Thread Tools
Old April 21, 2002, 15:40   #481
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
"Instead of being a problem, this lack of fossils of transitional lifeforms supports the theory of evolution."

Sorry that there is not enough "non evidence" to support the latest version of Darwinism. Maybe you all can figure out what exactly it is that you all are looking for. Darwin said that transitions would support his theory, you and other punctuated equilibrium types say that you don't need the transitions (now that you haven't found them). So which is it? Are you looking for less evidence or more? Would absolutely no evidence prove your case?

In other words the theory is a joke. It is based on a lack of evidence because none was found.
There are many transitional forms. When scientists are looking for new transitional forms they are trying to fill in smaller and smaller details of the picture.

The big picture is one of gradually increasing complexity, along with a few of obvious bumps due to an occassional catastrophe. A closer look reveals that evolution is not perfectly gradual, but takes many small discrete steps. There may also be periods of revolutionary experimentation, once a critical technological threshold has been reached.
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 15:42   #482
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:09
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Here is the watchmaker thing that I answered.
You might have answered this one thing, which I will not take time out to analyze right now.

But you have not answered my refutation of the "watchmaker analogy," which I have posted for you twice in this thread.

Quote:
Lincoln,

Just for your convenience, I have quoted my rebuttal to the wristwach analogy:

Quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The fundamental flaw is civilised humans have the prior knowledge of wrist watches (that they are manufactured), while we have no such knowledge of organisms or this universe.

Ask an African Bushman about the wristwatch. Go ahead. See if he knows that there is a type of professions called watchmakers.

Here's the deal. Either show me where I have used circular reasoning, or admit that this so called analogy is broken.

I'll keep reminding you of this until you have chosen one or the other.
P.S. I went to look at the website you have linked. It has absolutely no citations whatsoever. All those numbers in parantheses serve absolutely no purpose. To be expected from a creationist website, long on mumblejumble, nothing in evidence.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 16:06   #483
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
You can't be serious. Is this question really troubling you?:

"The fundamental flaw is civilised humans have the prior knowledge of wrist watches (that they are manufactured), while we have no such knowledge of organisms or this universe.

Ask an African Bushman about the wristwatch. Go ahead. See if he knows that there is a type of professions called watchmakers."

So an "African Bushman" doesn't know about watchmakers so that means that they don't exist?

Of course we have "prior knowledge". That is what science is based on -- repeatable experimentation. And the questions about biological organisms is the topic under discussion. Are we not allowed to use prior knowledge in discussing their nature? What do you suggest that we use -- soothsayers or fortuntellers or do we ask an African Bushman?
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 16:15   #484
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
While you're at it, Lincoln, I'd like a response to my argument to why the watchmaker analogy is fallacious.

Quote:
The wristwatch/mousetrap argument (that neither can exist as a result of mutations) is not entirely valid. Genetic algorithms, given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to the chemical laws that molecules must adhere to), have been used to produce chip designs that are extremely efficient, yet which no human would never have come up with due to their extreme complexity. For example, most chips designed by humans have a global clock that keeps every chip part running synchronously--such a chip is unlikely to have been produced by a genetic algorithm, since there is no readily apparent "intermediate stage" to the chip. The chips that are produced by genetic algorithms almost always run asynchronously (I've never heard of one that doesn't, but I'm hedging my bets here ), making them difficult to design but easy to "mutate" into.

If we were to design a wristwatch using a genetic algorithm, it would almost certainly be more efficient and at the same time more complex than our current wristwatches. It would also have an intermediate form, unlike our current wristwatches. Substitute this genetic wristwatch for the engineered wristwatch, and the "wristwatch on the stump" example takes on a whole new meaning.
The statement "given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to the chemical laws that molecules must adhere to)" has been revised from "given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to natural selection)". The "natural selection" part comes into play when determining the survivability of the organism/chip design/wristwatch, not when the organism/chip design/wristwatch is actually being assembled.
__________________
"For just twenty cents a day, we'll moisten your dreams with man urine." -Space Ghost
loinburger is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 16:19   #485
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Just a note of interest... Discovery has a show tonight

The Real Eve premieres Sunday, April 21, at 9 p.m. ET/PT.

Which, may be of some interest...
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 16:38   #486
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
While you're at it, Lincoln, I'd like a response to my argument to why the watchmaker analogy is fallacious.



