by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hooberus, it takes quiet a bit of hubris to adopt your position; that is you flatly state what god did and did not do. You have no idea what he did and did not do. You have opinions, just like the rest of us. And mine is that God did indeed create everything, likely from one smart molecule, and that evolution was his technique. And that's my opinion. And I won't yield my opinion to someone who is so cock-sure as to say "God did it this way," mainly because you don't, can't, know.
francois
Alex,
Well, in order to simulate evolution, the evolutionists have employed intelligent design, via the human mind which has created structured logic in the form of a computer program. This intelligent design will enable a theory to be acted out according the parameters of the code.
I don't see anything particularly interesting about this at all. All models have intelligence behind them to set up the rules to mimic reality. Weather models require intelligent mathematicians and their equations, but no one is suggesting that there is any real intelligence and computation behind the weather in real life.
These models go on to repudiate your position of an intelligence continually tinkering with the rules. Once the rules are set up, the models work without further interaction. Whether the initial rules of our universe were set up by accident or by a creator are not in question. The question is whether an involved intelligence is necessary to keep the ball rolling. The models we see show that this continued involved intelligence is not necessary. Remember, Evolution is not the Big Bang or Abiogenesis.
Also, I wanted to point out that the point of the article I quoted was not that evolutionists were modeling evolution. It was that computer programmers were using evolutionary principles to make computer programs that can outperform "intelligently designed" programs. The only things that go into the program generator are program parts, random mutations, and selection pressure. This completely contradicts your notion that something as complicated as computer programming can only be accomplished through active intelligence.
rem
Rem, as I said before, I do not want to get into a debate about this subject, however, I will respond just this once to the quoted extract concerning programming. This is the very last post I will be making in this thread.
Of course, without actually knowing the precise methods used in constructing original code and testing methods, it is difficult to be able to examine the claims in specific detail. However, here are my observations.
The first point to be made is that you cannot get away from the fact that program code produced via intelligent means (i.e. human mind) has to be produced first as a vehicle for kickstarting the software 'evolution' process. Secondly, random events can only be simulated via a software/hardware random number generator, which in itself is created via intelligent design. Each random number has to be converted into a form of data that is meaningful to the process, which again requires an intelligence-driven source that for interpretation. Thirdly, any new code evolved, has to be tested for legitimate retention, which again requires human intervention, whether that be internally as part of the original program as it runs, or whether that be externally by stopping the running program and making a choice.
The four essential processes of starting, interpreting data, testing, and adding/subtracting new code are all intelligence-based. There is a well-known rule in computing, "garbage in, garbage out", and the only way to prevent garbage entering the system and vomitting itself out as some later point is by making intelligent choices.
As you have probably guessed, computer simulations and evolving code, in my view are not legitimate candidates for testing the credibility of randomly generated life, because they are all products of intelligent design. I say this as one who has been involved in both low-level and high-level computer programming - its what I trained for at university.
Natural Selection = selection by natural means. The very word "selection" explicitly points to something that has been chosen, which of necessity requires the presence of something able to make a judgement. I believe that something able to make a judgement must have a degree of intelligence behind it. Of course there are other influences that produce specific effects (e.g. mutation), but Natural Selection still functions as the overarching "organiser" in the evolution model.
I really must move on to other things now.
Kind regards,
Alex.
As you have probably guessed, computer simulations and evolving code, in my view are not legitimate candidates for testing the credibility of randomly generated life, because they are all products of intelligent design.
Then again, perhaps it's the penultimate test
Alex,
Of course, without actually knowing the precise methods used in constructing original code and testing methods, it is difficult to be able to examine the claims in specific detail. However, here are my observations.
There is plenty of information here: http://www.genetic-programming.org/
The first point to be made is that you cannot get away from the fact that program code produced via intelligent means (i.e. human mind) has to be produced first as a vehicle for kickstarting the software 'evolution' process.
Like I said before, you seem to be confusing cosmological arguments with evolutionary principles. In fact, to go even further, so say that active intelligence is required in every case leads to an infinite regress because to explain the existence of an intelligent god you would need an even more intelligent and complex meta-god, and etc.
