Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution?

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 3:22:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Your sources that support your first source's claims take too long to get to the point. I doubt people will read through them all just to critique them.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 5:36:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

1. "Complex" features are generated by cherry-tapping simple mutations.

2. Fossils overwhelmingly support Evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Molecular biology can map the amount genetic variation between organisms, and infer which organisms are more closely related. Combining this with fossil evidence tells us how long ago the split occurred.

4. It only needs a slight advantage and a few hundred generations.

5. Do you even know what "convergent evolution" means?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

6. Wrong again.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

7. They diverge at different stages. The less closely related they are, the sooner you can tell them apart.

8. Migration.

9. Vestigiality is indeed a thing. For example, you have a vestigial brain.

"Junk DNA" is DNA that does not code for anything. This term is seldom used nowadays, as some non-coding DNA affects transcription by virtue of taking up space on the chromosome.

10. The first three traits are not deleterious, so there's nothing for Natural Selection to act against. The last one does indeed provide a survival advantage; it has allowed us to improve our standard of living and dominate the planet.

Please stop posting ignorant crap in the Science section. You are just embarrassing yourself.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 6:48:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 5:36:44 PM, apb4y wrote:
2. Fossils overwhelmingly support Evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

your source states "This is a tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related)"

They changed the definition of transitional fossil to make those fossils fit the definition.

1. "Complex" features are generated by cherry-tapping simple mutations.

4. It only needs a slight advantage and a few hundred generations.

When you read the limitations of genetic algorithms here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
you will see that there are significant limitations.

"Genetic algorithms do not scale well with complexity"
"GAs may have a tendency to converge towards local optima or even arbitrary points rather than the global optimum of the problem"
are a couple examples

The limitations of evolutionary algorithms demonstrates well the limitations of evolution, and I don't see why this isn't brought up more by those arguing against evolution.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 8:57:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 6:48:44 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 10/19/2014 5:36:44 PM, apb4y wrote:
2. Fossils overwhelmingly support Evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

your source states "This is a tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related)"

They changed the definition of transitional fossil to make those fossils fit the definition.

Had you followed the link to the "transitional fossils" page, you would have found that they did not change the definition at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

1. "Complex" features are generated by cherry-tapping simple mutations.

4. It only needs a slight advantage and a few hundred generations.

When you read the limitations of genetic algorithms here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
you will see that there are significant limitations.

"Genetic algorithms do not scale well with complexity"
"GAs may have a tendency to converge towards local optima or even arbitrary points rather than the global optimum of the problem"
are a couple examples

The limitations of evolutionary algorithms demonstrates well the limitations of evolution, and I don't see why this isn't brought up more by those arguing against evolution.

Had you actually read the page in question, you would know that those are limitations of a COMPUTER PROGRAM that simulates Evolution, NOT limitations with Evolution itself.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 9:26:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

6. Evolution does not seek to explain the origins of life.

2. https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

3. http://www.talkorigins.org...

The rest of the points I missed were covered by apb4y [1].

[1] http://www.debate.org...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 9:50:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Had you actually read the page in question, you would know that those are limitations of a COMPUTER PROGRAM that simulates Evolution, NOT limitations with Evolution itself.

The process behind both of them are the same. If there is a limitation in one there is a limitation of in the other. And it should be easier to observe evolution simulated on a computer, as computers are much faster and can be observed in real time, and we have more direct control over the variables with computers. So limitations in evolutionary programming demonstrates limitations in the process of evolution. Could you really not connect the dots between computers' limitations simulating evolution being connected to nature's limitations of simulating evolution?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 10:11:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 9:50:11 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Had you actually read the page in question, you would know that those are limitations of a COMPUTER PROGRAM that simulates Evolution, NOT limitations with Evolution itself.

The process behind both of them are the same. If there is a limitation in one there is a limitation of in the other. And it should be easier to observe evolution simulated on a computer, as computers are much faster and can be observed in real time, and we have more direct control over the variables with computers. So limitations in evolutionary programming demonstrates limitations in the process of evolution. Could you really not connect the dots between computers' limitations simulating evolution being connected to nature's limitations of simulating evolution?

