Posted on 04/29/2008 8:38:43 PM PDT by Soliton
It has been oft asserted as more than a theory on FR and many other places. It has been called truth, fact, and all sorts of terms which are reminiscent of Algore's 'settled science'.
I don't think anyone would dispute micro-evolution as a fact; no need to look beyond different dog breeds, or ring species. That is an established fact.
Agreed, except for the ring species part. That is just a redefinition of the original concept of species to include cases where the organisms are still able to mate and reproduce.
Macro-evolution is still a theory; anyone who claims otherwise is scientifically wrong. However, general relativity is still a theory as well. Should it not be taught?
The issue is not whether the TOE is a theory or not; it is whether or not it is called 'fact'. Adaptation and Natural Selection are facts because they can be tested, observed, and falsified. Not so for the TOE, though.
ID does not have any examples NOR observations to even warrant a rigorous definition of a hypothesis, let alone a theory. How come it should even be taught in a school?"
I don't call ID a scientific theory -- as many on FR do. I think it's an interesting idea to discuss but it can't be tested using scientific principles so it shouldn't be called science.
I am all for using the same standards for any theories -- that is, the classical approach where theories have to be tested and observed in controlled conditions. By this standard ID cannot be considered science but neither can the TOE be considered fact.
No, that was pretty impressive. I'm going to have to rethink my opinions now not only on Hitler but Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo and Nancy Pelosi.
Those questions are out of the realm of science at this point. Just because some people would rather not have to face such questions doesn't mean scientists shouldn't follow the evidence wherever it leads.
It uses a fitness function - a means of determining how well the solution fits the target goal. In biological terms, that would be how well the individual survives and thrives. In mathematical terms, it's an overall fitness score based upon what you want.
So if the target is mobility and you get useless mutations that will only be useful when the final protein is in place many generations in the future, how does the algorithm know to save these mutations? In irreducibly complex systems, they don't function if all the pieces are not in place. In order for the algorithm to be able to produce an irreducibly complex system, it needs foresight to save the pieces that could be useful in the future.
No, you don’t need foreknowledge; the GA doesn’t retain that information. Mutations happen, and often the same mutation will pop up every few dozen generations. The key is the sample size you test - literally millions (or in the case of biological evolution, trillions of trillions) of solutions.
“If tectonics and seismics didn’t mess with the data points we could trust them all, but we can’t.”
Hmmmmm. How convenient.....
Actually it pretty inconvenient. Unless you're looking for an excuse to abandon the research altoghether because it can't produce perfect results.
However you wish to phrase it, biological fitness is a function that depends on offspring.
many approaches with GAs use the approach of the fittest “parents” get extra children, while the worst parents get no children.
With a moment of reflection, I'm sure you will see that if one were to use the biological notion of fitness here, one would be trying to determine the offspring of a parent in terms of a function that depends on the offspring of the parent. So the program would simply (and obviously) not work.
ECO:”However you wish to phrase it, biological fitness is a function that depends on offspring.”
The interesting thing in this mathematical analysis is that outcomes and second generational success is based on “intelligence”. How is the result determined to be a “good” outcome?
PugetSoundSoldier is forgetting that the programmer/mathematician is making an intelligent determination of what is a successful outcome - there is inherent “intelligence” in the simulation because of this.
This is akin to saying that monkeys/apes can communicate through sign language. Sure, we can create a laboratory experiment using a reward system that can produce a desired outcome. But the bigger question is, without outside “intelligence”, whether these primates would choose to communicate in this manner. In the same way, could these GA simulations randomly result in a good outcome without an intelligent measurement of success and reward.
Richard Dawkins is basically an idiot with a 180 IQ. Expelled is a legitimate candidate for best film of 08.
“PugetSoundSoldier is forgetting that the programmer/mathematician is making an intelligent determination of what is a successful outcome - there is inherent “intelligence” in the simulation because of this.”
This is what makes cryto-analysis interesting. A solution to an encrypted sequence can appear mathematically valid but it takes intelligence to verify that it is the correct solution.
If you think that expelled will win an Oscar, you are a fool. I will take every dime you can scrape together as a bet.
You can just ignore the vitriolic fountains.
They have their knickers in a knot because Expelled exposes their dogmatic lie.
That’s about the way I see it.
You left off the tag.
You left off the [/sarcasm] tag.
And then he tells Beck that Dawkins wrote on his blog that he was trying to simplify matters because Stein was so stupid. That's not the point of what Dawkins wrote at all--his point that he thought Stein was honestly stupid, not just playing stupid to lure Dawkins into saying something that could be distorted and made fun of later.
A shameful performance.
Yes, for example, he said that R.A. Fisher was the greatest darwinian since Darwin. Fisher was a eugenist. Fisher's magnum opus "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" is about eugenics. It will be up on my FR page soon. We should remember that Dawkins said that about Fisher.
HHTVL:”I just saw some of Ben Stein’s appearance on the Glenn Beck show, and even in the short bit I caught, it was distressingly obvious just how dishonest he’s willing to be.”
You might try actually viewing the movie you are so quick to criticize. If you had seen the entire film, you would understand that the excerpt you saw was just a small part of the discussion with Dawkins. Sure there was voice-over commentary by Ben Stein throughout the film (that was actually the point of the documentary), but Dawkins dug his own grave on the topic of intelligent design possibilities.
Watch the ENTIRE film and then tell me your view Of Dawkins...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.