The first rules of the universe were set up - nobody denies that. Whether it was done by an intelligent being or by accident is not the issue here. The issue is whether evolutionary principles work without additional tinkering once it's started. If you believe it was started by god or some intelligence, fine! That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionary principles work without the constant tinkering and redesigning of an intelligence and the amazing programs developed by evolutionary principles prove that nicely.
Every point you brought up has to do with the rules of the universe or the model universe before the evolutionary process was started. Therefore everything you brought up as an issue is invalid. If you can somehow prove that intelligent tinkering with the programs was necessary after the evolutionary process began, then you might have a point. So far you have only misinterpreted or misunderstood the topic.
As you have probably guessed, computer simulations and evolving code, in my view are not legitimate candidates for testing the credibility of randomly generated life, because they are all products of intelligent design. I say this as one who has been involved in both low-level and high-level computer programming - its what I trained for at university
You have not adequately demonstrated any inkling of intelligent design in these programs - you have only demonstrated that intelligence is needed to set up the artificial environment for the simulation. Nowhere in the development of the program is there an intelligence tinkering with the process. Random mutation and selection are all that are in play once the initial rules are set up.
Natural Selection = selection by natural means. The very word "selection" explicitly points to something that has been chosen, which of necessity requires the presence of something able to make a judgement.
Right here you show that you have no basic understanding of evolution or natural selection. To think that some intelligence is necessary to select for fitness is absurd to the extreme! In the real world animals who are more fit for their environment simply reproduce more - it is not an intelligent choice of the environment. In genetic programming, obviously we can't create programs that die of natural causes, so rules are set up to select programs that perform a certain function the best. This simulates fitness in the program's world. This is because genetic-programming is not just a wild process like the real word - it's goal oriented. Interestingly pure evolution simulations, such as Tierra, do just let the programs run wild in the virtual machine, reproduce, and find their own parameters of fitness.
Does this all prove that there is no god that started the Universe? No. All this proves is that an ongoing intelligent tinkering is not necessary for complex, 'intelligently-designed-looking' things to evolve once the initial environment is set up.
rem
Hooberus,However, what if the embryos of vertebrates and invertebrates did not look different? Whould this then falsify that they came about through evolution?First of all, evolution is falsifiable by many lines of evidence, including the fossil record and DNA. It only takes one line of evidence that can falsify a theory to make it falsifiable.
With the theory of evolution a different set of comparitive embryology data (such as you described) could not be immediately rationalized away with an ad hoc explanation. Serious research would have to be done to see why it is the way it is and how that interelates with other evidence. That observation could even force us to reinterpret other evidence, including fossil and DNA evidence. I don't think the ad hoc explanation of "common ancestry" would be adequate because there is also the parameter of how closely related species are within the theory because of the necessity of a heirarchical structure. Such an observation would open up many more questions and would contradict other evidence thus paving the way of falsifying the current theory and developing a new theory that takes into account the known facts. This might include a theory that does not include a heirarchical structure. Of course, such a theory would not have much in common with the current theory.
rem
While the ad hoc expalnation of "common ancestry" may not be adequate it certainly would be invoked. In fact, based on the similarities it is virtually certain that it would be. After all similarities are one of the primary lines of evidence for decent from common ancestors. Other research may be done, but the fact would remain that whether the embryos of invertebrates and invertebrates were similar or different they would all be given an evolutionary explanation. While different sub-hypothesis would have to be used to explain the fact of them being similar or different, the fact remains that evolution could explain both. Thus with regards to the evidence of invertebrate embryos vs. invertebrate embryos being simialr or different with regards to their visual morphology evolution is really not falsible. This however does not mean that evolution could not be a reasonable explanation of the data, as logically one would probably expect that if evolution were true that the embryos of vertebrates would be more similar to each other than they would be to invertebrates, due to the fact that the basic morphology of vertebrates is more similar to each other than to invertebrates. However the same could be said for creation in that logically one would probably expect that if creation were true that the embryos of vertebrates would probably be more similar to each other than they would be to invertebrates, due to the fact that the basic morphology of vertebrates is more similar to each other than to invertebrates.
