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

  1. Joe G: Hey I have supported my claims.

    Yes, by saying that it *could* be this or *could* be that. That’s not support.

  2. OM: And? As far as your GA is concerned it’s still guiding the development of the original organism.

    It would be like dropping the engine from one car into another and reconnecting the wires randomly and expecting it to work.

    Joe, so when the DNA is changed out for other DNA how does the GA know this and adapt?

    Umm the DNA was still similar and the internal GA would read it and then react accordingly.

  3. OM: Yes, by saying that it *could* be this or *could* be that. That’s not support.

    Umm that is better than your position has.

  4. Joe G: Nope YOU just wrongly think they follow

    Explain to me why they don’t follow then?

    Are there any legitimate questions you’ll answer about your claimed “GA in a cell”?

    For example, is it the case, as you seem to be saying, that only inert things can be synthesized and that’s why the cell will never be synthesized?

  5. Joe G: Umm that is better than your position has.

    Yes, and that’s why ID is doing so well in the scientific community!

  6. OM: Yes, and that’s why ID is doing so well in the scientific community!

    Yes and taht is why the vast majority of people think your position is bullshit- no scientist can find support for it.

  7. Joe G: Umm the DNA was still similar and the internal GA would read it and then react accordingly.

    How does the GA “read” DNA Joe? What’s the physical mechanism used?

    How does it know how to “react accordingly”? This GA must be very intelligent if it can work out the correct set of reactions to DNA it has no idea the function of.If it can go from one set of DNA to another without any ill effects.

  8. Joe G: no scientist can find support for it.

    Man predicts particular fossil. Man looks for particular fossil in particular place. Man finds predicted fossil. Man is scientist. Science is supported.

  9. OM: Man predicts particular fossil. Man looks for particular fossil in particular place. Man finds predicted fossil. Man is scientist. Science is supported.

    When did that happen?

    It did not happen with Tiktaalik.

  10. OM: How does the GA “read” DNA Joe? What’s the physical mechanism used?

    How does it know how to “react accordingly”? This GA must be very intelligent if it can work out the correct set of reactions to DNA it has no idea the function of.If it can go from one set of DNA to another without any ill effects.

    How does proof-reading occur?

  11. Joe G: It did not happen with Tiktaalik.

    We didn’t find it? Oh! Was it faked, like the um, errr, moon landings?

  12. Joe G: It did not happen with Tiktaalik.

    Around 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. By 360 million years ago, there were four-footed vertebrates on land. So the scientists looked in a place that was 375 million years old. And guess what they found!

  13. Joe G: How does proof-reading occur?

    It’s not the same thing at all Joe. But to answer your question I can just re-use the answer you gave right?

    Umm the DNA was still similar and the proofreading mechanism would read it and then react accordingly.

    It’s amazing how easy it is to provide the same response to all questions and just change a word or two as required.

    Proofreading proceeds according to a set of rules. For your GA to know how to behave when a totally novel DNA sequence replaces the DNA it knows about it must be operating in a totally different way to known biology.

  14. OM: Around 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. By 360 million years ago, there were four-footed vertebrates on land. So the scientists looked in a place that was 375 million years old. And guess what they found!

    Wrong again- as usual.

    Scientists have found evidence for tetrapods in strata over 390 million years old.

    IOW you are ignorant, and it shows.

  15. Rich: We didn’t find it? Oh! Was it faked, like the um, errr, moon landings?

    He did not find what he was looking for and I have explained that to you on several occasions.

  16. Joe G: My scenario is exactly that of “Evolving Inventions”- solving a problem- as I said i have already explained this- you need to read my responses to your posts.

    Your conception of “genetic algorithm” seems to be “whatever solves a problem and has something to do with genetics”. I suppose you don’t like that characterisation. Providing your own would be more helpful.

    I would also be good to see an example of a GA similar to the ones you posit. And by that I mean a GA that works within cells, directing mutations. It doesn’t need to be anything very sophisticated or useful. Just something like an equivalent of “Hello world”, in “pseudocode” if you like.

