RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >   
  Topic: The Gang of Four at the Gateway of Life, Proof for ID (I didn't say God!)< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,09:09   

Quote
The point being we've all been viewing and marveling at the Mandelbrot set for decades. It doesn't somehow wordlessly make your point. You'll have to argue it.


There is no point. I just like to post pretty graphics and thoughtful poetry for your amusement and edification.

A Dream Of Death
W.B. Yeats

I dreamed that one had died in a strange place
Near no accustomed hand,
And they had nailed the boards above her face,
The peasants of that land,
Wondering to lay her in that solitude,
And raised above her mound
A cross they had made out of two bits of wood,
And planted cypress round;
And left her to the indifferent stars above
Until I carved these words:
She was more beautiful than thy first love,
But now lies under boards.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,09:36   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 01 2008,09:09)
There is no point.

You had me at that.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,09:59   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 01 2008,10:09)
 
Quote
The point being we've all been viewing and marveling at the Mandelbrot set for decades. It doesn't somehow wordlessly make your point. You'll have to argue it.


There is no point. I just like to post pretty graphics and thoughtful poetry for your amusement and edification.

Then you've got to get yourself a better Mandelbrot generator. There are much more beautiful color assignments to be had.



ETA: I used the Mac version of this simple application to generate the above.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,10:12   

Thanks for the link to the program.  I needed a replacement for the old System 9 program I've used for years.  I always end my calculus class with a discussion of the Mandelbrot set (and also Euler's Identity) because they are so cool.

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,14:13   

Quote
Then you've got to get yourself a better Mandelbrot generator. There are much more beautiful color assignments to be had.


The "gold standard" is still Fractint.

http://spanky.triumf.ca/www/fractint/fractint.html


  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,14:41   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 01 2008,14:13)
The "gold standard" is still Fractint.

No, it's not.





Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 01 2008,15:42

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

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,15:06   

I have an old fractal generator (Fractal Designer) that not only can be used to explore the Mandelbrot set as the one Bill pointed me to, but allows you to enter your own equations and parameters to produce countless other fractal sets.  Does anyone know of anything like that, free and preferably for Mac?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,16:12   

To steal a book title; "Endless forms most beautiful"

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,17:13   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2008,16:12)
To steal a book title; "Endless forms most beautiful"

Originally, this phrase is in the concluding sentence of "On the origin of species...".

Here's the full quote, perhaps Charlie will find some poetry in there.
Quote
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Personally, I find this view more exciting than being designed by a FSM.

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,18:54   

Quote
No, it's not.


Agreed. I spent the last 2 hours playing with "Apophysis"

Very cool for graphic artists, which I am not.

I like Fractint because it generates just about all the fractal types, not just the IFS class of fractal "flame" algorithms.

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:13   

Quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."




its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one;

I find this most interesting and informative, and I agree completely with Darwin.

Darwin doesn't say where these first life forms came from, only that they evolved over time. He was not able to answer two fundamental questions:

1. where did the first forms come from?
2. what is the mechanism of this subsequent evolution?

I offer two answers:

1. the first forms came from outside the earth with all the programming necessary to adapt to ambient conditions on earth.
2. What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms.

In addition:

1. evolution as we know it is probably over and future events will be variations on already existing patterns,
dessimations and extinctions

http://www.charliewagner.net/hoyle.htm

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:30   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,16:13)
1. the first forms came from outside the earth with all the programming necessary to adapt to ambient conditions on earth.
2. What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms.

1: From where?
2: As much DNA has been sequenced, can you point to a sequence that shows one of these algorithms?

kthnxbye.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:34   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,17:13)
Quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."




its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one;

I find this most interesting and informative, and I agree completely with Darwin.

Darwin doesn't say where these first life forms came from, only that they evolved over time. He was not able to answer two fundamental questions:

1. where did the first forms come from?
2. what is the mechanism of this subsequent evolution?

I offer two answers:

1. the first forms came from outside the earth with all the programming necessary to adapt to ambient conditions on earth.
2. What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms.

In addition:

1. evolution as we know it is probably over and future events will be variations on already existing patterns,
dessimations and extinctions

http://www.charliewagner.net/hoyle.htm

What the heck is: 'dessimations' ?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:53   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 03 2008,14:34)
What the heck is: 'dessimations' ?