Those limits are limits in the program's ability to simulate Evolution. They are not limits in Nature's ability to perform Evolution. The latter would have to be proven by observation.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 10:27:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Only, scientists have repeatedly explained all of them. Do you have a science degree? If not, you need to shut up and go home.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 10:30:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:27:12 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Only, scientists have repeatedly explained all of them. Do you have a science degree? If not, you need to shut up and go home.

I'm not a scientist, but there are scientists who agree with me. I think you're the one who needs to shut up and go home.
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 10:41:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:30:09 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:27:12 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Only, scientists have repeatedly explained all of them. Do you have a science degree? If not, you need to shut up and go home.

I'm not a scientist, but there are scientists who agree with me. I think you're the one who needs to shut up and go home.

They are not scientists just because you think they are. All scientists acknowledge that evolution is a fact and that the earth is very, very old. These facts are fundamental in the biological, astrophysical, and geological fields.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 10:44:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:30:09 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:27:12 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Only, scientists have repeatedly explained all of them. Do you have a science degree? If not, you need to shut up and go home.

I'm not a scientist, but there are scientists who agree with me. I think you're the one who needs to shut up and go home.

The people who agree with you are not scientists. Few of them have any basis in science at all, the ones that do are usually in a field completely unrelated to evolutionary biology, and the handful that are in some sort of biology have been thoroughly refuted and are blinded by ignorant religious indoctrination. I repeat, all of these things have been addressed thoroughly and the explanations ignored or straw-manned. I will further assert that any and all opposition to evolutionary theory is entirely motivated by ignorant religious ideas, and absolutely none of it is motivated by Scientific thought. you are free to practice your religion and believe as you wish, just get out of the way of real science.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 10:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:11:08 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/19/2014 9:50:11 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Had you actually read the page in question, you would know that those are limitations of a COMPUTER PROGRAM that simulates Evolution, NOT limitations with Evolution itself.

The process behind both of them are the same. If there is a limitation in one there is a limitation of in the other. And it should be easier to observe evolution simulated on a computer, as computers are much faster and can be observed in real time, and we have more direct control over the variables with computers. So limitations in evolutionary programming demonstrates limitations in the process of evolution. Could you really not connect the dots between computers' limitations simulating evolution being connected to nature's limitations of simulating evolution?

Those limits are limits in the program's ability to simulate Evolution. They are not limits in Nature's ability to perform Evolution. The latter would have to be proven by observation.

No computers can simulate evolution just fine. It is just a simple process of mutations and natural selection. The problem is that said process scales horribly with complexity, and it often gets stuck in a local maxima.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:01:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:52:45 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

No computers can simulate evolution just fine.

No they can't, and that's what the article is saying.

It is just a simple process of mutations and natural selection. The problem is that said process scales horribly with complexity, and it often gets stuck in a local maxima.

The article specifically states that the problem is due to search space size - i.e. the computer's ability to find the solution given a hundred different variables.

You need to open your brain instead of your mouth.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:40:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:52:45 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:11:08 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/19/2014 9:50:11 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Had you actually read the page in question, you would know that those are limitations of a COMPUTER PROGRAM that simulates Evolution, NOT limitations with Evolution itself.

The process behind both of them are the same. If there is a limitation in one there is a limitation of in the other. And it should be easier to observe evolution simulated on a computer, as computers are much faster and can be observed in real time, and we have more direct control over the variables with computers. So limitations in evolutionary programming demonstrates limitations in the process of evolution. Could you really not connect the dots between computers' limitations simulating evolution being connected to nature's limitations of simulating evolution?

Those limits are limits in the program's ability to simulate Evolution. They are not limits in Nature's ability to perform Evolution. The latter would have to be proven by observation.

No computers can simulate evolution just fine. It is just a simple process of mutations and natural selection. The problem is that said process scales horribly with complexity, and it often gets stuck in a local maxima.

