Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Aethernaut · 03-06-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by passion9
Check this website out

Garbage.

Doubting Didymus · 03-06-2003, 09:18 PM

Quote:

One that I've thought of is if you take a big jar and put in rocks of varying sizes, some big some small, close the lid and then shake vigorously for a long time, the rocks will actually adjust themselves in the jar according to size. In that sense you get order out of chaos with no specified goal in mind and there's nothing intrinsic to shaking the jar that would lead you to expect that the rocks should segregate. Then you can try to calculate the odds of getting that particular arrangement of rocks by random.

No good. This does not demonstrate the power of cumulative selection. You are not keeping your hits and discarding your misses. This example has nothing in common with natural selection at all.

-RRH- · 03-06-2003, 10:54 PM

Well there are some perfect examples of cumulative selection in machine learning, with things such as genetic algorithms, but I don't think many people who can't grasp the basic concepts of evolution will have an easy time with machine learning.

John Conway's Game of Life provides a nice example of selection, but it isn't cumulative, really, and there's no method for mutation. Plus, to my knowledge, nobody's found a pattern capable of multiplying.

There's a java thing you can play with here:
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

And even if you don't get too much into the mechanics of how it works,
this looks kind of pretty.

echidna · 03-06-2003, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by passion9
Check this website out

Actually I think we've had that site a few times in the humour forum. I think my favourite page is ...

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=20

Quote:

Where Did Cain Find His Wife?

(snip)

The Bible states that Adam and Eve had MANY sons and daughters. Cain merely married his sister.

Yikes.

Do you think the Bible might have thought that slightly worthy of mention ?

I kinda like this bit too ...

Quote:

The Bible teaches that mankind was created perfect, without flaws. It was only after man's disobedience that imperfection entered God's creation.

I see, perfect, without flaws. But then we disobeyed, so presumably disobedience isn't a flaw ?? Very confused.

echidna · 03-07-2003, 12:05 AM

Maybe I don't get out enough but I hadn't come accross this one before ...

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=21

Quote:

The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center - perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out"(1) Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we find that we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.

Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones.

To the best of my knowledge, the latest cosmology finds that the universe is unusually uniform & shows no sign of a centre at all. Speaking of mathematical cranks ...

Lobstrosity · 03-07-2003, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
This is true, but it shouldn't be used against God types because of the intrinsic need for a predefined goal. Although the example may support your argument well, it actually supports their argument better.

There must be a better example.

Well what about the experiment I did, illustrated in this post from a neighboring thread? Now I conceed that I used intelligence to design the initial "organisms" and I used intelligence to set up the physical laws that governed the system, but I did not apply any intelligence to the natural selection filter whatsoever and I in no way interfered with the system after creation. Since the process of evolution is wholly unconcerned with either abiogenesis or the origins of the universe, this model is perfectly appropriate to demonstrate true evolution. Even if God did create life on earth as the Creationists say, the evolutionist will still maintain that that life will evolve over time. It is this evolution that I feel I clearly demostrated as more than feasible. A filter with zero intelligence behind it operating via rote, blind, constant laws leads the population to go from mass chaos (the traits of the initial population were randomly generated) to dramatically ordered through nothing more than sexual reproduction. And they weren't even programmed to like reproduction! They actually had to evolve to "want" to reproduce, so to speak, as any initial reproduction was simply the result of accidental contact (whoops, I'm sorry ma'am, didn't mean to bump into you there and get you pregnant). Nothing was favored. No purpose was ascribed to anything. Is there any reason why this is not a very good example of the process of natural selection at work in a godless universe (well, a universe with a god who doesn't interfere after creation, at least)?

seanie · 03-07-2003, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
1000 monkies on 1000 typewritters couldn't in a billion years write a Shakespear play. Theres no chance.

Actually, the argument usually goes that there is a chance that the monkeys would produce a Shakespeare play (though the monkeys would have no idea that they had). Given enough time and enough monkeys, they would produce a Shakespeare play; eventually, Shakespeare's entire works.

But you're correct; that's not how evolution works.

There is a chance but a vanishingly small one. 1000 monkies on 1000 typewriters in a billion years would struggle to write a single page of Shakespeare. More time and more monkeys and you increase the chances that they could produce Shakespeare's plays. But you'd only be certain they would if you had an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite amount of time.

Shadowy Man · 03-07-2003, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
No good. This does not demonstrate the power of cumulative selection. You are not keeping your hits and discarding your misses. This example has nothing in common with natural selection at all.

I agree that it has nothing to do with natural selection. Yes, it is a bad example for that. But it is a good example of order out of chaos without intelligent interference.

Shadowy Man · 03-07-2003, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Well what about the experiment I did, illustrated in this post from a neighboring thread?

Yes, that sounds very good. It'd be interesting to be able to watch that program and see it happen.

RufusAtticus · 03-07-2003, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by passion9
Check this website out

GIGO

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2003, 10:54 PM	#23
-RRH- Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Winnipeg Posts: 2,047	Well there are some perfect examples of cumulative selection in machine learning, with things such as genetic algorithms, but I don't think many people who can't grasp the basic concepts of evolution will have an easy time with machine learning. John Conway's Game of Life provides a nice example of selection, but it isn't cumulative, really, and there's no method for mutation. Plus, to my knowledge, nobody's found a pattern capable of multiplying. There's a java thing you can play with here: http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ And even if you don't get too much into the mechanics of how it works, this looks kind of pretty.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.