Such an observation would open up many more questions and would contradict other evidence thus paving the way of falsifying the current theory and developing a new theory that takes into account the known facts. This might include a theory that does not include a heirarchical structure. Of course, such a theory would not have much in common with the current theory. rem
Even if the current theory of evolutionary embryology were falsified and a new theory developed, this new theory would most likely also be an evolutionary theory.
You mentioned the heirarchical structure. I'm not sure but wasn't this know before the moden theory of evolution, and used as evidence for evolution? If this is so and if evolution was deduced from the heirarchial structure, then the heirarchial srtucture was not then a prediction of evolution. It seems to me that in order for a theory to be falsified by a specific line of evidence then the theory would have to predict the specific evidence before the evidence is known. If it was known to be true before the modern theory of evolution then it could not be a falsification test for evolution since we already knew that it was true.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH, Hooberus I just responded with a great explanation and I lost it to a damn server error!!! Seriously, it was probably one of my most eloquent posts ever.... when will I ever learn to edit offline!!! Geez.
Ok, again, here is the short version:
Relativity predicted an observation that predated it: The orbit of Mercury was known before Einstein... the problem was that Newtonian physics did not accurately calculate it. Einstein's theory was able to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury which was already observed, providing an immediate way of falsifying his theory. Thus, in the scientific sense, predictions do not necessarily have to predate the observations they are 'predicting'.
Also, no data in all of science exists in a vaccuum. Data in all fields of science interrelate with each other, so discrepancies in one set cannot just be rationalized away without affecting other disciplines. This opens up the way for falsification and the reinterpretation of other data. Science is much more rigorous than armchair theorizing. Scientists have to try to explain why things look the way they do and make sure it is consistent with the rest of large body of knowledge we have currently amassed. Any new theory that is created would also have the requirement of being falsifiable. This is in contrast with many creationist 'theories' that become just as non-falsifiable as before after additional ad hoc explanations are added.
One more thing: till now I've been discussing the falsification of the current theory of evolution. Yes another falsifiable theory would probably include evolution, but that does not mean that the entire concept of evolution is not falsifiable in itself. DNA, fossil, and other evidence would have to be observed completely differently (e.g. no heirarchical structure) to turn the concept of evolution on its head. These foundation data sets are the falsification of the entire concept of evolution, whereas there is no foundation data set that can falsify the entire concept of god. Yes certain definitions of god are falsifiable - but the entire concept is not.
Man I hope I don't lose this post! (maybe this wasn't such a short version)
rem
One more thing: till now I've been discussing the falsification of the current theory of evolution. Yes another falsifiable theory would probably include evolution, but that does not mean that the entire concept of evolution is not falsifiable in itself. DNA, fossil, and other evidence would have to be observed completely differently (e.g. no heirarchical structure) to turn the concept of evolution on its head.
How would one falsify the entire concept of evolution?
On an earlier post you stated that if the earth were proven young, then this would falsify evolution. While it might falsify some mechanisms of evolution which require long time periods it would not falsify evolution itself as it could then be held that evolution proceeds by a rapid unknown mechanism. It would be said that Evolution is a fact and the various proposed mechanisms are theory.
Also if it is said that if the Earth were somehow to be "proven" as being young would falsify evolution, then likewise the Earth somehow being "proven" old could be said to falsify strict Biblical creation, thus making it a falsible theory!
Also if fossil evidence could be said to be a falsification test for evolution, then likewise it could also be said to be just as much a falsification test for creation.
While creationists use the evidence for "no transitional fossils being found" to attempt to falsify evolution, Evolutionists use evidence "for transitional fossils being found" as an attempt to falsify creation !
These foundation data sets are the falsification of the entire concept of evolution, whereas there is no foundation data set that can falsify the entire concept of god. Yes certain definitions of god are falsifiable - but the entire concept is not.
Falsify "the entire concept of god" (a proposed mechanism in the creation concept) is not the issue. The issue is the falsibility of the concepts of evolution and creation.
