So Larry , you believe this Genetic Algorithms are the answer to all questions posed by evolution and the big bang ?

And this algorithms you talk about , also created themselves ?

It doesn't make sense that billions of years ago a cell created itself , and created Genetic Algorithms , as well as DNA , to evolve , if a cell would have created itself out of chance, it is most likely it would have just died. Let me give you a simple example , if right now , all of a sudden , a human baby somehow created itself in mars (lets say mars has water) , would you assume it would live ? The chances of this cell creating itself , and somehow also have had a feeding mechanism , there is just too much you are implying that cannot be verified .

When you get down to the bottom you realize , the only way evolution and the big bang make sense is if you believe in it, you need faith, because all this events the theory is based on cannot be proven (well havnt as of now).

Here is another thing about the "Genetic Algorithms" , It doesnt prove ANYTHING.

"In artificial intelligence, an evolutionary algorithm (EA) is a subset of evolutionary computation, a generic population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm"
OK

"An EA uses some mechanisms inspired by biological evolution: reproduction, mutation, recombination, and selection"
I see

"Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the cost function determines the environment within which the solutions "live" "
Yes

"A limitation of evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype-phenotype distinction. In nature, the fertilized egg cell undergoes a complex process known as embryogenesis to become a mature phenotype. This indirect encoding is believed to make the genetic search more robust (i.e. reduce the probability of fatal mutations), and also may improve the evolvability of the organism. Recent work in the field of artificial embryogeny, or artificial developmental systems, seeks to address these concerns."
Great , so there is problems with it.

"Usually, an initial population of randomly generated candidate solutions comprise the first generation"
So you have to have an initial population for this to work right ?

"The fitness function is applied to the candidate solutions and any subsequent offspring. "
And they have to be able to mate and create offspring right ?

"Two main classes of fitness functions exist: one where the fitness function does not change, as in optimizing a fixed function or testing with a fixed set of test cases"
Functions ? Intelligent desicions ?

"n selection, parents for the next generation are chosen with a bias towards higher fitness. "
So this "Intelligent" decisions just started making themselves , from non intelligent organisms ?

"Genetic algorithm - This is the most popular type of EA. One seeks the solution of a problem in the form of strings of numbers (traditionally binary, although the best representations are usually those that reflect something about the problem being solved - these are not normally binary), virtually always applying recombination operators in addition to selection and mutation. This type of EA is often used in optimization problems;"

That really sounds like a mathematical formula , again , you are saying this "Algorithm" just , what , happened ? through the first cell ? It appeared and designed an algorithm to maintain life ? Even though it had no intelligence right ? Or are we saying the first living organism HAD intelligence ? If so , where did it get it from ? Is intelligence then something that just is with life ?

Here is the definition of an Algorithm.
"In mathematics, computing, linguistics and related disciplines, an algorithm is a type of effective method in which a definite list of well-defined instructions for completing a task, when given an initial state, will proceed through a well-defined series of successive states, eventually terminating in an end-state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as probabilistic algorithms, incorporate randomness."

So it is a mathematical formula created by us to solve problems right ?
And we have also tweaked it for Genetics Algorithm , but it is still a mathematical formula created by us , we are just applying it to evolution , the question would be , how could this algorithm have just formed itself ?

Now here is food for thought , if we are just chemical reactions constantly happening , which is how somehow the first cell formed (yes , by CHANCE , unless you are actually saying Genetic Algorithms are hard coded in the universe and binded the cell together , which insane and absurd), Why hasnt our sun become aware of itself ? It is a MASSIVVE chemical reaction which is believed to have been occuring for billions of years , "The surface composition of the Sun consists of hydrogen (about 74% of its mass, or 92% of its volume), helium (about 24-25% of mass,[10] 7% of volume), and trace quantities of other elements, including Iron, Nickel, Oxygen, Silicon, Sulfur, Magnesium, Carbon, Neon, Calcium, and Chromium."
So , why hasn't the sun become alive ? What are you gonna say "Oh thats impossible , Genetics Algorithm ONLY works for us in earth , and that fist cell which created it , it doesnt apply to anything else"

To sujest a system of mathematical decisions used to determine the "survival of the fittest" somehow created and implemented itself from nothing is absurd , you have to take in mind that it all started (acording to evolution) with a single cell organism that somehow created itself (even though it's know single celled organisms are VERY COMPLEX systems which could not have spontanously created themselves) , so you say Genetics Algorithms are the answer to evolution's problems , you are saying this first incredibly simple yet alive (all life is complex and defies that believe) organism somehow managed to create and implement this "MATHEMATICAL" algorithm to solve it's current problems, that my friend is insane.

