"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Asmodean]

So if you want to convince me that there's a compelling alternative to the concept-design-creation paradigm, you're going to have to show me how that alternative process works. Simulate it for me, on a small scale, so I can understand it, study it, play around with it.

Take a trip to the closest university with a decent microbiology department. If you suck up to the right people, they may actually run a small scale experiment for you.

[Recusant]

Do you think Homo erectus looks designed? How about Homo habilis? Does Australopithecus afarensis look designed to you?

Yes: they strike me as being designed by believers in evolution, with scant evidence, specifically to support their theories.

Please clarify this. Are you telling me you believe that these fossils are all fabrications? Because what you say below seems to confirm that's exactly what you believe.

Do you find the similarities and differences in these species compelling at all?

No, because I don't find the evidence given for the existence of the species compelling. Too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation.

So in your mind, all of the fossils of hominids found in Africa, Europe and Asia aren't evidence for the existence of these species? What exactly do you mean by "too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation"?

I know how things get made, because I've been dreaming up things and making them happen for decades. You're asking me to believe in a process I've never seen. I've never seen anything significant arise by chance alone, nor by chance plus any kind of filtering mechanism -- unless, of course, (a) the desired result already existed in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanism was specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired end.

So if you want to convince me that there's a compelling alternative to the concept-design-creation paradigm, you're going to have to show me how that alternative process works. Simulate it for me, on a small scale, so I can understand it, study it, play around with it.

See the difference? The creationist paradigm is all around us, understood by everyone, used by everyone, is easy to simulate, and is exceeding fruitful -- everything from last night's dessert to tomorrow's iPhone has been and will be created using that paradigm. But the paradigm you're advocating is utterly foreign to all of us: nobody has ever used it to produce anything meaningful, and nobody has ever successfully simulated it.

"Automated Antenna Design with Evolutionary Algorithms" |American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [PDF]

The current practice of designing and optimizing antennas by hand is limited in its ability to develop new and better antenna designs because it requires significant domain expertise and is both time and labor intensive. As an alternative, researchers have been investigating evolutionary antenna design and optimization since the early 1990s, and the field has grown in recent years as computer speed has increased and electromagnetics simulators have improved. This techniques is based on evolutionary algorithms (EAs), a family stochastic search methods, inspired by natural biological evolution, that operate on a population of potential solutions using the principle of survival of the fittest to produce better and better approximations to a solution. Many antenna types have been investigated, including antenna arrays and quadrifilar helical antennas. In addition, evolutionary algorithms have been used to evolve antennas in-situ, that is, taking into account the effects of surrounding structures, which is very difficult for antenna designers to do by hand due to the complexities of electromagnetic interactions. Most recently, we have used evolutionary algorithms to evolve an antenna for the three spacecraft in NASA?s Space Technology 5 (ST5) mission and are working on antennas for other upcoming NASA missions, such as one of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS).

Now you can quibble and move the goalposts. This isn't the only example of scientists using simulations of the process of biological evolution to produce something meaningful.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Please clarify this. Are you telling me you believe that these fossils are all fabrications?

I do not believe all fossils are fabrications, though some, accepted by the scientific community for years, have been turned out to be frauds or serious mistakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man). My personal view, as an amateur historian who studied probability while getting a degree in mathematics, is that we can barely tell what happened just a few hundred years ago, even when we have written records to guide us -- what's the chance that we're going to get a accurate account of pre-historical things that occurred, say, 100,000 years ago? Assuming, of course, that the earth existed then: there are differing opinions on that matter, as well. In short, to even speculate about something that long ago, you have to pile assumption on assumption and that kind of reasoning doesn't appeal to me. Give me something I can see and feel and test, experiment with, simulate.

So in your mind, all of the fossils of hominids found in Africa, Europe and Asia aren't evidence for the existence of these species?

All of the fossils of tiny pieces of a handful of possible hominids hold no interest for me, wherever they may be found, for the reasons stated above.

What exactly do you mean by "too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation"?

What I said above. I've seen how hard it is to get good data from just a hundred years ago; so I suspect that it's nearly impossible to get good data from 100,000 years ago.

I've never seen anything significant arise by chance alone, nor by chance plus any kind of filtering mechanism -- unless, of course, (a) the desired result already existed in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanism was specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired end.

