Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... >

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,18:35    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 21 2008,18:02) If we can reduce it to basics; your definition of natural selection applies only to positive selection:  Only that which survives to reproduce is said to be selected.   My definition includes both the positive and the negative:  If something survives to reproduce, it was selected for, if it doesn't survive to reproduce, it was selected against. As far as I can tell, that's the only difference between our two positions. I might not be using the word correctly.  If not, I need to find another way of expressing the thought. Yes. My definition (which is generally accepted in the biological science community) includes the concept of the next generations. Those next generations are rather critical in considering how natural selection works to generate diversity, don't you think? Your "definition" (again, I am fishing for it, because you haven't stated it explicitly) is almost certainly wrong. It will make it easier if you can get that notion out of your head. Furthermore, your concept seems to be that natural selection is horrendously and uniformly negative, which is pretty much the standard creationist perspective. "Darwinism" is nothing more than death and pain, suffering and and horror. The FACT that there must be subsequent generations in order for natural selection to have an effect on shaping the diversity of living things seems to be ignored. So please understand that natural selection is not just death and suffering. Natural selection is a process that occurs over GENERATIONS, and catastrophes that wipe out every organism in a population (floods, asteroids, volcanic eruptions) are not included in the definition of natural selection. It certainly makes it easier to oppose something when you misunderstand it in such a negative way. Hopefully it will make it easier now for you to understand why GAs which model natural selection per se don't include the catastrophic events that you find so compelling. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,18:43    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 21 2008,18:02) If we can reduce it to basics; your definition of natural selection applies only to positive selection:  Only that which survives to reproduce is said to be selected. No, the definition quoted doesn't imply that at all.  Comparatively beneficial traits become more common, are selected for, comparatively detrimental traits become less common, are selected against.  Didn't you read it?   Quote My definition includes both the positive and the negative:  If something survives to reproduce, it was selected for, if it doesn't survive to reproduce, it was selected against. Good grief, you still don't understand.  Why are you incapable of reading the things you are responding to? The Wiki defintion is about how nature works on heritable differences within a population.  It says so right there!  When a freak flood kills a group of organisms, such that none of them posess a heritbale bit of DNA to help them reproduce better than their fellow organisms, it's not what intelligent people call natural selection.  That's just a freak accident. Only you think that is natural selection.  But you are wrong.  Perhaps if you listened and read what people were telling you, instead of patting them on the head and telling them that your defintions are better than theirs, you would be wrong a little less often. Perhaps if you actually looked at a few facts, (like what the output of a GA actually looks like) you could start saying intelligent things on these subjects, instead of your usual made-up nonsense.  Then, you wouldn't have to lie about your claims in order to attempt to defend your nonsense claims.   Quote I might not be using the word correctly.  If not, I need to find another way of expressing the thought. Have you even considered the possibility that your problem isn't that you aren't eloquent enough, but that you are peddling dumb arguments?   And that we are rejecting them, not because they are put forth with too little rhetorical skill, but because we know the facts, and you do not, and your claims don't stand up to the facts? No, of course you haven't considered that.  Jesus told you that everything was designed, therefore, any argument that supports that eternal truth has to be right.  Details like, conserved regions in genomes, or the numbers of bacteria that can survive a selection, those details confuse.  But "Jesus loves me, and designed me", that's simple.