tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post930446220904843553..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Karl Giberson: Broken Genes Prove EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger681125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66112755706854028522011-05-31T04:00:05.311-07:002011-05-31T04:00:05.311-07:00Generally, everyone are very keen in searching of ...Generally, everyone are very keen in searching of evolution or <a href="http://youareenoughbook.com/" rel="nofollow">search of God</a>. The guessing is still continued without any proper proof.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06036223634199288581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16096701689562571392011-05-26T06:12:15.491-07:002011-05-26T06:12:15.491-07:00An IDiot said:
"Positive evidence for design...An IDiot said:<br /><br />"Positive evidence for design is based on identifying characteristics and properties of life that we only associate with intentional and intelligent design. So we have life that looks designed and evolutionists that lack sufficient evidence to convincingly show why this is not so. They have faith in evolution. I have faith in God because it is the better explanation."<br /><br />So, if I were to claim that the designer is a purple, creepy, slimy, fang-toothed, reptile-like monster with 39 eyes, 14 arms, and 42 legs, would you be able to produce sufficient evidence to convincingly show why this is not so?<br /><br />Do you have sufficient evidence to convincingly show that your chosen god exists or that any god exists?<br /><br />Exactly how is "positive evidence for design" tested and verified?<br /><br />And exactly how is "positive evidence for design" linked to your chosen god, by tests and verification?<br /><br /><br />http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74882841754096598342011-05-24T06:15:41.662-07:002011-05-24T06:15:41.662-07:00natschuster
Please explain in your own words how ...natschuster<br /><br />Please explain in your own words how transitional fossil series are identified<br /><br />Please explain in your own words how and why artificial selection works<br /><br />Please explain in your own words the concept of genetic drift<br /><br />No more free rides for your Creationist trolling. Time to do your own work.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53366370781030441012011-05-24T05:11:00.903-07:002011-05-24T05:11:00.903-07:00Thorton:
I did read up on transitional fossils. I...Thorton:<br /><br />I did read up on transitional fossils. I mentioned some examples and why I had problems with tem. The page on trilobites goexus linked above is not available. Im wondering if the example is the one mentioned by Niles Elddridge in his book. The trilobites go from one number of rows of eyes, to one row shrinking in hlaf, to one row disappearing. But htey still might be all one species.<br /><br />And many of the case of speciation in the laboratory, like partially reproductively isolated furit flies, are describes as "possible incipient species." And it turns out in the case of fruit flies raised on different foods, they wehre reprodcutively isolated because the gut bacteria produced different pheromones. It wasn't genetic. Changing the diet would stop the preferential mating.<br /><br />And so, we need another, factor genetic drift, to explain complexity. EA aren't enough. Has genetic drift ever been quantified? Evolution sure needs a lot of epicycles. There's genetic drift, LGT.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51089699909586095382011-05-23T21:34:23.467-07:002011-05-23T21:34:23.467-07:00natschuster said...
But in nature, an adaptation...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> But in nature, an adaptation might not provide any benefit until a number of mutations have occured. How do we get adaptation that require a number of steps if no step improves fitness.</i><br /><br />Geoxus already mentioned the importance of genetic drift above nat. Why don't you get off your lazy ass, go read up on it, then come back and tell us in your own words why it is relevant to your question.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32089744038562921342011-05-23T21:34:16.483-07:002011-05-23T21:34:16.483-07:00-- Continued --
Some of the cells in the FPGA wer...-- Continued --<br /><br />Some of the cells in the FPGA were not connected to the main circuit though conventional routing. Yet it was shown that these cells still contributed to the behavior of the circuit. From the abstract… <br /><br /><i>Possible mechanisms include electromagnetic coupling, or interaction through the power-supply or substrate. Evolution was able to exploit this physical behaviour, even though it would be difficult to analyze.</i><br /><br />In other words, it's not obvious how these cells actually contribute to the process. Yet we do not have to appeal to a designer to in the absence of such knowledge to explain their contribution. <br /><br />So, here we have a concrete example of where the specific implementation was undefined. only the fitness of the signal processing was evaluated. From the abstract...<br /><br /><i>These principles were adopted in evolving a corner of a XC6216 FPGA to discriminate between 1kHz and 10kHz square-waves (to produce a steady high output for one and a steady low for the other). A genetic algorithm was allowed to explore any possible configuration of the corner, and no external components were provided. In particular, there was no clock: to enforce a synchronization constraint on the otherwise continuous-time dynamics of the device would be to pre-judge the strategies that evolution could explore. Figure 1 shows the final successful evolved circuit, and Figure 2 shows its behavior and that of circuits at some intermediate stages in evolution</i>.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49293759117913292922011-05-23T21:33:21.537-07:002011-05-23T21:33:21.537-07:00Natschuster / Doublee,