"Automated Antenna Design with Evolutionary Algorithms" |American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [PDF]

Have you read that article? Every page has intelligent design written all over it. Recall my points (a) and (b) above. The selected antenna designs were (a) already in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanisms were specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired ends. Their algorithms are not "evolutionary" algorithms any more than Dawkin's WEASEL program was; they're just algorithms, designed with the target state known in advance. Here's the authors' own description of one of their algorithms:

"An antenna design is created by starting with an initial feedwire and adding wires. The initial feed wire was set to start at the origin with a length of 0.4 cm along the Z-axis. In addition the radius of the wire segments was fixed at the start of a run, with all wire segments in all antenna designs having the same radius. To produce antennas that are four-way symmetric about the Z-axis, the construction process is restricted to producing antenna wires that are fully contained in the positive XY quadrant and then after construction is complete, this arm is copied three times and these copies are placed in each of the other quadrants through rotations of 90◦/180◦/270◦.

The fitness function used to evaluate antennas is a function of the VSWR and gain values on the transmit and receive frequencies. The gain component of the fitness function uses the gain (in dBic) in 5◦ increments about the angles of interest ? from 40◦ ≤ θ ≤ 90◦ and 0◦ ≤ φ ≤ 360◦ ? and consists of a gainerror component and an gainoutlier component. The gainerror component of the fitness function is a modified version of the Least Squares Error function, and was later modified to evolve the antenna for the revised mission specifications. The gainoutlier component is a scaled count of the number of sample points in which the gain value is below the minimum acceptable. The VSWR component of the fitness function is constructed to put strong pressure toward evolving antennas with receive and transmit VSWR values below the required amounts of 1.2 and 1.5, reduced pressure at a value below these requirements (1.15 and 1.25) and then no pressure to go below 1.1.

The three components are multiplied together to produce the overall fitness score of an antenna design: F = vswr ? gainerror ? gainoutlier. The objective of the EA is to produce antenna designs that minimize F."

Please tell me which part of that sounds like random mutation and natural selection?

[Niya]

Hi Gerry, I am sorry I am not part of the discussion but I'd like to chime in, I'd say you are asking for something that is not there.

We already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans, that just throws the story of Adam and Eve completely out of the equation.

Evolution is not about simulating and seeing if it works. DNA and genes that is where the answers lie, even if you discard all the fossils. Common DNA proves evolution. For the same fact that your child gets half of its chromosomes from you and you share 96-98 % dna with a chimp and 50% with a banana.

I had a hard time wrapping my head around evolution in the start but it makes sense to me now. We don't have a complete unified record for proving evolution via fossils but the evidence in genetics is irrefutable.

A small example:

We do know the human gene known as caspase-12, has sustained several knockout blows, though it is found in the identical relative location in the chimp. The chimp caspase-12 gene works just fine, as does the similar gene in nearly all mammals, including mice. But it doesn't work in us. That just points to one conclusion common ancestry.

The placement of humans in the evolutionary tree of life is only further strengthened by a comparison with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome sequence has now been unveiled, and it reveals that humans and chimps are 96 percent identical at the DNA level. A further example of this close relationship stems from examination of the anatomy of human and chimpanzee chromosomes. Chromosomes are the visible manifestation of the DNA genome, apparent in the light microscope at the time that a cell divides. Each chromosome contains hundreds of genes. Figure 5.3 shows a comparison of the chromosomes between a human and a chimpanzee. The human has twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, but the chimpanzee has twenty-four.

The difference in the chromosome number appears to be a consequence of two ancestral chromosomes having fused together to generate human chromosome 2. That the human must be a fusion is further suggested by studying the gorilla and orangutan?they each have twenty-four pairs of chromosomes, looking much like the chimp.

Also with the determination of the complete sequence of the human genome, it has become possible to look at the precise location where this proposed chromosomal fusion must have happened. The sequence at that location?along the long arm of chromosome 2?is truly remarkable. Without getting into the technical details, let me just say that special sequences occur at the tips of all primate chromosomes. Those sequences generally do not occur elsewhere. But they are found right where evolution would have predicted, in the middle of our fused second chromosome. The fusion that occurred as we evolved from the apes has left its DNA imprint here. It is very difficult to understand this observation without postulating a common ancestor.

