Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Using “Evolutionary Algorithms” by Intelligent Design
CEH ^ | May 8, 2009

Posted on 05/08/2009 4:25:57 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Using “Evolutionary Algorithms” by Intelligent Design

May 8, 2009 — Evolution can’t be all bad if scientists can use it to optimize your car.  Science Daily said that scientists in Germany are “simulating evolution” to come up with ways to optimize difficult problems.  Using “Evolutionary Algorithms”, they can discover solutions for engineering problems like water resource management and the design of brakes, airbags and air conditioning systems in automobiles.  The simulated evolution program searches through a large number of random possibilities to make numerous successive slight improvements.

“The algorithms are called ‘evolutionary’ because the characteristics of evolution – mutation, recombination and selection – form the basis of their search for promising solutions,” the article claimed.  Solutions that show promise are mutated and further selected.

Conferences on Evolutionary Algorithms are held each year and the interest in them is spreading into other disciplines.  “The Evolutionary Algorithms are therefore a collective term for the various branches of research which have gradually developed: evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms and genetic programming.”

Every once in awhile we need to give a refresher course about these reports, to show why the terminology is ludicrous.  This has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with intelligent design.  Calling these

“evolutionary algorithms” is like calling Eugenie Scott a creationist.  Evolutionary Algorithm is an oxymoron – if it is evolutionary, it is not an algorithm, and if it is an algorithm, it is not evolutionary.  Why?  Because the essence of evolution, as Charles Darwin conceived it, has nothing to do with intelligent selection.  Evolution is mindless, purposeless, and without a goal.  These scientists, by contrast, have clear goals in mind.  They are consciously and purposefully selecting the products of randomness to get better designs – intelligent designs.  They may not know what the computer program will produce, but they sure well programmed the computer, and put in the criteria for success.  Employing randomness in a program does nothing to make it evolutionary.  The hallmark of intelligence is having a desired end and pulling it out of the soup of randomness.  This is something evolution cannot do – unless one is a pantheist or animist, attributing the properties of a Universal Soul to nature.  Undoubtedly, the NCSE would decry that.  They can barely tolerate theistic evolutionists – the well-meaning but misguided Christians who try to put God in the role of the engineer who uses evolutionary algorithms for his purposes (e.g., man).

Remember – if it has purpose in it, it is not evolution.  We must avoid equivocation.  To discuss evolution with clarity it is essential to understand the terms and not mix metaphors.  Charlie lept from artificial selection (intelligent design) to natural selection (materialism) only as a pedagogical aid.  He did not intend for natural selection to have a mind like the goal-directed farmer or breeder uses.  To think evolution, think mindless.  Notice that itself is a one-way algorithm.  You can think mindless, but the mindless cannot think.

For a definitive, in-depth treatment on why evolutionary algorithms cannot be mixed with evolution, see the book No Free Lunch in the Resource of the Week entry above.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

1 posted on 05/08/2009 4:25:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 05/08/2009 4:26:57 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolutionary theory and auto mechanics? Makes sense according to Scott:

“Evolution applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, biology, geology — you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, like as not.”

So forget that Audel’s manual, Just use a copy of “Origin of the Oil Pan” and “Dynamometer-saurs for Dummies”.


3 posted on 05/08/2009 4:53:10 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

As someone who has used genetic algorithms (GA) and simulated annealing (SA) to solve complex infinite-answer problems I can tell you whoever wrote that little blurb doesn’t have a clue about how they work.

GAs use generations to create a wide range of solutions. You start with disorder - random seeding of the possible answers within a problem. Then you grade the answers, cull the answers (weakest tend to die - but not always, and the strongest tend to survive - but not always). Then you let the survivors “breed” by creating offspring answers with traits of both parents AND potential mutations (harmful or helpful) added in.

Repeat as necessary, until you get a solution set that you accept with your own pre-conceived idea of “success”. There isn’t an “end” to the algorithm, it will keep happily spinning away, creating an infinite set of answers that all are viable in their own way.

