This is pretty cool stuff. This guy has too much time on his hands but what he basically did is use genetic algorithms (based on theory of evolution on learning theory) to write code that designs random clocks using the same rules as life does for reproduction. Take a look at the results:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Well...Rost beat me up in the Ferraro thread so let's put a quarter in him and watch him go apeshit, shall we kids?
a
. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).
This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:
The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.
b
. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.
The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.
And yet, Darwin admitted that:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.
Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.
“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.
David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:
Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye. Ibid.
To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.
“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.
c
. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.
Oh come now G.G. Don't be mad. But regarding this thread:
Most of Darwin's original work has been redone and really only the original kernel remains and that is the fact that organisms evolve using the process of natural selection. Modern biology has shown that a lot of conclusions Darwin made have been discarded. So arguments made in 1800's against his original findings made in 1800's are probably quite valid. That does not invalidate modern biology or his most basic statements: life evolves due to variations. That takes care of a and b.
c. uses the same old argument of "why on earth would be have this part?". Well, had you watched the video G.G., you would have seen that all those clocks that evolved had a lot of useless sprockets and springs that did not contribute to functionality. Also, lack of knowing something does not invalidate a perfectly good theory. We don't know what gravity is. Does that mean you want to argue that "theory" as well? I mean, the mathematics work out but we can't find any particles or waves (we are trying).
Seriously, watch the video. It's mostly non-preachy and very cool as far as his code goes.
I'll watch it. I haven't but I will.
Two questions (and I'm serious and remarkably ignorant when it comes to science so lube me up before you hammer it home.):
1.) how come there aren't tons of skeletons of missing links all over the place? They should be considerably younger and, therefore, closer to the Earth's surface than dinosaurs, right?
2.) Since when does genetic mutation EVER improve the species? I mean, we see mutations all the time (extra legs, heads, etc.) but they're always detrimental to the creature possessing them. PLUS, two of these creatures would have to possess these same mutations simultaneously and mate in order to hand the genetic alterance down to the next generation, correct?
G.G.:I'll watch it. I haven't but I will. Two questions (and I'm serious and remarkably ignorant when it comes to science so lube me up before you hammer it home.): 1.) how come there aren't tons of skeletons of missing links all over the place? They should be considerably younger and, therefore, closer to the Earth's surface than dinosaurs, right? 2.) Since when does genetic mutation EVER improve the species? I mean, we see mutations all the time (extra legs, heads, etc.) but they're always detrimental to the creature possessing them. PLUS, two of these creatures would have to possess these same mutations simultaneously and mate in order to hand the genetic alterance down to the next generation, correct?
Both good questions.
1). There are and yes. A quick google search will find all this for you. I suggest avoiding obviously religious sites. Any university website will do.
2). Rarely. The bad genetic mutations don't survive. The good ones do. Otherwise nothing changes.
Granted, most of the mutations being discussed are negative in their effect. Personally, I think that's because these discoveries are made during a search for some disease or ailment so naturally the genetic differences will be negative if any are found.
Genetic variations are often caused by mutations of gene sequences. There are different types of genetic mutations, some more pronounced (and harmful) than others. For example, if you have blue eyes it is a result of a genetic mutation way way way back in your family tree: http://www.livescience.com/health/080131-blue-eyes.html
Another, weirder mutation, turns people incredibly strong:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/
Also, beneficial mutations can be easily observed in bacteria. For example when they develop genetic immunity to drugs. Well, beneficial for bacteria anyway.
I skimmed...
No video of dudes smashing clocks and watches?
So, I have to actually read stuff?
oink
Wait....what?
If I roll into any museum in the country, chances are I can check out a skeleton of a T-Rex or some other dinosaur. I've never seen a skeleton of a half-man, half-ape dude in any museum ever.
What gives?
G.G.:Wait....what? If I roll into any museum in the country, chances are I can check out a skeleton of a T-Rex or some other dinosaur. I've never seen a skeleton of a half-man, half-ape dude in any museum ever. What gives?
Yeah you can find human "missing link bones" in museums around the world.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214722,00.html
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110903
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1822.html
There are more for all different animals. That being said, the main debate is actually not about whether or not these bones have been found but whether or not they ARE the missing links or merely a completely different species. And it's a valid critisism, especially given that there have been a few hoaxes and misidentifications in the past. That's getting more and more difficult to do with the rise of genetic identification and those arguments are starting to get thinner and thinner in substance.