The statement "given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to the chemical laws that molecules must adhere to)" has been revised from "given a few simple rules (which are equivalent to natural selection)". The "natural selection" part comes into play when determining the survivability of the organism/chip design/wristwatch, not when the organism/chip design/wristwatch is actually being assembled.
From what I have seen of GA it is based upon the accuracy of the initial program in simulating the real world environment. So without seeing the actual steps and program I cannot say which parts are valid and which are not. For example many of the programs exaggerate mutations or fine tune them until the program nets the desired results. Others are programed with an unreasonable amount of intelligent intervention by the programmer both in the initial program or by manipulating it after it is running. Richard Dawkins for example did both and proved nothing except his own intelligent intervention.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 16:55   #487
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
From what I have seen of GA it is based upon the accuracy of the initial program in simulating the real world environment.
Well, obviously there has to be a good pruning algorithm to simulate "natural selection" in a genetic algorithm. The pruning algorithm used by living organisms is "the organisms that survive and reproduce have the best design," but this doesn't have a direct correspondence in designing a genetic algorithm.

The point is that extreme complexity can spontaneously arise from very simple rules (chemical or algorithmic), and that a designer is not required for a viable end product to be generated. Watches are designed, barbie dolls are designed, but it is a false analogy to thereby assume that organisms must have been designed.
__________________
"For just twenty cents a day, we'll moisten your dreams with man urine." -Space Ghost
loinburger is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 17:16   #488
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
"The point is that extreme complexity can spontaneously arise from very simple rules (chemical or algorithmic), and that a designer is not required for a viable end product to be generated. Watches are designed, barbie dolls are designed, but it is a false analogy to thereby assume that organisms must have been designed."

Show me the very simple rules and if, where and when a human programer is involved. I don't doub't what you say but I really cannot comment until I see where the intelligent intervention takes place.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 17:51   #489
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Show me the very simple rules and if, where and when a human programer is involved. I don't doub't what you say but I really cannot comment until I see where the intelligent intervention takes place.
This is the first hunk of C++ genetic algorithm code I found:

http://www.generation5.org/diophantine_ga.shtml, which solves diophantine equations (described at mathworld). I'll see if I can find a code example used in chip design, but I'm worried that most of that code is going to be proprietary.
__________________
"For just twenty cents a day, we'll moisten your dreams with man urine." -Space Ghost
loinburger is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 19:48   #490
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Thanks for the link Loinburger. Here are a some excerpts from the site and my comments preceded by ***

“Since values that are lower are closer to the desired answer (30), these values are more desirable. In this case, higher fitness values are not desirable, while lower ones are. In order to create a system where chromosomes with more desirable fitness values are more likely to be chosen as parents, we must first calculate the percentages that each chromosome has of being picked.”

*** he is making a value judgment here and also setting a goal, i.e., “closer to the desired answer” and “higher fitness values are not desirable.”

The fitness functions calculate the fitness of each gene. In our case the fitness function is the difference between the calculated value of the gene and the result we want. This class uses two functions, one that calculates all the fitnesses and another smaller one (you should probably make the function inline) to calculate it per gene.

*** “the result we want” another goal set by the intelligent source.

Here are the basic steps of the program which look pretty good to me (even though he did exaggerate the mutations).


1.

Breeding Functions
The breeding functions are composed of three functions, one to get the gene index corresponding to a randomly generated number between 0 and 100, a function to actually calculate the crossover of two genes, and a main function to create the new population. We'll take the functions one at a time, seeing how they call each other. Here is the main breeding function:

2.

So, we firstly create a temporary population of genes. Then we loop through all the genes. Now, when choosing genes we don't want the genes to be the same (no point mating with yourself , and we don't need the genes to be the same either (that is where the operator== from the gene structure comes in handy). In choosing a parent, we generate a random number, then call the GetIndex function. GetIndex uses the idea of the cumulative likelihoods and merely iterates through the genes until it find the gene that contains that number:

3.

Returning to the CreateNewPopulation() function, you can also see that if the number of iterations exceeds MAXPOP squared, it will take any parents. After parents are chosen, we breed them, by passing the indices up to the Breed function. The Breed function returns a gene, which is put in the temporary population

4.

Firstly we determine the crossover point. Now remember, we don't want the crossover to be the first or the last, because that entails copying over all or none of the second parent - pointless. We then create a random number that will determine when the first parents takes the initial crossover or not. The rest is self-explanatory - you can see that I've added a tiny mutation factor to the breeding. There's a 5% chance that a new number will occur.

5.

And finally...
Now we can look at the Solve() function. It merely calls the above functions iteratively. Note that we test whether the function managed to find a result on the initial population - this is unlikely, but I thought I'd put it in.





*** overall it is a rather simple program like you said even though it is tainted some. I tend to agree with Steve Grand though when he replied to this question:

Many believe that the secret to a fully autonomous program will be one that is *relatively* simple in design - yet is capable of evolution and memory. What is your opinion on this?

I've no doubt that's true, but only if you're prepared to wait around for a bit (say 4 billion years or so) while it evolves into something more complex! High levels of intelligence necessarily require high levels of complexity (as I'm sure I could prove, given a bit of thought), and people do tend to underestimate how much time it takes to evolve things that complex, no matter what clever tricks you use. Personally I think the only practical approach to the problem is to think hard and do some engineering.

