine, the fitness function rules.

Seat warmers, like car engines, don't sexually reproduce, so they don't evolve by natural selection...only by human design iteration.

This is a problem I ran into while attempted to demonstrate the power of natural selection in a computer sim, as a staunch atheist and believer in evolution many moons ago, to a very intelligent friend, a surgeon, who's skepticism of evolution I found unfathomable.

It's a little much to go into, but at the very least- the simple process of random mutation- natural selection, is not as simple as I had imagined it to be, and I think many do. Successful populations quickly stop evolving, reach a dead end, as we see in horseshoe crabs.

Dead ends aren't a failure of the model. Consider crocodiles....they've found a configuration which is so well adapted to their environment that they've remain largely unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. But during the same period, mankind underwent massive changes. This great differences in species stability & configuration shows that we have a very complex fitness function. To say the least, there is no single life form which adapts to all niches in all environments.

So significant change can only occur in very small stressed populations which are susceptible to extinction, diversity depends entirely on diversity of environments- but not too much or too little, and interconnected in particular ways. In the end I think evolution walks the same knife edge that modern physics does to combat entropy.- nothing is inevitable, 'stuff' really doesn't just 'happen' as I had thought-

No on can "combat" entropy. It just happens.

in life as in physics, the superficial observations we take for granted are superficial observations we take for granted, underwritten by specific code that I suspect is not truly random at all.

Some observations are more useful than others. In our small portion of the universe, the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) has again & again (& always without exception) been inviolate.

must run though but will respond later

Don't let real life interfere with bickering on the internet!

 

[Revoltingest]

Try rivers and ocean currents. Shouldn't they degrade and simply go into a state where they just mellow out rather than flow in complex and defined patterns?

To answer this for him (since he's leaving us for a while), as long as there is energy & matter input into the river system, it will continue. Rivers aren't closed systems, & see material coming from rainfall or snow/ice melt, & see energy coming from the mechanical potential of the incoming water.

 

[Parsimony]

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-

I'll give you the multiverse thing for now, but it's not even incompatible with theism. Indeed, if all the different universes ended up having identical laws to our own, it wouldn't do anything to affect the fine-tuning argument.

which is precisely where Piltdown man came from isn't it?

Piltdown man came from a hoaxer, and in retrospect it isn't all that surprising that it was accepted by some scientists who were already aware of the massive evidence for evolution. It would be akin to a scientist accepting hoaxed evidence supporting a round Earth or a heliocentric Solar System. Piltdown man did not, in any way, represent a "make or break" situation for evolution. The case for evolution had been settled long before Piltdown man was even a thought in the hoaxer's head.

Why do you think Piltdown man represents some kind of special problem for evolution whereas other hoaxes accepted as proof of creationism somehow do not represent the same problem for creationists? What about Onyate Man, which creationist Kent Hovind accepted as real? Or the Cardiff Giant? You tell me that evolutionary biologists have a pre-formed conclusion, but do you not think that the same is true of creationists?

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.

I know that at least one of those multiverse ideas, the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, had nothing to do with atheism. It instead represents an attempt to explain phenomena such as the Schrödinger's cat paradox and Wigner's friend paradox.

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.

Except that there are traits present in designed machines that we don't see in natural evolution, such as mixing-and-matching of parts. You can take the engine from one aircraft and put it into a completely different aircraft made by a different company. Such is true of the F-16 and F-15 fighter jets, which both have the F100 turbofan. That is, some of them do. Some F-15s have the F110 instead. That would be akin to finding that some individuals within a particular horse species have their own unique stomach whereas other individuals in that same species have stomachs identical to those of a cow. If you were to form phylogenetic trees for aircraft, you'd get much different trees if you made one based on engine types, one based on radar type, one based on weapon compatibility, one based on electronic warfare equipment, etc. By contrast, trees formed from genetic data from living creatures tend to be much more consistent with each other, which is what evolution predicts.

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.

Likening a computer virus accidentally writing itself to biological evolution is a straw-man. A computer virus forming spontaneously would be more akin to abiogenesis followed by evolution, not evolution alone. Nor do I suggest that evolution is without a specific goal: the goal is an increase in reproductive fitness.

 

[Bunyip]

" From the British Museum's reconstruction of the skull, Woodward proposed that Piltdown man represented an evolutionary missing link between apes and humans"
fraud by evolutionists, not creationists

Yes, he did propose that. And when his proposal was examined by the scientific community it was rejected. And yet all these decades later, creationist 'educators' still spin the same lie to children. Just like the Paluxy river tracks - the fact that a creationist claim was proven to be a lie does not stop it from being repeated for decades.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, he did propose that. And when his proposal was examined by the scientific community it was rejected. And yet all these decades later, creationist 'educators' still spin the same lie to children. Just like the Paluxy river tracks - the fact that a creationist claim was proven to be a lie does not stop it from being repeated for decades.

If creationists could learn, well ... they'd not be creationists, now, would they?

 

[Ouroboros]

If creationists could lean, well ... they'd not be creationists, now, would they?

Lean? Lean against what? :/

 

[Bobbyh]

To Creationist:​

Could you explain to me what you think is the difference between​

1. Theory of Evolution
&
2. Evolution.​

When someone says Evolution, what do they mean? When someone says Theory of Evolution (ToE) they do not mean Evolution? Etc? What do you think?
Ga Briel​

For me to pretend I understand things like this (rather than take someones claim as correct or accurate) I like to rip out the context and abstract logic from the intention of the words used. This helps me avoid linguistic fallacies and inaccurate interpretations. I have to realize that the "real world" and the "human interpretation" of any topic are not always parallel with one another.

In the case of the term "Evolution" The root of the word is Evolve. The definition is; to develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form. This states nothing about being restricted to biology, and instead is just a general concept of transformation.

So to be more specific and accurate, the term Evolution really only describes a recursive transformation of comparable relationships. It's recursive because it occurs every moment. It's a transformation, because that's what the term "develop" describes. And it is of "comparable relationships" because there is coherent information involved and information requires comparable relationships.

Evolution was observed for what it is by Darwin studying biology, and for humanity the theory of evolution has evolved from this, but it is not limited to biological phenomena. As long as the concept of change or transformation exists then everything is always evolving. So which branch of evolution do we want to focus on? Of course I'm sure you're referring specifically to biological evolution.

My answer to your question = My description of evolution is a theory of evolution. But evolution itself is a specified range or branch of any variables' execution or endurance of transformation.

If I were to discuss biological evolution specifically while ignoring all the other comparable relationships that affect it, then I would be telling an inaccurate depiction of biological evolution. Biology itself requires chemistry, which requires physics, which requires math, which requires logic. Logic is formed from observing behaviors that form predictable patterns.

So anyone who denies evolution as a natural phenomena, is denying the concept of transformation, which is silly, cause every essence of existence transforms every other essence into something different every moment. And for any argument claiming that large differences in a lineage of evolution are supernatural, like god created man and whatever animal separately and they didn't evolve from one another, well... there is no logic that can support that, it's only something people read or were told.

 

[shawn001]

Horseshoe crabs aren't crabs actually and have of course evolved. Even though little for a long time, they have still evolved.

This is also interesting on there blood for medical uses.

How horseshoe crabs may have saved your life

How horseshoe crabs may have saved your life | Deep Sea News

 

[shawn001]

Living fossils are evolving

Mostly Open Ocean: Living fossils are evolving