Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
Evolutionary computation includes the non-deterministic element of random mutation, but that is not all there is to it. There are populations for example.
Non-determinism only acts beneficially when aided by the program. Basically, the difference between a blind and an assisted search.
If by "beneficially" you mean move closer to the target, or reach the target then even blind searches can potentially do that. So that isn't the difference between blind and assisted searches.
If you will note most "evolutionary" algorithms are very, very assisted -- at minimum in their semantic constraints on the possible datasets.
They are assisted, but what does that mean? For example recently I had to make a program to solve suduko puzzles. I was lazy so I used a genetic algorithm. I did not hard code how to solve them, in fact I did not even contemplate the logic of solving a suduko puzzle. I simply assigned a fitness based on how many numbers were in the right squares. Okay it didn't find the exact solution, but it did find highly optimum configurations where only two or three numbers were in the wrong place.
How would you say my suduko example was "very" assisted? The fitness function was simply a count of numbers in the right square. The mutation operator I used was simply to swap two random numbers. I used no crossover.
The point that ID makes is not that stochastic processes don't operate, its that stochastic processes are useless unless assisted in weeding out a large portion of the solution domain. Evolutionists completely ignore this when they point to "evolutionary" algorithms
How am I ignoring this in my above example?
"So random change and selection are capable of design" No, they aren't. Only when guided by an overseeing process that limits the choice available drastically (i.e. it only works when designed).
So what was the overseeing process that "limits the choice available drastically" in the example I gave above?
This is an ID position. The funny thing is that you still want to hang on to RM/NS as the primary mechanism of change when there is no reason
There is a reason to "hang on" to the mechanisms of RM and NS. First they are known to occur, second the algorithm is known to design.
ID'ers are not so constrained.
I disagree. They seem contrained against a random mechanism being a key player in evolution. I suspect this is because they are not content with a designer that sets the first lifeform up and lets the ball roll from there.
In addition, if you grant the special creation of an individual life form, there is no experimental reason not to grant multiple special creations, even if you believe that they all occurred at the single-celled level. In fact, such an idea is precisely what Doolittle and others are working on, and even they are working from an entirely atheistic origin-of-life scenario.
Sure the possibilities are endless
Like I said in another reply; "There's been a whole LOT of environmental changin' goin' on!"
No.
I had hot chocolate this morning; thank you very much!
But, can they mate and crossbreed??
It is NOW!
Fine I have faith it will occur, just as I have faith that 1 terabyte harddrives will be standard in PCs
As well as being an almost universal solvent.
The math types here will point you to a singularity.
There really are places you can't get to from here!
Just turn on the news tonight and you'll find LOTS of folks that were sure that that event would occur, but, alas, it did not.
And it means: Different Species
All the hollering that is why we can't breed, does not make it so.
4% (or 2%, depending on which 'Scientist' you listen to) DNA between critters and they can't breed?
It depends on what changes, not on the quantity of change, although the point about divergance is that more quantity of change makes a speciation change more likely.
Polyploidy is one severe example of genetic change that prevents interbreeding that occurs often in plants.
Also I imagine microevolution of reproductive systems cause breeding incompatibilities too.
Not really true, though it is an effective and abundant solvent at the temperatures and pressures found on the surface of our planet. Other common and simple inorganic molecules will work pretty well under mildly different parameters (ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, etc), and under more extreme environments you can have complex solvent chemistries based on liquid metals -- some very exotic molecular materials can be precipitated from liquid metal solutions.
While we tend to be biased toward water based chemistry due to its abundance and utility as an industrial solvent, it is by no means unique in this regard and there are a lot of important things for which it is a poor solvent. Non-water chemistries is usually a graduate level topic at universities. Water does have unique characteristics compared to other molecules of similar abundance, particularly in terms of its physical characteristics.
There are statements of faith in the bible that are expressed as "I know...". It is common that someone's faith becomes strong enough that they express it as knowledge.
It is appearant that you have strong faith in Darwinism.
The Apostle Paul, in the New Testiment, defined faith as hope in things not seen. Your faith follows that definition.
As far as any simulation, the program must contain assumptions which determine to a large extent what the simulation will do.
Your faith is that the assumptions are true and therefore the predictions will be true.
There are many programs that make predictions. Weather is one of them. If data from ten years ago is entered, the program does not accurately display what actually happened.
Simulation programs are useful, but to place faith in what they will show is no different than placing faith in the book of revelations.
It is ok to have faith, and statements of faith are fine within your community of faith, but to require your faith to be taught as science to the exclusion of all other teachings is presumptious in the extreme.
I've already pointed out that this article (or the guts of it) is in the textbook published by Wiley. Now I don't know if it's used as a textbook. That's a matter of discretion for individual prof's across the country (and world).
And no-one said SLOT necessarily precludes ToE, AFAIK, simply that it presents a significant problem for ToE. Most serious science doesn't progress by people claiming that an individual finding completely destroys a theory. That's how it works in pop culture (like here), but not in "Science".
So either I've misunderstood your claim, or you're lying at this point. "Our side" has not blundered on as you claim. What you have asked for has been provided.
On the contrary, your side (b_sharp excluded, and perhaps bds, not sure) blunders on repeating the same cr@p that all you need to do to accomodate SLOT is throw the system open to the sun and all the problems are solved. This false claim has been corrected and yet your side keeps repeating it.
The spread of introduced species seems be creating new geographic mosaics of coevolution as some species become invasive and coevolve with native species in different ways in different regions or drive rapid evolution in native species, sometimes in less than a hundred years or so. (emphasis mine)
So let's see an excerpt from the textbook where it concludes thermodynamics is a problem for evolution.
Evolution, by the way, does not deal with the origin of life.
Darwin's book "Origin of The Species" also does not explain the origin of the species. It is an expression of faith that someday the origin of the species will be explained.
Darwin is your Prophet, and his followers are his disciples.
You have additional writers who prophesy about what will be in the future. They also have disciples. They want to gather adherents by teaching their beliefs in the schools to the exclusion of other beliefs.
They rationalize gaps in their "knowledge" with expressions of faith that in the future we will understand what fills the gaps.
You are correct, of course. Every time a gap is filled it creates two new ones. So science is a useless exercise.
Another observation on simulations.
In ancient Egypt there was a debate on wheather the sun goes around the earth or is the center of the universe.
The guys who claimed the sun went around the earth won the argument. It went so far that a scientist constructed a mechanical model that simulated the movement of the universe, and even went so far as to show the retrograde of planets (where they appear to go backward in part of their orbits).
That belief system was taught by all the scholors and even the church clear up until the invention of the telescope.
Even then the church required Galaleo to come do the church and confess his error on pain of death. He did that so he wouldnt be execuited.
That was a period of 1500 years.
Now students aren't execuited for Heresy, they are just flunked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.