Answer by Steve Grand http://www.generation5.org/grand.shtml

As far as the watchmaker analogy goes it really is not a very good one nowdays because there are not many watches still made of gears and intedependant parts so much as they were before. I think now people think of a steady pulse (which exists in nature) as a pretty simple thing. A better analogy now days might be an automobile or what ever.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 20:25   #491
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
*** he is making a value judgment here and also setting a goal, i.e., “closer to the desired answer” and “higher fitness values are not desirable.”
By necessity the programmer must include a goal. Biological life has the "goal" of reproducing (since life forms that do not reproduce are unfit, that is, they will not continue to exist). Similarly, the program has the goal of getting the best answer. The better the answer, the better the program. The more likely a life form is to successfully propogate, the better the organism.

The program has limited memory, so the unfit algorithms must be pruned. The environment has a limited carrying capacity, so unfit organisms naturally die off while fit organisms take their place. The major difference here is that organisms naturally die off, while the unfit algorithms must be explicitely pruned by the programmer.

Quote:
*** “the result we want” another goal set by the intelligent source.
An organism's "goal" of propogation needn't have an intelligent source behind it. By the very nature of the beast, an organism that successfully reproduces will produce more similar organisms, thereby keeping its genes in the gene pool. An organism that fails to successfully reproduce will have its genes removed from the gene pool. It isn't as though bolts of lightning smite creatures that fail to propogate.

Quote:
*** overall it is a rather simple program like you said even though it is tainted some.
Without some way of pruning faulty algorithms, the program would eventually run out of RAM.

Quote:
I tend to agree with Steve Grand though when he replied to this question:
I'm not sure if I agree with the four billion years estimate. It took the Earth about four billion years to produce intelligent life, but then again living organisms tends to grow and reproduce more slowly than a program. A good GA would be able to go though thousands or millions of generations per second, while even a very simple organism takes considerably more time to grow and propogate.

Quote:
A better analogy now days might be an automobile or what ever.
The same problem holds, since an automobile is not derived from the repeated application of a few simple rules. It doesn't have "intermediate stages" like a GA or an organism.
__________________
"For just twenty cents a day, we'll moisten your dreams with man urine." -Space Ghost
loinburger is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 20:30   #492
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger


First thing is, where is this fact? Links? Sources? What?



So you are accepting that these are facts:

1. Genetic information is mutable by random, natural processes

2. Environmental pressure will select among indivduals with genetic alleles, causing a shift in their distribution.


You want a link to where you can find that stored, coded information derives from an intelligent source? Well look no further. There are several examples here. Where did all of the information come from that is on this website. Is it or is it not in coded form?

Answer: Yes, both the language and the hidden codes used in the transmission of the information. Or you can look at the source code and see other coded information that had has its source an inteligent agent.

And yes "information" of the Shannon variety can be produced by mutations and selection. But that variety of information cannot contribute to macro evolution because it is generated randomly. All you can get with more random "information" is more complexity with more confusion -- not evolution into a higher form.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 20:50   #493
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
"By necessity the programmer must include a goal. Biological life has the "goal" of reproducing (since life forms that do not reproduce are unfit, that is, they will not continue to exist). Similarly, the program has the goal of getting the best answer. The better the answer, the better the program. The more likely a life form is to successfully propogate, the better the organism."

If you are talking about existing life then yes there is a goal. I am talking about the origin of that life and the goal is either set by the designer or not. If it is not then the programmer that sets this goal is acting in the place of the designer.


"The same problem holds, since an automobile is not derived from the repeated application of a few simple rules. It doesn't have "intermediate stages" like a GA or an organism."

Well we haven't proved yet that a few simple rules make a life form. And an automobile does have intermediate stages. Of course the whole purpose of the machine analogy is to show the complexity of the interdependent parts and machines within the machine. There is no simple rules that can evolve the DNA code and the logical order of information that is within it that produce a biological machine. Likewise there are no simple rules that can bring an automobile into existence without a designer using those rules as tools.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 21:15   #494
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Perhaps the discussion of QT should be moved in a separate thread... but until we agree to that.. i'll post here.

Regarding Penrose>

Any experiment with regard to Quantum effects, are subject to a very problematic rule; Quanta resist being measured precisely, we have only ever, in any experiment been able to predict quantum behavior with a high degree of probability, rather than certainty.. We have to freeze ‘time’ to accurately and adequately investigate Quantum effects.

