704 thoughts on “Holding tank for general chatter about GAs”

  2. Joe G: that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry

    If that’s not the case then how come Ventor could “print” a living organism out that was previously stored in computer RAM? He needed nothing more then physics and chemistry and the pattern in the computer.

    Sure, you’ll just claim that it’s the “pattern” that’s the crucial part, but it’s perfectly material. It’s information instantiated in whatever form Ventor needed, stored in a physical matrix in a pattern of physical charge differences. Nothing mysterious. And everything that’s needed to create a living thing by what amounts to printing.

    So, in the Ventor example, why are his “printed” organisms not reducible to physics and chemistry? They seem to be. Nothing more is needed to make them live then that.

  3. There isn’t any evidence that planets move in their orbits by undirected processes, either. My dentist is responsible for that, too. Prove me wrong.

  4. Thorton: Each step of the way, the GAs somehow knew to send only the ‘targets’ of that particular lineage down its specific line.

    How did they manage to do that Joe?

    Don’t forget that ID isn’t anti-evolution, right?

    It’s OK Joe, I’ll take this one:

    (cough) There is no evidence for common descent. It’s all common design and/or convergence. The GAs were reprogrammed at each apparent speciation event. And ID isn’t anti-evolution.

  5. Thorton:
    Amazing.Joe G still can’t grasp the simple fact that a GA can’t run INSIDE the organism that is evolving.The GA needs to be EXTERNAL where it can affect the selection pressures on the organism and thus impact the direction their evolution takes.

    Why can’t it?

    Please show your work.

  6. Elizabeth:
    Joe, presumably you aren’t saying that computers disobey the laws of physics?

    That something other than electromotive force pushes the electrons around?

    This is the problem, it seems to me with regarding “reductionism” as “reducing” everything to “mere” matter and energy.A computer is clearly made up of matter and energy and nothing else.People don’t tend to regard computers as having an immortal soul (although perhaps you do).

    Yet despite being made of nothing but matter and energy, they can do really interesting things – perform interesting functions. They do this by virtue of being part of a system.

    Why can’t the same be true of living things?

    Umm computers are made from information Elizabeth. Without information we wouldn’t have them. Without information computers would not run.

  7. Patrick: That’s a laugh- I would love to see any modern computer run without a program, ie information.

    Computer programs are compiled into machine language instructions and then typically loaded into RAM (or pre-loaded into ROM), after which they are accessed by a CPU that follows those instructions by raising and lowering voltages on the integrated circuits within the CPU and external components.All of that is based purely on known laws of physics.There is no free-floating “information” independent of the physical components.

    We can certainly choose to model the patterns of the state of the RAM chips using information theory, but the computer as a system is operating based on its configuration and well understood electronic and mechanical principles.

    So, getting back to the original question, please provide any objective, empirical evidence you have for anything other than physics and chemistry being used by living organisms (or computers, for that matter).Where, exactly, is this élan vital you seem to be asserting?

    Again computers require INFORMATION to run and to be manufatured.

  8. Joe G: As predicted, thanks

    Indeed, Joe, no surprise here. Still, it’s mind-boggling that you have previously linked to the Wikipedia article Genetic algorithm, declared that you are OK with the definition of it, yet you still have no idea about genetic algorithms. That’s truly amazing.

  9. Allan Miller: It’s OK Joe, I’ll take this one:

    (cough) There is no evidence for common descent. It’s all common design and/or convergence. The GAs were reprogrammed at each apparent speciation event. And ID isn’t anti-evolution.

    You have no idea what “evolution” is.

    Ya see if you have a change in allele frequency over time you have evolution. IOW Common Descent is not required to have evolution.

  11. Thorton:
    Joe, walk us throught how your “cell internal GAs” handle speciation events.

    For example, the genetic evidence shows the last common ancestor of the felidae and canidae lived around 52 million years ago. The GAs in that population must have had all the ‘targets’ stored for all our modern felids and canids. Then, when that population split into the two different lineages, somehow the GAs knew to only send the ‘targets’ for modern cats into one lineage, and only send the targets’ for modern canids into the other.The felidae lineage divided, and divided, and divided again until we got lions, tigers, panthers, pumas, saber toothed cats, domestic moggies, etc.The canidae lineage divided, and divided, and divided again into foxes, and dingos, and wolves, and hyenas, etc.

    Each step of the way, the GAs somehow knew to send only the ‘targets’ of that particular lineage down its specific line.

    How did they manage to do that Joe?

    Don’t forget that ID isn’t anti-evolution, right?

