Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 293 (804719)
04-12-2017 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by forexhr
04-12-2017 3:41 PM


Given the discussion on this thread one interesting question arises: why people who argue for evolution cannot choose only one of many thousands of bio-sturctures and provide an empirical illustration for the ratio of non-bio-functional arrangements of particles to bio-functional arrangements of particles and then, through simple mathematical calculations, put this ratio in the context of resources available to evolution?
The reason for not doing so is that your question contains an underlying assumption about evolution that nobody agrees with. The proper way to address loaded questions, such as 'have you stopped beating your wife?' is to address the false assumption. That is what folks have been doing here. They have pointed out the loaded nature of your question, and in some cases have tried to tell you the exact nature of the issue.
Your response has been to belittle the responses, and then finally in the post I am responding to, ridicule the lack of directness to your BS question.
You've long since crossed the line from stubborn to dishonest. I would recommend that at this point folks just let you have this particular discussion to yourself.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by forexhr, posted 04-12-2017 3:41 PM forexhr has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 167 of 293 (804721)
04-12-2017 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by forexhr
04-12-2017 3:41 PM


Given the discussion on this thread one interesting question arises: why people who argue for evolution cannot choose only one of many thousands of bio-sturctures and provide an empirical illustration for the ratio of non-bio-functional arrangements of particles to bio-functional arrangements of particles and then, through simple mathematical calculations, put this ratio in the context of resources available to evolution?
The bigger question is why, every time herebedragons has pointed out the specific flaws in the examples you cite, you ignore it and accuse everyone else of arguing in generalities instead of specifics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by forexhr, posted 04-12-2017 3:41 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 168 of 293 (804784)
04-13-2017 4:05 AM


