• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

chair

Well-known member
Barbarian observes:
...

Sure. It's math, so proof is easy. Information is the Shannon entropy. It's related to the uncertainty of the message. The more uncertainty, the more information in the message.
...
If you'd like to use different numbers, it still works. As you now realize, any new mutation increases information in a population genome.

Maybe if you used a simple concrete example with letters or playing cards it would sink it. Though I have my doubts whether anything will convince these fine gentlemen.

This is a devastating problem for creationism, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

However, evolution does not require an increase in information. Often, a decrease in information results from evolution. Do you see why?

They don't, and they won't. The problem here isn't the science or the math, or even the facts. There are two main issues here:
1. These Creationists think that the Bible, that is God himself (in their viewpoint), said otherwise. So somehow, anyhow, Evolution is wrong wrong wrong.
2. This is also part of a culture war. You think you are on the side of Knowledge and Light, and they are on the side of Ignorance and Dark. They think you are on the side of Evil, plain and simple. They are on the side of God. They can't allow even one tiny crack in their view of Evolution as Evil. They can't even admit outright that the fossil record shows that evolution actually happened, irrespective of the mechanism and the math.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Maybe if you used a simple concrete example with letters or playing cards it would sink it. Though I have my doubts whether anything will convince these fine gentlemen.

You're not going to convince us of something we all understand.

You can shuffle cards, calculate an "information" score, add more and calculate "greater information" all you like. That is not going to convince us that information can be improved by random changes.

It never can.

Confused? That's the point of equivocation. It's supposed to make the conversation as impenetrable as possible so that Darwinism — your precious religion — is protected at all costs.

These Creationists think that the Bible, that is God himself (in their viewpoint), said otherwise. So somehow, anyhow, Evolution is wrong wrong wrong.

And your religious leader is Darwin and nothing can contradict him.

The solution is to discuss the ideas sensibly, without equivocation. We have clearly outlined what we mean by information. Stop insisting that we use your definition where it does not belong.

Conversely, if you think we are misusing terms, suggest a better description of what we are talking about.

This is also part of a culture war. You think you are on the side of Knowledge and Light, and they are on the side of Ignorance and Dark. They think you are on the side of Evil, plain and simple. They are on the side of God. They can't allow even one tiny crack in their view of Evolution as god. They can't even admit outright that the fossil record shows that the flood actually happened, irrespective of the mechanism and the math.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Maybe if you used a simple concrete example with letters or playing cards it would sink it. Though I have my doubts whether anything will convince these fine gentlemen.

I wrote some code once to simulate random mutation and natural selection. It convinced almost no one who was already in the YE group.

They don't, and they won't. The problem here isn't the science or the math, or even the facts. There are two main issues here:
1. These Creationists think that the Bible, that is God himself (in their viewpoint), said otherwise. So somehow, anyhow, Evolution is wrong wrong wrong.

Mark Twain summed up that process by writing "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

2. This is also part of a culture war.

Yep. And it's dying, but slowly. You see attempts by the culture warriors who realize that they've lost, to build enclaves to preserve their ideology:

We've lost the culture war.

I wish I could tell you otherwise and go happily along with the many Christians who still think we can recapture America, return to our moral and spiritual roots, and revitalize our wayward institutions. But I can't, and someone needs to tell you -- loudly and clearly. We are not going to reclaim the culture in America and return to the days of June and Ward Cleaver. We won't see a majority of the officials in legislative and judicial branches of our government go back to the original intent of America's founding fathers as reflected in the U.S. Constitution and other original documents. We are not going to witness prayer, Bible reading, and posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools again. There will be no drastic decline in divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, and homosexual "marriage."

http://www.church-of-yehovah.org/culturewar.html

He turned out to be wrong about the effects, mostly. Divorce is down (and highest among evangelicals) STDs are down. Abortion continues to decline. Homosexual marriage is now legal, though.

You think you are on the side of Knowledge and Light, and they are on the side of Ignorance and Dark.

I don't think of it that way. Yes, there are some creationists who have made their new doctrines into an idol and have abandoned His ways. But most have not. Creationists are generally good people, and those who are Christians, are generally decent Christians. Don't let the crazies lead you to think they are all like that. They generally aren't.

They think you are on the side of Evil, plain and simple.

Some do. Those who made an idol of man's revisions to Genesis have. But many, many more don't think of it that way. I taught in public schools for years and had lots of parents talk to me. Many were creationists, and I think I managed to allay their fears. Never had anyone complain about me. It was in the curriculum, and I had to teach it. My stand was that students had to know what scientists say about evolution, but they don't have to accept it. So they could write "I don't believe this is true." On any answer in a test, and there would be no penalty for it. (edit: so long as they knew what scientists say about it)

Worked for everyone, apparently.