But you don't really need computational genetics to create very precise evolutionary trees, I prefer molecular biology techniques such as comparison of protein sequences, hybridization of genomes, comparison of antigen-antibody reactions, etc. Although computational genetics seems accurate to make evolutionary predictions.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 5:19:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So basicly the ten problems are:

1. Irreducible complexity.
There's not a single real case of irreducible complexity so this is not really an argument. BTW you can see a valid model of flagellum evolution here: https://www.youtube.com...

2. Punctuated equilibrium.
Somehow creationists think punctuated equilibrion is not an evolutionary theory. Eldredge and Gould must be turning over in their graves. Leaving aside the extravagance of "the accumulation of mutations with no visible effects and the later phase of expression all at once", Eldredge and Gould were right that evolution can happen faster than Darwin thought. Today we are not impressed by that fact. We know mutations on regulatory genes produce an exponentially faster evolution than the mutations of structural genes. This is even faster than what was proposed by Elredge and Gould in the Cambrian Explosion, because at the end of the day the Cambrian Explosion was not really "fast" at all, as it lasted about 20 million years.

Point 3 is too weak, and point 4 is simply not supported by anything.

I don't even see what is he trying to state in point 5 with convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is of course a proof of evolution.

Point 6: wow, attacking abiogenesis because he doesn't have any argument against evolution. How professional. BTW nucleic acids have already been created in lab.

Point 7: yes, ontogeny is not a representation of phylogeny as Haeckel and Darwin believed. And still ontogeny reveals an evolutionary pattern, since from the point of view of comparative anatomy, it is observed that animals with greater evolutionary relationships have a similar embryonic development. How do you explain that?

Point 8: Tectonics.

Point 9: So?

Point 10: The statement is false. Music, art, religion etc, can offer a survival advantage. To put it dumbly simple, Britney Spears has clearly more survivability and many more resources than you, thanks to the music. Same with many artists. Music and art can be powerful tools for social cohesion, manipulation, can inspire worship (the fandom), and can also be a form of communication (birds, cetaceans etc communicate with music after all). Dancing and singing are also pretty effective ways to flirt. The young of many birds put much effort into listening and learning the singing of the adults, and spent days practicing it. Also many animals dance, perform acrobatics (Isn't this art?) and deliver gifts (therefore there's sense of beauty) to impress their suitors. In addition, music, art, etc, could be just a byproduct of our emotional system, which does offer important evolutionary advantages and is present in all mammals. In the same sense, there's no apparent advantage for a human to do triple somersaults, and it really constitutes a threat to one's survavility. However having an agile and flexible body capable of somersaults, is a big advantage when it comes to survival. Somersaults would be just a byproduct of our body's capacities.

But in the end, evolution does not make perfect animals, we have plenty of defects (like wisdom teeth) that btw demonstrate we are not intelligently designed.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 8:10:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 10:00:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here's a list of problems with evolution. Things that scientists must explain, if we are to give this theory any credit. Each item on this list has links to relevant articles.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.

Except all the mechanisms that we have discovered, including gene duplication and mutation; all of which can produce any what is essentially, a new sequence of letters that do something: DI call it "Specified information", because arguing about what DNA actually is in some weird abstract way makes it easier to argue that generating those letters is actually hard.

So no, this is a lie.

The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.

A sequential pattern of increasing complexity over the entire fossile record, and tracing of lineages through successive adaptations and changes; unviolated in terms of taxonomy, geography, and chronology. Predictions of and subsequent discovery of transitional forms matching anticipated phylogeny as well as hundreds of transitional fossiles that show species with traits of both antecedant and descendant species.

So no, this is also a lie.

The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life."

Erm no. Molecular biology provides clear demonstrable proof of evolution as the patterns of molecular differences in commonalities that are found in the DNA cannot be explained without there being heridity; and are explained by the processes known of mutation today operating over geological time on the genomes of these species.

Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;

Not true; software statistical models can show even a tiny amount of selective pressure is selective. I know, I've written one.

The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.