GAs and SAs are highly useful in situations where there isn’t a “best answer”. Where you can have dozens - or sometimes, infinite - answers that will work for your situation. And where the problem space has dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of variables (the genes). GAs and SAs are ways to identify very good answers for extremely complex problem spaces in a very short amount of time.

Typically you’ll see an N^2 reduction in processing and search time over a standard brute-force solution approach. Suddenly problems that were too computationally complex to ever answer can be addressed.

The fact that there is a pre-determined “stop executing” point is not a function of the evolutionary nature of a GA; it is simply a recognition that there’s not need to continue looking for answers after you have one...

And the fact there is a “stop executing” point does not mean your answer is pre-ordained. I’ve run GAs on the same problem set, with the same initial seeding, and come up with different - but still very viable and useful - results.


4 posted on 05/08/2009 4:58:07 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Sounds like trial and error intelligent human design to me.


5 posted on 05/08/2009 5:05:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I wish that someone, somewhere would just get up and say "I don't like the Theory of Evolution because it contradicts my religion". Enough of this pseudoscientific gibberish.

How about a little intellectual honesty?

6 posted on 05/08/2009 5:18:46 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

How about the evos saying “yeah, maybe there is a Creator after all”?


7 posted on 05/08/2009 5:22:26 PM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

Creationists are very up front about the fact that evolution contradicts the Bible and it contradicts science. Now if only your Temple of Darwin co-religionists would be equally honest about biblical creation being incompatible with their materialist religion!


8 posted on 05/08/2009 5:25:06 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Interesting:

Genetic algorithms are irrelevant to evolution

David Abel, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin of Life Science Foundation

http://creation.com/genetic-algorithms-are-irrelevant-to-evolution

9 posted on 05/08/2009 5:30:10 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Now if only your Temple of Darwin co-religionists would be equally honest about biblical creation being incompatible with their materialist religion!"

I can't speak for others, but I assure you that to me, at least, the Theory of Evolution is not a religion or even a philosophy. To me, it is simply what it's title says it is: a scientific theory. It has the same moral imperative as does the Pythagorean Theorem or the Electro-weak Theory: none at all. It is simply a way of explaining a feature of the observable world, i.e. speciation.

I would be excited if some other way where discovered to explain the origin of species, because that would be very interesting, but an alternative to natural selection hasn't been found in 150 years, and probably never will be found.

Remember, in Galileo's day, people had the same attitude to his work as you do to evolution.

10 posted on 05/08/2009 5:42:28 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No intelligent design at all needed for a proper GA. In fact, all you do is define the problem space! What would be a natural limit for viability/survival of an organism. Just like humans really don’t survive well at the top of Everest, we could say a solution really won’t survive well if its parameters are way out of whack.

It’s a subtle distinction that is hard to grasp until you really use and work with GAs for quite a while.

Oh, and the fact that GAs work SO WELL kind of reinforces the concept of evolution (note that neither GAs nor evolution claim there can’t be a creation event; that is a straw man that you have always thrown up and never refuse to admit is wrong). Just as God kicked everything off, the writer of the GA kicks everything off. The fact the results turn out as they do points to the success of evolution as a process.

Anyway, my faith in my God - the God of Issac, Abraham, and Jacob, who became flesh in the form of Jesus Christ - so shallow that science - the learning of the creation and nature of God - doesn’t shake it. Rather, it reinforces just how elegant the laws of nature and the resulting creation is!


11 posted on 05/08/2009 5:45:14 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Now if only your Temple of Darwin co-religionists would be equally honest about biblical creation being incompatible with their materialist religion!

So let's cut right to the chase. Do you believe a Christian can accept the theory of evolution? A simple yes or no is all that's needed.

12 posted on 05/08/2009 5:46:41 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

Evolution is nothing more than a materialist belief system imposed on the unobservable, unrepeatable past. The fact that you don’t see this speaks volumes about how successful our Temple of Darwin reeducation centers were at brainwashing you into believing that darwood’s fanciful creation myth in any way resembles hard science.


13 posted on 05/08/2009 5:47:05 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Yes. They would be wrong. They would be used to by the Temple of Darwin to push their materialist religion (”see, even the Christians are going along with the program!”). And it’s just plain bad theology. But again, I still maintain it is possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.