They are on the side of God.

Most are. They know that I am, too. We differ in something that God doesn't even care how we feel about it.

They can't allow even one tiny crack in their view of Evolution as Evil.

Those have made it into an idol.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I wrote some code once to simulate random mutation and natural selection.

Why?

Are they part of Darwinism? :rolleyes:

Mark Twain summed up that process by writing "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

God said that faith is based on evidence.

We know you hate it.

Darwinism it's dying. You see attempts by the culture warriors who realize that they've lost to build enclaves to preserve their ideology.

Abortion continues to decline.
Wrong.

Homosexual marriage.
A contradiction in terms.

Darwinists are generally idiots. You're a dishonest troll. And possibly going senile.

Those who made an idol of man's revisions to Genesis have.

Genesis: "Six days."
Barbarian: "Billions of years."

Genesis: "The whole Earth."
Barbarian: "Turkey."

I taught in public schools for years.
It shows.

You have made it into an idol.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
I wrote some code once to simulate random mutation and natural selection. It convinced almost no one who was already in the YE group.

:rotfl:

You are as blind as can be.

Since then, there's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design. Genetic algorithms are now widely used in engineering, copying nature as God created it. Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.

Instead, we are going to look at the core principles behind Darwinian evolutionary theory and develop a set of algorithms inspired by these principles. We don’t care so much about an accurate simulation of evolution; rather, we care about methods for applying evolutionary strategies in software.
...
The term “genetic algorithm” refers to a specific algorithm implemented in a specific way to solve specific sorts of problems. While the formal genetic algorithm itself will serve as the foundation for the examples we create in this chapter, we needn’t worry about implementing the algorithm with perfect accuracy, given that we are looking for creative uses of evolutionary theories in our code. This chapter will be broken down into the following three parts (with the majority of the time spent on the first).

Traditional Genetic Algorithm. We’ll begin with the traditional computer science genetic algorithm. This algorithm was developed to solve problems in which the solution space is so vast that a “brute force” algorithm would simply take too long. Here’s an example: I’m thinking of a number. A number between one and one billion. How long will it take for you to guess it? Solving a problem with “brute force” refers to the process of checking every possible solution. Is it one? Is it two? Is it three? Is it four? And so and and so forth. Though luck does play a factor here, with brute force we would often find ourselves patiently waiting for years while you count to one billion. However, what if I could tell you if an answer you gave was good or bad? Warm or cold? Very warm? Hot? Super, super cold? If you could evaluate how “fit” a guess is, you could pick other numbers closer to that guess and arrive at the answer more quickly. Your answer could evolve.

Interactive Selection. Once we establish the traditional computer science algorithm, we’ll look at other applications of genetic algorithms in the visual arts. Interactive selection refers to the process of evolving something (often an computer-generated image) through user interaction. Let’s say you walk into a museum gallery and see ten paintings. With interactive selection, you would pick your favorites and allow an algorithmic process to generate (or “evolve”) new paintings based on your preferences.

Ecosystem Simulation. The traditional computer science genetic algorithm and interactive selection technique are what you will likely find if you search online or read a textbook about artificial intelligence. But as we’ll soon see, they don’t really simulate the process of evolution as it happens in the real world. In this chapter, I want to also explore techniques for simulating the process of evolution in an ecosystem of pseudo-living beings. How can our objects that move about the screen meet each other, mate, and pass their genes on to a new generation? This would apply directly to the Ecosystem Project outlined at the end of each chapter.

https://natureofcode.com/book/chapter-9-the-evolution-of-code/

Turns out, God knew best, after all. You might want to read about it. You'll be a more effective creationist, if you're aware of these things.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Since then, there's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design. Genetic algorithms are now widely used in engineering, copying nature as God created it. Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.
That is one of the dumbest things ever posted on TOL.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Barbarian observes:
It's a pity he won't think.
There's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design.
Nope.

They do not give away design when they employ trial-and-error processes.

That you think computer programming is a valid analogy for Darwinism shows you don't understand either.

Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.

Nope. The code thrown at the problem is extremely complex. Designed.

Turns out, you will do anything to avoid a sensible conversation.

You might want to read about what is being discussed. You'll be a more interesting contributor if you're aware of these things.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
Since then, there's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design. Genetic algorithms are now widely used in engineering, copying nature as God created it. Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.