I assumed it was an avant-garde spelling of "decimations", i.e. mass extinctions.  But then I assumed that sweeping claims were usually accompanied by at least a little bit of evidence, so what do I know?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:55   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 03 2008,17:53)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 03 2008,14:34)
What the heck is: 'dessimations' ?

I assumed it was an avant-garde spelling of "decimations", i.e. mass extinctions.  But then I assumed that sweeping claims were usually accompanied by at least a little bit of evidence, so what do I know?

Are creationists forbidden to have spell-checkers?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:59   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,17:13)
1. where did the first forms come from?

2. what is the mechanism of this subsequent evolution?

1) Darwin did not set out to answer the first question, as is clearly indicated by your quote.

2) The "one long argument" of Origin is Darwin's answer to the second. Nearly 150 years later the scientific community retains a consensus that Darwin succeeded in identifying the single most important mechanism of evolutionary change (variation and selection). Whether you accept this explanation or not has no bearing upon this flat-ass fact.

Instead you propose:
       
Quote
1. the first forms came from outside the earth with all the programming necessary to adapt to ambient conditions on earth.

2. What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms.

The algorithm is generally described as "random mutation and natural selection." The processes of adaptation and speciation described in the standard RM+NS model enabled living organisms to track the countless contingent and inherently unpredictable changes in environments and ecosystems with which they have been confronted throughout the 38 million centuries (or so) that have passed since the OOL. Even with such tracking, the run of the vast majority of species has ended in extinction, presumably when these variations become too extreme to track. Indeed, the successes, failures and interactions of some species mold the ecological context for the successes and failures of others, all embedded in a contingently changing physical and environment.  

"The dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms" would require storage in advance of the countless adaptations, speciation events, ecological interactions, and even extinction events that have accompanied this endless succession of changing environments and ecosystems, as well as a program determining in advance the order in which these changes unfold. Yet the environmental and ecological transitions that life has confronted, and to which the surviving organisms adapted, resulted from physical processes (planetary, geological, meteorological, astronomical, etc.) that are themselves inherently contingent and unguided and cannot themselves possibly have been "arranged," "planned," or "predicted." Moreover, we are talking the varied environments and apposite adaptations of every extinct and every extant lineage of descent found within the astronomically complex ramification of the tree of life.

With that in mind, "the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms" becomes utterly implausible and even absurd.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,20:41   

Quote
1: From where?
2: As much DNA has been sequenced, can you point to a sequence that shows one of these algorithms?


From "elsewhere" :-)

While the DNA has been sequenced, there is a whole layer of programming that is at least as important and hardly studied: epigenetics

"In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life. Sometimes the changes last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism, instead, environmental factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently. The best example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell - the zygote - changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, blood vessels et cetera as it continues to divide. It does so by a process of activating some genes while silencing others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

   
Quote
The "one long argument" of Origin is Darwin's answer to the second. Nearly 150 years later the scientific community retains a consensus that Darwin succeeded in identifying the single most important mechanism of evolutionary change (variation and selection). Whether you accept this explanation or not has no bearing upon this flat-ass fact.


Science is based on evidence, not argument.
IMHO RM+NS is incapable of doing what you suggest it can do. Even Darwin himself knew that.

   
Quote
"The dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms" would require storage in advance of the countless adaptations, speciation events, ecological interactions, and even extinction events that have accompanied this endless succession of changing environments and ecosystems, as well as a program determining in advance the order in which these changes unfold.


So what? The adult organism is the result of pre-existing programming that unfolds from a single cell. And this storage requires very little mass and volume. The "space seed(s)" could easily contain all the required programming.
   
Quote

I assumed it was an avant-garde spelling of "decimations",



No, it was a spelling error.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,22:49   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,21:41)
IMHO RM+NS is incapable of doing what you suggest it can do.

An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion - the same distance traveled by "self-evident," by the way.  
Quote
Quote
"The dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms" would require storage in advance of the countless adaptations, speciation events, ecological interactions, and even extinction events that have accompanied this endless succession of changing environments and ecosystems, as well as a program determining in advance the order in which these changes unfold.

So what? The adult organism is the result of pre-existing programming that unfolds from a single cell. And this storage requires very little mass and volume. The "space seed(s)" could easily contain all the required programming.