  17. OM: It’s not the same thing at all Joe. But to answer your question I can just re-use the answer you gave right?

    It’s amazing how easy it is to provide the same response to all questions and just change a word or two as required.

    Proofreading proceeds according to a set of rules. For your GA to know how to behave when a totally novel DNA sequence replaces the DNA it knows about it must be operating in a totally different way to known biology.

    Why isn’t it the same thing?

    Please show you work.

  18. Geoxus: Your conception of “genetic algorithm” seems to be “whatever solves a problem and has something to do with genetics”. I suppose you don’t like that characterisation. Providing your own would be more helpful.

    I would also be good to see an example of a GA similar to the ones you posit. And by that I mean a GA that works within cells, directing mutations. It doesn’t need to be anything very sophisticated or useful. Just something like an equivalent of “Hello world”, in “pseudocode” if you like.

    No- it doesn’t have to have anything to with genetics. Evolving inventions didn’t have anything to do with genetics.

    And perhaps if someone wants to grant me say millions of dollars I will work on that GA thing for you.

  19. Joe G: No- it doesn’t have to have anything to with genetics. Evolving inventions didn’t have anything to do with genetics.And perhaps if someone wants to grant me say millions of dollars I will work on that GA thing for you.

    Maybe – what’s your research history like?

  20. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/abs/nature08623.html

    The fossil record of the earliest tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than paired fins) consists of body fossils and trackways. The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins. Claims of tetrapod trackways predating these body fossils have remained controversial with regard to both age and the identity of the track makers. Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.

  21. Joe G: He did not find what he was looking for and I have explained that to you on several occasions.

    Please show my work? Sure, after you show your work for the 1000’s of baseless claims you yourself have made.

    It’s not the same thing because proofreading cannot be compared to your magical GA because you have not provided any details about your magical DNA except to claim that it exists.

    When you provide some details on your GA then I’ll be able to tell you why they are not the same thing, over and above what I have already pointed out i.e. that proofreading does not need to know about the function of what it’s proofreading, wheras your GA must not only know but be able to determine the function of novel DNA it’s never encountered before.

  23. Joe G: They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.

    And what will ID be contributing to that radical reassessment?

  25. Rich: And perhaps if someone wants to grant me say millions of dollars I will work on that GA thing for you.

    So without actually doing any research you know it exists and what it’s capabilities are, to the extent of insisting that it can understand novel DNA it’s never encountered before and adjust it’s behaviour accordingly?

    Amazing.

  26. OM: Please show my work? Sure, after you show your work for the 1000’s of baseless claims you yourself have made.

    It’s not the same thing because proofreading cannot be compared to your magical GA because you have not provided any details about your magical DNA except to claim that it exists.

    When you provide some details on your GA then I’ll be able to tell you why they are not the same thing, over and above what I have already pointed out i.e. that proofreading does not need to know about the function of what it’s proofreading, wheras your GA must not only know but be able to determine the function of novel DNA it’s never encountered before.

    Your position is based on 1000s of baseless claims…

  27. Joe G: They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.

    The thing is Joe that you claim flat out that the fish–tetrapod transition never actually happened (no evidence to show that it’s even possible, remember?) and yet here you are using it as evidence that I’m wrong.

  28. OM: And what will ID be contributing to that radical reassessment?

    The blind watchmaker won’t be doing anything, that is for sure.

  29. OM: The thing is Joe that you claim flat out that the fish–tetrapod transition never actually happened (no evidence to show that it’s even possible, remember?) and yet here you are using it as evidence that I’m wrong.

    You are sadly mistaken- you made a claim that was easily refuted.

  30. Joe G: Your position is based on 1000s of baseless claims…

    But what position is that? I’ve not indicated any position here, I’m just asking *you* about *your* claims. This thread is about GAs, not my position. You are making claims, I’m asking you questions that I believe follow from those claims.

    If you don’t agree, fine. So I ask again, what sort of question am I “allowed” to ask you about this GA that you claim exists?

    For example, is the question “Is this GA in every cell, or just some of them?” a legitimate question?

  31. OM: So without actually doing any research you know it exists and what it’s capabilities are, to the extent of insisting that it can understand novel DNA it’s never encountered before and adjust it’s behaviour accordingly?

    Amazing.

    Hey tards are working on a materialistic OoL and teny have no idea if such a thing is possible…

  33. Joe G: Hey tards are working on a materialistic OoL and teny have no idea if such a thing is possible…

    No, the “such a thing” here is the ability of your purported GA to adjust when faced with novel DNA. As can easily be seen simply by scrolling back up the thread.

  34. OM: Joe, did the fish–tetrapod transition happen?

    Did it? What is your evidence for it?

    can we take fish embryos and do some targeted mutagenesis and get a fishapod?

  37. I think we ought to return to the topic of this thread.

    What is a GA?

    Discuss.

    Perhaps Joe could summarize his understanding of GAs. Just like Elizabeth did earlier in this thread.

    No, the principle of a GA is to evolve a population of virtual organisms that thrive within a virtual environment that presents them with hazards and opportunities.

    This is a brief but accurate description of a GA, as understood by people who work on them. It is clear that Joe has something else in mind. Joe, would you mind providing a concise description of that? You can add references and links, but only as a supplement. Describe it yourself first.

  38. Joe G: Did it? What is your evidence for it?

    can we take fish embryos and do some targeted mutagenesis and get a fishapod?

    Presumably if we take some fish embryos and put them in an environment that triggers your GA to make the necessary adjustments, yes we can.

    So, Joe, it seems to me that if we can build an interface to your GA we can do exactly that. Could you tell me what part of the cell I should start hooking up the wires to so I can start to reverse engineer the GA’s protocol?

  39. Joe G: Is your head up

    It’s your GA, don’t you even know the first thing about it like where it is and how many copies there are in an organism?

  40. olegt:
    I think we ought to return to the topic of this thread.

    Perhaps Joe could summarize his understanding of GAs. Just like Elizabeth did earlier in this thread.

    This is a brief but accurate description of a GA, as understood by people who work on them. It is clear that Joe has something else in mind. Joe, would you mind providing a concise description of that? You can add references and links, but only as a supplement. Describe it yourself first.

    Read my responses to Elizabeth- it is clear that you are clueless

  41. olegt: No, the principle of a GA is to evolve a population of virtual organisms that thrive within a virtual environment that presents them with hazards and opportunities.

    yes, agreed. I’d like to see what the equivalent of

    population
    environment
    hazards

    are for Joe’s GA, as if it’s in the cell it can’t be a GA as commonly understood.

  42. Joe G: Read my responses to Elizabeth- it is clear that you are clueless

    I am not going to comb through the entire thread, which is quite unwieldy. WOuld you mind providing a concise summary of your understanding of a GA? Pretty please? 🙂

  43. Joe G: It’s NOT my GA

    Yes, I know that. Why don’t you name it then, as it’s discover you have that right.

  44. olegt: I am not going to comb through the entire thread, which is quite unwieldy. WOuld you mind providing a concise summary of your understanding of a GA? Pretty please?

    I linked to my responses- there were three of them- but I understand why you would want to avoid them

  45. Joe G: I will work on that GA thing for you.
    So without actually doing any research you know it exists and what it’s capabilities are, to the extent of insisting that it can understand novel DNA it’s never

    To be fair, you’re the one making up this concept. Not GAs in totality, but this unique, um, understanding of it.

  47. Joe G:
    OM – exposed its ignorance on Venter- exposed its ignorance on tetrapods- exposed its ignorance on DNA

    Yet it keeps coming back for more…

    Where it your GA and how many copies there are in an organism? one in every cell? Just one in some “master” cell? If in every cell, do they talk to each other or act independently? On what are you basing your answer?

  48. Rich: To be fair, you’re the one making up this concept. Not GAs in totality, but this unique, um, understanding of it.

    You don’t understand anything- you have no clue about GAs, science, life, no clue at all

  50. OM: Where it your GA and how many copies there are in an organism? one in every cell? Just one in some “master” cell? If in every cell, do they talk to each other or act independently? On what are you basing your answer?

    Strange that evotards think I need all the answers when they can’t answer anything

Leave a Reply