Or are you saying Genetics Algorithms are something that just happen , they just exist ? Well , that would be very convinient to say , but also unscientific as there is no proof this exists other than the algorithms "WE" create to solve our own problems , like the one of evolution.

"An organisation can not exist out of chaos by itself."
Chaos CANNOT create itself from nothing.
Let me show you in simple terms the problem with this.
You are instantly assuming there was chaos from nothing (there was nothing before the universe right?)

"If you would have well organised structures of molecules existing spontaniously out of chaos, you could easy draw the conclusion that a cell containing DNA, RNA and all the tiny machines moving inside cell could be spontaniously formed as well."

Really ? So now the chaos not only exists form nothing , itt has well organised structres of molecules , which bind and create a cell with DNA , RNA, and all the "machines".

Did you read your question ? You are assuming all of this ALWAYS EXISTED, you are saying chaos happened from nothing and this chaos had all the molecules we need for life .

So to sumerize what you are implying , all our molecules always existed ? But you state Chaos created the universe ? Did chaos create the molecules ? If so from what ?

See , before you even begin trying to explain anything , you've already made a ton of assumptions with no base to them or proof.

"As stated by Larry, we are far from perfect for our environment. To clarify: Why can't we see all of the colorspectrum?"
You obviously missed the point I was trying to make.

"Yes that makes sense, that's why we have been selected by natural selection"
So it makes sense but thats not how it happened ?

"the animals that did had to think and do everything themselves had no time left to survive and got eaten... This of course does not prove that natural selection was really that what happened, but it doesn't prove God/Designer/Creationism either."
So then you are saying your argument for evolution and natural selection doesn's prove evolution or natural selection ever happened ?

"Even better, we have a living prove: Eclyse the zorse
It looks so strange that that has to be a hoax eh?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thats evolution ?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"For while most zebra-horse crossbreeds"
"The one-year-old zorse was the accidental product of a holiday romance when her mother, Eclipse, was taken from her German safari park home to a ranch in Italy for a brief spell.
There she was able to roam freely with other horses and a number of zebras, including one called Ulysses who took a fancy to her.
When Eclipse returned home, she surprised her keepers by giving birth to the baby zorse whose mixed markings betray her colourful parentage. "

Oh , so then a horse and a zebra got it on and the result is that half horse half zebra. Are you actually using this for your argument on evolution ? LMFAO
That in fact CONTRADICTS evolution , evolution talks about natural selection not cross breeding to mutate , lol , get your facts straight.

[quote=Joozey]
As stated by Larry, we are far from perfect for our environment.
[quote]

The imperfection is actually one of the strongest point in favour of evolution
Many people assume that nature is a sort of miracle but it is not definitly like that
Take for example the production of insuline
Nobody can distinguish natural and artificial insuline but the natural process is ridicously complex and non efficient
This situation can hardly be explained with an intelligent designer on the contrary it is 100 % in line with the evolution
Evolution is the survival of the less unfittest rather than of the fittest

Please remain polite and pretend like you are an adult. I asked you for verification whether or not I understood you well, and I didn't assume anything. You start to assume that I assume, now that's getting weird. YOu don't know what I am thinking, and so should you answer like it. I asked you nothing more but a question, and I expect nothing more but an answer to the question.


Right? I don't know, you tell me. Or better don't, you don't know either.


Did you? I sure haven't got an answer on my question: "My question: Do you agree with the following statements?". You could also normally have said: "no, for chaos never existed, the 'very beginning' was designed by a designer". Sure you are against this statement as well. So please tell me in 1 short sentence what you really mean to say in this large post full of not-to-the-point questions. If you think that chaos never have existed, you could just have said so in one line and all the rest of your post became trivial.

It is true then, what you say. It could be that chaos never existed, and I happily wont deny that. There is actually (relative for us humans) a 50/50 chance that there either was chaos, or was not chaos. 50/50 because we do not know the answer, and it could be both.

So now I ask you again, do you agree with the following statements?

*If there was chaos from the beginning (whatever was before the existence of our universe is not of any relevance), then there was no designer/creator.
*If chaos never existed, and everything is the work of a designer, then evolution can not exist.



--Now on to the more not-to-the-point part of your post--

Well that's why I wrote they were not-to-the-point answers, didn't I. Nevertheless they put something straight.


Yup, welcome to the real world.


I don't use it fór evolution, nor for creationism/design, for this could also be an argument for thát! I mean, the designer made the DNA then, and this zorse is the result of it, why not? You're laughing at your own theory now, if I put it that way. As I said, they are answers on various statements and questions you asked, and the answers are, indeed, not to the point.

We then also may draw the conclusion that your questions are not to the point either.