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,19:05    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2008,05:21) Daniel Smith:               Quote I'm sure your knowledge on this subject exceeds mine by light years. [...] In fact, it would be better for the GAs overall result if the selection criteria had a low threshold for fitness -- as this would allow more potential solutions to survive. I only need to be a few regular seconds ahead of Daniel to find and read Wikipedia's article on fitness proportionate selection, which states:               Quote While candidate solutions with a higher fitness will be less likely to be eliminated, there is still a chance that they may be. Contrast this with a less sophisticated selection algorithm, such as truncation selection, which will eliminate a fixed percentage of the weakest candidates. With fitness proportionate selection there is a chance some weaker solutions may survive the selection process; this is an advantage, as though a solution may be weak, it may include some component which could prove useful following the recombination process. I have to echo what others have already noted, that Daniel's "criticisms" are too ill-informed to be considered a substantive contribution to discussion. One finds that one has to guess at what might even be an applicable way to map Daniel's blitherings to what actually exists in the literature. Wesley, I apologize for my "blitherings". I keep it simple because that's all I can do. My only question is how well genetic algorithms actually simulate real-life biological evolution via natural selection. My focus has been on selection algorithms - and whether or not they accurately simulate real-life selection. I take it you feel they do, (at least some of them anyway). You mention 'fitness proportionate selection', but don't say if that was the method used by the two algorithms you mentioned.   Was 'fitness proportionate selection' the selection algorithm used in the EQU logic function or the TSP algorithm? If not, were any of the best solutions selected against in those GAs? Could you at least answer that for me? Thank you. I've been reading up on the basics of GAs over at wikipedia -- starting with the link you provided. For instance, I found this:           Quote The fitness function is defined over the genetic representation and measures the quality of the represented solution. The fitness function is always problem dependent. ... In some problems, it is hard or even impossible to define the fitness expression; in these cases, interactive genetic algorithms are used. link (my emphasis) It would seem to me that real-world biological evolution has so many variables, it would have to be in the "impossible to define" category.  Is that your opinion also? Then there's this from the same page:         Quote Most functions are stochastic and designed so that a small proportion of less fit solutions are selected. This helps keep the diversity of the population large, preventing premature convergence on poor solutions. This implies that successful evolution requires large, diverse populations.  Is that an accurate reflection of the MET? Well, I may have found the answer myself (farther down the page):         Quote Diversity is important in genetic algorithms (and genetic programming) because crossing over a homogeneous population does not yield new solutions. In evolution strategies and evolutionary programming, diversity is not essential because of a greater reliance on mutation. So, from this it would seem that genetic algorithms are not an accurate representation of real-world evolution.  For that we need to look at evolution strategies and evolutionary programming. Were you aware of this important distinction Wesley?  (I'm sure you were.)  Am I missing something?  (I'm sure I am.) Following this link for Evolution Strategies at scholarpedia:         Quote The performance of an ES on a specific problem class depends crucially on the design of the ES-operators (mutation, recombination, selection) used and on the manner in which the ES-operators are adapted during the evolution process (adaptation schemes, e.g., \sigma-self-adaptation, covariance matrix adaptation, etc.). Ideally they should be designed in such a manner that they guarantee the evolvability of the system throughout the whole evolution process. Here are some principles and general guide lines:    * Selection is done by population truncation similar to that what breeders are doing when breeding animals or plants. So, at least according to this author, even evolution strategies are using selection algorithms that more closely resemble artificial, as opposed to natural, selection. Again, I'm sure I'm missing something and will happily follow any links you can provide which will shine a light on my ignorance. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,19:17    Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 21 2008,16:21) You don't completly grasp the idea of natural selection Daniel. But it's pretty easy (that's why I wonder why you've got so much trouble with it...). First of all, it's relative, because natural selection matters between other groups of animals. Imagine a population of butterflies living in a dark forest, you've got red one's and you've got brown one's. The red one's will be a much easier prey for birds for example, because they're much easier spotted by a fast flying bird then brown one's. The red one's will be the number one on the bird's menu, and will get eaten much more then the brown butterflies. The brown one's can preduce much more offspring then the red one's, and after a while a dominatly brown population of butterflies will populate the forest. You can turn it around ofcourse, and set them in a brightly collored field of flowers, where the red butterflies will have a survival advantage. Thus you can get a red population in the field, and a brown population in the forest. If certain separations occure, you ultimatly end up with 2 different species of butterflies. If anyone can correct me on errors, I'm not perfect afterall, please do. I don't see the difference between what you said and what I said.   