What Penrose is postulating is that there will be a limited (though not instantaneous) time limit on superposition. Infinite states do not presuppose permanent superposition. Infinite states are a function of Quantum Field Theory (which already supposes superpositional decay), not Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Field Theory
A theory developed by Paul Dirac in 1927 that explains the apparent paradox of wave/particle duality, by identifying a wave with the superposition of an indefinite number of particles. For example, if a wave is then interpreted as showing the probability of the location of a particle, then a "collapse" of the wave through measurement yields a particle sometimes found "here" and sometimes "there."
Notice that the identified wave does exist for a finite time, and collapse... A grouping of Atoms (a macro structure, if you will) would be a Quantum Wave construct, not a Quanta.
What is interesting, is that limited superposition may either indicate cross-state artifacts; the border between quantum states being fluid to a degree, or an identification of a fixed or variable wave-length of quantum waves.
===

To give you some idea that the interpretation of this or any quantum experiment, is not cut and dried, consider the following disussion (taken from http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-11/msg0029749.html)

Re: New Quantum Measurement Paradox?

• Subject: Re: New Quantum Measurement Paradox?
• Wrom: XUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHD
• Date: 23 Nov 2000 11:20:19 GMT
• Approved: helbig@astro.rug.nl (sci.physics.research)
• Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
• Organization: Clef Digital Systems Ltd
• References: <8tnv80$2u6n$1@mortar.ucr.edu>

In article <8v7bta$2gdg$1@mortar.ucr.edu>, thus spake Toby Bartels

>Charles Francis wrote:
>
>>Kinsler wrote:
>
>>>This means that a photon cannot really be said to have a wavefunction at
>>>all ... it is the QSHO's that have wavefunctions, and any given QSHO
>>>wavefunction could correspond to a superposition of any number of
>>>photons.
>
>>This is a matter of opinion. The interpretation of quantum mechanics is
>>not a resolved problem, and there are in my view more severe problems
>>with this type of idea than there are with the simple notion that
>>photons are just particles which can be treated on an equal footing with
>>other fundamental particles like the electron, and has a wave function
>>in just the same way.
>
>Treat photons on the same footing as electrons?
>I'd agree with that. Trouble is,
>I'd say that an electron cannot really be said to have a wavefunction at
>all ... it is the QSHO's that have wavefunctions, and any given QSHO
>wavefunction could correspond to a superposition of any number of
>electrons.
>
>This doesn't seem an issue for the interpretation of QM to me;
>it's more an issue of understanding what quantum field theory is:
>a theory of quantum *fields*.

Are you using a mathematical definition of a field or a physical one?
There is a massive difference. The question isn't so much whether
quantum field theory is a theory of fields, but how you interpret what a
field actually is.
>
>I understand that your discrete QED is not a theory of quantum fields at all,
>and that's fine

Discrete QED uses a mathematical definition of a field.

>-- but that's not an issue of interpretation either
>but instead a matter of differences between competing theories.

The major significant difference between these competing theories is
that they are interpreted differently. Discrete qed is really little
more than an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Along with it comes an
interpretation of what a field is, and of what quantum field theory
means.

===================================



Proof of QT, including QFT and hence infinite states.


Now… for a more concrete and understandable ‘proof’ of QFT and infinite states,
Do you believe that aeroplanes and birds fly?

Q) By what means do they fly?
A) An effect described by Bernoulli’s law. Lower pressure above a wing and higher pressure below, caused by a specific shape.

Q) Is this law trusted and taken as fact?
A) Yes

Q) Why is it trusted and taken as fact?
A) The principal has been tested for proof, and found to be consistently valid. Ultimately the best proof is its practical implementation of flying machines.

Now… what does this have to do with Quantum Theory you might ask?

Quantum Computing. The major area for the implemented manifestation of QT, including QFT, the ‘infinite state theory’.

Quantum computing although in its infancy, is leveraging quantum theory to create different and infinitely more capable machines, which deal with information as a whole, rather than breaking it down and dealing with it piece meal, as well as introducing new types of security (individual photons on demand) and information teleportation.

Issues with the number of steps before decoherence are difficult to resolve, but as the formulaic quality and complexity increases, so does the stability of the system.

That existing Quantum Computers have been implemented prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that quantum effects, including Quanta, Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields exist, as behavior, just like the effect that existing Airplanes prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bernoulli effect exists, as behavior.

A “universal” quantum computer is some way off, yet given the progress, it will forseeably be produced.

The state of QC in 98 was…

Milestones in the development of quantum computer technology (from Physics magazine 1998)
Type of hardware Number of qubits needed Number of steps before decoherence Status
Quantum Cryptography 1 1 Already implemented
Entanglement-based quantum cryptography 2 1 Demonstrated in lab
Quantum controlled-NOT gate 2 1 Demonstrated in lab
Composition of quantum gates 2 2 Demonstrated in lab
Deutsch's algorithm 2 3 Demonstrated in NMR quantum computer
*snip*

Several companies and organizations are leveraging quantum effects to fulfill quantum computing, including Los Alamos, AT&T and Bell among others.