Come, come. I haven't given you a single shred of evidence on this thread for you to accuse me of this. I mean if you think I'm mocking you when I disagree with you AND again when I agree with you, how exactly are we supposed to move forward towards this new, better world view?

Should I NOT accept your points as true then? Cause if not then I'm REALLY confused as to what I am being told I should believe...



Whoa! I thought we determined that science was evil and self serving. That scientists and by extension their craft are trying to perpetuate a world view that they know is wrong. So why is the "s" word in there at all!!????? Didn't you say once that if people did something wrong (science) then we are fools to keep doing it?

If the hypothesis to our new theory is that science can't explain said facts, why dirty ourselves by having any new theory, be it ID or Create or other, even try to be "scientific"? Would that lead to the same moral dilemmas we already have?




This is what you ask of Oxy.
Coincidently, this is what I asked of you (us) in my previous post!
Great minds truely do think alike!

So I say we can trump his response by doing what I propose before and showing how can we answer these problems with our new theory!

Let's you and I work on this question...

How does ID and Creationism specifically address and give a better, more cohesive, more "world friendly" explanation to your points 1 through 6?

I mean you did a GREAT job of doing a point by point deconstruction of current theory. Now let's do an EQUALLY great job of REPLACING the theory.

After all, I see a lot of "Science can't explain that" in your posts and I agree...
...but in order to convince others that we are right and they are wrong we need to show them that our theory is on par AND BETTER than what we have before; that's it's a viable replacement that anyone can agree to if they only "see" and "believe".

" There are no bones of any transitions "

Yes there are
For example the jaw of some animals was fitted with thin blades
The vibrations provided some rough informations about the surrounding ambient
Step by step they turned into the inner ear
This is fully documented
Same as far as the articulation of the mouth is concerned
All the ancienst animals had just an non articulated opening for the mouth, no jaw

And to add to AlbertoT's post: we even have the remainings of a tail at our back!

"The vibrations provided some rough informations about the surrounding ambient
Step by step they turned into the inner ear"
So you have scientific evidence and proof of this ?
Please post it.

"All the ancienst animals had just an non articulated opening for the mouth, no jaw "
Really ?

Clearly , the T-rex has a jaw
"The tip of the upper jaw was U-shaped (most non-tyrannosauroid carnivores had V-shaped upper jaws), which increased the amount of tissue and bone a tyrannosaur could rip out with one bite, although it also increased the stresses on the front teeth."

How far back are you going ? Dinasours are our oldest fossils we have , and they apparantly had jaws. Please post some references to this.

"we even have the remainings of a tail at our back!"

"Humans have a tail bone (the coccyx) attached to the pelvis, in the same place which other mammals have tails. The tail bone is formed of fused vertebrae, usually four, at the bottom of the vertebral column. It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus."
So we have a tail bone , but it has a purpose , how can you assure that we lost our tail through evolution (or apes did , since we come from them right)yet kept the tail bone ? In fact, there really is no reason to loose the tail , it's a great adon , it comes in very useful for monkeys , why would apes and humans have just stopped having their tail ? Thats like us evolving even more in the future , to only have one eye and one arm , is this how "natural selection" is suppossed to work?

I find it insane that people argue for the right to be a part of the ape/monkey family tree. Because you know evolution states we are apes , not were , ARE , just a different evolved type, what are you gonna argue next ? That we are actually evolutioned turds ? LOL
Just the idea of our "intelligent" people arguing and fighting to believe and make others believe we are actually monkeys is something out of this world. But somehow , that is exactly the case.

C'mon man; stop playing around with these fools. Why even bother to answer their absurd questions when we know they won't listen anyways! What's the point of trying to show them their ways are wrong when we can show them the right way right now!

Hurry up and post the Replacement World-View (RWV) that explains all these facts as good as or even BETTER than what scientists pretend to have now!!

For those just joining us, our RWV will show how all the facts presented in the first post fit another framework, a framework devoid of the moral trappings of science, and is thus much better than the current "scientific" worldview. After Joozey, Phemox, and Alberto see our RWV, there will be NO doubts left.

After you, Why_Do_I_Die... get the ball rolling. You must be tired of asking so many questions; this is our moment to shine by providing answers!!!

I can continue to answer your questions if you like, but I honestly don't think it's worth my time. First, I gave you an explanation on NE, because I thought that you had sincere enquiries about NE and you wanted to learn more about it. But you don't; you're just one angry kid, aren't you?

Did you even read my answers to your questions? Why do you even ask if you don't want to be answered? Do you honestly believe that there are NO answers to your questions and everyone will instantly 'see' it after reading your post and convert to God? Is that what you're trying to do? Because if it is, I don't think I should bother trying to explain you anything anymore..


