"Because the sun doesn't have a brain."
"Rofl."
Shouldn't it have "Evolved" to have one by now ? Oh wait , organisms can "ONLY" evolve on earth , and only this organisms can evolve into having a brain right ?

" " How far back are you going ? Dinasours are our oldest fossils we have "

"You are joking I suppose "

Nope , not joking , post your references , as I'm starting to think you are the one joking.


"I can continue to answer your questions if you like, but I honestly don't think it's worth my time"
Or you cant actually answer anything ?

" 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"
No , I looked into it to convert my self to an evolutionist.

"Absolutely not. Genetic Algorithms is an alternative method for conventional programming that helps solve Hard problems which are too complex to be solved differently."
Ok , so they are not the answer the my posted questions.

"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)"
How do you know how biology solves it's problems ? I didn't know biology had intelligence.

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

Rules that created themselves right ? Or rules created by God to guide his creation ? This is where you fail to see my point , reread it , and think about what I'm saying and what you are saying. How do this rules being there mean the universe evolved out of nothing ? And if they don't , then how do this rules help push evolution , which states the world evolved from nothing ?

"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."

See , you keep talking about rules and laws , but then state that this are rules and laws that all created themselves , all the forces of the universe , the laws of physics , genetic algorithms , all this things , somehow happened from nothing , and since you believe the big bang , created themselves , since the big bang states this things havnt always existed. So the laws of physics did not exist prior to the big bang , since there was no universe and no gravity or magnetism. Thats where you miss your own point in what we are discussing. I understand what you say , but I dont think you do.

"You keep asking about how life came to earth, but first you'll have to define what 'life' is."
Well , if we go down to it's basic , then it's a chemical process with intellligence. Since the sun is a chemical process but contains no intelligence , so it's not really considered alive. If intelligence is not required then basically the sun as well as all the planets are alive (with the exeptioin of mercury I think).

"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."

What billions of cells , there was NOTHING , ZERO , then , it is believed , somehow , through "CHANCE" because there was nothing , you cant have your genetics algorithms in nothing, ONE cell formed (where do you get your millions from ? you need to re-visit your books on evolution) , and somehow , this cell survived , and created a feeding mechanism , as well as cell division and dna or rna. By the way , were did all this millions of cells you talk about came from ? Maybe you need to visit the link to the movie I put , so you can understand what a cell is and how complicated it's mechanisms are , before assuming millions of cells spontanously appeared in earth.

"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"
Of course you dont , you also dont have an answer to how this first cell formed (WHICH IS A KEY CONCEPT in evolution) , you just assumed in the begining there was millions of cells in earth which formed from thin air.

"Take this to a physicists forum if you're genuinely interested on the subject."
Well fastlane is the physicist , he comes up short as well.

See this is what I love about scientists and the science enthusiasts , they concentrate on ONE thing they like , and IGNORE all other aspects , so , Larry likes GA , so , thats all he cares about , and how that fits in the theory , however , there is physics , astronomy , Paleontology , archeology , chemistry , biology , well too many to name , you have to look at ALL aspects , before considering anything , if something fits here , but contradicts the rest, it cannot be right , and thats where you fail , you only care about GA , but fail to see that GA could be a ruled created by god , GA itself doesn't show ANY proof at all for evolution , so your whole argument is pointless.

"Genetic Algorithms were conceived in the early '60s, not billions of years ago."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So you are saying that the rules of GA in bilogy just started in the 60's ?
Oh wait , you were trying to be clever ? I see.

"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."
Wait wait wait wait , so it wasnt created by a bean ? I'm a bit busy right now , but later on tonight I will find those articles and will even try to find videos of scientists stating the universe was created from a bean , because you seem to be saying something completely different than what the scientists who teach and advocate evolution say. Again , maybe you need to re-read your evolution and big bang material. Or you only care about the GA aspect of all this ? So , is this the Larry Laughter Theory Of Evolution we are discussing here rather than the scientific community accepted one ?

"That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.."
So you havnt heard the big bang theory and the evolution theory ?
It states ALL LIFE KNOWN AND ALL THE UNIVERSE spontanously appeared , so thats possible , but a baby appearing in mars is ridiculous , hmmmm , there's something very strange with the way your brain processes logic.

