So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

Royal Institute of Philosophy ^ | 1994 | D. C. Stove

[cinFLA]

For the same reason that all tyrants repeat lies on and on ad infinitum - in the belief that repetion will make their lies true.

Thanks. I am glad you are helping me alert everyone to the propaganda of the druggists.

[cinFLA]

The difference between a creationist and an "evolutionist". The evolutionist is always looking for truth and the meaning of life. The creationist knows all and is similar to the three monkies; only if they would "speak no evil".

[cinFLA]

Let's see. If we all started from one set of genes (Adam's) how in the heck did we get where we are now?

[Junior]

What's Darwin's definition got to do with the modern theory of evolution? You see, this shows your complete ignorance of science. You seem to think science is caught 150 years in the past, whereas in reality the science of evolution has moved beyond that period. Evolution is now defined as the change in allele frequency over time. The mechanics of evolution are still debated, but the fact of evolution is not. Of course, you being mired in the past cannot see that. But, the lurkers and those who actually understand science can.

[general_re]

Not exactly the most rigorous critique one might hope for. Please tell me there's more to it that that. If not, I take it back - don't bother posting any more...

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Evolution is now defined as the change in allele frequency over time.

Not by these two evolutionists:

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that `the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades - Evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations - is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading. Far more revealing is the definition: `Evolution is change in the adaptation and in the diversity of populations of organisms.'" [Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, 1988]

"Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself. ... Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." [Dobzhansky, Changing Man, 1967]

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Please tell me there's more to it that that.

Are you too lazy to follow the link?

[js1138]

I don't think my post from Scientific American was a repeat. I know there was a short-lived thread devoted to the concept, but apparently it wasn't worthy of a thread of it's own.

One of the key issues in these debates has been whether random events plus selection can produce something new. I concede that the computer program under discussion does not model biological evolution. I granted this up front. The issue is whether the process of selection can build new things without specifying their structure.

Regardless of the long term utility of this programming "trick", it has demonstrated once and for all that design can occur in the absence of preconceived ideas about structure. Only the behavioral outcome needs to be specified. It is critical to point out that the circuit being patented could not have been designed by the programmers, because they still don't understand how it works.

It is really quite amazing that so little attention is being paid to this.

[Junior]

Number one, any web search on these quotes only brings up creationist sites, so they're suspect to begin with. Secondly, evolution does not deal with the "process which has produced life from non-life." That is a creationis canard, which makes the quotes doubly suspect.

[general_re]

I presume you chose that point because you felt it was one of the strongest. If, on the other hand, you're the sort of person who has a habit of putting his weakest foot forward...then I don't know quite what to tell you...

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Number one, any web search on these quotes only brings up creationist sites, so they're suspect to begin with.

You can find them here. Defining Evolution, John Wilkins

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I don't know quite what to tell you...

You could tell me that you're going to quit waffling and follow the link. But apparently you're too lazy for that. I guess a few vigorous mouse-clicks would exhaust you.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The SA article was interesting but not very informative. Injection of random choices into computation is good way of exploring regions of interest (in the space covered by the computation) that would not be obvious. (This gives me an idea about how to do this much better.)

Random proposes, selection disposes.

[Junior]

Then you must've missed this one:

"… evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. (Curtis and Barnes 1989, p974)"

[js1138]

I am not claiming this is the be-all, end-all of computing. It does demonstrate that selection can build things in unanticipated ways. You could, of course, argue that the "things" were already there, like the statue in the stone.

But isn't that a given? Or how do you determine that something is really new is everything is "in the space covered by the computation"?

It seems to me that in traditional computational algorithms, you follow a predictable, repeatable set of rules, and assume that the rules guarantee the correctness of the result.

In genetic programming, the transformational rules are irrelevant (more on this). Only the fitness function matters. (The rules for making attempts do matter, but only to the extent that they speed up the process. Can anyone say for certain that the rules for biochemistry aren't also rigged? I'm pretty sure that evolutionists are concerned with process, not with how the rules originated.)

[CyberCowboy777]

Okay

The theory of a non-flat earth has been proven to be fact.

Good Science takes theory to fact. If you can't do that then you are only a theorist and as we all know a theory can last for hundreds of years and still be wrong.

I am always amazed with how much we know and more importantly how much we do not know.

Arrogance will be the downfall of the Macro-Evolution theory. The theorist refuse to admit all the wrong hypotheses and thus never really move beyond the failed foundation as laid by Darwin.

[CyberCowboy777]

It is mathematically possible for the Egyptians from 500 BC to have traveled to the "new world".

That proves nothing, nor does the fantasy better mankind.

I have seen enough biological, circumstantial and mathematical counter theories and facts to know not to buy into a theory that has not provided proof of species change, the heart of the theory.

I can also see the negative effect the theory has cause, intentional or not, to societies, ideologies and science.

Lastly - no observation, no recreation - no fact.

If the veil of arrogance could be torn from the rod we might get some real science done.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

"… evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. (Curtis and Barnes 1989, p974)"

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades - Evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations - is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading. Far more revealing is the definition: 'Evolution is change in the adaptation and in the diversity of populations of organisms.'" [Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, 1988]

[Doctor Stochastic]

Right.

Of course, predictable at each step don't guarantee that the whole computation is predictable.

[Junior]

Since the quote I pulled is dated 1989, and the one you pulled is dated 1988, one could make the point that your quote is outdated in light of new evidence.

However, we can also pull the working definition of the theory of evolution straight off The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource.  It only goes back to 2001:

Working Theory of Evolution (contributed by Physicist)

At some finite time in the past, life began somehow. (How it began is beyond the scope of the theory, but the observational evidence strongly suggests that only one such beginning on Earth has left descendants to the present day.) As life reproduces and multiplies, mutations occur with small but finite probabilities, causing new genes to be added, and creating new alleles of existing genes. The different alleles confer different traits upon their owners, rendering them more or less successful in coping with their environments. The organisms that are more successful in coping with their environments consequently have a slightly greater probability of passing their genes to the next generation of organisms than do the less successful organisms. This causes allele frequencies to change over time.

Because mutations are random according to their probabilities, there is essentially a zero probability that two non-interbreeding populations will get the same set of mutations. (Even if they somehow do, there is essentially a zero probability that the frequencies of the alleles will end up the same in both populations.) The alleles and new genes available in each population will therefore diverge, with the result that the populations become genetically more distant from each other over time. Eventually, the two populations will become genetically so distant that they lose the ability to produce viable hybrids between them. This is the cause of the origin of species.

• The Complete Idiot's Guide To Understanding Evolution
• What is Evolution?
• How You, the Creationist, Can Wage War Against Evolution