14 posted on 05/08/2009 5:50:08 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Did you happen to catch this link? Ever heard of this guy?

http://creation.com/genetic-algorithms-are-irrelevant-to-evolution


15 posted on 05/08/2009 5:51:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Evolution is nothing more than a materialist belief system imposed on the unobservable, unrepeatable past."

Science is by definition materialist, since it doesn't deal with spiritual mumbo-jumbo. As for the past being unobservable, I would suggest you go on a fossil dig some time, but maybe you would just think fossils are God's way of testing your faith, as they believed in the middle ages.

I would hazard to guess that you don't live in a cave or a monastery, so your dedication to spirituality over materialism is honored more in the breach than the observance.

16 posted on 05/08/2009 5:57:38 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

OK, so you believe evolution is actually a materialist religion, but you can still be a Christian and believe in evolution.

Meaning you believe that any Christian who believes in evolution must be a misguided brother and should be corrected. Either that or you support polytheism but I assume that is not correct.

OK, so how about correcting as Paul did? How did Paul correct the early Christians? Not by ridicule and derision and name-calling as you do. How about you show a little Christian brotherliness yourself in how you address the issue?

So, give me the Biblically-based reason why evolution cannot be. You are limited to the Scriptures only as that is the Pauline approach that worked rather well in the early Church. Go back to what works, rather than being an attacker, similar to the forgiven debtor that Jesus spoke negatively about in His parable.

Oh, and I’ve never heard of David Abel, and his reasoning is pretty far-off. GAs rely upon the same mechanism as the theory of genetic evolution and genetic drift; in fact, that is where the concept of GAs came from, computer scientists working with biologists to solve rather tricky problems...


17 posted on 05/08/2009 5:59:57 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

==OK, so how about correcting as Paul did? How did Paul correct the early Christians?

Paul could be tender and forgiving, and Paul could be stern and uncompromising, depending on the situation:

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them”. (Acts 20:28-30).

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8).

==So, give me the Biblically-based reason why evolution cannot be.

Jesus Christ said we were made both male and female at the beginning of creation. The Bible says death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. If death was always a part of life, then there would be no reason for Jesus to die on the Cross. Not to mention the fact that God tells us in Genesis that he made the world in six days. Everything in the creation account in Genesis flies in the face of evolution.


18 posted on 05/08/2009 6:15:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

OK, where in Genesis does it say 6 consecutive days? It is implied, but it is not stated as fact. Are we to accept implications from the Bible?

Genesis also does not list anyone else other than Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. Yet Cain marries! Clearly there are other people existing and created outside those listed in the Bible, right? Does that not point to the fact that the Bible does NOT list everything possible?


19 posted on 05/08/2009 6:21:06 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

How about this question? Can a person accept evolution without rejecting Christ? A simple yes or no is enough.


20 posted on 05/08/2009 6:21:32 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Absolutely. I am one such person, as are the science and biology professors at most Christian universities.


21 posted on 05/08/2009 6:24:22 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Gen. 5:4 says Adam had other children, sons and daughters, after Seth. How could you miss that?


22 posted on 05/08/2009 6:33:34 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Hmm isn't it supposed to be small successive steps? Generation 5, who's your daddy?

23 posted on 05/08/2009 6:36:04 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Then what an apostle of Christ wrote at Romans 5:12 fits evolutionary theory?


24 posted on 05/08/2009 6:47:20 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

==OK, where in Genesis does it say 6 consecutive days?

After each day, there was evening, and then there was morning, which began the next day. C-Y-C pretty much covered your Cain question. But beyond that, Jesus said He created us male and female right from the beginning, and the Bible says death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned (both of which you failed to address). I would say each one of these rules out evolution, but when taken together, God’s Word most definitely renders evolution impossible.


25 posted on 05/08/2009 6:55:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

LOL!