"Well no, the baby will die. What does that have to do with evolution? "
Again , fail to see a VERY simple point.
Baby impossible to live , cell billions of years ago not only lived , evolved into ALL LIFE on earth today. Strange logic you use there Larry.

"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 , so if a cell formed on mars , it would not only life , but create a vast and abundant array of life on mars , including intillent ones that might even become like us ? Oh yeah , but if a FULL COMPLETE baby was dropped there or appeared there , it would die and dissapear , IT HAS TO BE A CELL , only that special cell can make it ? The only thing ridiculous here is how you donn't realize what you are saying.

"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."
No it isnt , it isnt even similar , I am trying to disprove evolution by all of it's holes it has as a theory , you came trying to say how GA validated evolution , and I just showed you how it doesnt , since you just like the other ones well your actually worst , you assume there were millions of cells , they assume one somehow formed , I think fastlane is more level headed than yourself , oh yeah , but for GA to work , you need a population , so I guess lets assume there were millions of cells from nothing to begin with. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Are you actually serious ? LOL , incredible , you make fastlane seem humble.

"'Mating' is referred to GAs as a crossover algorithm and is optional."
Well it's not in evolution.

"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.... and the rest of the paragraph"

"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.... and the rest of the paragraph"

Well all of this is pointless , if you dont have an initial population (which you cant just assume existed out of thin air), then all of this is pointless in proving evolution, which is what we are arguing here.

I asked:
"So this "Intelligent" decisions just started making themselves , from non intelligent organisms ?"

You answered:
"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."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA , So you are actually saying there has to be a programmer that writes the fitness functions ? So who could this programmer be , GOD ? Or they created themselves ? Wait , you just said they didnt create themselves ? Well what are you saying man ?

"In nature, organisms that are weak to their environment die due to laws of physics."

I thought they evolved ? So do they die or evolve ? See how you make no sense.

"Genetic Algorithms were conceived by human beings,"
"The first living organism did not have any intelligence, if by intelligence you mean the way the human mind works."

LOL , so then I'm right ? This system had to be created by intelligence , since it's an intelligent system ?

"Yes, it's a mathematical formula. We're not applying Genetic Algorithms to evolution"
Well we are discussing evolution , if we are not applying GA to evolution , then WHAT IS YOUR POINT ?

"Because the sun doesn't have a brain."
Well we didnt either , right ? We "evolved" into having a brain , unless your saying the first cell spontanously appeared with a full brain.

"Nevertheless, the conditions in the sun makes it a bit hard for any organism to evolve"
Well it could evolve itself , butt I assume this things dont work like that , because we were created and so was our sun , our sun wasnt meant to have intelligence so it doesnt. If you go by science , since intelligence just apears from nowehere , maybe it could evolve to have some somehow.

So in total , you have not made ONE point , you just ramble about GA , then state it doenst support evolution , then state you have no idea how the world and universe were created , then state you have no idea were this millions of cells came from , but you still believe in evolution and the big bang.
LOL , so you just came here to post about GAs ? Well , thnx for sharing , but thats not we this post is about.


@fastlane
I know your trying to be smart , or funny , or something, but here is the optional theory or teaching.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
no ?
Ok , THE BIBLE ?
You dont like that on either ?
ok
WELL NOTHING?

Since when does science have to answer where the universe came from ?
That is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. If science does not have a an answer that has been 100% fully proofed , that explains all aspects of how the universe and life was created , that can stand any amount of scrutiny , thats has 100% hard evidence (not ideas) actual evidence to the events it's stating happened , then this theory is not proofed and it's then NOT science , and should NOT be taught as FACT (which it is , big bang and evolution are being taught as fact).

So there's your answer fastlane , choose which you like best , they are all equally good.

But now a question for you , after seeing all the problems with evolution , do you still belief this should still be taught as fact to the children ?
If so , why ?
Do you believe in teaching things we assume rather than things we know ?
Do you believe since evolution and the big bang are the best ideas scientists could think of in explaining the world and life without considering God , then they are the best they can think of and should still be considered and taught as fact ?
If you believe this , is this not a full contradiction of science ?
If you believe this , does this not show a complete lack of morals as well as a complete lack of respect for your fellow human beings ?