The diagram and related information is from From The language of God, by Francis Collins. chapter DECIPHERING GOD'S INSTRUCTION BOOK, pp. 132-139

If you can tell your objections to evolution, may be we could discuss those. ID to me is simply a God of the gaps argument.

[Tank]

  Niya!

[Niya]

Niya!

Hello! 

[Recusant]

Please clarify this. Are you telling me you believe that these fossils are all fabrications?

I do not believe all fossils are fabrications, though some, accepted by the scientific community for years, have been turned out to be frauds or serious mistakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man).

I didn't ask about known hoaxes and fabrications. Please answer my question about the hominid fossils honestly.

There were several in the scientific community who never accepted the "Piltdown Man" hoax, and it was the scientific community which exposed it for what it was. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was constructed by an unscrupulous "fossil hunter" farmer, not by a scientist, and again, there were questions about its authenticity practically as soon as it appeared. As with "Piltdown Man," it was the scientific community which showed that it was not what it had been presented as. This same pattern holds true for the "Nebraska Man" tooth. Its identification was questioned pretty much as soon as it was presented, and its true identity was soon shown by the scientific community.

The fossils which are evidence for species like Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis are in a completely different category, yet it seems to me that you blithely implied that they're fakes. Do you believe that?

My personal view, as an amateur historian who studied probability while getting a degree in mathematics, is that we can barely tell what happened just a few hundred years ago, even when we have written records to guide us -- what's the chance that we're going to get a accurate account of pre-historical things that occurred, say, 100,000 years ago? Assuming, of course, that the earth existed then: there are differing opinions on that matter, as well. In short, to even speculate about something that long ago, you have to pile assumption on assumption and that kind of reasoning doesn't appeal to me. Give me something I can see and feel and test, experiment with, simulate.

The only people who deny that the Earth existed 100,000 years ago are those who insist that when the findings of science conflict with what the Bible says, the Bible is always correct and the science is wrong. There are multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support the age of the Earth, and the universe. Those whose religious zeal takes priority over their ability to honestly assess evidence and draw reasonable conclusions don't care about that, though. Denying that the Earth is over 100,000 years old is simply religiously motivated delusion. On the other hand, if we accept the religious zealot's view then the only reasonable conclusion is that their god is a deceiver on a grand scale who seeks to purposely mislead human beings.

So in your mind, all of the fossils of hominids found in Africa, Europe and Asia aren't evidence for the existence of these species?

All of the fossils of tiny pieces of a handful of possible hominids hold no interest for me, wherever they may be found, for the reasons stated above.

This sounds like willful ignorance to me. Hardly the approach of a scientist, it's more in line with what I'd expect to hear from somebody who is blinkered by their religion.

What exactly do you mean by "too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation"?

What I said above. I've seen how hard it is to get good data from just a hundred years ago; so I suspect that it's nearly impossible to get good data from 100,000 years ago.

Ignoring empirical evidence because you're able to convince yourself that somehow it's irrelevant shows that your status as a scientist is very likely to actually be something you've bestowed on yourself to try to give your statements some credibility. It's having the opposite effect on me. You're unable to give sound scientific reasons for questioning the validity of the scientific evidence, so you resort to transparently lame justifications for what appears to be outright rejection of it.

Have you read that article? Every page has intelligent design written all over it. Recall my points (a) and (b) above. The selected antenna designs were (a) already in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanisms were specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired ends.

Living organisms are "already in the initial domain." Natural selection in biological evolution progressively narrows the domain to produce viable organisms. The algorithm used by the NASA scientists replicates that process. Your bland denial of this merely serves to show that you're unwilling to accept a fact that directly contradicts your assertions.

[Davin]

Gerry is interesting to watch. Specifically what points he decides to avoid, and the points he keeps on preaching which ignore the points he decided to avoid. I wonder if he thinks he is being clever or if he realizes that most can see right through the pathetically obvious tactic.

Gerry, like many others we have seen, sets himself up as an authority so that he can commit an appeal to authority with himself as the authority. It's hilarious to see people commit the fallacy in such a way.

Oh well, it is mildly interesting to see how far down the wrong path he will get before he gives up, says that he will leave the forum, then just comes right back a few days later.

[Magdalena]

Gerry is interesting to watch. Specifically what points he decides to avoid, and the points he keeps on preaching which ignore the points he decided to avoid. I wonder if he thinks he is being clever or if he realizes that most can see right through the pathetically obvious tactic.