Here is the challenge for people on this thread who argue for evolution.
Let's suppose that evolution starts with the following functional 'linguistic organism':
"------- Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.--------"
The above text is the DNA of the first self-replicating unicellular organism. Words are genes. Word is a smallest unit of language that functions as a principal carrier of meaning just as gene is a smallest unit of biology that functions as a principal carrier of meaningful molecule(exp. lambda repressor fold). A sentence is a linguistic unit consisting of more words that are grammatically linked into meaningful statement, question, request, command, exclamation, etc., just as assembly of genes is a biological unit consisting of two or more genes that are functionally linked together to perform an important function of the cell or the body. (exp. group of genes that code for RNA splicing machine).
The following is the organism with new genes(words), that didn't exist in the first self-replicating unicellular organism:
"**------- Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.
A week is a time unit equal to seven days. It is the standard time period used for cycles of rest days in most parts of the world, mostly alongsidealthough not strictly part ofthe Gregorian calendar. The days of the week were named after the classical planets (derived from the astrological system of planetary hours) in the Roman era. The names for the days of the week in English are Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday...---------**"
Genetic material newly added to our linguistic organism is concerned with new linguistic niches, the same as newly added genetic material to the first self-replicating organism, was concerned with new structural niche in the form of intronic insertions. Inside this newly added material we observe new meaningful relationship - between these words "The names for the days of the week in English are", and these words "Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday". Let us call the firs group of words "A", and the second group "B". We can say that A is a sub-niche of our newly added material, while B is the target that needed to be extracted from some pre-existing linguistic material. Likewise, in real organisms, intron-exon gene structure that arised in early cells was a sub-niche, while RNA splicing machine was the target that needed to be extracted from some pre-existing genetic material.
And what is this pre-existing material in the Darwinian evolution? Well, it is simply some duplicated genetic material of the pre-existing organism. This pre-existing organism in our example is this:
"------- Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.--------"
So let us duplicate some of the 'genes':
-> "of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
After this duplication we have new linguistic (genetic) material that evolution can act upon to produce new meaningful relationships between A and B (between intorn-exon gene structure and RNA splicing machine).
We are now at the crucial point of this illustration. At this point I wolud argue that evolution must produce meaningful relationships between A and B from scratch and that the 'step by step' path from duplicated linguistic material to meaningful relationships between A and B does not exist. On the other hand, people who argue for evolution would say that I don't understand how evolution works and that there is a step by step path form this duplication:
///"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"///
to this meaningful relationships:
***"The names for the days of the week in English are"*** ---"Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday---.
So here is the challenge for those who argue for evolution: by using this concrete example, show us how evolution works. Show us how to get from duplicated genes(words) to meaningful relationships between A and B gradually in a step-by-step fashion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2017 8:52 AM forexhr has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 169 of 293 (804785)
04-13-2017 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by forexhr
04-09-2017 10:55 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
forexhr writes:
You made one critical error in your reasoning: you defined function with relation to - nothing. In biology, function is always defined with relation to something. Even you paper has done this, I quote: "we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP".
There's no error. "Function" is used in biology in both a general and specific way. The Szostak paper (Functional Proteins from a random sequence library) I linked to does both, and the conclusion is general.
quote:
In conclusion, we suggest that functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 10^11) that they may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably operated when proteins were first used by living organisms.
Surely you understood the general uses in the second paper you linked to in the O.P. here, and the one on functional DNA you linked to in your second post here?.
forexhr writes:
In my paper, this function was lambda repressor fold. If the ability to bind to ATP is considered a closed stuctural niche, only for that function you need to spend 10^11 evolutionary resources. If to this we add resources needed to extract lambda repressor fold, we are already 31 orders of magnitude short with regards to all evolutionary resources. Now add to this all differnt protein folds, organs and morphological structures and you will get a clear picture of the extent of the problem
Also, in your paper they started with small proteins, each containing 80 amino acids. On the other hand, average length of, for e.g. human protein, is 480 amino acids (1). Finally, your random six-figure number generator is totally unrelated to biology since its sequence space is 1.000.000 while for an average protein this space is 10^624 in size.
My numbers were to illustrate your probability mistakes.
For example, you are mistaking the resources required to hit all possible functional 1 in 10^624 AA combinations for the resources required to get any. If there are 10^523 such functional proteins, then 1 in 10^11 searches (random assemblies of 480AAs ) would hit on one. 10^17 searches would provide 1,000,000, and 10^20 searches would hit on 1 billion of them, already plenty for a very diverse life system.
The same applies for your 1 in 10^63 estimate for a related group of proteins with a specific function. If there are 10^52 such groups with some potential function, then 1 in 10^11 searches would hit on one such. 10^17 searches would provide 1,000,000, and 10^20 would hit on 1 billion of them. The Lambda phage doesn't have to exist at this point or any other, neither does its repressor, and neither does the E-coli host. Life has no specific targets. But pick out any single protein in the system and it will appear to be remotely unlikely to those who don't understand probabilities.
If you can learn to understand the probabilities, then there are some technical points that are interesting, as well. It's not hard to find completely unrelated proteins that can perform the same function, for example, something that might support the conclusion of the second paper you linked to.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
Edited by bluegenes, : extra word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by forexhr, posted 04-09-2017 10:55 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 7:06 AM bluegenes has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 170 of 293 (804787)
04-13-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by bluegenes
04-13-2017 4:31 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
bluegenes writes:
There's no error. "Function" is used in biology in both a general and specific way. The Szostak paper (Functional Proteins from a random sequence library) I linked to does both, and the conclusion is general.
What does functional protein that binds to ATP has to do with the development of all specific bio-functions that we observe at all levels of bio-organization. If we consider ATP binding function as "general" what would this generality have to do with this specific structural niches: intron-exon gene structure, female reproductive system, lactose, ability of the lambda repressor to regulate expresion of cI protein? Can you fulfil these niches with ATP binding function? No. Can you fulfil the 'contraction' niche of striated muscle tissues, with this protein composed of 80 amino acids? No. You need a specific protein composed of ~27,000 to ~33,000 amino acids that is called Titin. So the Szostak paper demostrated that there has been enough sampling to cover the entire functional landscape of ATP binding protein. But what follows from that in the context of above mentioned niches? Absolutely nothing.
bluegenes writes:
Surely you understood the general uses in the second paper you linked to in the O.P. here, and the one on functional DNA you linked to in your second post here?
No I do not. You need to explain what you mean by "the general uses".
bluegenes writes:
My numbers were to illustrate your probability mistakes.
For example, you are mistaking the resources required to hit all possible functional 1 in 10^624 AA combinations for the resources required to get any. If there are 10^523 such functional proteins, then 1 in 10^11 searches (random assemblies of 480AAs ) would hit on one. 10^17 searches would provide 1,000,000, and 10^20 searches would hit on 1 billion of them, already plenty for a very diverse life system.
The same applies for your 1 in 10^63 estimate for a related group of proteins with a specific function. If there are 10^52 such groups with some potential function, then 1 in 10^11 searches would hit on one such. 10^17 searches would provide 1,000,000, and 10^20 would hit on 1 billion of them. The Lambda phage doesn't have to exist at this point or any other, neither does its repressor, and neither does the E-coli host. Life has no specific targets. But pick out any single protein in the system and it will appear to be remotely unlikely to those who don't understand probabilities.
If you can learn to understand the probabilities, then there are some technical points that are interesting, as well. It's not hard to find completely unrelated proteins that can perform the same function, for example, something that might support the conclusion of the second paper you linked to.
You committed the same mistake again. Let me use this example for illustration. If you have 1000 generally meaningful 10 letter words, whose sequence space is 26^10=141167095653376, and if you have enough resources(trials) to explore this sequence sapce, for example 150000000000000 trials, than by your logic, 150000000000000 trials would stumble across all 1000 generally meaningful 10 letter words. That is true but here is the problem: how would you define what is meaningful in a specific context? In a language, meaningful is defined by other words in a sentence. For example: this 10 letter word - "authorized" is meaningful in the context of this sentence: "The defender admits that he authorized all operations", but this 10 letter word - "birthplace" is not. Since you don't know in advance what sentence or context will appear, it is impossible to "select" a specific meaningful 10 letter word if you stumble across it during a random search.
This is even more obvious in the context of biology. Proteins are meaningful only in the context of currently opened structural or environmental niches. For example if this niche arises "The defender admits that he .......... all operations", then to fulfil the niche you need to search for the word "authorized". And to find this word you need to spend almost all of your resources since sequence space of 10 letter words is 26^10=141167095653376. If another niche arises where the word "birthplace" is meaningful, then again, you need 150000000000000 resources to find it. But you alredy spend all your resources for the previous search and you cannot proceed.
To conclude, in your reasoning you presupposed that evolution has a foresight and knows what structural or environmental niches will emerge in the future, so when the random search stumbles across the protein that is meaningful in the context of these future niches, evolution would simply select it, then put it aside and wait for niches to emerge in some random point in the future. In short, you presupposed that evolution has the supernatural powers.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by bluegenes, posted 04-13-2017 4:31 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 8:01 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 216 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2017 12:56 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 04-16-2017 8:21 AM forexhr has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 171 of 293 (804789)
04-13-2017 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by forexhr
04-13-2017 7:06 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
forexhr writes:
For example if this niche arises "The defender admits that he .......... all operations", then to fulfil the niche you need to search for the word "authorized".
"Authorized" is not the only word that fits. First there are synonyms like, "approved", "certified" and "sanctioned". Then there are other words that fit, like "understood", "implemented" and "nixed". Then there are many misspellings/misuses that are plenty close enough, such as "authurize", "aproval" and "cirtifide", that would serve very nearly as well. The target space is much larger than your sharpshooter fallacy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 7:06 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 8:52 AM Percy has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 293 (804796)
04-13-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by forexhr
04-13-2017 4:05 AM


