Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Generator Program
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 46 of 59 (576469)
08-24-2010 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Nij
08-24-2010 7:39 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
Percy's, by contrast, is a toy for us to show people (like creationists, students and beginners) how evolution works and what it really looks like.
And hence the evolutionists entire problem right there. They take a toy, beginners like approach to the complex problem of getting from one place to another. They figure, if you just forget about all of the details, all of the complications that must be overcome, all of the pitfalls that go along with this so called strategy, ..if they just close their eyes to everyone of the zillions of problems, they can just say-well, it takes time.
Its like child who thinks that if they just stack up enough stones they can reach the sun. They ignore that rocks don't balance very good if you stack them high enough, and that that many rocks get pretty heavy, and that you are going to have to figure out pretty quick how to get back down to pick up the next rock, and put it on top.
And then soon the atmosphere is going to change, and you are going to lose gravity, and the rocks are going to start melting...
But hey, I still believe if I stack up enough rocks, I can reach the sun. It just takes time.
And by the way, halfway through your exercise, you are going to change your mind, and want to go to Jupiter instead..after you decided to go to Saturn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Nij, posted 08-24-2010 7:39 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2010 8:19 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 08-24-2010 8:25 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 54 by Nij, posted 08-24-2010 9:02 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 59 (576472)
08-24-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 8:11 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
And hence the evolutionists entire problem right there. They take a toy, beginners like approach to the complex problem of getting from one place to another. They figure, if you just forget about all of the details, all of the complications that must be overcome, all of the pitfalls that go along with this so called strategy, ..if they just close their eyes to everyone of the zillions of problems, they can just say-well, it takes time.
If you're interested in how evolutionists think, why not ask one instead of making stuff up? The results would be so much less ... lie-y.
Its like child who thinks that if they just stack up enough stones they can reach the sun. They ignore that rocks don't balance very good if you stack them high enough, and that that many rocks get pretty heavy, and that you are going to have to figure out pretty quick how to get back down to pick up the next rock, and put it on top.
And then soon the atmosphere is going to change, and you are going to lose gravity, and the rocks are going to start melting...
But hey, I still believe if I stack up enough rocks, I can reach the sun. It just takes time.
And by the way, halfway through your exercise, you are going to change your mind, and want to go to Jupiter instead..after you decided to go to Saturn.
Does anything in that analogy correspond to anything in the real world, and if so, what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 8:11 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 8:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 08-24-2010 8:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 48 of 59 (576473)
08-24-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 8:11 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
Hi Bolder-dash,
Your concerns were addressed earlier in the thread, particularly in Message 4. An excerpt:
Percy in Message 4 writes:
I agree, but it takes it to another level of time committment, and then it gets out of the realm of what ICANT might possibly understand. An understandable illustration for the average layperson was my goal, something that when someone mentions Marshall's program you could come straight back with a link to my program. That's why I made sure they looked very similar.
You are welcome to make all the improvements you like. Let me know when you're done and I'll be glad to make it available here. The original source appears in Message 34.
But before you go to any trouble please be aware that there are many excellent evolution simulation programs available on the web. They lack the simplicity and layperson-level understandability of my program, but they do an excellent job addressing the concerns you raise. If you want links to them just ask. I don't know the links off the top of my head, but I'm sure other participants in this thread do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 8:11 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 8:32 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 49 of 59 (576474)
08-24-2010 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
08-24-2010 8:19 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
Does anything in that analogy correspond to anything in the real world
Absolutely not.
But it does correspond to the made up fairy tale evolutionists use to paint this picture of one small step at a time Darwinian evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2010 8:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2010 8:41 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 50 of 59 (576476)
08-24-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
08-24-2010 8:25 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
Percy,
There wouldn't be any such evolution models on the web, because if they really took into account all the variables that nature actually throws at the problem, they would all fail miserably. So who would post such a simulation on the web?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 08-24-2010 8:25 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2010 8:44 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 55 by Nij, posted 08-24-2010 9:07 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 59 (576478)
08-24-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 8:29 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
Absolutely not.
But it does correspond to the made up fairy tale evolutionists use to paint this picture of one small step at a time Darwinian evolution.
I thought it was meant to be an analogy of what you thought was wrong with "one small step at a time Darwinian evolution". Which is why I wanted to know what all the stuff about "rocks melting" and "the atmosphere changing" and "getting down to pick up the next rock" could possibly stand for in the real world.
But if you actually intended yours gibberish as an analogy of the theory itself, then you've just plumbed new and unexpected depths of being wrong.
However, I suspect that you just forgot what you were trying to be wrong about, and forgot that your analogy was meant to express a creationist criticism of the theory, not the theory itself. (I have noticed that you get muddled rather easily.)
If this is the case, I should still like to know what the metaphrands are that correspond with the metaphiers. Are these supposed obstacles to evolution just things that you hope exist, or do they correspond to anything whatsoever in the real world?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 8:29 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 52 of 59 (576480)
08-24-2010 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
08-24-2010 8:19 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
lie-y.
Is that related to truthiness?
