(January 23, 2015 at 8:38 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: Simulations of biological evolution, such as the spider sim are real examples of evolution. What is evolving is variables in a computer. The simulation of biological evolution occurs when artwork and the motion/action thereof is directed by those actually evolved variables.

Because you say so, right? No, simulations are models of the real thing and require intelligence to interpret as models. Without the interpretation, they are just bits.

And it is not evolution because you say it is not? Look if we are to have this discussion we have to agree what is evolution and what isn't. Once we agree on that we can look at something and if it agrees with our definition of evolution then it is an example of evolution.

This is the definition of evolution I presented. Do you find it unreasonable? Nobody seemed to object to it.

(January 17, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: I would define evolution as follows:

Evolution is a process whereby changes in the heritable traits which reside in a given population accumulate through a selection mechanism over successive generations. The accumulation of these changes can result in an increase or decrease in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.

Key attributes of evolution:
replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Note to Surgenator.....see how I claimed a long time ago that evolution is a process?

(January 23, 2015 at 8:37 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: The answer to your "proposition 2" about one observable case has been demonstrated over and over again. You keep saying "that doesn't count." You say you refuted it when Stimbo presented it. I did not see it, though I looked through many of your posts (I hope you appreciate the effort I had to put in to wade through over 60 pages of posts to do this) to see if you indeed had.

Maybe I missed it (plausible), but all the same, the only refutations of anything I found were refutations that essentially amounted to a response that is "nuh uh!" If you would repeat it for me, it might help me register the point. May be a rough thing to do, but, again, I DID go through 60 pages of posts to try to locate it myself.

We have no observations of the implementation of the evolutionary system which produced Stimbo. Remember we are considering these two very reasonable propositions....both of which cannot be true:

Proposition 1: All evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.
Proposition 2: Not all evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.

Ahhh, alright, so I'm curious, what do you mean by "being implemented?" In the context of biological evolution, I mean. As in, do you mean it's initiation? In which case, it would be very difficult to directly observe something that happened billions of years ago on this planet, given we lack time travel.

However, if we investigate the means by which it could have been started, you need only look into the Miller-Urey Experiment, which demonstrated the plausibility of the beginning of biological evolution on Earth being implemented without the need for intelligence.

(January 23, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: Since you can easily falsify proposition 1 by presenting an example of an observation that supports proposition 2, there is no trying to prove a negative.

You are simply trying to weasel out of providing an observation which supports your worldview in the context of these two propositions.

Maybe your world view is wrong. Have you ever considered that?

My world view is that I don't know where the universe came from, or why it includes evolution. If I'm lucky, I might find out a little bit about those things, but so far no dice.

See here's you essential mistake: you think I believe there's no God. You think I believe God didn't make the universe, or evolution. This is not my position. My position is that if I don't know, I say I don't know. And if someone is clearly trying to assert a position, I want them to convince me that it's worth adopting that position.

Your question-begging and appeals for proof against a negative might let you feel you are "winning," but none of it helps us understand the universe better. It's obvious to everyone but you that it is you who are trying to twist the truth so that it fits into your fairy-tale-based world view. The rest of us just want you to give us adequate justification for moving from the very simple "I don't know" to the much less simple religious position you are clearly trying to steer for.

(January 23, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: I would define evolution as follows:

Evolution is a process whereby changes in the heritable traits which reside in a given population accumulate through a selection mechanism over successive generations. The accumulation of these changes can result in an increase or decrease in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.

Key attributes of evolution:
replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Hence why I am specifying "biological evolution," which is a specific study with its own field of scientific inquiry and research that goes by the same name.

(January 23, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Ahhh, alright, so I'm curious, what do you mean by "being implemented?"

He means Goddidit.

To quote the summary that Wikipedia provides on the M-U experiment, with me bolding the most pertinent parts:

Quote:The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1952 by Stanley Miller, under the supervision of Harold Urey, at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller experiment have produced more diverse molecules. Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.

So in closing, the conduction of the Miller-Urey experiment and its more advanced, diverse, and extensive successor experiments have demonstrated that evolution can indeed come about without intelligence via simulations, which you yourself have admitted are quite acceptable.

Quick note: In case you are not aware, amino acids are the most basic forms of organic material. RNA to DNA = the earliest stages of the process of biological evolution!

Where do I collect my prize?

---

(January 23, 2015 at 9:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Ahhh, alright, so I'm curious, what do you mean by "being implemented?"

He means Goddidit.

Yeah well I know of the alternative to goddoingit.

A-bio-geeeneeesiiiis~

(January 23, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 8:38 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Because you say so, right? No, simulations are models of the real thing and require intelligence to interpret as models. Without the interpretation, they are just bits.

And it is not evolution because you say it is not? Look if we are to have this discussion we have to agree what is evolution and what isn't. Once we agree on that we can look at something and if it agrees with our definition of evolution then it is an example of evolution.

This is the definition of evolution I presented. Do you find it unreasonable? Nobody seemed to object to it.

(January 17, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: I would define evolution as follows:

Evolution is a process whereby changes in the heritable traits which reside in a given population accumulate through a selection mechanism over successive generations. The accumulation of these changes can result in an increase or decrease in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.

Key attributes of evolution:
replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Computers don't have heritable traits because they don't reproduce. Variables in a computer program are not "a population". Hardware doesn't accumulate changes; it occupies differing states.

That you can't see the difference between a program which models evolution and a system that actually evolves just means you've thrown a spanner.

(January 23, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Ahhh, alright, so I'm curious, what do you mean by "being implemented?" In the context of biological evolution, I mean. As in, do you mean it's initiation? In which case, it would be very difficult to directly observe something that happened billions of years ago on this planet, given we lack time travel.

However, if we investigate the means by which it could have been started, you need only look into the Miller-Urey Experiment, which demonstrated the plausibility of the beginning of biological evolution on Earth being implemented without the need for intelligence.

We don't have to go back billions of years to see how evolutionary systems come into existence. We just have to observe evolutionary systems coming into existence today. Today, all the evolutionary systems coming into existence appear to require intellect. If you claim that the evolutionary system which resulted in us did not need an intellect in light of the fact that all evolutionary systems we observe coming into existence do require intellect.....you are making a special pleading.

If you can provide an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence today, without needing an intellect, then you falsify the proposition that all evolutionary systems require intellects to be implemented and prove the proposition that not all evolutionary systems require intellects to be implemented. Your special pleading goes away.

(January 23, 2015 at 9:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you can provide an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence today, without needing an intellect, then you falsify the proposition that all evolutionary systems require intellects to be implemented and prove the proposition that not all evolutionary systems require intellects to be implemented. Your special pleading goes away.

I did. Miller-Urey experiment. Nuff said!

On top of everything else, these models of evolutionary systems are models of biological evolution, or simulations inspired by biological evolution. So whether these systems have their ultimate genesis in a system which was designed depends on whether biological evolution is designed or not. To borrow a page from the creationists, if these simulations are actually evolution, then they are derived evolution and not real evolution because their principles of operation are stolen from the original biological system. Derived evolution is not real evolution.