At this point I wolud argue that evolution must produce meaningful relationships between A and B from scratch and that the 'step by step' path from duplicated linguistic material to meaningful relationships between A and B does not exist.
Why would you argue that? What evidence suggests that to you?
So here is the challenge for those who argue for evolution: by using this concrete example, show us how evolution works. Show us how to get from duplicated genes(words) to meaningful relationships between A and B gradually in a step-by-step fashion.
Okay, so in the analogy:
quote:
Words are genes. Word is a smallest unit of language that functions as a principal carrier of meaning just as gene is a smallest unit of biology that functions as a principal carrier of meaningful molecule(exp. lambda repressor fold). A sentence is a linguistic unit consisting of more words that are grammatically linked into meaningful statement, question, request, command, exclamation, etc., just as assembly of genes is a biological unit consisting of two or more genes that are functionally linked together to perform an important function of the cell or the body. (exp. group of genes that code for RNA splicing machine).
How do these words reproduce additional words?
What method would you like us to use?
Copy and paste characters and then delete the ones we don't want?
Or something else?
I'll give it a shot:
On the other hand, people who argue for evolution would say that I don't understand how evolution works and that there is a step by step path form this duplication:
///"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"///
to this meaningful relationships:
***"The names for the days of the week in English are"*** ---"Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday---.
So, using the above method of copying and pasting and then deleting:
"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the nation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the namplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the nament of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names fic investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names fon the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the daccomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the day can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the days for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the days or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the days of investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
"the names for the days of the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
And so on... looks like I'd need to add a "W" to get the next word, but I think the point is obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 4:05 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 9:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 173 of 293 (804797)
04-13-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
04-13-2017 8:01 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
A know that there are other words that fit, but the point of my previous post was not to define the functional landscape in the context of a specific niche, but to show that functions in biology are niche specific. So, you missed the point... again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 8:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 9:10 AM forexhr has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 293 (804798)
04-13-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by forexhr
04-12-2017 3:41 PM