TTFN,
wK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2010 8:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 59 (576481)
08-24-2010 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 8:32 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
There wouldn't be any such evolution models on the web, because if they really took into account all the variables that nature actually throws at the problem, they would all fail miserably.
What an interesting fantasy.
Do these "variables" have anything to do with your fatuous tales about piles of rocks, or are they real things in biology that you could put a name to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 8:32 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 54 of 59 (576484)
08-24-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 8:11 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
[sigh...]
If you begin teaching people about physics, do you immediately make them build particle accelerators or ask them to compute the orbital precession of Mercury? If they are only just beginning chemistry, do you talk to them about pi and sigma bonding in the amylase (sp?) structure?
No. You first teach them about basic definitions. Then you teach them about simple mechanics. Then you build that into Newtonian mechanics. Or you would tell them about the proton and the electron. Then you would teach them about orbitals (first the "2-8-8.." rule, then the "1s2 2s2 .." rule).
Now, at this stage, they don't believe you. So, you can build a catapult, and you can use your simplistic formulae to demonstrate exactly where the shot will land. And you can prove that the formulae work, by getting the aim perfect. The second example is harder, but theoretical chemistry is kind of well, theoretical.
Likewise, we show them what we predict will happen in a simple scenario, by using a simple scenario, to demonstrate the basic ideas. Later when they actually understand some of it, we move up the ranks of complexity. Your approach is like asking us to show Year 1 students QM, and then criticising us for not teaching them the truth. Well, maybe it isn't. But how the fuck can they understand the works of Shakespeare if they can't spell 'donkey'?!
Real scientists know there are a huge number of factors. And in their experiments, they document these factors and their effects, by first ensuring every other factor is perfectly the same and then changing the one they wish to test. None of these experiments could have viable, much less consistent or rational, results if they didn't account for all of those other factors. Guess what? The experiments work. Every time. So either some asshole deity is playing pranks, or they're dealing with those factors perfectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 8:11 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 55 of 59 (576485)
08-24-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 8:32 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
Well yes, they would fail miserably, if by "fail" you mean "does not perfectly predict or map the outcome of a given natural species' evolution in the real world".
But unless you can somehow predict weather conditions millenia in advance, observe random effects on the nanoscopic scales, and perfectly emulate all physical laws inside a simulation, who the fuck are you to judge?
Science is an approximation to the truth. At times a bad one yes, at others it's so good you can't tell the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 8:32 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 9:40 AM Nij has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 56 of 59 (576487)
08-24-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Nij
08-24-2010 9:07 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
I contend that the entire premise behind these simulations is bogus.
Dawkins began discussing these models to try to show how easily complex things can be created out of simple mechanisms. That same simplistic thinking is behind all of these computer models. They ignore that the goal posts are constantly moving, that the enemy is constantly changing, that the fortune to survive one generation might be completely different than the fortune to survive the next, that just because an animal starts evolving down one road, that that road wouldn't soon be a dead end, that when your are selecting for one trait in one individual, the next individual down the line will probably be selecting for a different trait, that the more time you are allotting for one new trait to form, the less likely it is that this trait would still be selected for thousands of years later, that the right mutations aren't likely to happen in the correct sequence, so even the extreme unlikelihood of an advantageous mutation becomes even more unlikely because it is only useful when it happens at the exact right chronology, that even lucky mutants would get killed for other reasons, that an advantage in one facet of existence, might be an extreme disadvantage in another...and a whole host of other problems that no computer simulator would ever program into his model, because of the obvious failings it would only generate.
Dawkins and Percy think that simplicity can clarify the difficult, when in fact, the more complex that nature is, the less likely it is that evolution could ever happen the way they claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Nij, posted 08-24-2010 9:07 AM Nij has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2010 10:02 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 08-24-2010 10:27 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2010 11:30 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 59 (576496)
08-24-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 9:40 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
That same simplistic thinking is behind all of these computer models.
No, just the ones you've bothered to look at.
Try something like TIERRA ... there are lots of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 9:40 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 58 of 59 (576505)
08-24-2010 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 9:40 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
Bolder-dash writes:
I contend that the entire premise behind these simulations is bogus.
Dawkins began discussing these models to try to show how easily complex things can be created out of simple mechanisms.
...
Dawkins and Percy think that simplicity can clarify the difficult...
You're confused again and obviously haven't read the thread. This thread has nothing to do with Dawkins program. My evolution generator program was meant to be a rebuttal to Perry Marshall's mutation generator program at HugeDomains.com that looks like this:
My program does a much more accurate portrayal of how evolution works. It can be found at Evolution Generator Program that looks like this:
Both programs were intended as illustrative and explanatory for the novice.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 9:40 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 59 (576523)
08-24-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
08-24-2010 9:40 AM


Re: Evolution Generator
Dawkins and Percy think that simplicity can clarify the difficult, when in fact, the more complex that nature is, the less likely it is that evolution could ever happen the way they claim.
That complexity is the result of evolution, not an obstacle to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-24-2010 9:40 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024