Re-read the above. I've said nothing whatsoever about storage requirements.

I am addressing the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.* An a-prior program such as you describe would necessarily embody either foreknowledge of or control over endless, parallel sequences of highly contingent, unique, and unpredictable planetary and environmental developments - many of which emerge from the action and interactions of living organisms themselves - over billions of years.

Is that what you are proposing? A "designer" with complete foreknowledge and/or control of the geophysics and biophysics of planet earth - foreknowledge with a resolution sufficient to anticipate thousands/millions of specific environmental and evolutionary niches billions of years in advance?

*ETA: You are into fractals. Then you know about non-linear dynamics - the various "butterfly effects" that render long term, high resolution prediction and anticipation of turbulent physical systems inherently impossible. That certainly characterizes the unfolding of life on earth, and the environments to which it is adapted.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,02:51   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,20:41)
 
Quote
1: From where?
2: As much DNA has been sequenced, can you point to a sequence that shows one of these algorithms?


From "elsewhere" :-)

While the DNA has been sequenced, there is a whole layer of programming that is at least as important and hardly studied: epigenetics

1: Elsewhere? For all you know it could have come from the centre of the earth.

2: I'll take that as a no then. Pathetic. You might as well claim that there are invisible unicorns in DNA, you've the same amount of evidence for that.

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

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,10:10   

Quote
For all you know it could have come from the centre of the earth.


That may not be far from the truth...

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,12:21   

Quote
the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.


An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion -

Now let's see...where did I hear that?

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,12:42   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,12:21)
Quote
the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.


An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion -

Now let's see...where did I hear that?

This is not incredulity. It can be mathematically shown that chaotic influences render a system unforecastable - the whole field is called chaos theory. Even a system of three bodies under gravity is chaotic.

How can you not know this? Weren't you a teacher?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,12:46   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,13:21)
 
Quote
the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.


An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion -

Now let's see...where did I hear that?

No, Charlie, you are mistaken about that. My argument is:

1) The succession of changes, over billions of years, of the physical and ecological environments to which living organisms have displayed adaptation during the history of life would itself have been inherently unpredictable. This is due to the uniqueness and complexity of the causal factors, the huge time scales, the non-linear unpredictability of many of the processes, the vast number of parallel ecological niches, and the fact that living organisms themselves shape or even become the environments to which other organisms adapt.

2) The huge variety and inherent unpredictability of these successive changes render impossible the pre-programming or front loading of biological adaptations, because such pre-programming would require either foreknowledge of inherently unknowable future events, or control over those events that is nowhere in evidence.

There is no argument from incredulity in the above.

If you disagree with the above, then argue your case. Perhaps you will argue that 1) above, or 2), or both, are mistaken. Get busy. Engage my actual argument.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,12:49   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,12:21)
Quote
the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.


An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion -

Now let's see...where did I hear that?

Where's the evidence for *your* hypothesis? (which you have not clearly defined, BTW. Is that "front loading"?)

What predetermined evolution, and how?

How would you make the difference between a spontaneous mutation and a "preprogrammed" mutation?

If a preprogrammed mutation is advantageous, that would be subject to natural selection, wouldn't it?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,13:09   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,10:10)
 
Quote
For all you know it could have come from the centre of the earth.


That may not be far from the truth...

Which is? Do enlighten me.

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

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,18:24   

Quote
1) The succession of changes, over billions of years, of the physical and ecological environments to which living organisms have displayed adaptation during the history of life would itself have been inherently unpredictable. This is due to the uniqueness and complexity of the causal factors, the huge time scales, the non-linear unpredictability of many of the processes, the vast number of parallel ecological niches, and the fact that living organisms themselves shape or even become the environments to which other organisms adapt.



Absolutely true...



 
Quote
2) The huge variety and inherent unpredictability of these successive changes render impossible the pre-programming or front loading of biological adaptations, because such pre-programming would require either foreknowledge of inherently unknowable future events, or control over those events that is nowhere in evidence.