To say that researchers will disprove QT is as untrue as them saying that they will disprove Bernoulli. Planes will continue to fly. Quantum computers will continue to compute.

The task for researchers is to reconcile what we understand as quanta, with General Relativity. This may require more complex constructs than Quanta, or additional general Theorems, or a revision of GR.

Last edited by MrBaggins; April 22, 2002 at 14:20.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 21:19   #495
Jack_www
Civilization III MultiplayerPtWDG LegolandNationStatesNever Ending StoriesRise of Nations MultiplayerC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
King
 
Jack_www's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,407
Many of you claim that life evolving form one biological family to anther is an established fact. Like apes evolving into humans. Or fish evolving into the first land animals. When I look at the evidence that has been provided, it is not conclusive. As Lincoln brought out there have been many examples of misstakes made. The problem I have is you people trying to say it is an established fact. I can accept as fact minor changes occuring in living things, and natural selection, or survival of fittest. But the rest seems to me as hypthesis, that has very little backing it.
Jack_www is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 21:26   #496
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Many of you claim that life evolving form one biological family to anther is an established fact. Like apes evolving into humans. Or fish evolving into the first land animals. When I look at the evidence that has been provided, it is not conclusive. As Lincoln brought out there have been many examples of misstakes made. The problem I have is you people trying to say it is an established fact. I can accept as fact minor changes occuring in living things, and natural selection, or survival of fittest. But the rest seems to me as hypthesis, that has very little backing it.
Do you understand what differentiates family, genus and species, in concrete terms to make this claim?

Its actually the Genus that differs humans from apes...

Last edited by MrBaggins; April 21, 2002 at 21:33.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 21:43   #497
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln


You want a link to where you can find that stored, coded information derives from an intelligent source? Well look no further. There are several examples here. Where did all of the information come from that is on this website. Is it or is it not in coded form?

Answer: Yes, both the language and the hidden codes used in the transmission of the information. Or you can look at the source code and see other coded information that had has its source an inteligent agent.

*snip*
Actually, no...

There is no 'proof' that the information presented on these web pages means that an intelligent source created them.

A computer algorithm could have generated everything you see, except for whatever you specifically posted. Prove otherwise.

What could a computer algorithm not have generated, precisely?

How do you KNOW that this posting, now was not generated by a massively complex algorithm?
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 21:50   #498
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I am talking about the origin of that life and the goal is either set by the designer or not.
What do you mean? It is quite possible and even likely that many life forms and proto-life forms have been produced that were not capable of propogation. These life forms and proto-life forms are not around anymore because they died without leaving offspring. There needn't have been a designer involved; it's just a trivial matter that "things that produce more of themselves" are going to be more viable than "things that do not produce more of themselves."

If you have billions of protein fragments in some primordial soup, they aren't all thinking to themselves "I'd better assemble some more protein fragments like me before I'm broken apart, otherwise my legacy will not live on." No, they're lifeless protein fragments; they have no goals or aspirations. Saying that a designer caused some of these protein fragments to combine with other protein fragments into a complex molecule capable of propogation is like saying that some designer caused water to erode rock in order to make the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is still there, but it's because of gravity and erosion, not because of the flick of a magic wand or something. Life is still here, but it's because of chemistry, not because of the flick of a magic wand or something.

Quote:
If it is not then the programmer that sets this goal is acting in the place of the designer.
Did water have the goal of making the grand canyon?

Quote:
Well we haven't proved yet that a few simple rules make a life form.
Nor will we. Instead, we will continue to amass evidence in favor of this explanation for life, and we will continue to fail to find evidence in favor of creationism.

Quote:
And an automobile does have intermediate stages.
No it doesn't. A 5th generation car doesn't mutate into a 6th generation car. Both the 5th and 6th generation cars were designed.

However, a 5th generation genetic algorithm spontaneously mutates into a 10th or 1000th generation genetic algorithm. Similarly, my ancestor from two billion years ago eventually mutated into the fine specimen that is me.

Quote:
Of course the whole purpose of the machine analogy is to show the complexity of the interdependent parts and machines within the machine.
And the machine analogy continues to fail, because a car is engineered while a life form evolves.
__________________
"For just twenty cents a day, we'll moisten your dreams with man urine." -Space Ghost
loinburger is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 21:59   #499
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
You are not considering that life is now based on DNA. You have to get there somehow regardless of "proteins floating around a warm pond".

"And the machine analogy continues to fail, because a car is engineered while a life form evolves."