    Thorton, walk us through the mutations taht allowed a knuckle-walker to “evolve” into an upright biped- you know that natural GA

  12. Joe G: Umm the GA would RESPOND to the selection pressures you moron.

    Oh, brother! Selection is part of a genetic algorithm. What responds to selection pressure is the population of digital organisms. Not the GA itself. Think of GA as of simulated nature. Nature doesn’t respond to selection pressure, does it?

  13. Joe G: Wow, just wow.

    You have no idea what Venter did. Nice way to expose your ignorance.

    Noted: No specifics given as to why I was wrong.

  14. Joe G: You think you can take the way we use GAs and apply that to living organisms- Nature would provide the stuff the GA uses to allow the population to adapt.

    I never said that. The subject of this thread is genetic algorithms. You don’t understand what a genetic algorithm is. I am trying to help you learn. And you resist. 🙂

  16. Joe G: Nature would provide the stuff the GA uses to allow the population to adapt.

    “Stuff”? Care to be a bit more specific?

  17. Joe G: DNA was the ONLY part he manufactured. All the rest of the cell remained as it was.

    And so where is this additional component that you claim must exist? Vendor did not seem to need it to create a living organism.

    And when he synthesises the “rest of the cell” that neatly disproves your entire argument. I understand that’s on his list.

  18. Joe G: The environemnt- organisms adapt to their environment- so whatever their environment was giving them- that is the stuff

    Ah, so the environment is providing the information that the “GA” needs?

    Interesting….

  19. Joe G: You will find he just removed the cells DNA and replaced that DNA with synthesized DNA

    Ah, so DNA has been proven then to not need any mysterious additional component then other then matter and energy.

    Thanks for clarifying that.

  20. OM: Ah, so the environment is providing the information that the “GA” needs?

    Interesting….

    Wrong again- the information the GA needs is the GA. The environment just acts as a trigger.

  21. Joe G: You don’t know enough to teach me about GAs

    That’s partly true, I am not an expert on GAs. Still, I know enough to see when someone entirely misunderstands the basic concept of a GA. That is the case.

  22. olegt: That’s partly true, I am not an expert on GAs. Still, I know enough to see when someone entirely misunderstands the basic concept of a GA. That is the case.

    make your case then. So far all you have is your nonsense.

  23. Joe G: He synthesized DNA and inserted that into an alreadt existing cell that he removed the DNA from.

    Thereby proving you wrong insofar as the requirement for anything other then what is known to exist has been dis-confirmed.

    No “Élan vital” required. Living beings reducible to only matter and energy.

    And before you start matter/energy==information anyway.

  24. Joe G: It needed Venter you moron.

    So the mysterious life-force that you believe is present in addition to matter and energy is Craig Ventor?

    Really?

  25. Joe G: the information the GA needs is the GA.

    LOL! A GA needs itself to function? It already has itself, so there is no actual need. Oh wait… 🙂

  26. Joe G: Wrong again- the information the GA needs is the GA. The environment just acts as a trigger.

    Then the information storage capabilities of this “GA” must be immense. Where is this information stored?

  27. Joe G: make your case then.

    I don’t need to make my case, you are making it yourself every time you say silly things about genetic algorithms.

  28. Joe G: The environment just acts as a trigger.

    If that’s true, they why when faced with the same triggers don’t we get the same results consistently, time after time?

    And if this GA is responsible for providing the organism with the ability to respond to changing environment pressures then why are 99.9%+ of all things that have ever lived extinct?

    Not doing a very good job this “GA”, is it?

  29. Joe G: Wrong again- the information the GA needs is the GA. The environment just acts as a trigger.

    For example?

  30. OM: Thereby proving you wrong insofar as the requirement for anything other then what is known to exist has been dis-confirmed.

    No “Élan vital” required. Living beings reducible to only matter and energy.

    And before you start matter/energy==information anyway.

    Nothing in what Venter did demonstrates living organisms are reducible to matter and energy- you are confused.

  31. Joe G: IOW you have no idea if I am right or wrong but you feel the impulse to spew away.

    We’re virtually 100% sure your “cell internal GAs” brain fart is wrong.

    We ARE 100% sure you’ve presented no evidence for such things, or any explanation for how they’re suppose to work.

  32. Joe G: IOW you have no idea if I am right or wrong but you feel the impulse to spew away.

    It’s worse than that, Joe. You are not even wrong.

  33. Thorton: We’re virtually 100% sure your “cell internal GAs” brain fart is wrong.

    We ARE 100% sure you’ve presented no evidence for such things, or any explanation for how they’re suppose to work.

    Well show you work then- IOW actually make a case.

    And then walk us through the mutations required to get an upright biped from a knuckle-walker via that natural GA

  34. OM: If that’s true, they why when faced with the same triggers don’t we get the same results consistently, time after time?

    And if this GA is responsible for providing the organism with the ability to respond to changing environment pressures then why are 99.9%+ of all things that have ever lived extinct?

    Not doing a very good job this “GA”, is it?

    Geez Elizabeth already explained why we don’t get the same results- obviously you are just clueless.

  35. Joe,

    Why don’t you take a break, read the Wikipedia article, try to understand its contents, and then come back and ask a few questions if something doesn’t seem entirely clear? After all, the OP of this thread is

    What is a GA?

    Discuss.

    A few people here understand how GAs work. Elizabeth, in particular, is an expert on them. You can use this opportunity to learn.

  36. Joe G: Well show you work then- IOW actually make a case.

    “Cell internal GAs” are YOUR claim, not ours. The burden of proof is on you to show they exist, not on anyone else to show they don’t.

    That you can’t provide any evidence or explanation is YOUR problem Joe, not ours.

  37. Thorton: “Cell internal GAs” are YOUR claim, not ours.The burden of proof is on you to show they exist, not on anyone else to show they don’t.

    That you can’t provide any evidence or explanation is YOUR problem Joe, not ours.

    Yes butthead but living organisms being reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chance is YOUR claim and you can’t support it.

    As a matter of fact you can’t support any claims your position makes.

  38. Joe G: Still waiting for something more than your moronic drooling.

    Still waiting for you to explain how these “cell internal GAs” handle speciation events.

    Still waiting for you to explain what these GAs do when external selection pressure drives them AWAY from their pre-specified targets.

  39. Joe G: Nothing in what Venter did demonstrates living organisms are reducible to matter and energy- you are confused.

    That’s exactly what he demonstrated.

    So what, in addition to matter and energy, was required then?

  40. Joe G: Geez Elizabeth already explained why we don’t get the same results- obviously you are just clueless.

    And as to why 99.9% of all things that lived are extinct? Miss that part did you?

  41. olegt:
    Joe,

    Why don’t you take a break, read the Wikipedia article, try to understand its contents, and then come back and ask a few questions if something doesn’t seem entirely clear? After all, the OP of this thread is

    A few people here understand how GAs work. Elizabeth, in particular, is an expert on them. You can use this opportunity to learn.

    I read it- I undersatnd GAs and my scenario is in line with the examples from “Evolving Inventions”.

    Elizabeth doesn’t seem to have a clue either.

  42. Joe G: Yes butthead but living organisms being reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chance is YOUR claim and you can’t support it.

    Ventor demonstrated that. All he used was matter and energy. And IT’S ALIVE!

  43. OM: That’s exactly what he demonstrated.

    So what, in addition to matter and energy, was required then?

    Nope, not even close.

    He used an EXISTING organism. He just synthesized the DNA.

  44. Joe G: I read it- I undersatnd GAs and my scenario is in line with the examples from “Evolving Inventions”.

    It might be, but until you have some actual evidence for it…..

  45. OM: Ventor demonstrated that. All he used was matter and energy. And IT’S ALIVE!

    Nope- he just synthesized the DNA- the rest wqas an already existing organism.

  46. OM: It might be, but until you have some actual evidence for it…..

    More evidence than your position has…

  47. Joe G: I read it- I undersatnd GAs and my scenario is in line with the examples from “Evolving Inventions”.

    None of the examples from “Evolving Inventions” had the GAs residing INSIDE the organisms being evolved.

    You need to explain how that works in your scenario, where the internal GAs have no control over external selection pressures.

  48. Joe G: I read it- I undersatnd GAs and my scenario is in line with the examples from “Evolving Inventions”.

    Elizabeth doesn’t seem to have a clue either.

    Hahahaha!

  49. Joe G: Nope, not even close.

    He used an EXISTING organism. He just synthesized the DNA.

    So I ask again. So what, in addition to matter and energy, was required then?

    So if this mysterious life-force is in the cell itself what happens when the cell is fully synthesised too? Your gaps are shrinking day by day.

    So, presumably, the GA is instantiated via the proteins and lipids etc in the cell. What evidence do you have for that?

  50. Joe G: More evidence than your position has…

    What is that evidence then Joe? Your claim is that your my scenario is in line with the examples from “Evolving Inventions”.

    So support your scenario with evidence then. If you can!

Leave a Reply