Erm, really? Why? Evolution is pretty clear about why, and the mechanisms of how. Convergent evolution cannot be explained with intelligent design; remember, the only time "Convergent" design happens in the real world in the same way it does in the natural one is when you have two designers.

The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.

Really, a problem with "Darwinian Evolution"?

If you want someone to take your objections to a theory seriously, it is worthwhile to understand what that theory actually is; because this is conflating two unrelated things.

The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

They don't. Not in the way being implied here. Again, they have boiled down a very complex analysis of all life into a one-liner that loses all the nuance. closely related species diverge later, distantly related species diverge earlier; and this isn't actually a big deal for evolution.

The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.

Wait? Marsupials are not just in south america and australia? Islands don't have unique species? Species don't generally conform exactly in the fossile record in terms of geography? there isn't a broad conformance of animal species based on habitat and geographical location? Oh wait. Those things are all true; so yes, "neo-Drawinian evolution" does actually explain that. (And kudos for them actually starting to use the right name here).

A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA.

Inaccurate predictions such as patterns in conserved proteins? Taxonomic predictions of transitional fossiles that have been discovered? The existance of DNA itself, and all the mechanisms present within DNA for mutations, the existance of genetic markers that transition through numerous species; the predictions that certain traits would be explained by changes to point mutations to specific genes between two related species? Wait, no not those! Those are all accurate and strong predictions.

The "Junk" DNA prediction goes like this:
Science: "XXX% of the genome is non-coding and has no known purpose."
Science: "Oh wait, hold on. Less than XXX% of the genome is non coding and has no known purpose as we've found some of it that can code and may do something".
ID: "Hah! Knew it! This obviously means 0% of the genome is junk!"

Lets be clear, we know, for 100% certain fact that there is a large amount of DNA that has no purpose. We can show this because it can be chopped out of the genome with no ill effects, or spliced into another. We know anumber of key area's in the genome, and key genes do not do anything, and have been turned off by mutations. This is not to say we know what 100% of the genome does, but the fact that we don't know what all of it does, does not mean that it all does something.

Finally, ID and Creatard objections to vestigiality only work because you have changed the definition of what you are calling vestigiality so it does not match the scientific one. But even then, there are STILL things in nature that are truly functionless, it's just that a few things we thought had no function have been found to have some small function (but still different to the original).

Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage

There's not actually that many... And most of them do not provide any negative survival advantage either! Most have been covered here.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:21:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 12:01:16 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:52:45 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

No computers can simulate evolution just fine.

No they can't, and that's what the article is saying.

It is just a simple process of mutations and natural selection. The problem is that said process scales horribly with complexity, and it often gets stuck in a local maxima.

The article specifically states that the problem is due to search space size - i.e. the computer's ability to find the solution given a hundred different variables.

You need to open your brain instead of your mouth.

I is not like nature has unlimited space. If evolutionary programming is limited by search space size, that means nature has the same limitations for evolution, since it also has limited space. Also since the time it takes to read and write from memory is proportional to the amount of memory, memory limitations imply time limitations.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:35:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 4:40:25 AM, Otokage wrote:
Although computational genetics seems accurate to make evolutionary predictions.

So you agree with the predictions made by evolutionary programs that evolution is too inefficient to result in anything really complex?
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:45:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:35:54 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 4:40:25 AM, Otokage wrote:
Although computational genetics seems accurate to make evolutionary predictions.

So you agree with the predictions made by evolutionary programs that evolution is too inefficient to result in anything really complex?

Computational genetics can, for example, approximately predict the time when a common ancestor resulted in two new species. Later, you can check whether this prediction is true by dating fossils of these two species.

That's the kind of predictions I'm talking about. And they seem very accurate or so I've heard.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:53:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 8:10:28 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Lets be clear, we know, for 100% certain fact that there is a large amount of DNA that has no purpose. We can show this because it can be chopped out of the genome with no ill effects, or spliced into another.

It would still "do something", as having useless DNA dilutes the probability of mutation in DNA parts that are useful.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:58:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:53:17 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:10:28 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Lets be clear, we know, for 100% certain fact that there is a large amount of DNA that has no purpose. We can show this because it can be chopped out of the genome with no ill effects, or spliced into another.