That is circular reasoning. The question under descussion is the evolution or design of life.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 22:17   #500
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
You are not considering that life is now based on DNA. You have to get there somehow regardless of "proteins floating around a warm pond".

"And the machine analogy continues to fail, because a car is engineered while a life form evolves."

That is circular reasoning. The question under descussion is the evolution or design of life.
In answer to this... I'll keep on asking this argument, until you answer apropriately

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln

*snip*
There is no magic information in a book either it is "just a bunch of atoms." But the information contained in those atoms originated from an intelligent mental source. And no I do not agree with the above statements. If you are talking about cloning then yes, it works. If you are talking about "an endless amount of DNA seaquences" forming themselves into life then no, it must have intelligent input or manipulation so that a code could be formed and viable information can be placed within your theoretical bacteria.
Just plain wrong
If I go through a complete sequence of permutations of DNA then I will recreate the exact structure and sequence of you, every bacteria, and every other being.

To use your book example...

Given an infinite sequence, order and location of atoms for a book.. carbon... etc etc etc. Most of the permutations will not look anything like a book. Some will. Some will look like a book but contain gibberish. Some will contain the bible. Some will have an adendum saying... "I got that bit about creation wrong."

Given massive numbers of permutations anything is possible. The issue is, people have problems conceiving such random behavior, since they have no way to experience it. Its impossible for us to see failed permutations of this process. They never became viable to leave evidence.


Now the simple questions...

1) Do all permutations of atoms (or other appropriate elements) contain all states of an object, including viable and non viable? True or False
2) Would some permutations of atoms appear to have meaning (like for instance a book with 'information')? True or False
3) Will an algorithm listing all permutations of 100 ASCII characters (all letters, numbers, symbols and spaces) produce a number of permutations where meaningful 'information' is produced? Yes or No
4) Does this imply that perceived 'information' can be found in permutations of random occurances given enough iterations occur? Yes or No
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 22:30   #501
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
"Given massive numbers of permutations anything is possible. The issue is, people have problems conceiving such random behavior, since they have no way to experience it. Its impossible for us to see failed permutations of this process. They never became viable to leave evidence."

You assume that life is just random atoms that somehow through "permutations" formed themselves into an information based biological machine. You are suggesting that anything is possible period. Are you not?
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 22:32   #502
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
"Given massive numbers of permutations anything is possible. The issue is, people have problems conceiving such random behavior, since they have no way to experience it. Its impossible for us to see failed permutations of this process. They never became viable to leave evidence."

You assume that life is just random atoms that somehow through "permutations" formed themselves into an information based biological machine. You are suggesting that anything is possible period. Are you not?
Stop evading, and answer the very simple true or false, yes or no anwers. No explanations necessary. I'm sure you're capable.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 22:37   #503
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
1) Do all permutations of atoms (or other appropriate elements) contain all states of an object, including viable and non viable? True or False
2) Would some permutations of atoms appear to have meaning (like for instance a book with 'information')? True or False
3) Will an algorithm listing all permutations of 100 ASCII characters (all letters, numbers, symbols and spaces) produce a number of permutations where meaningful 'information' is produced? Yes or No
4) Does this imply that perceived 'information' can be found in permutations of random occurances given enough iterations occur? Yes or No

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. No
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 22:45   #504
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Now here are my questions again. See if you can actually answer them:

quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


That's just not true Lincoln, the first selection pressure of the first self-replicating molecule (formation by chance, do I have to go into the apes on typewriters typing Shakespeare's works analogy again?). Then evolution kicks in, selection of superior self-replicating molecules. The obvious big jump in superiority is autocatalysis, ie, the structure of the nucleic acid means it has the enzymic activity to reproduce itself, this is why it is speculated that RNA was the first nucleic acid, as examples exist today of autocatalytic RNA. The second big leap was the association of protein. Proteins consisting of polypeptides make far superior enzymes (greater repertoire of properties of amino acids, greater structural possibilities), and the selection pressure for this protein-nucleic acid system rather than autocatalytic nucleic acid system makes the difference between survival and death. And the process rolls on once this desired relationship between protein and nucleic acid (for this to be successful, translation mechanisms have to exist to convert genetic data into protein). There is no data input required from an intelligent being, natural selection can account for it given a reasonable mutation rate. Most varieties will be deleterious and die away, but the odd one will be effective. Remember this is painfully slow, billions of years, the step from this success to humanity is very short in comparison (hundreds of millions of years).

Just consider the numbers involved before you close your mind and refuse to consider the most plausible theory.



A few quick questions PH,

How does “autocatalysis” and a random order of RNA produce a code along with a translation process?

How did the “the translation mechanism” come into existence?

You suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?

How are the triplets discerned initially?