Here's an example of ...Natschuster / Doublee, <br /><br />Here's an example of EA at work in circuit design. The result was the evolution of a FPGA configuration that performed signal processing tasks. <br /><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/lg2pCN" rel="nofollow">Exploring Beyond the Scope of Human Design: Automatic generation of FPGA configurations through artificial evolution.</a><br /><br />From the abstract… <br /><br /><i>Clearly, the evolutionary algorithm has found an extremely efficient solution in a region of `design-space' beyond the scope of conventional techniques. The task was a simple one, but not remote from applications. Figure 3 shows how the 1kHz/10kHz input was replaced with audio signals for the spoken words `Go' and `Stop', and evolution was continued to adapt the 1kHz/10kHz circuits to this new discrimination task. A circuit performing reasonably well when the words were spoken into a microphone was found, still just using the corner of cells and no external components or clock. This `incremental' approach to artificial evolution, where a related previous result is adapted and built-upon to perform a new task, is one of the best answers to the challenge of evolution being a fairly lengthy process.</i>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52565457775395062002011-05-23T21:14:25.927-07:002011-05-23T21:14:25.927-07:00natschuster, while you are off wondering about the...natschuster, while you are off wondering about the next topic to misrepresent, why don't you explain in your own words how and why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection" rel="nofollow">artificial selection</a> works.<br /><br />Here's a hint:<br /><br /><b>Contrast to natural selection<br /><br />There is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection, and the concept of artificial selection was used by Charles Darwin as an illustration of the wider process of natural selection. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists view domestication as a type of natural selection and adaptive change that occurs as organisms are brought under the control of human beings.</b><br /><br />EAs use a form of artificial selection, where the environment is set up to provide selection pressure directing the results towards a specified end. But both biological AS and EAs they use the <b>exact same underlying mechanisms</b> as real biological evolution.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13208948342157894512011-05-23T20:57:14.137-07:002011-05-23T20:57:14.137-07:00Tedford the Idiot said...
Derick, no joke thi...<i>Tedford the Idiot said...<br /><br /> Derick, no joke this time and your empty answer indicates a lot about the poverty of your theory. The best evolutionistts can do is talk about finch beaks, big tomatoes, wolves and fox terriers, e-coli and nylon digestion. </i><br /><br />Er...no Tedford. That's all idiot pastors know about ToE and can talk about. The actual details known about evolution would fill a major library. You can take undergrad and graduate level courses in it at thousands of top ranked colleges and universities. There are dozens of professional technical journals that specialize in it. Not that an idiot like you would ever bother to research the topic though.<br /><br /><i>E-coli is still very much e-coli after 40,000 generations of trillions. Do you really think they won't be e-coli after 50,000 thousand or a 100,000 or a million generations? Bacteria are more plastic in their ability to adapt than more complex organisms, so where does that leave you?</i><br /><br />It leaves us laughing at the fat scientifically illiterate fool of a pastor who really thinks evolution means we should expect to see a <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Q86KBwPtI-o/TEqaBLl_kII/AAAAAAAAB-c/FMz_iK-yKTA/s640/Crocoduck.jpg" rel="nofollow">crocoduck.</a>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68395576074494189282011-05-23T18:24:40.518-07:002011-05-23T18:24:40.518-07:00Derick, no joke this time and your empty answer in...Derick, no joke this time and your empty answer indicates a lot about the poverty of your theory. The best evolutionistts can do is talk about finch beaks, big tomatoes, wolves and fox terriers, e-coli and nylon digestion. E-coli is still very much e-coli after 40,000 generations of trillions. Do you really think they won't be e-coli after 50,000 thousand or a 100,000 or a million generations? Bacteria are more plastic in their ability to adapt than more complex organisms, so where does that leave you? Time is not the evolutionists problem in demonstrating the validity of their theory with e-coli, reality is. You can respond with ad hominem all day long, but it is no substitute for good evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73847693530871268162011-05-23T16:37:54.939-07:002011-05-23T16:37:54.939-07:00natschuster said...