26 posted on 05/08/2009 6:58:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

PS You never did give me your thoughts on the following re: GA’s...

http://creation.com/genetic-algorithms-are-irrelevant-to-evolution


27 posted on 05/08/2009 7:01:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; PugetSoundSoldier

To follow up on what GGG said, a further reason for opposition to evolution is that if we deny what Jesus said when referring back to Adam, we are implying that He is a liar. If He were to be a liar, He could not be our Savior.


28 posted on 05/08/2009 7:17:38 PM PDT by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Fools


29 posted on 05/08/2009 7:18:03 PM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Photobucket
30 posted on 05/08/2009 7:44:52 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

[[The simulated evolution program]]

There is NO such program- There are however programs that prove intelligent design is needed.

“However, GAs do not mimic or simulate biological evolution because with a GA:

—A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

—A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.

—Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected. This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation—see Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited.

—Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population. Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMine’s The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma, etc.).

—The flip side to this is that high rates of ‘reproduction’ are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many ‘higher’ organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of ‘offspring’ per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.

—Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.

—The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the ‘genome’ is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best ‘organism’ from mutations, for example. Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to the rate of one in about 10 billion (for humans).

—The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing. The smallest real world genome is over 0.5 million base pairs (and it is an obligate parasite, which depends on its host for many of the substrates needed) with several hundred proteins coded. This is equivalent to over a million bits of information. Even if a GA generated 1800 bits of real information, as one of the commonly-touted ones claims, that is equivalent to maybe one small enzyme—and that was achieved with totally artificial mutation rates, generation times, selection coefficients, etc., etc. In fact, this is also how the body’s immune system develops specific antibodies, with these designed conditions totally different to any whole organism. This is pointed out in more detail by biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner in his refutation of a skeptic.

—In real organisms, mutations occur throughout the genome, not just in a gene or section that specifies a given trait. This means that all the deleterious changes to other traits have to be eliminated along with selecting for the rare desirable changes in the trait being selected for. This is ignored in GAs.

—There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.).

—Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population. The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldane’s Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMine’s analysis of Haldane’s Dilemma.

—Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome. In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when ‘read’ in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the ‘reading’ starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.

—The outcome in a GA is ‘pre-ordained’. Evolution is by definition purposeless, so no computer program that has a pre-determined goal can simulate it—period. This is blatantly true of Dawkins’ ‘weasel’ program, where the selection of each letter sequence is determined entirely on its match with the pre-programmed goal sequence. Perhaps if the programmer could come up with a program that allowed anything to happen and then measured the survivability of the ‘organisms’, it might be getting closer to what evolution is supposed to do! Of course that is impossible (as is evolution).

—With a particular GA, we need to ask how much of the ‘information’ generated by the program is actually specified in the program, rather than being generated de novo. A number of modules or subroutines are normally specified in the program, and the ways these can interact is also specified. The GA program finds the best combinations of modules and the best ways of interacting them. The amount of new information generated is usually quite trivial, even with all the artificial constraints designed to make the GA work.

For the above reasons (and some of them overlap), and no doubt there are more that could be added, GAs do not validate evolution. It does not take long with a decent calculator to see that the information space available for a minimal real world organism of just several hundred proteins is so huge that no naturalistic iterative real world process could have accounted for it—or even the development of a new protein with a new trait.

Another type of ‘simulation’ is that of antitheist T.D. Schneider.[1] Schneider claims that his program simulates the naturalistic formation of DNA binding sites for gene control. This exercise has led to grandstanding by some evolutionists that this proves creationists wrong. However, many of the same problems outlined above also apply to this programming exercise. For example, the selection coefficient is extremely high, the genome is extremely small, the mutation rate high, no possibility of extinction is permitted, etc. For many other problems, see the critique by Dr Royal Truman.

http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.asp


31 posted on 05/08/2009 8:07:47 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

He isn’t goign to give you his thoughts on that link GGG because computer algorithms DO NOT mimic nature in any way shape or form- they are intelligently designed, carefully controlled environments(despite their claism of ‘randomness’), carefully controlled processes that are simply NOT found in nature

Be sure to give this link a read too as it points out the ludicrous idea that computer models simulate some supposed imaginary evolutionary process:

http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp


32 posted on 05/08/2009 8:19:18 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian; GodGunsGuts
"Evolution is nothing more than a materialist belief system imposed on the unobservable, unrepeatable past."