The red butterflies die as a result of predators and are thus selected against.   The brown ones don't die, (because of predators anyway), and are thus selected for.   The population slowly moves from 50/50 red/brown to more brown that red. You guys are making this out like it's terribly complicated when it seems pretty simple to me. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,19:31    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 21 2008,16:35)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 21 2008,18:02) If we can reduce it to basics; your definition of natural selection applies only to positive selection:  Only that which survives to reproduce is said to be selected.   My definition includes both the positive and the negative:  If something survives to reproduce, it was selected for, if it doesn't survive to reproduce, it was selected against. As far as I can tell, that's the only difference between our two positions. I might not be using the word correctly.  If not, I need to find another way of expressing the thought. Yes. My definition (which is generally accepted in the biological science community) includes the concept of the next generations. Those next generations are rather critical in considering how natural selection works to generate diversity, don't you think? Your "definition" (again, I am fishing for it, because you haven't stated it explicitly) is almost certainly wrong. It will make it easier if you can get that notion out of your head. Furthermore, your concept seems to be that natural selection is horrendously and uniformly negative, which is pretty much the standard creationist perspective. "Darwinism" is nothing more than death and pain, suffering and and horror. The FACT that there must be subsequent generations in order for natural selection to have an effect on shaping the diversity of living things seems to be ignored. So please understand that natural selection is not just death and suffering. Natural selection is a process that occurs over GENERATIONS, and catastrophes that wipe out every organism in a population (floods, asteroids, volcanic eruptions) are not included in the definition of natural selection. It certainly makes it easier to oppose something when you misunderstand it in such a negative way. I think you and I are just talking past each other.  My definition (which I gave you) is not complicated.  Acting like I've completely missed the point and talking about 'generations' -- as if my definition will somehow not apply to succeeding generations -- is pointless. Accusing me of negativism because I dare to mention negative selection is pointless as well.   Quote Hopefully it will make it easier now for you to understand why GAs which model natural selection per se don't include the catastrophic events that you find so compelling. First, point me to one of these "GAs which model natural selection". Second, it's not just "catastrophic events" which I find so compelling, it's all the forces of nature which conspire against the survival of organisms, (and they are legion), thereby severely hampering the success of evolution by natural selection.   And third, if these GAs don't include these factors, then they don't model real-life biological evolution. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,20:17    Daniel Smith: Quote My only question is how well genetic algorithms actually simulate real-life biological evolution via natural selection. Genetic algorithms don't "simulate real-life biological evolution". If that's really Daniel's only question, then we can shorten things up nicely. Genetic algorithms, though, do serve as models of natural selection. Quote There are any number of optimization techniques that share nothing in common with NS, and for which I would not advance the notion that they "model" NS in any significant sense.  However, this is not the basis upon which I state that GAs model NS.  GAs model NS because GAs use the *same* theoretical framework as NS.  The mismatches occur in the genetics used and the mode by which the environment is established. So far, Daniel has advanced to the fourth of the common antievolution dismissals of evolutionary computation that I wrote about in 1999. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,21:05    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 21 2008,19:31) I think you and I are just talking past each other.  My definition (which I gave you) is not complicated.  Acting like I've completely missed the point and talking about 'generations' -- as if my definition will somehow not apply to succeeding generations -- is pointless. Accusing me of negativism because I dare to mention negative selection is pointless as well.           Quote Hopefully it will make it easier now for you to understand why GAs which model natural selection per se don't include the catastrophic events that you find so compelling. First, point me to one of these "GAs which model natural selection". Second, it's not just "catastrophic events" which I find so compelling, it's all the forces of nature which conspire against the survival of organisms, (and they are legion), thereby severely hampering the success of evolution by natural selection.   