What selective advantage is there for one sequence of RNA or DNA over another if the code or the translation mechanism is unknown?
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 22:54   #505
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Better answer quick. I am going to bed.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 22:56   #506
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Uh oh. My light is going out...
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 22:57   #507
Goingonit
Warlord
 
Goingonit's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Posts: 192
Lincoln, though many of your points are valid, you must still get past thinking of RNA as some sort of "translation mechansism". It no more translates a code than does sodium on its way to form salt. All processes going on are purely chemical in nature, and have been explained in detail by biologists more competent than I. Furthermore, RNA is life regardless of whether it forms amino acids on the way, and if you had all possible ermutations of 100 ASCII characters, one of them would be

"Lincoln, though many of your points are valid, you must still get past thinking of RNA as some sort"

Yes, that is a permutation of ASCII characters 100 characters in length, it conveys information, and it can be formed randomly.

The more general rule is that information is contained in the mind rather than that the mind is contained in information: infomration is only information when there is someone who understands it.

EDIT: sweet dreams...
__________________
I refute it thus!
"Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"
Goingonit is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 23:17   #508
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
I typed this reply to Lincoln just before the server was shut down yesterday. Tried to submit and found it was down.

Fortunatly I copied and saved as I was trying to post it.

Submit
Control-A
Contol-C
have everthing dispear into the ether except that I had JUST saved to my clipboard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
A little food for thought below I will post several more disputed and fraudulent claims made concerning the fossil record if anyone is actually interested in something than rhetoric here:
So why did you post more dubious nonsense.

Quote:
Australopithecine: not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. ”The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)

The fossil are NOT human no one said they were. So its fraudlent to call it fraud. They are not apes, they are not humans, they are Australopithicenes and they are the ancesotrors of Genus Homo.

They stood erect unlike any ape.

Now for more recent quotes from Oxnard. That one you used was from before Lucy was found. Its obsolete. Its fraud to pretend it is still valid.

Quote:
It has been reported that Dr. Oxnard found the "sophisticated computer analysis" quote quite amusing. It was just a multivariate analysis, something that is taught (for instance) to every Psychology student.

Dr. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a small number of bones, most of them fragmentary. Nevertheless, he did conclude that australopithecines probably were bipedal (walked upright), unlike modern apes.

Dr. Oxnard did his study in the 1970's, before the discovery of "Lucy" and many other related fossils. His study is therefore out of date, since we have more evidence now. Only a more modern quote would be worthy of debate.
You realy need to use something other than creationists for your sources. They love to use out of date quotes. Even when it is pointed out they will continue to act as if they are true.

Quote:
Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, “Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40
Lucy's hip joint is so similar to modern man its silly to pretend that its even remotely chimplike. Dr Zilman did not claim it was an ape at all.

What Dr. Zilman ACTUALLY said.
Quote:
Except for the pelvis, the P. paniscus skeleton shows a striking resemblance to fossils of the earliest hominid Australopithecus."
Note the "Except the pelvis" remark. Dr. Zilman does not in anyway claim that Lucy was a chimp. She simply compared Lucy to a chimp as did Dr White in his original work. Anthropologists ALWAYS compare australopithicenes to chimps and to modern humans and to other australopicenes or they would be speculating rather than making well reasoned deductions in compartive anatomy.

Creationists LOVE to take quotes out of context and ingnore everything else the person really said.

So the only fraud here is creationist.

Quote:
Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, “Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)
So where is the fraud there Lincoln? Mehlert has made some bogus claims about Lucy so I can't accept him as an objective source in any case. Homo Habilis may not belong in genus Homo or it may belong. There is no fraud involved except perhaps for Mehlert's false claims that Lucy contains modern human bones as well ancient bones. Mehlert is a creationist and nothing remotely resembling a good source of information.

Quote:

Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's.
I am not going to quote the whole thing as there is absolutely remotely resembling fraud mentioned in it. Why did you post it? It does nothing to show anything except that Peking Man is not well researched by modern standards. Too bad the fossils were lost in WWII.

Do you understand the difference between a difference of oppinion based on incomplete and no longer available evidence and FRAUD? You don't seem to or you wouldn't have posted that.

Quote:
Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap dug up in 1891 on the banks of the Solo River in Java and a femur that was dug up 50 feet away and year later.
More of the same. You are characterizing differences of oppinion as fraud. That is dubious pretension at best.

There is ONE known fraud in Anthropology. Eoanthropus Dawsoni or Piltdown Man. Thats it and you havn't added any to that. You haven't even tried to even though you put a lot here none of it remotely resembled fraud except for Mehlert maybe and he was attacking Lucy for the Creationist side.