Gerry, like many others we have seen, sets himself up as an authority so that he can commit an appeal to authority with himself as the authority. It's hilarious to see people commit the fallacy in such a way.

Oh well, it is mildly interesting to see how far down the wrong path he will get before he gives up, says that he will leave the forum, then just comes right back a few days later.

He's like MLA,

I would prefer if you didn't refer to me at all, and just discussed the ideas I present.

I told you guys they might be related, but did anyone listen to me? Nnnnnooooo! 

[Magdalena]

It's good to see you again, Niya.     

[OldGit]

Niya!  How lovely to hear from you!  Have a very Happy Christmas.!

[Davin]

Gerry is interesting to watch. Specifically what points he decides to avoid, and the points he keeps on preaching which ignore the points he decided to avoid. I wonder if he thinks he is being clever or if he realizes that most can see right through the pathetically obvious tactic.

Gerry, like many others we have seen, sets himself up as an authority so that he can commit an appeal to authority with himself as the authority. It's hilarious to see people commit the fallacy in such a way.

Oh well, it is mildly interesting to see how far down the wrong path he will get before he gives up, says that he will leave the forum, then just comes right back a few days later.

He's like MLA,

I would prefer if you didn't refer to me at all, and just discussed the ideas I present.

I told you guys they might be related, but did anyone listen to me? Nnnnnooooo! 

They do seem to be similar. I did address what he said, then he avoided my contentions and then altogether ignored me.  

It is funny watch him go though.  

[Niya]

It's good to see you again, Niya.     

Same Here Mag  . I have been lurking around lately and trying to read the posts.   

[Niya]

Niya!  How lovely to hear from you!  Have a very Happy Christmas.!

Thanks a lot OG. hope you are doing great.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

We already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans, that just throws the story of Adam and Eve completely out of the equation.

We do not "already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans," Niya. Such assertions are disputed (see, for example, http://creation.com/genetics-primal-couple). That's why I think it is best not to prematurely base any argument on the speculations of either side, but rather stick with things we have first-hand personal experience with.

If you can tell your objections to evolution, may be we could discuss those. ID to me is simply a God of the gaps argument.

My objections to the evolution paradigm, all based on first-hand experiences, are many; I'll give you four:

First, the process is utterly foreign to me. I understand (and have fruitfully employed) the concept-design-creation paradigm to add new facts to reality in every area of my life since I was a child; this post is itself an example. But I haven't seen a single example of the proposed random-mutation-natural-selection paradigm being used to create new information in any field; nobody uses it for anything useful.

Secondly, I find the creationist paradigm simpler and thus more likely true. As simple as possible, in fact, but no simpler. As I said above:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.

Thirdly, I find the evolutionary paradigm not just intellectually unsatisfying, but emotionally and aesthetically lacking as well. Downright depressing, in fact. Here's an example. This morning I received an email update from a Christian song site where some of my own songs are posted. It said:

"It started out as a little chorus that I sang to my children. Then we found out my father had cancer, our "adopted" son was shipped off to Iraq, and our youngest child and only daughter passed away - all within 3 months. I completed the song and we began to use it just before Papa started his treatments. He developed terrible nightmares due to the medication. One night he woke up in a cold sweat, panic stricken with his heart racing. This song came to his mind and he began to sing it! The reality of it struck him and he was able to chuckle, lay down and go back to sleep. The song literally pulled him through......us, too, I guess! Our church still requests it nearly every service. After all, it really DOESN'T matter what is on your plate, because with Jesus in your heart, EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE ALRIGHT!" I hope this song will bless all who hear it - feel free to pass it on and God bless you! Much Shalom, Rebecca"

I don't see where the evolutionary paradigm offers such people any comfort in times like those described above; and I certainly don't see how it could ever inspire the kind of song she's talking about. Here's a link to the song: http://4praise.com/cgi-bin/files/mp3/5668.mp3

Fourthly, the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years. Again, from above:



On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person. Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!"

In short, I can easily and intuitively "see" the creationist's point of view; but I just don't "see" the evolutionary paradigm producing anything of value, large or small, no matter how much time you give it. The evolutionary way is simply -- according to all of my 60-plus years experience -- not how things work.