Thorton:
The few exa...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> Thorton:<br /><br /> The few examples I could find of species to species change were either questionable, like the lambesaurines, or may very well have been a physiological change on the part of the organism to a changing environment, like the monkey growing bigger molars, or part of intraspecies variation, like the diatoms and foraminfors. I'm relunctant to say there are no examples. But what there is is really very spotty and problematic</i><br /><br />The only things spotty and problematic are your continued willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.<br /><br /><i>Now, the best I figure about EA's is that they test fitness by measuring results against the goal. But that is a little different than nature. Nature doesn't have a goal. And every iteration produces some more fit example. Every increment improves fitness.</i><br /><br />I see you were too lazy to do any reading or research on EAs, just like you were too lazy to read up on any evolutionary biology.<br /><br />Keep wallowing in your ignorance nat. Tedford the Idiot could use the company.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70270931732286917442011-05-23T16:25:17.148-07:002011-05-23T16:25:17.148-07:00Thorton:
The few examples I could find of species...Thorton:<br /><br />The few examples I could find of species to species change were either questionable, like the lambesaurines, or may very well have been a physiological change on the part of the organism to a changing environment, like the monkey growing bigger molars, or part of intraspecies variation, like the diatoms and foraminfors. I'm relunctant to say there are no examples. But what there is is really very spotty and problematic. <br /><br />Now, the best I figure about EA's is that they test fitness by measuring results against the goal. But that is a little different than nature. Nature doesn't have a goal. And every iteration produces some more fit example. Every increment improves fitness. But in nature, an adaptation might not provide any benefit until a number of mutations have occured. How do we get adaptation that require a number of steps if no step improves fitness.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82943010648333557452011-05-23T15:49:11.076-07:002011-05-23T15:49:11.076-07:00natschuster:
When I said evolution I meant specie...natschuster:<br /><br /><i>When I said evolution I meant species to species change. That's what we are discussing.</i><br /><br />We <b>have seen</b> speciation in the lab an in the wild. There are whole lists of examples. Google is your friend.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17814911993551112072011-05-23T15:43:13.237-07:002011-05-23T15:43:13.237-07:00natschuster:
And most of the examples of change th...natschuster:<br /><i>And most of the examples of change that I know in the fossil record are transitions between major groups. But smoothly trnasitioning fossils between species are pretty rare. Please correct me if I'm wrong.</i><br /><br />Punctuated and gradual change in trilobites:<br />http://books.google.cl/books?id=F_tYJ6wlYmYC&lpg=PA372&ots=_JWjZqfSqL&dq=%22punctuated%20equilibrium%22%20%20trilobites%20ribs&hl=en&pg=PA372#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br /><i>Do the measure it against the target goal?</i><br /><br />It's not different from the way it happens in nature: if a genotype decreases probability of being eaten, it enhances fitness. If a set of parameters for a circuit board decreases overall resistance (for example), it enhances fitness. But in both cases there is NO SPECIFIC "TARGET" COMBINATION OF GENES. There is NO SPECIFIC "TARGET" CIRCUITRY LAYOUT. NS doesn't care about the specific genetic or electric configurations it produces, it cares about THEIR EFFECTS.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55415989465136807902011-05-23T15:41:52.584-07:002011-05-23T15:41:52.584-07:00Thorton
"DID IT!
I made post number 666!&qu...Thorton<br /><br />"DID IT!<br /><br />I made post number 666!"<br /><br />Yes, you did it you Satan worshipper.<br /><br />Anyway, this blog may abruptly shut down so somebody please create a new blog and name it Thorton's playground :):)Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76305216936441704772011-05-23T13:17:45.424-07:002011-05-23T13:17:45.424-07:00natschuster said...
And most of the examples ...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> And most of the examples of change that I know in the fossil record are transitions between major groups. But smoothly trnasitioning fossils between species are pretty rare. Please correct me if I'm wrong</i><br /><br />"pretty rare" and "never" are two very different concepts nat. Why are you backpedaling and changing your story now?<br /><br /><i>Now, how do EA's test fitness?</i><br /><br />Why do you care? If you really want to know <b>which you don't</b>, then get off your lazy ass and do some research yourself. If I write up pages describing the functions you'll just ignore the results <b>like you always do</b> and revert to your normal willfully ignorant self.<br /><br />I'm tired of your nonstop intellectual dishonesty nat. Real tired.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4479522414750807792011-05-23T12:52:56.108-07:002011-05-23T12:52:56.108-07:00Thorton:
When I said evolution I meant species to...Thorton:<br /><br />When I said evolution I meant species to species change. That's what we are discussing.<br /><br />And most of the examples of change that I know in the fossil record are transitions between major groups. But smoothly trnasitioning fossils between species are pretty rare. Please correct me if I'm wrong.<br /><br />Now, how do EA's test fitness? Do the measure it against the target goal? For example, if the target is designing more efficient jet engines, does it take the reuslt on ach iteration, that comes closest to the goal, and declare that more fit?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69055251754255870742011-05-23T12:25:14.856-07:002011-05-23T12:25:14.856-07:00DID IT!
I made post number 666!
:)DID IT!<br /><br />I made post number <b>666!</b><br /><br />:)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42672065767807929572011-05-23T12:23:37.589-07:002011-05-23T12:23:37.589-07:00665!665!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47165361111161646532011-05-23T12:23:11.869-07:002011-05-23T12:23:11.869-07:00664!664!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78458378922794502882011-05-23T12:19:16.401-07:002011-05-23T12:19:16.401-07:00Doublee said...