And third, if these GAs don't include these factors, then they don't model real-life biological evolution. Daniel Let's keep it simple. In the first place, when you talk about natural selection wiping out entire populations, and I point out that natural selection doesn't work that way because you need subsequent generations to visualize the effects of natural selection, it is hardly "pointless". Rather it is pointless for you to pretend that catastrophes that wipe out entire populations are examples of natural selection, because they simply are not. In the second place, natural selection (precisely because it invokes the concept of subsequent generations!) involves not just survival, but survival and reproduction. An organism that survives 100 years but leaves no offspring is less fit in a given environment than an organism that dies early but manages to leave some offspring. Please purge your mind of the notion that survival is the only important parameter in natural selection. It is simply wrong. Finally, try to wrap your head around the fact that natural selection does not usually involve complete elimination of one genotype and complete success of another genotype in one generation. Natural selection does involve differential reproductive success, and that differential can be very small and still have a large effect on the gene frequency in a population. For example, consider a population with equal numbers (50% each) of organisms with two genotypes, A and B. If the average number of offspring for genotype A is 2.0, and the average number for genotype B is just 2.2, genotype B will be over 99% of the population after just 50 generations. Fitness is not all-or-none. Selection is not all-or none. Please try to integrate this reality into your simplistic notions about natural selection and other mechanisms of evolutionary change. As for genetic algorithms, I know little or nothing about them. But, unlike you, I know enough not to pontificate about what they can do, or what they should do. I'll leave your education about genetic algorithms to those who work with them. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Coyote Posts: 21 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,21:56    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 22 2008,07:05) For example, consider a population with equal numbers (50% each) of organisms with two genotypes, A and B. If the average number of offspring for genotype A is 2.0, and the average number for genotype B is just 2.2, genotype B will be over 99% of the population after just 50 generations. Fitness is not all-or-none. Selection is not all-or none. Please try to integrate this reality into your simplistic notions about natural selection and other mechanisms of evolutionary change. It is even worse than your example describes. Change is going on in hundreds or thousands of traits in a population at the same time. And sometimes change works in two directions at once! That is why, for example, sickle cell anemia can be detrimental on one hand and can confer some malaria immunity on the other hand. Somehow the adaptations came as a package and were 1) useful enough to convey some survival advantage while 2) not being too detrimental. It is too easy to think of evolution in terms of single, isolated traits, but many traits are changing all at the same time.

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,00:46    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 21 2008,19:31) I think you and I are just talking past each other. No, not really.  People are giving you the facts, and you are refusing to listen, because you think you know better.   Quote My definition (which I gave you) is not complicated. But it's wrong.  Given the choice, honest and intelligent people will choose to believe the complex, right thing, instead of the simple, wrong thing. Well, it didn't take you long to prove that once again, you reject the ways of intelligent, honest people. Real natural selection requires different heritable elements that cause differential reproductive success. You think that natural selection is just about organisms dying.  You said so plainly.   Quote Accusing me of negativism because I dare to mention negative selection is pointless as well. You, the person who thinks he invented the notion that selection can work against...whatever you think selection works against, is accusing others of being on a high horse? You plainly said that you think that solutions to GAs will degrade over time.  Of course, you can't demonstrate this, because it's not true.  But that's why people are accusing you of thinking that evolution is all negative, because you keep saying that evolutionary processes lead to degradation. You also thought that evolutionary forces would degrade all types of DNA sequences equally, and you were plainly shown to be wrong there as well.   See, the way people on this board operate is, they collect the data (in this case, the words you post about genomes and GAs and the like), and then they draw conclusions about the data (namely, that you think that evolution is a totally negative, degrading, destructive process). We understand that this is a long way from your "Make up how (insert: GAs, mouse orthologs, bacterial selections experiments, the list goes on) works, and then pontificate about how it proves that Jesus designed you.   