Here's a segment of an interesting biology lecture by Ken Miller. This is the tail end with the questions and I think you're on the track to ask these same questions so I just figure I'll skip the middle man. There are 9 of these in total if you want to see the rest of them.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m8Zl7_T6VNE
daryllh: I skimmed... No video of dudes smashing clocks and watches? So, I have to actually read stuff?
Yeah, but it's pretty cool. He shows many pictures. Take the 10 minutes.
Ok Rost, I watched it. The frames moved pretty quickly so there were a couple that I didn't catch. I'll take the guy at his word. He ran these experiments himself and his "notes" that he provided were flashed throughin a blur. (Not that I could have interpreted them if I had four years to study them, mind you.) All the same, I'll buy it and it was an interesting experiment. Interesting to note that these watches would eventually assemble themselves into functional timepieces from random parts. However, like he said, they aren't alive and the whole point is moot, albeit worth noting.
Now...a movie is already out by Ben Stein. I'm assuming you've heard of it. Before today I had not. It's called "Expelled". The gist is this: Scientists who dispute Darwinism or seek to introduce alternate theories are being railroaded. That's not cool and I would think any open-minded thinker would agree. Even if Intelligent Design is a silly myth (which I've yet to see any evidence of), the theory should be allowed to be researched. People should be able to ask questions. Especially in the field of science for crying out loud!
I watched your ten minute clip; this one's shorter.
Take a look. I'd like to hear your opinion.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMGD1Dg6L8
Scratch that.
Not out til next month.
Here's the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV8sN1UngFY&feature=related
I'm a little loaded but I loved his explanation about how he's not debating creationism versus selection (or whatever terms he used). His explanation made sense.
I'm gonna watch tomorrow and try to follow the text on screen.
G.G.:Ok Rost, I watched it. The frames moved pretty quickly so there were a couple that I didn't catch. I'll take the guy at his word. He ran these experiments himself and his "notes" that he provided were flashed throughin a blur. (Not that I could have interpreted them if I had four years to study them, mind you.) All the same, I'll buy it and it was an interesting experiment. Interesting to note that these watches would eventually assemble themselves into functional timepieces from random parts. However, like he said, they aren't alive and the whole point is moot, albeit worth noting. Now...a movie is already out by Ben Stein. I'm assuming you've heard of it. Before today I had not. It's called "Expelled". The gist is this: Scientists who dispute Darwinism or seek to introduce alternate theories are being railroaded. That's not cool and I would think any open-minded thinker would agree. Even if Intelligent Design is a silly myth (which I've yet to see any evidence of), the theory should be allowed to be researched. People should be able to ask questions. Especially in the field of science for crying out loud! I watched your ten minute clip; this one's shorter. Take a look. I'd like to hear your opinion. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMGD1Dg6L8
Naturally, I haven't seen this movie (as you mentioned, it's not out yet). But from the trailer, sounds like Ben Stein is making this a "freedom of speech" issue vs. a scientific issue.
Also, it's important to note that he's tackling two huge topics at once: evolution of existing life and how life came to be (known as the theory of abiogenesis). They are completely separate topics and evolution makes absolutely no claims about origins of life, only it's progression. If you want to talk abiogenesis, we'll have to start a separate thread.
That being out of the way: here's the crux of the matter. Intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory. It fails to obey certain pre-established guidelines set forth by the scientific method (you can find a definition of this pretty much anywhere). ID makes no falsifiable predictions. It simply points out existing holes in knowledge and says, "well, we don't know how it happened and we can't conceive it happening by accident, therefore it's god." They can make this claim all they want but no self respecting (even god believing) scientist will give it more than a moment of thought before laughing it out of the review, which is what tends to happen. Rightfully so since it attempts not to introduce new ideas or even criticize existing ones but instead undermine the scientific method.
That's not to say that they won't let opposing views into scientific peer-review journals. They do, provided they follow the scientific method (you can look this up, it is very well defined). If they simply say, "??? = god" they are denied and ridiculed. It would be equivalent to somebody publishing a paper on physics and saying that gravity is caused by god. Could it be? I guess but what's the point of even making completely baseless statement? If it could be caused by god, why can't it be caused by my farts? Or invisible pink unicorns? Or Santa? Should the scientific community allow papers suggesting that gravity is caused by god? Or the weak nuclear force is caused by jesus?