That is one of the dumbest things ever posted on TOL.

It's just a fact. Engineers are pragmatic people. If evolution didn't work, they wouldn't use it, regardless of who wanted them to use it. It works, so they use it regardless of anyone's objections.

It's the way this world works. If you have objections, take it to the One who made it.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Barbarian observes:
Since then, there's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design. Genetic algorithms are now widely used in engineering, copying nature as God created it. Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.
That you cannot see how utterly stupid your statement there is is a testament to your vain ideas.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
Engineers are pragmatic people. If evolution didn't work, they wouldn't use it, regardless of who wanted them to use it. It works, so they use it regardless of anyone's objections.

It's the way this world works. If you have objections, take it to the One who made it.


That you cannot see how utterly stupid your statement there is is a testament to your vain ideas.

If you'd think it over, you'd realize why you can't do anything but bleat out insults. You're at the end of your rope, because you don't have any idea what this is about. As I said earlier, if you'd learn a little about the subject, you'd be a lot more efficient at fighting evolution.

Worth a try?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
Engineers are pragmatic people. If evolution didn't work, they wouldn't use it, regardless of who wanted them to use it. It works, so they use it regardless of anyone's objections.


Hilarious.... BTW, I'm a computer engineer.

Hmmm...seems unlikely, since genetic algorithms are not a new issue in computer science.

Genetic Algorithms and their Use in the Design of Evolvable Hardware.
Abhishek Joglekar,
April, 2000.
Abstract
Genetic Algorithms are an important area of Evolutionary Computing, which is a rapidly growing area of Artificial Intelligence. They are a class of algorithms which mimic the natural process of Evolution and Darwin’s principle of Survival of the Fittest – in this case, it refers to the acceptance of the best solution,generated from previous solutions by the use of genetic operators such as crossover and mutation. The next section takes a more detailed look at the background of GAs and outlines the basic concepts in its computer model. Genetic Algorithm as in the case of Darwinian model of evolution relies heavily on random experiments of reproduction. From where does this apparently simple model of problem-solvingderive its power? This has been a topic of intense research work, covered in the next section. Section3 of this paper discusses design of evolvable hardware (EHW), which is a promising approach towards autonomous and on-line reconfigurable machines capable of adapting to real-world problems.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f66d/8b351dc8d8f300bdc6361d723ae9474a10a5.pdf

Electronic Circuit Automatic Design Based on Genetic Algorithms
Xuesong Yan Wei Li Yuzhen Zhang Huihui Zhang Jianfei Wu
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187770581102056X?via=ihub

Designing digital circuits for FPGAs using parallel genetic algorithms
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1118155

Automated Analog Circuit Design Using Genetic Algorithms
http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~kphang/papers/2001/navid_GA.pdf
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
(Claims to be computer engineer)

Barbarian observes:
Hmmm...seems unlikely, since genetic algorithms are not a new issue in computer science.

Genetic Algorithms and their Use in the Design of Evolvable Hardware.
Abhishek Joglekar,
April, 2000.
Abstract
Genetic Algorithms are an important area of Evolutionary Computing, which is a rapidly growing area of Artificial Intelligence. They are a class of algorithms which mimic the natural process of Evolution and Darwin’s principle of Survival of the Fittest – in this case, it refers to the acceptance of the best solution,generated from previous solutions by the use of genetic operators such as crossover and mutation. The next section takes a more detailed look at the background of GAs and outlines the basic concepts in its computer model. Genetic Algorithm as in the case of Darwinian model of evolution relies heavily on random experiments of reproduction. From where does this apparently simple model of problem-solvingderive its power? This has been a topic of intense research work, covered in the next section. Section3 of this paper discusses design of evolvable hardware (EHW), which is a promising approach towards autonomous and on-line reconfigurable machines capable of adapting to real-world problems.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f66...e9474a10a5.pdf

Electronic Circuit Automatic Design Based on Genetic Algorithms
Xuesong Yan Wei Li Yuzhen Zhang Huihui Zhang Jianfei Wu
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...56X?via=ihub

Designing digital circuits for FPGAs using parallel genetic algorithms
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1118155

Automated Analog Circuit Design Using Genetic Algorithms
http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~kphang/...1/navid_GA.pdf


:rotfl:


Ah, calling me a liar now....

Nope. Just pointing out it's very odd that a computer engineer wouldn't know about those things.

welcome back to my ignore list you lying evolutionist patsy.

You had pretty much given up on making any kind of cogent argument, anyway.
 
Top