Now, about genetic algorithms.. You have many misconceptions there as well (you can't just visit wikipedia once and think you've covered the subject). Although, sadly, I think that the only reason you studied the wiki page on GA is to find a weak point in my 'theories' to strike me, which I find really sad. Why do you need to turn your thread into some kind of 'war'?

So, anyhow. I'm answering your questions about GAs and I'm out of here. There's about 5 people right now all trying to inform you about the NE theory, and I think that's 5 too many.




Absolutely not. Genetic Algorithms is an alternative method for conventional programming that helps solve Hard problems which are too complex to be solved differently. GAs are inspired by biology in the sense that they do not solve a problem using logic, but instead search the whole field of all existing possibilities(similar to brute force), but don't visit every single solution candidate for optimization reasons and time constraints. GAs are a best-effort algorithm, which means that they do not guarantee an optimal solution to a problem.

In all my previous posts, I've only mentioned GAs ONCE. I wanted to show you that even today we don't know everything and we certainly can't explain all phenomenons in nature, and that even organizations like NASA rely on 'chance' for creating some of their equipment instead of human logic. Apparently, my point didn't get through..




Humans created Genetic algorithms, inspired by the rules of nature.




Genetic Algorithms were conceived in the early '60s, not billions of years ago. I think what you're trying to ask is, how did those golden rules about survival of the fittest, replication and mating came to existence? These rules were the product of the laws of physics.

You keep asking about how life came to earth, but first you'll have to define what 'life' is. If there's certain activity in a few billions and billions of cells, then according to the random structure of each cell, some billions will not do any meaningful activity, while maybe one of them will divide itself into two cells. Now, it's the laws of physics and probabilities that dictate that there are more chances that the cell will the division ability will survive through the years than the ones that don't divide. So your question should not be: "who created the laws of evolution" but "who created the laws of physics", to which I do not have an answer. Take this to a physicists forum if you're genuinely interested on the subject. But even if you do, keep in mind that no one really knows how the universe is created, so refrain your questions there to how and why physics work as they do.

About your example about the human baby on Mars... That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.. You're asking me, if a HUMAN BABY spontaneously appears out of no where to Mars, would it survive? Well no, the baby will die. What does that have to do with evolution? If however, the same reaction of events that sprouted 'life' in earth was to happen in Mars, the creatures that would evolve from that planet would be a lot different than earthlings in order to survive under Mars conditions.




Yes, this is how genetic algorithms work. Are you trying to disprove Natural Evolution by looking at GAs, is that what you're trying to do? This is like trying to disprove birds by looking at airplanes.




'Mating' is referred to GAs as a crossover algorithm and is optional. Random mutation how ever is always applied to every generation.




Yes. That's how we indicate to a GA what problem we want the GA to solve. We don't tell it how to solve it, it's just a way to reward genotypes which are closer to our objective and dismiss the ones which are not. It's a way to emulate how the surrounding environment of an organism lets the organism survive or not. For example, if a genotype is assimilated by a group of eight ones and zeros (e.g. 00110110) and my objective is to evolve a genotype which is all '1's and no '0's, then I would make my simulated environment very hostile towards '0's and friendly towards '1's. So as far as my environemnt is concerned, 'fit' is a genotype with as many 1's as possible. In Natural Evolution, 'fit' is an organism which is as compatible to its surrounding environment as possible. Does this makes any sense to you or am I just talking to the wind?




No, the programmer writes the fitness functions using a programming language. In nature, organisms that are weak to their environment die due to laws of physics.




Genetic Algorithms were conceived by human beings, such as H.J. Bremermann and G.J. Friedman. The first living organism did not have any intelligence, if by intelligence you mean the way the human mind works. I explained you how Natural Evolution works many times in this post and others.




Yes, it's a mathematical formula. We're not applying Genetic Algorithms to evolution, its a programming algorithm inspired by nature that is capable of solving Hard problems. In nature, the problem: "What organism could survive best on a given environment on a given time" is also Hard, because the candidate solutions to be examined are infinite.




Because the sun doesn't have a brain.




Again, give me your definition of 'alive'. Nevertheless, the conditions in the sun makes it a bit hard for any organism to evolve, unless they are extremely resistant to all that heat. But regardless of something being alive or not, everything is changing throughout the time (and the sun is too), due to their interaction with their surrounding environment. Anything (alive or dead) that does not manage to sustain itself perishes, while everything else survives. This is again due to the laws of physics, and the only difference between something that can be considered 'alive', is that a life form may grow, adapt and reproduce, which gives it more possibilities for continuous transformation throughout its 'generations'.




I think I've touched this topic a lot of times higher in the post. This is the last question I'll ever be answering you. You have an attitude and that doesn't go well with discussions like this. So, so long and see you in another thread..