Quote:
The above is typical of the disputes and the outright fraud that pervades the "fact" of evolution. I have hundreds more...
Above is typical of the bogus assertions of creationist. An out of context quote here, a qoute from a creationist that wrote stuff based on someone elses out of context quotes there and a rearangement of english to characterize a legitimate disagreement as some sort of fraud.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I will get to that PDF you posted later. I am half way through it and I have lots of stuff on his main source Dembski.
Ethelred is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 23:43   #509
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www

Creation model can explain it just as well; this was the order that life was created.
Only if you ignore the Bible as the source of Creationism because it has the wrong order of creation. All you are doing here is saying the a god (can't be Jehovah cause the Bible has the wrong order) created the world to look exactly as if it was done by natural laws of physics plus natural selection for the evolution of life. It predicts nothing. Its worthless as a theory since it only predicts that things will look exactly like there is no god.

Quote:
Many claim life is self-assembling. This is hard for me to believe. Odds are too great.
You are mixing up ideas here. Life IS self-assembling. That is it grows and isn't asembled by a watchmaker. So there is no reason to demand that there must be a watchmaker to make you from your parents. You self assembled.

The question of life beginning as a self reproding molecule is something else than saying life is self-assembling. There is no reason at present to think that life could not have started as a self-reproducing molecule that first formed by accidental chemical reactions. There is no evidence for it though. There are some labratory experiments showing that it might be possible.

Quote:
There have been many examples of fraud and miss interruption of fossil, which have been at one time said to be missing links to human evolution.
False, there is exactly ONE fraud. Mixing that in with differences of oppinion is not exactly an honest aproach to discussion.

There is a possibility that Piltdown man was actually a joke by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He lived in the neighborhood and had the skills and the materials and he liked practical jokes.

Either Dawson did a lousy job of inspecting the fossils or he did it himself. He is one man not the entirety of anthropology.

Quote:
Analyzing fossils is not a perfect science, and mistakes can be made, and in fact major mistakes have been made, and some very few people have engaged in out right fraud.
ONE person. Maybe.

True, its not an exact science. We learn more with each new find. However the fossils exist and none of them are in the least compatible with Young Earth Creationism and all are compatible with and indeed require evolution.

Quote:
With the flood, since MrBaggins keeps brining it up, lets go over the evidence and see if the Flood recorded in the Bible could have really happened.
It couldn't. This is of topic in this thread however.

How about you and Bagggins and Zack start up a thread entitled

Noah's Big Assed Boat

That would be a more appropriate thread.

(Thread title freely stolen from a thread on the Maximum PC forums.)
Ethelred is offline  
Old April 21, 2002, 23:52   #510
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Lincoln.. as a follow up

Here is a slightly abbreviated BASIC algorithm to print ascii permutations (18 characters- 100 would take hours... but 100 would use precisely the same concept, just more iterations)

for a = 1 to 127
for b = 1 to 127
for c = 1 to 127
for d = 1 to 127
for e = 1 to 127
for f = 1 to 127
for g = 1 to 127
for h = 1 to 127
for i = 1 to 127
for j = 1 to 127
for k = 1 to 127
for l = 1 to 127
for m = 1 to 127
for n = 1 to 127
for o = 1 to 127
for p = 1 to 127
for q = 1 to 127
for r = 1 to 127
string = chr$(a) + chr$(b) + chr$(c) + _
chr$(d) + chr$(e) + chr$(f) + _
chr$(g) + chr$(h) + chr$(i) + _
chr$(j) + chr$(k) + chr$(l) + _
chr$(m) + chr$(n) + chr$(o) + _
chr$(p) + chr$(q) + chr$(r)
print string
next r
next q
next p
next o
next n
next m
next l
next k
next j
next i
next h
next g
next f
next e
next d
next c
next b
next a


during the single permutation that when the print statement was reached
a was equal to 73
b was equal to 32
c was equal to 97
d was equal to 109
e was equal to 32
f was equal to 103
g was equal to 111
h was equal to 105
i was equal to 110
j was equal to 103
k was equal to 32
l was equal to 116
m was equal to 111
n was equal to 32
o was equal to 98
p was equal to 101
q was equal to 100
r was equal to 46

then

Quote:
I am going to bed.
would appear on the screen- an exact coded informational sentence that you have used.

Is there any magic involved? Any intelligence required by the algorithm?

No...

Why?

There is no specific aim for the algorithm to generate 'coded information', however it randomly DOES occur within the output of the algorithm.

Now... Lincoln... i'll ask 3 again. To be fair, i'll replace the number 100 with 18, and tender the above algorithm (using the BASIC programming language) as evidence.

3) Will an algorithm listing all permutations of 18 ASCII characters (all letters, numbers, symbols and spaces) produce a number of permutations where meaningful 'information' is produced? Yes or No

In the event that you answer no, to save another redundant post ... if no, explain

Last edited by MrBaggins; April 22, 2002 at 00:17.
MrBaggins is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:09.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team