Thorton:
In this case you...<i>Doublee said...<br /><br /> Thorton:<br /> In this case you have 99.9% of the world's PhDs in the subject and entire libraries of consilient peer reviewed evidence saying "A". You have a tiny 0.1% minority with zero evidence but a strong religious/political agenda saying "not A". Which do you think we should go with?<br /><br /> You offer me a Hobson's choice. Your appeal to sociological factors will not help resolve this issue. What does the evidence say?</i><br /><br />I already told you. The evidence says once started EAs don't require any additional guiding inputs. Try reading the literature.<br /><br /><i>Evolutionary algorithms either import exogenous information or they don't. Cannot this be determined objectively? </i><br /><br />What do you mean by "import exogenous information"? Interaction with the environment supplies the 'information' that drive the EA results. Are you suggesting the Intelligent Designer somehow actively manipulates the environment to get the animal shapes he wants?<br /><br />You need to understand the difference between physical 'information' and the abstract representation of information. Every object contains 'information' in that it can be described in terms of its physical makeup. <b>Abstract</b> information is the intelligence-produced recording (using words, symbols, etc.) of the physical makeup of the object.<br /><br />EAs demonstrate conclusively that natural processes with no external guidance can and do create new complex physical forms which by definition contain new 'information.' What EAs don't create is <b>abstract</b> information of the new forms. But that is not germane because in biological entities we never see any <b>abstract</b> representations of information. DNA is not an abstract representation of a protein. It is part of a very complicated chemical, physical reaction. There is no involvement with abstract information <b> at all.</b><br /><br />IDiots love to equivocate over information (which all physical entities possess merely by being here) and the abstract representation of that information.<br /><br /><i>If it can't, then neither side wins and we are left in an ambivalent state of knowledge. </i><br /><br />There is no ambiguity. Evolution already won over a century ago by weight of its positive evidence.<br /><br /><i>As a consequence, evolutionary algorithms cannot be used to bolster the plausibility of evolution.</i><br /><br />They not only can be but are used and accepted by virtually the entire scientific community.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71373074919558531262011-05-23T11:37:08.410-07:002011-05-23T11:37:08.410-07:00natschuster said...
So evolution happens to h...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> So evolution happens to happen too slowly to be seen in the lab, but too quickly to be preserved in the fossil record, hence punctuated equilibrium. So its kind of like a Goldilocks thing.</i><br /><br />Ya know nat, I've never seen anyone work so hard to stay as willfully ignorant as you do.<br /><br />The process of evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild. It just hasn't been continuously observed for the tens of thousands of years required to create an entirely new organism as Tedford the Idiot demands. It's just like we can measure plate tectonic drift with GPS at a few cm per year, but no one has seen a whole continent go 1000 miles.<br /><br />Evolution is also well documented in the fossil record. Evolution doesn't always proceed at the same rate across all species and all times. There are ample examples of smoothly changing transitional sequences, ones that I know you have been shown before.<br /><br />It's really a pity you choose to lie about things like this. Strange religion you follow that actively encourages ignorance and dishonesty.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84955340878730310442011-05-23T10:16:33.144-07:002011-05-23T10:16:33.144-07:00Thorton:
In this case you have 99.9% of the world&...<b>Thorton:</b><br /><i>In this case you have 99.9% of the world's PhDs in the subject and entire libraries of consilient peer reviewed evidence saying "A". You have a tiny 0.1% minority with zero evidence but a strong religious/political agenda saying "not A". Which do you think we should go with?</i><br /><br />You offer me a Hobson's choice. Your appeal to sociological factors will not help resolve this issue. What does the evidence say?<br /><br />Evolutionary algorithms either import exogenous information or they don't. Cannot this be determined objectively? If it can't, then neither side wins and we are left in an ambivalent state of knowledge. As a consequence, evolutionary algorithms cannot be used to bolster the plausibility of evolution.Doubleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09894977171356099262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46881405644511889362011-05-23T10:09:37.134-07:002011-05-23T10:09:37.134-07:00Neal: "Derick, for a good start I would expec...Neal: <i>"Derick, for a good start I would expect to see organisms such as bacteria and fruit flies, which allow us to observe many generations quickly, to have evolved (in the lab) into entirely new organisms that have fitness levels equal or exceeding their ancestors."</i><br /><br />Neal, are you still 'joking'? I can't tell anymore. I hope you are.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91061974099002702292011-05-23T09:42:01.490-07:002011-05-23T09:42:01.490-07:00Thorton:
So evolution happens to happen too slowl...Thorton:<br /><br />So evolution happens to happen too slowly to be seen in the lab, but too quickly to be preserved in the fossil record, hence punctuated equilibrium. So its kind of like a Goldilocks thing.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.com