I know that pointing this out to you is a waste of time, since you don't intend on looking at any data (like GA output) or paying attention to data that you don't like (like the percentage of non-orthologous genes between humans and mice) but this way, it can't be said that no one tried to teach you how to think and reason like an intellignet, honest person.   Quote Second, it's not just "catastrophic events" which I find so compelling, it's all the forces of nature which conspire against the survival of organisms, (and they are legion), thereby severely hampering the success of evolution by natural selection. Right.  Nature is soooo hard on life that the planet is saturated with it from top to bottom.  That's a really compelling argument.   Yes, by all means, hammer on this angle.  Use the fact that that those strains of malaria that kill other people's children would never be so deadly if God weren't helping them to evade the medicines that desperate parents and doctors throw at them.  It's what you believe, isn't it?  That God helps those parasites rip apart the blood cells of children in order to teach you a lesson?   Or are you going to lie and say that you didn't mean that at all?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,02:54    Quote My only question is how well genetic algorithms actually simulate real-life biological evolution via natural selection. Daniel, Do you think weather modelling includes a real mini-thunderstorm inside the computer? If not, it's hardly an accurate simulation is it? EDIT: Your compadres have been here before Daniel. gil-has-never-grasped-the-nature-of-a-simulation-model/ And they were badly embarrassed. Of course, it was "all a joke"..... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,06:01    Quote (Coyote @ Jan. 21 2008,21:56) It is even worse than your example describes. Change is going on in hundreds or thousands of traits in a population at the same time. And sometimes change works in two directions at once! That is why, for example, sickle cell anemia can be detrimental on one hand and can confer some malaria immunity on the other hand. Somehow the adaptations came as a package and were 1) useful enough to convey some survival advantage while 2) not being too detrimental. It is too easy to think of evolution in terms of single, isolated traits, but many traits are changing all at the same time. Absolutely. But I was trying to keep it simple, because Daniel seems to have trouble with complexity... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,07:44    Daniel, There's a difference between a "simulation" and a "model".  A simulation tries to be a more or less faithful mathematical copy of a system or a part of a system.  A model is a simplified representation of one or a limited number of features of a system.  It doesn't try to be an exact replicate of the system it models.  Rather it is a tool to help us understand certain aspects of a system.   For example, you can come up with a hypothesis that natural selection will work in a certain way in a given situation.  You can then make a model of your hypothesis and compare its results with reality.  If they don't match, your hypothesis is wrong; if they do match, then the model supports your hypothesis. Because of the complexity of ecology, there has never been a good simulation of ecological processes, including natural selection, in a real-world ecosystem (except maybe some extremely simplified ones I'm not aware of).  I'm not aware that anyone's really tried.  The closest ones I'm aware of are some spatially explicit single-tree models of forest dynamics.  However, there have been all sorts of very useful models that have provided insights into ecological and evolutionary processes.  You don't need to see the whole picture at once to begin to understand large parts of it.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,11:09    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 21 2008,19:05) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 21 2008,19:31) I think you and I are just talking past each other.  My definition (which I gave you) is not complicated.  Acting like I've completely missed the point and talking about 'generations' -- as if my definition will somehow not apply to succeeding generations -- is pointless. Accusing me of negativism because I dare to mention negative selection is pointless as well.             Quote Hopefully it will make it easier now for you to understand why GAs which model natural selection per se don't include the catastrophic events that you find so compelling. First, point me to one of these "GAs which model natural selection". Second, it's not just "catastrophic events" which I find so compelling, it's all the forces of nature which conspire against the survival of organisms, (and they are legion), thereby severely hampering the success of evolution by natural selection.   