why people who argue for evolution cannot choose only one of many thousands of bio-sturctures and provide an empirical illustration for the ratio of non-bio-functional arrangements of particles to bio-functional arrangements of particles and then, through simple mathematical calculations, put this ratio in the context of resources available to evolution?
I wouldn't do that because it is completely stupid and idiotic and only shows that the person asking the question doesn't understand how evolution is proposed to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by forexhr, posted 04-12-2017 3:41 PM forexhr has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 175 of 293 (804803)
04-13-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by forexhr
04-13-2017 8:52 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
forexhr writes:
A know that there are other words that fit, but the point of my previous post was not to define the functional landscape in the context of a specific niche, but to show that functions in biology are niche specific. So, you missed the point... again.
The point you're missing is the target space is far broader than you're imagining. One doesn't even need to hit the bulleye of one of the many workable targets.
We understand that you're trying to define the problem in this way: There is one and only one needle in this haystack, and it's going to be nearly impossible to find. But the reality is that there millions of needles in the haystack.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 8:52 AM forexhr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 04-13-2017 9:18 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 176 of 293 (804804)
04-13-2017 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Percy
04-13-2017 9:10 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
And there is one other major point that is that the solution only needs to be just barely good enough to work. It is not just Cheetahs that hunt on the savannas.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 9:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 177 of 293 (804806)
04-13-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by New Cat's Eye
04-13-2017 8:52 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:
So, using the above method of copying and pasting and then deleting:
...
In this method of yours you committed the same mistake as Dawkins in Weasel program presented in chapter 3 of his book "The Blind Watchmaker" - you used the method of intelligent design. Let me first explain how Dawkins gave the evolution supernatural powers. Dawkins knew that purely random approach to produce something meaningful was theoretically impossible, due to excessively huge search space. So he created WEASEL program where he aimed to show that the process that drives evolutionary systems - random variation and natural selection - are different from pure chance. His program begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error - 'mutation' - in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation until target phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is reached.
Without further elaboration, we can easily see what technique is used here. At each step of the simulation, the current state of the "individual" is judged according to the target phrase. In other words, program used a priori knowledge of the goal before the goal has been reached. The use of a priori knowledge is called planing. Plan is defined as a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something. By creating plans we, as inteligent agents, are creating representations of what we want to achieve. Then, by using our cognitive faculties we design objects by comparing this plans with a current state of the object. In short, this activity is called inteligent design.
In your method of copying and pasting you committed the same mistake - you selected the words "the", "names", "for", "the", "days", "of" and "the" just because you had a priori knowledge of the target phrase -"The names for the days of the week in English are".
Unfortunately, evolution cannot plan, there is no a priori knowledge to serve as a criterion for selection. Hence, the same bluegenes and Dawkins, you also presupposed that evolution has the supernatural powers. Or in other words, you don't know how evolution works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2017 8:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 10:01 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2017 10:33 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 181 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2017 10:35 AM forexhr has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 178 of 293 (804815)
04-13-2017 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by forexhr
04-13-2017 9:36 AM


You're working with analogies. In the analogy it is understood that the target is analogous to selection pressure. The program could be improved to make the target more analogous to selection pressure, for instance by selecting for closeness to actual words and correct grammar, but that would be a very complex program. The value of the Weasel program was as a very simple illustrative analogy to evolution, not as a model of it.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 9:36 AM forexhr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by vimesey, posted 04-13-2017 10:30 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 179 of 293 (804822)
04-13-2017 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
04-13-2017 10:01 AM


Indeed.
Forexhr's sharpshooter fallacy assumes that the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" is the only possible outcome. The thing is, of course, that the program would work just as well with any phrase.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 10:01 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2017 10:40 AM vimesey has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 293 (804823)
04-13-2017 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by forexhr
04-13-2017 9:36 AM


In your method of copying and pasting you committed the same mistake - you selected the words "the", "names", "for", "the", "days", "of" and "the" just because you had a priori knowledge of the target phrase -"The names for the days of the week in English are".
You, yourself, are the one who set up the challenge to have a target goal in mind! In reality, there is no target goal so your analogy is off to begin with.
But I was trying to humor you by sticking within the analogy. And now you're saying that it doesn't count because I could plan for hitting the target that you, yourself, set up in the challenge.
That's hilarious! It fails as any kind of argument against evolution, but it is funny nonetheless.
You're misunderstanding the nature of selective pressures. There is no target goal in mind, but the environment is what it is. The individuals in the population are either going to reproduce or not, and the environment is going to select which ones do or don't.
So in the analogy, I am just the environment - it's not that I'm using magical a priori knowledge of what the target goal is, it's that I'm playing a blind unthinking environment that applies the selective pressures the will only allow the letters in the words to "reproduce" if they are fit for the environment - and fitness to the environment was pre-defined as meeting a selected groups of words.
Makes sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 9:36 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 3:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024