It would still "do something", as having useless DNA dilutes the probability of mutation in DNA parts that are useful.

And then the argument of equivocation begins :) Because that would change the definition of what is meant by "Junk DNA" to not be what this particular aspect of evolution predicts.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:02:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:58:33 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:53:17 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:10:28 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Lets be clear, we know, for 100% certain fact that there is a large amount of DNA that has no purpose. We can show this because it can be chopped out of the genome with no ill effects, or spliced into another.

It would still "do something", as having useless DNA dilutes the probability of mutation in DNA parts that are useful.

And then the argument of equivocation begins :) Because that would change the definition of what is meant by "Junk DNA" to not be what this particular aspect of evolution predicts.

Yes, it would still be considered junk DNA, but since you said "it has no purpose", I just wanted to point out that junk DNA will never be 100% purposeless :p
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:26:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:45:12 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:35:54 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 4:40:25 AM, Otokage wrote:
Although computational genetics seems accurate to make evolutionary predictions.

So you agree with the predictions made by evolutionary programs that evolution is too inefficient to result in anything really complex?

Computational genetics can, for example, approximately predict the time when a common ancestor resulted in two new species. Later, you can check whether this prediction is true by dating fossils of these two species.

That's the kind of predictions I'm talking about. And they seem very accurate or so I've heard.

They don't really agree with each other. The amount of time required for evolution grows exponentially in response to the number of variables exposed to mutations. The most basic expression for exponential growth is 2^X. Humans for example have about 20,000 genes that can be mutated. The basic unit of time for evolution is a generation. This means time required for humans to evolve would be about 2^20,000 generations for a quick ballpark estimation. But supposedly evolution can occur much much quicker than that.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 5:05:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 9:21:58 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:01:16 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:52:45 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

No computers can simulate evolution just fine.

No they can't, and that's what the article is saying.

It is just a simple process of mutations and natural selection. The problem is that said process scales horribly with complexity, and it often gets stuck in a local maxima.

The article specifically states that the problem is due to search space size - i.e. the computer's ability to find the solution given a hundred different variables.

You need to open your brain instead of your mouth.

I is not like nature has unlimited space. If evolutionary programming is limited by search space size, that means nature has the same limitations for evolution, since it also has limited space. Also since the time it takes to read and write from memory is proportional to the amount of memory, memory limitations imply time limitations.

Nature isn't searching a database. The protein transcribed from the nucleotide sequence either works or it doesn't, and does so based on the properties of the atoms that make it up. Genetic algorithms don't use atom-sized building blocks; they have separate files for each possible solution. This is why they can make engine fans but not not entire engines - an engine has too many possible configurations for the computer to work with. If the computer could map all the atoms and their electron distributions, and calculate purely from their chemical properties, then it wouldn't need to already have every possible outcome. However, such a calculation would be an enormous waste of time and money, so it's better to just work within the limits of the system we've got.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 5:57:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 5:05:01 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/20/2014 9:21:58 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:01:16 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/19/2014 10:52:45 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

No computers can simulate evolution just fine.

No they can't, and that's what the article is saying.

It is just a simple process of mutations and natural selection. The problem is that said process scales horribly with complexity, and it often gets stuck in a local maxima.

The article specifically states that the problem is due to search space size - i.e. the computer's ability to find the solution given a hundred different variables.

You need to open your brain instead of your mouth.

I is not like nature has unlimited space. If evolutionary programming is limited by search space size, that means nature has the same limitations for evolution, since it also has limited space. Also since the time it takes to read and write from memory is proportional to the amount of memory, memory limitations imply time limitations.

Nature isn't searching a database. The protein transcribed from the nucleotide sequence either works or it doesn't, and does so based on the properties of the atoms that make it up.

Genetic algorithms don't use atom-sized building blocks; they have separate files for each possible solution. This is why they can make engine fans but not not entire engines - an engine has too many possible configurations for the computer to work with.