That is an assumption that you're making based upon your personal incredulity.
Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events.
Which makes biochemical machines much more advanced. The fact that
living organisms are beyond the ability of the human mind to design and
construct them seems to be powerful evidence for the existence of a
higher intelligence. The protein synthetic apparatus cannot only
replicate itself, but it can also construct any other biochemical
machine if it's given the proper instructions in the form of genetic
code and the basic functional units to work with. Since proteins can be
put to almost unlimited uses, this makes the cell somewhat akin to a
universal automaton with almost limitless potential. That's probably the
reason why life is so ubiquitous on the earth and probably elsewhere in
the universe. The unlimited potential of the protein synthetic apparatus
to dynamically respond to almost any conditions.*

*Many people who proclaim intelligent design are really stealth
creationists. I'm not so naive that I've missed that. They are using
this as a way to get religion into the public schools, despite the fact
that it is specifically forbidden by the constitution. Unfortunately,
this has given the concept of intelligent design a bad name. Do not
confuse me with these people. I have no religious agenda and I am
adamantly opposed to teaching creationism in the public schools. I am
also adamantly against spending one cent of my tax dollars to support
religious schools in any way. I am opposed to paying for transportation
to religious schools, I'm opposed to spending taxpayer dollars on
textbooks for religious schools and I am adamantly opposed to prayer in
any form in the public schools.
     The fact is, I'm a fairly uncommon species of ID'er, being as I
have been an atheist for most of my life and I am now an agnostic. I see
no evidence for a benevolent and all-powerful god and frankly, any
mention of religion or god often produces an advanced dyspepsia. If you
want to know more about me, you can check out my website below.
     Anyway, I also consider darwinian evolution to be probably the
biggest hoax in the last millenium. How it got as far as it has with
absolutely no observational and experimental evidence to support it
boggles my mind. Think about it for a moment. You've been had. The
evidence that is claimed is just not there. Take a look. Don't believe
me, if you don't want to. It's a story that people made up, and it
sounds good and it took hold of people's imaginations. It then grew over
time as it was promoted as the TRUTH by generations of evolutionists and
taught in institutions of higher learning by renowned professors. Part
of it's strength comes from a fear of creationism. This battle between
religion and science has been waged for centuries. This is just one more
battle in that war. Both science and religion claim to have truth on
their side. The only problem with evolution is the facts were NOT there
and science got caught with it's metaphorical pants down around it's
knees. Creationists arguments against darwinism are mostly right on the
mark. Instead of fessin' up, science has chosen to wage a rhetorical war
with creationists. This war will be lost, because the theory is so
defective that even a layperson can see through it. If we want to save
science, we have to stop promoting an obsolete, useless theory and get
busy doing what we should be able to do best, find the truth. And if the
truth is unattainable because we have no way of determining it by
observation or experiment, we should retreat from the battlefield, admit
that we don't know and probably never will and get on with the true
business of science. And leave the rhetoric and hyperbole to the
philosophers and pundits.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,20:43   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,19:24)
Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events...[major snippage of irrelevant passages borrowed from Charlie's website]

Let's see if I can accurately parse what you are saying.

Earlier you stated: "An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state."

You also earlier stated: "What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms."

If I understand you correctly, you are postulating the storage of algorithms consisting of well-defined instructions that, given specific initial states, terminate in defined end-states.

You don't state whether those initial states are also stored with the algorithms.

If initial states are stored with the algorithms, and hence an algorithm always terminates in a given end state once activated, you are essentially postulating the storage of specific end-states. If so, what is your explanation for how such pre-defined algorithmic results happen to dovetail with specific, highly contingent, inherently unpredictable later environments absent foreknowledge?

If the initial states are not pre-stored with the algorithm, then the algorithm is awaiting some sort of input to set initial conditions and determine which outcome will be actualized and observed among the myriad of possible outcomes. This is what I take you to mean when you call this a "dynamic" process. It follows that you need a theory - at least some sort of sketch - of how the initial conditions are set, detected, or otherwise fed into your imaginary algorithms. And, more important, you need a theory describing how such specific initial conditions result in adaptive (not just different, but adaptive) outcomes relative to an organism's specific environmental/ecological context, absent foreknowledge of those contexts.

In short, what you need is feedback regarding the relative reproductive success of various end-states. We propose that selection provides that "dynamic" feedback - but you reject selection.

So, then, what IS your "mechanism" for mating algorithm to environment by means of varied initial conditions?

(As you can see, hand waving regarding "advanced dynamic algorithms" and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee.)