All ID tends to put forth as evidence is questions. That's not evidence. It's a straw man.
Also, I posted a reply to your earlier questions and it's still waiting for moderation.
What about the Big Bang Theory? Is this valid scientific theory? How about lightning strikes a mud puddle and a bunch of cells are instantly created? Is this valid scientific theory? Isn't one of the absolute basic premises of science "life comes from life"? I mean, you're not going to snap rocks together until one of them starts breathing. You're not going to sit by a puddle in a lightning storm and wait for a strike to create life. It simply doesn't happen. In my opinion, its NEVER happened. Atheists resolve this by leaning on faith whether they call it that or not.
I agree with what you're saying. The Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis are oftentimes confused and it seems Stein is doing just that. Also that he is making this a freedom of speech issue. What's frightening to me is that, according to him, scientists are losing their positions and tenures and being FIRED for questioning the possiblity that a.) Darwin was wrong or b.) God created the universe. What I'm hearing from you is, "Yes, that's perfectly acceptable as God's existence isn't "valid scientific theory". I find that unfortunate because, again according to him, Galileo, Einstein and even Darwin approached science from the angle that a Creator started life. I imagine they would have been bummed out to lose their gigs over it.
G.G.:What about the Big Bang Theory? Is this valid scientific theory?
What about the Big Bang Theory? Is this valid scientific theory?
Yes, absolutely. But not simply because it's a possibility and somebody thought of it. There's plenty of evidence and observations of it made. Also, there have been mathematics derived from the theory which predict certain features of the universe. We have seen many of these predictions come true. Search for background radiation and you'll find that the newest satellites are finding overwhelming evidence.
G.G.:How about lightning strikes a mud puddle and a bunch of cells are instantly created? Is this valid scientific theory?
How about lightning strikes a mud puddle and a bunch of cells are instantly created? Is this valid scientific theory?
Yes, because it has been partially recreated in laboratory environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
That did not create life but created organic compounds on which all life is based.
Also, scientists have been able to create a virus from scratch (using only organic compounds such as created in above experiment).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm
Now, that's not exactly life but they are now attempting to create bacteria the same way. I have no doubt that they will eventually succeed. BUT, none of this has anything to do with evolution. It's abiogenesis. COMPLETELY different subject.
G.G.: Isn't one of the absolute basic premises of science "life comes from life"?
Isn't one of the absolute basic premises of science "life comes from life"?
No, that is not the basic premise of science. It's the basic tenant of the theory of evolution.
G.G.: I mean, you're not going to snap rocks together until one of them starts breathing. You're not going to sit by a puddle in a lightning storm and wait for a strike to create life. It simply doesn't happen. In my opinion, its NEVER happened. Atheists resolve this by leaning on faith whether they call it that or not.
I mean, you're not going to snap rocks together until one of them starts breathing. You're not going to sit by a puddle in a lightning storm and wait for a strike to create life. It simply doesn't happen. In my opinion, its NEVER happened. Atheists resolve this by leaning on faith whether they call it that or not.
Earlier links show that all this has been done in a laboratory (and verified). If you choose to simply not believe it, there's nothing I can do to convince you.
G.G.: I agree with what you're saying. The Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis are oftentimes confused and it seems Stein is doing just that. Also that he is making this a freedom of speech issue. What's frightening to me is that, according to him, scientists are losing their positions and tenures and being FIRED for questioning the possiblity that a.) Darwin was wrong or b.) God created the universe. What I'm hearing from you is, "Yes, that's perfectly acceptable as God's existence isn't "valid scientific theory". I find that unfortunate because, again according to him, Galileo, Einstein and even Darwin approached science from the angle that a Creator started life. I imagine they would have been bummed out to lose their gigs over it.
I think you're missing the point. You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't undermine the scientific method. And that's exactly what that does. You can question everything in science, as long you do it using the scientific method. They are not doing that.
As far as god's existence not being valid theory, it's not.
Above is a basic flow diagram of the scientific method. Show me how you can get from step 3 to step 4 using god as a hypothesis. So far, NOT A SINGLE critisism of evolution (or any other scientific method) has come up with that. Once they do, I can guarantee that they will be considered.
In fact, there was a claim that praying for the sick helps. Well, there's a hypothesis there and a way to experimentally test it. So they did: Can you guess the results?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/07/25/a_prayer_for_health/
there is no god--there is only math.