Your reasoning makes no sense. What does atom sized building blocks have to do with anything?

If the computer could map all the atoms and their electron distributions, and calculate purely from their chemical properties, then it wouldn't need to already have every possible outcome. However, such a calculation would be an enormous waste of time and money, so it's better to just work within the limits of the system we've got.

You seem to not understand that the problem isn't just hardware limitations. Computers could be a billion times more powerful and it would marginally increase its capabilities of using evolutionary algorithms. Because evolutionary programming is very badly scalable in respect to complexity.

Also since you seem to not have figured it out, living creatures are just biological computers; So any limitations in evolution with computers will also exist with biological computers (living creatures)
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 4:27:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 5:57:11 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

Your reasoning makes no sense. What does atom sized building blocks have to do with anything?

You seem to not understand that the problem isn't just hardware limitations. Computers could be a billion times more powerful and it would marginally increase its capabilities of using evolutionary algorithms. Because evolutionary programming is very badly scalable in respect to complexity.

Also since you seem to not have figured it out, living creatures are just biological computers; So any limitations in evolution with computers will also exist with biological computers (living creatures)

The complexity of life arises from its biochemistry: about 20 different elements interact to create the billions of different proteins and polynucleotides that create living organisms. This system simulates Evolution perfectly, as demonstrated numerous times, independently of genetic algorithm software.

So either:

1. Every experiment ever done that confirms that Evolution occurs is incorrect.

OR

2. Our software is shiit at mimicking Evolution.

I'm not an expert at computer programming, and you're just trying to wind me up, so there's no point debating this further.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:24:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 4:27:31 AM, apb4y wrote:
...

So either:

1. Every experiment ever done that confirms that Evolution occurs is incorrect.


There are no experiments that confirm evolution occurs. Darwin observed that small changes occur and postulated that such small changes can accumulate to produce whole new life forms. We continue to observe and reproduce (i.e. 'experiment') small changes, but no one has either observed nor reproduced the production of entirely new life forms.

So we simply continue to expand on the data upon which the hypothesis was based in the first place. That's not confirming that evolution occurs.

OR

2. Our software is shiit at mimicking Evolution.

I'm not an expert at computer programming, and you're just trying to wind me up, so there's no point debating this further.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with computers per se. Computers only do what we are able to describe in precise steps. Since nobody has any idea how to actually evolve anything, everything is shiit at mimicking evolution. Nobody has ever figured out how to mimic evolution. I think that's because evolution is nonsense. If there were any such process as Darwin imagined, it would in fact be testable and reproducible. The fact that after 150 years nobody has made ANY progress in applying the scientific method to his speculation is strong evidence that it is nonsense.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:39:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:24:17 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:27:31 AM, apb4y wrote:
...

So either:

1. Every experiment ever done that confirms that Evolution occurs is incorrect.


There are no experiments that confirm evolution occurs. Darwin observed that small changes occur and postulated that such small changes can accumulate to produce whole new life forms. We continue to observe and reproduce (i.e. 'experiment') small changes, but no one has either observed nor reproduced the production of entirely new life forms.

"Entirely new life forms."

You need to do three things.

If you can tell me what that means, what the minimum requirements are for something to be considered an "entirely new life form", in an objective and well defined way that would leave no ambiguity or wiggle room for you to back-track later.

Explain clearly, referring to the what the theory of evolution is as to why such a "new life form" as you have defined it is required to exist and to be discovered in the context of common descent.

Explain clearly, given evolutionary principles and function, why such a "new life form" should have been observed or discovered in the amount of time we have been studying evolution in the laboratory. (I will actually let you off doing this one if you can explain the other two.

In the context of an honest scientific discussion, doing the above will actually mean you have a clear and well defined objection to evolution that can be argued with; rather than a vague and ambiguous definition that always afford you enough wiggle room to say it doesn't count when one is shown.

If you're not prepared to define exactly what it is that would show you were wrong in this regards, then it indicates that you are not confident enough in your own opinion to have it openly constested and challenged.