So: Do tell.

(minor edits for clarity)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2008,02:55   

I'm cross posting this post from qetzal
   
Quote

     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 03 2008,19:09)
By "lab tested" I mean something that is tested period.  For instance, if two sets of genes are known, and are said to be from a common ancestor, it should be possible to extrapolate the common ancestral gene (and intermediate genes) via computer simulation.  Then you should be able to test the resultant genes for viability by altering and inserting the DNA into the living organisms.

Been done. Multiple times. Here's just one example:

     
Quote
J Mol Biol. 2007 Jun 15;369(4):1060-9. Epub 2007 Apr 5.

Extremely thermophilic translation system in the common ancestor commonote: ancestral mutants of Glycyl-tRNA synthetase from the extreme thermophile Thermus thermophilus.

Shimizu H, Yokobori S, Ohkuri T, Yokogawa T, Nishikawa K, Yamagishi A.

Department of Molecular Biology, Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Science, 1432-1 Horinouchi, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0392, Japan.

Based on phylogenetic analysis of 16 S and 18 S rRNAs, the common ancestor of all organisms (Commonote) was proposed to be hyperthermophilic. We have previously tested this hypothesis using enzymes with ancestral residues that are inferred by molecular phylogenetic analysis. The ancestral mutant enzymes involved in metabolic systems show higher thermal stability than wild-type enzymes, consistent with the hyperthermophile common ancestor hypothesis. Here, we have extended the experiments to include an enzyme of the translation system, glycyl-tRNA synthetase (GlyRS). The translation system often shows a phylogenetic tree that is similar to the rRNA tree. Thus, it is likely that the tree represents the evolutionary route of the organisms. The maximum-likelihood tree of alpha(2) type GlyRS was constructed. From this analysis the ancestral sequence of GlyRS was deduced and individual or pairs of ancestral residues were introduced into Thermus thermophilus GlyRS. The ancestral mutants were expressed in Escherichia coli, purified and activity measured. The thermostability of eight mutated proteins was evaluated by CD (circular dichroism) measurements. Six mutants showed higher thermostability than wild-type enzyme and seven mutants showed higher activity than wild-type enzyme at 70 degrees C, suggesting an extremely thermophilic translation system in the common ancestor Commonote.


Note that it doesn't just show that the inferred ancestral sequence works. It shows that the inferred ancestral sequence has specific properties predicted based on evolution!


Does that evidence not count? You said
 
Quote
 Anyway, I also consider darwinian evolution to be probably the
biggest hoax in the last millenium. How it got as far as it has with
absolutely no observational and experimental evidence to support it
boggles my mind.

Please retract that statement or say why qetzal has got it wrong.

Or just ignore this post.

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

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2008,13:00   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 04 2008,21:43)
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,19:24)
Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events...[major snippage of irrelevant passages borrowed from Charlie's website]

Let's see if I can accurately parse what you are saying.

Earlier you stated: "An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state."

Glad to see Charlie's solved the Halting Problem. Get that Fields Medal ready.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,16:02   

Quote
Glad to see Charlie's solved the Halting Problem. Get that Fields Medal ready.


The question is, given a program and an input to the program, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input. In this abstract framework, there are no resource limitations of memory or time on the program's execution; it can take arbitrarily long, and use arbitrarily much storage space, before halting. The question is simply whether the given program will ever halt on a particular input.
But with the halting problem, there is only one input. In nature, there are an unlimited number of inputs available to the program.
It's early on in this work. It seems significant to me that the
"instruction manual", the part that controls the functioning of the
genes is many times larger than the coding sequences themselves. The
idea that this non-coding region of the genome was "junk, left over from
evolution", is most likely wrong. The really important instructions may
well reside in the non-coding regions, rather than in the coding regions.
I believe the genome is
dynamic and responsive, rather than static and passive. I believe that
the mechanism is present for dynamic modifications to occur. The genome,
whether each individual genome or some kind of universal genome, made up
of a pool of all of the instructions that can be exchanged among
participants, is nothing short of a universal automaton. It can
manufacture any other biochemical machine, no matter how complex it is,
from the basic functional units, proteins, which can be manufactured in
infinite numbers and varieties.
All that is needed is the correct
information and the basic functional units.

  
  185 replies since Aug. 11 2008,18:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]