And third, if these GAs don't include these factors, then they don't model real-life biological evolution. Daniel Let's keep it simple. In the first place, when you talk about natural selection wiping out entire populations, and I point out that natural selection doesn't work that way because you need subsequent generations to visualize the effects of natural selection, it is hardly "pointless". Rather it is pointless for you to pretend that catastrophes that wipe out entire populations are examples of natural selection, because they simply are not. In the second place, natural selection (precisely because it invokes the concept of subsequent generations!) involves not just survival, but survival and reproduction. An organism that survives 100 years but leaves no offspring is less fit in a given environment than an organism that dies early but manages to leave some offspring. Please purge your mind of the notion that survival is the only important parameter in natural selection. It is simply wrong. Finally, try to wrap your head around the fact that natural selection does not usually involve complete elimination of one genotype and complete success of another genotype in one generation. Natural selection does involve differential reproductive success, and that differential can be very small and still have a large effect on the gene frequency in a population. For example, consider a population with equal numbers (50% each) of organisms with two genotypes, A and B. If the average number of offspring for genotype A is 2.0, and the average number for genotype B is just 2.2, genotype B will be over 99% of the population after just 50 generations. Fitness is not all-or-none. Selection is not all-or none. Please try to integrate this reality into your simplistic notions about natural selection and other mechanisms of evolutionary change. As for genetic algorithms, I know little or nothing about them. But, unlike you, I know enough not to pontificate about what they can do, or what they should do. I'll leave your education about genetic algorithms to those who work with them. Everything you're saying about NS, I already know and understand.  I also have not said anything that should give you the impression that I don't understand these basics.  Like I said, we're talking past each other.  You're acting as if I'm saying things I'm not really saying and believing things I don't really believe, and if you continue, it will be fruitless for us to continue this exchange. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,11:10    Quote It is too easy to think of evolution in terms of single, isolated traits, but many traits are changing all at the same time. And so's the environment in which those traits act.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,11:39    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 22 2008,11:09) Everything you're saying about NS, I already know and understand.  I also have not said anything that should give you the impression that I don't understand these basics.  Like I said, we're talking past each other.  You're acting as if I'm saying things I'm not really saying and believing things I don't really believe, and if you continue, it will be fruitless for us to continue this exchange. Hmmmm. Did you write this?     Quote From what I've seen, natural selection is given an almost god-like quality amongst many believers in the currently held theory.  It is talked about as if it is all-knowing, all-powerful, and able to predict the future and select the optimal solution for any and all potential problems. If so, that certainly implies that either you A) don't understand natural selection, or you B) have a bizarre interpretation of how it is understood by most biological scientists. Your choice - which is the real explanation? A or B? Did you write this?     Quote When I think of natural selection, I think of anything that keeps an individual from reproducing. If so, that certainly implies that you needed a primer about relative fitness. In the example I gave you, what was keeping the organisms with genotype A from reproducing? Since they were having 2 offspring per generation, they were clearly reproducing quite well. But not quite as well as those with genotype B. Nevertheless, by the process of natural selection, in 50 generations genotype A would drop from 50% of the population to less than 1% of the population. Nothing was going on that would "keep them from reproducing". So by your definition this is not, therefore, an instance of natural selection. By any accepted definition, it is an instance of natural selection. Can you accept that A) your definition was wrong, or can you B) defend it? Again, it's your choice. A or B? Hopefully you can now comprehend why, exactly, one or the other of us might be confused about what it is, exactly, that you understand. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,12:53    -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,17:46    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2008,18:17) Daniel Smith:     Quote My only question is how well genetic algorithms actually simulate real-life biological evolution via natural selection. Genetic algorithms don't "simulate real-life biological evolution". If that's really Daniel's only question, then we can shorten things up nicely. Genetic algorithms, though, do serve as models of natural selection.     Quote There are any number of optimization techniques that share nothing in common with NS, and for which I would not advance the notion that they "model" NS in any significant sense.  However, this is not the basis upon which I state that GAs model NS.  GAs model NS because GAs use the *same* theoretical framework as NS.  The mismatches occur in the genetics used and the mode by which the environment is established. In your opinion then Wesley, does artificial selection model NS in a similar fashion, (to the way GAs model it)? After all, artificial selection uses the same theoretical framework as NS as well. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:12    Artificial selection is analogous to evolutionary computation in the same way that artificial selection is analogous to natural selection. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:18    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 22 2008,09:39)           Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 22 2008,11:09) Everything you're saying about NS, I already know and understand.  I also have not said anything that should give you the impression that I don't understand these basics.  Like I said, we're talking past each other.  You're acting as if I'm saying things I'm not really saying and believing things I don't really believe, and if you continue, it will be fruitless for us to continue this exchange. Hmmmm. Did you write this?                 Quote From what I've seen, natural selection is given an almost god-like quality amongst many believers in the currently held theory.  It is talked about as if it is all-knowing, all-powerful, and able to predict the future and select the optimal solution for any and all potential problems. If so, that certainly implies that either you A) don't understand natural selection, or you B) have a bizarre interpretation of how it is understood by most biological scientists. Your choice - which is the real explanation? A or B? This was in reference to the way "selection-did-it" is sometimes used as a kind of catch-all explanation for the evolution of some organ or organism.  It has more to do with the usage here and on other boards and newsgroups that with real scientists and their published papers.         Quote Did you write this?                 Quote When I think of natural selection, I think of anything that keeps an individual from reproducing. If so, that certainly implies that you needed a primer about relative fitness. In the example I gave you, what was keeping the organisms with genotype A from reproducing? Since they were having 2 offspring per generation, they were clearly reproducing quite well. But not quite as well as those with genotype B. Nevertheless, by the process of natural selection, in 50 generations genotype A would drop from 50% of the population to less than 1% of the population. Nothing was going on that would "keep them from reproducing". So by your definition this is not, therefore, an instance of natural selection. By any accepted definition, it is an instance of natural selection. Can you accept that A) your definition was wrong, or can you B) defend it? Again, it's your choice. A or B? Hopefully you can now comprehend why, exactly, one or the other of us might be confused about what it is, exactly, that you understand. OK, I see what you're saying there.  NS also includes reproductive rates.  I knew that, but just did not express that in my example - mainly because I was talking about things that would keep an organism from reproducing and passing on its advantageous mutation.  But, yes, you're right, I should have also said that as well. My point though, (which I feel you've avoided) is that NS is no guarantee that something beneficial will be passed on.   I'm sure you know that infant mortality rates are incredibly high in the wild - no matter the species.  The mortality rate is very high between infancy and adulthood as well.  Reproduction is also not guaranteed.  Individuals may reach adulthood but never mate.  Or they may be sterile - or infertile.   My main objection is that NS is so often talked about as if none of these things were an issue; as if anytime mutation produces an advantage, it will automatically be selected.  Such is often not the case in real life. In real life, NS tends to keep species "centered".  This was evidenced by the extensive drosophila experiments where all manner of mutational features were produced.  However, most of these mutated flies could only survive in the lab.  When subjected to wild conditions, the wild-type fly re-emerged as dominant and these mutated forms died out. I guess then the point of all this is that NS works much better in theory than it does in real life. (IMO) -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:28    Daniel Smith: Quote My point though, (which I feel you've avoided) is that NS is no guarantee that something beneficial will be passed on.   I think it was Fisher sometime around 1930 who calculated that a beneficial mutation stood about an 85% chance of being lost in the first 15 generations or so following its introduction in a single member of a population. Or maybe it was Haldane not too long thereafter, I'm not sure. So, thanks, but those of us who had  bothered to read up on evolutionary science already knew that. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2008,18:34 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:30    Artificial selection is just a subset of natural selection in which the selecting environment's most salient feature is the preferences of an intelligent agent. It's a special case of co-evolution. Certainly, in most cases, it is easy to say when artificial selection is going on. But it really is no different in principle from ordinary mutualism, which occurs all the time in natural selection. And GA's are not "simulations" of anything. Used as engineering solutions, they are an example of actual, real-life Darwinian processes, not models of them. (If we can allow what we'll call a "Darwinian process" to be substrate-neutral, which should be unproblematic. All that is required is that we have reproducing entities that vary arbitrarily, and that said variation non-trivially affects reproductive sucess.) That is why they're so frightening to creationists, and why jokers like Gil Dogen have to play dumb when they make claims about them. Blind, undirected processes can solve problems. And that's the facts. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:42    Wes: Are you saying that somebody has bothered to look into the situation of beneficial traits AND DONE A CALCULATION?  No way that could happen. I'm sure you are aware that science (in any meaningful usage of the word) is done by SAYING something.  If people don't quite believe you or think there is some flaw with your argument (such as they'd like to see some calculations or detailed descriptions of observations), you merely say it again--LOUDER. And engage a somewhat above mediocre graphic artist to design a poster of you saying it. Then you make public appearance with the poster while making farty noises. Now THAT'S science!  Right, Daniel? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:44    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2008,16:12) Artificial selection is analogous to evolutionary computation in the same way that artificial selection is analogous to natural selection. Would that be favorably or unfavorably? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:45    Quote (blipey @ Jan. 22 2008,16:42) Wes: Are you saying that somebody has bothered to look into the situation of beneficial traits AND DONE A CALCULATION?  No way that could happen. I'm sure you are aware that science (in any meaningful usage of the word) is done by SAYING something.  If people don't quite believe you or think there is some flaw with your argument (such as they'd like to see some calculations or detailed descriptions of observations), you merely say it again--LOUDER. And engage a somewhat above mediocre graphic artist to design a poster of you saying it. Then you make public appearance with the poster while making farty noises. Now THAT'S science!  Right, Daniel? Wrong. But I can see how you'd think that! -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:48    On a somewhat more serious (though I'd be truly interested if any part of my above description sounds like science to you, Daniel) note, could you answer the following question?  I think it will start us down the road of whether or not you truly understand NS: 1.  Do you personally believe that NS is a mechanism that can ever bring about an increase in beneficial traits? Yes or no, to begin with please.  I want to keep this very simple.  We'll leave the explanations for after "yes" or "no". -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:50    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Jan. 22 2008,16:30) Certainly, in most cases, it is easy to say when artificial selection is going on. But it really is no different in principle from ordinary mutualism, which occurs all the time in natural selection. So how is it "easy to say when artificial selection is going on" then, if "it really is no different in principle" from something "which occurs all the time in natural selection"? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:52    Quote (blipey @ Jan. 22 2008,16:48) On a somewhat more serious (though I'd be truly interested if any part of my above description sounds like science to you, Daniel) note, could you answer the following question?  I think it will start us down the road of whether or not you truly understand NS: 1.  Do you personally believe that NS is a mechanism that can ever bring about an increase in beneficial traits? Yes or no, to begin with please.  I want to keep this very simple.  We'll leave the explanations for after "yes" or "no". Yes. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,18:53    Daniel Smith: Quote Would that be favorably or unfavorably? In the way that makes clear that evolution denialists are looking for proof beyond unreasonable doubt. I have no idea what Humpty-Dumpty means by "unfavorably". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,19:00    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2008,16:28) Daniel Smith:     Quote My point though, (which I feel you've avoided) is that NS is no guarantee that something beneficial will be passed on.   I think it was Fisher sometime around 1930 who calculated that a beneficial mutation stood about an 85% chance of being lost in the first 15 generations or so following its introduction in a single member of a population. Or maybe it was Haldane not too long thereafter, I'm not sure. So, thanks, but those of us who had  bothered to read up on evolutionary science already knew that. So Wesley, which selection algorithm most closely models that percentage? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,20:15    Alright, now we agree that NS can bring about beneficial (in a specific environment) traits and propagate them through a population. Can we agree that NS is a mechanism?  It is not any one specific thing, but rather more of a situation? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Pages: (58) < ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard