cypress

I don't think these accurately summarize my observations (not objections) about genetic algorithms. Please re-read what I said and let me know what you wish me to clarify. Human designers are pretty good at tweaking their designs to demonstrate the purpose they intend. You have mischaracterized my words. I note that natural selection has not been shown to function as predicted. I suspect there is a different process involved.

Let's begin with the warming trend from the mid 20th century forward. This article by Chip Knappenberger summarizesmuch of the recent research and findings from major peer-reviewed journals to show that the amount of warming "that could potentially be from anthropogenic GHGs, or a total potential temperature rise of 0.337°C—which is 48% of the current “observed” value—or less than half of the current “observed” warming from the mid-20th century." I will offer the peer-reviewed material as we discuss each item covered. Knappenberger shows the agreed basis for global temperature for this period of time, the annual HadCRUT3 global temperature record from 1950 through 2009. The trend line has value of 0.117°C/decade or temperature increase of 0.702C. So that's the the starting point, a 0.7 degree warming trend. My task is to explain all but 0.4 of this plus the trend from 1850 through 1950. From this trend the author then starts factoring in recent findings. Knappenberger said this about the first adjustment: Here is the result once the correction is made. The new trend is now .552 C Questions, concerns?

It never ceases to surprise me what can be accomplished when a mind is the cause.

I don't see how this observation is relevant to the discussion. Help me understand. I do see how the authors did previously address it. In genetic algorithms, the designer exploits this characteristic in specifying the contrived fitness function to guarantee pathways with selectable characteristics for each step. The researchers show how this constitutes imported active information. I have no doubt that one can devise a vast narrative of how natural selection might work and what it might accomplish, but can you show that these presumed evolutionary pathways are real? Can you offer even one example of an actual contiguous multiple step pathway that generates functional information faster that a blind search? Can you even provide an example that is greater than five steps?

I let contracts for computer programmers regularly, having at some time recently up to 30 architects, designers and analysts working under my direction in the past 10 years. Currently I have seven working for me with hourly rates between $115 and $230 per hour depending on skill and task. None of these have online certificates. They all have accredited degrees from reputable institutions. I have hired some in the past with technical certificates from online institutions and in general I find these people to be less skilled and less capable than these others. If you are capable of getting a proper degree in Computer Science then do it. These can be accomplished online or in night school. While the certificate won't hurt, it is time and money to obtain and it detracts from obtaining a more useful credential. If a degreed program is something that would be too challenging for you or is not realistic given your situation, then by all means get the certificate and use it. I will hold off on specific advice pending your response.

My specific claim was "Skeptics have identified natural causes for all but 0.2-0.4 degrees of warming." The totality of warming since the mid 1800's is summarized here and displayed on this graphic. Can we agree that this is the basis for the current warming trend?

The designers often import information on how to solve the problem, even if the only active information imported serves to define an artificial or contrived fitness function that guarantees success, this is design. However, in subsequent analysis of popular algorithms, the researchers show that information is also often added in other ways, including use of efficient search queries, and prior knowledge of search space, to improve the performance of the search routine through various methods, including intermediate rewards of functions not immediately useful but known to be required for the final product, and elimination of useful intermediates that are known to be deleterious to the final product. Careful selection of the fitness function is critical though for success, and in genetic algorithms, they are selected and defined by the programmer deliberately to ensure that there are selectable evolutionary pathways from start to finish even if the shape of the function has to be contrived. In other words, careful selection of the fitness function makes success a foregone conclusion, all that is left is to ensure that the search routine is efficient enough to find a pathway without running out of computing resources. In the successful examples, it turns out the designer imports prior knowledge to do both. Except that to date all successful genetic algorithms include design in the process of generating information. It is the design and not the random algorithm that drives success. So we can say that a designing mind can import design into a genetic algorithm that is capable of generating functional information faster than blind search, often but not always slower than had the designer used a more conventional approach. I am anxious to hear of an algorithm that does not make use of what Marks calls "active information" and successfully generates functional information faster than a blind search. To better understand the difference or absence of a target, note that natural selection begins with a functional system that is reproducing and therefore accomplishing the goal of natural selection, and ends with a functional system that is reproducing even if it does nothing except meaner around the original configuration. Natural selection cannot begin with a non-functional system whereas all the genetic algorithms except one (stylus) that I know of can and do begin with nonfunctional configurations and by virtue of the designers choice of fitness function and search efficiency, converge on the target defined by the designer. Furthermore the fitness functions in genetic algorithms reward the algorithm for intermediate solutions that are also non-functional and therefor not something natural selection does. They (except stylus) are clearly different in this respect. The stylus algorithm uses a fitness function and goal more similar to what is understood of natural selection. One can adjust the fitness criteria and mutation step distance to observe the effects of modifying the character of the fitness functions. It is interesting that when one adjusts the model to be similar to what we observe about natural selection, the model makes adaptations but it does not generate any new functional forms. The Stylus program provides a great deal of insight into why no observations have been made of natural selection generating novel form and function or even the small components. It makes sense since the subcomponents (for example a new tertiary fold that generates a new protein structure, or new binding sites, or expression control) don't generally increase reproductive advantage until all components are in place, and even these subcomponents generally require four or more specific alterations and one realizes that many novel functions require many integrated proteins and multitudes of specific control sequences, the gap between advantageous configurations appears to be too wide. Stylus allows one to see how this works. What is key for this discussion of generating particular kinds of information namely the kind of digitally encoded functional or as Dembski and Marks describe it "complex specified" information is that thus far, only mind has been observed to have generated information greater than what would be predicted by blind search.

Of course they do and that is my point. They do so because the designer designed them to. Marks and Dembski show in the series of articles that they accomplish this by making use of imported active information and by use of a single target and hamming oracle whereas natural selection has no unique target. Absence of a target seems to be one key difference. Another is import by the designer of active information. Dembski and Marks point these and other differences out in the series of articles. Recall though that my argument remains one of critique of genetic algorithms not of natural selection so I don't see that I have any obligation to make a case against it.

I struggle to see how these question matter to the discussion against genetic algorithms unless it is shown that natural selection does consistently generate functional (or as Marks and Dembski describe "specified") information faster and more efficiently than a blind search. I would think that one taking the position that evolutionary processes do generate large quantities of novel functional information would want to demonstrate that known evolutionary process do generate functional information at the rates expected.

I take it fro your summary Cap'n that you find nothing to be critical of regarding the demonstrations by Marks and Dembski that genetic algorithms succeed only because the designers import "active information" into the algorithms and that without his active information the algorithms cannot succeed. Thank-you for the summary.

I don't understand where you are coming from. Within the context of this discussion I don't see where these examples meet the conditions described. Perhaps I am wrong but can you point to the specific request made and explain how these fit? I recall indicating that random processes move information around and it is documented in information theory (see the Marks and Dembski papers) that blind search is capable of generating modest quantities of information in proportion to the resources available and probability density of functional alternatives within the sample set. Do these examples fall outside the boundaries of what is predicted for blind search by information theory? If so that would be remarkable.

What specific plan was generated in this experiment? How many bits of novel information was involved? How did this compare to blind search given the resources available to cause the two alterations involved? Did this example generate more information than one would expect by a blind search or less? Do you have sources to confirm any of this?

All five of the main publications have bearing on the subject.

Have I stated your objection correctly?

OK, thanks then you did not intend that this is an example within the context of this thread and of the kind moontonman was speaking. I appreciate the clarification, it therefore requires no response.

Montonman described these processes this way: "I am referring to the processes that take simple molecules and turn them into complex living molecules. It's called metabolism." Are you suggesting that this article provides an analog of the kind of chemic process Moontonman intended?

I did not ask for the mathematical probability of generating a particular string of digital values. I asked for an actual case of a natural random process generating for example the construction plans for a functional system. Do you have a process in operation today that is known to have accomplished such a task? Is a mathematical model reality or does it sometimes model reality? Are all mathematical models realistic and accurate? You have thus far not provided what was requested. Your point is moot. What if? Sounds like speculation. I have made a distinction between different kinds of information. The fact that one can discern a construction blueprint from a table of data and lines of computer source code indicates I am correct. wiki provides a summary of the branches and different kinds of information in this article. See also the link below. In particular these areas: Computer Science, Source coding, Linguistics, Crypography, Informatics, Electrical Engineering, and others. Were that true we could also say there is not point in talking about the information content in digital source code. Source code is processed by the compiler and the results are executed to derive function. You will have a hard time convincing Bill Gates for example that source code is not information since it is not addressed to anyone and no one seems particularly surprised by the messages and yet he finds the digital code contained in biological systems uncannily computer-like only far more sophisticated than anything human designers have written to date. Your point is false and you have not demonstrated that natural random processes do generate functional digital code of the size observed in computer systems and biological systems. The functional output of 90% of the computer systems I write code for is analog also. This is particularly true for control systems. As near as I can tell, every genetic algorithm offered thus far succeeds because the designer designed them to succeed. They are neither random nor natural. Perhaps some day someone will offer one up that that succeeds on its own accord and does not import an information source that allows the system to succeed. Robert Marks and William Dembski have published several peer-reviewed papers on this point. In short, your response does not seem to uncover anything to indicate the power of random processes with respect these unique kinds of information generated by humans and found in biological systems. It would be fascinating to hear of some natural process or system other than mind accomplishing such tasks, it appears that random systems can and do shuffle the information around but thus far, only a mind has been shown to be capable of generating this kind of information.

Please list the metabolic processes that in your words, "took place outside the confines of the cell". I am anxious also for observational support that this is a true statement. Please indicate if you have evidence to offer. There are hundreds of such processes in cells, how many have support for existing outside cells? I read the entire chapter and did not find any catalysts listed nor any description of how they were formed prior to the current biological processes in modern life. Please redirect me to this information. Is it then accurate to describe it as a just so story? I am nearly certain they don't. If you could indicate the exact article and paste here a line or two, that might help. Are you suggesting that the individual processes cannot be reproduced because they each take millions of years to complete? If this is not what you are saying can you be more specific about the issue.

The original claim being that skeptics, of which Dr. Spencer is one, have presented evidence that indicates natural causes can account for recent observed warming. Spencer provides evidence that the PDO, a natural oscillation in ocean currents drive changes in radiative forcing. I have offered a summary of this evidence in the papers that Spencer discusses on in website and in his blog. The evidence shows good correlation between cause and effect. Thus far nobody has argued against the correlation and the evidence, though you have objected to Spencer's use of two input variables in a simple climate model where he establishes the physical basis for the observed evidence. The connection seems straightforward. Please confirm that I have stated your objection correctly.

Having reviewed the material once again and the observation that the simple climate model uses parameters that may not have been confirmed, I still note that the evidence that shows that measured changes in radiative flux and forcing correlate with and seem to be a result of natural changes in cloud cover due to the PDO. Critique of Spencer's simple climate model does not seem to detract from this evidence in any significant way unless one argues that a physical model is required to explain why the evidence is the way it is and without a valid physical model the power of the empirical evidence is reduced. Is this what you are indicating?

Precisely what processes currently occurring inside a cell are you referring to? Are there any experiments confirming these processes occur where you claim they occur? What are these catalysts and how did they form? Given your description of all of these independent processes occurring outside a cell there would have to be hundreds of them correct? Is there any confirmation that the required diversity of biologically active catalysts form naturally? Do experiments confirm that competing processes do come together by any mechanism? I read the links and may have missed reference to that which you speak. I would be very interested to see specific confirmation that individual biological building block molecules come together to form biologically active complex polymers. Can you please direct me to that literature. If there were natural processes such as you describe, one should have no trouble reproducing them in laboratory conditions.

I have often heard the biological evolution has no part of abiogenesis, but I commonly hear the chemic evolution might very well have had a role. How can we get some sense of this? What role can "natural selection" have in this process? Mr.Skeptic raises a good point when he suggests that natural selection cannot select for anything until some form of descent with modification is established. Some initial self-replicating system must come before that and some method of generating a self-replicating system or molecule from compounds that don't self-replicate must come before that. Talk about change over time (evolution) and selection seems a bit like getting the cart before the horse and so it is good that you described in some sense a process leading up to this. How though can we know that your idea is correct? What processes lead to derivation of self-replicating systems? These questions naturally lead to the philosophical issue of reductionism. Does the whole reduce to the sum of its parts? Conversely do the properties of the parts explain the structure, organization and function of the whole? You seem to be saying the answer to this question is yes and I am interested in how you come to that conclusion and what evidence you have to support it.

You are right swansont. The purpose of this thread was to agree that life on earth by chance alone is an unreasonable position. The rest is simply banter. It does not matter how or why Hoyle might be wrong or what the odds are. It makes no difference what lies beyond the observable universe. The conclusion was the focus. Thanks for the redirect. I'm done here.

Yes, can you be more specific about your issue?

You can speed up the process with NAOH or medium strength acid. I used NAOH. Start dilute and build up slowly so you don't give yourself a chemical burn. In addition pumice soap and/or continual rubbing with 600 grit sandpaper sped it up too. I did both and they both helped a lot. It took me about two days using this method on a spot about 2 inches by one inch. Sunburn is another option but that will take about 5 days to exfoliate and it hurts too. Super glue is a one day process....