"Religion... is a smile on a dog."

33 posted on 05/08/2009 8:30:10 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Objection #3: Countless point mutations are assumed to instantly provide reliable binding interactions. (In other words, this is DESIGNED into hte program intelligently, and as we'll see is an unrealistic natural ASSUMPTION (per usual)

Unlike the fictitious positive and negative integers used in the simulation, in earlier papers the weight matrix was derived using real data on functional sites(10) [143]. Known binding sites were selected from genbank, lined up and the proportion of each of the 4 bases found at each position of a sequence was determined (see Appendix).

Binding of a protein to DNA or RNA is rarely the simple matter implied by the computer program, but generally requires cooperation with other carefully crafted proteins(11). For example, transcription in eukaroytes is regulated by a group of gene-specific activator and repressor proteins[24] at specific binding sites. Simulating the production of one recognizer member of such ensembles by random point mutations has not been justified nor validated as being biologically conceivable. Instead, an arbitrary proportion of positive and negative integers in the computer program defined how to converge towards a short term goal flawlessly irrespective of any biological selective significance or stochastic effects.

How is chance to know a random mutation would lead towards developing a binding interaction? ‘Rsequence does not tell us anything about the physical mechanism a recognizer uses to contact the nucleic acid.’ [25]

Lacking any intelligence to choose, 3 dimensional shapes on the regulatory protein must be generated to permit the exact binding with a specific DNA sequence, like a well-meshed machine. That is why a methionine-carrying tNRA is able to identify a very short sequence on mRNA, AUG, and position a physically large m-RNA properly at the ribosome complex: it is due to the specialized geometry prepared at the ribosome’s P site. There is nothing biologically remarkable about AUG alone. Crystallographic, molecular modelling and cryo-electron microscopy studies have shed insight as how such feats are possible. Translating an mRNA strand one codon at a time requires the whole ribosome complex to act in a synchronized fashion, aptly described as a rachet-like mechanism[26]. The cell’s survival depends on ribosomes being able to locate the binding sites correctly [27](12).

Exactly how polypeptides are supposed to be able to identify that a location is or will become a useful binding site is deemed irrelevant: ‘As mentioned above, the exact form of the recognition mechanism is immaterial because of the generality of information theory.’ [1] Quite the contrary, for a realistic evolutionary simulation such physical details are critically relevant, and is a fatal oversight in the simulation. It is assumed random point mutations provide half the 64 member population with a 100% effective survival advantage, based on fine tuning of a single type of binding site under development. This is geometrically and thermodynamically unrealistic. Developing such precise binding interactions, one random mutation at a time, has nothing to do with the mathematics of information theory and needs to be quantitatively simulated based on physical realities. Any assumption of recognizable Darwinian selectivity for the intermediate stages needs to be quantitatively justified.

The requirements on recognizer and binding site are generally very stringent a must be close to perfect to be of any use whatsoever [All Emphasis' added by me]

The whole article is very itneresting and exposes just how NON RANDOM these supposed 'random evolutionary models' really are- it takes a great deal of intelligent design infact, and unrealistic biological scenarios, to 'make htese systems work' as 'nature intended' naturalism to function lol

34 posted on 05/08/2009 8:31:07 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

careful, God does not take mocking lightly- just ask those famous people who mocked Him publicly only to die untimely deaths-


35 posted on 05/08/2009 8:32:38 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


36 posted on 05/08/2009 8:43:32 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

What about intellectual honesty on the evo side? Where is the evidence that systems within organisms evolved, let alone the organisms themselves? Before you cast aspersions upon anyone’s integrity, at least explain how say, a kidney or liver evolved, step by step. I’ll be checing back. I don’t believe in evolution b/c it defies common sense and scientific examination.


37 posted on 05/08/2009 9:48:52 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/VertebrateKidneys.html

http://www.hhmi.org/askascientist/answers/how_did_organs_evolve_in_simple_multicellular_organisms_for_example_how_did_the_liver_or_its_pred.html

Please explain in detail step by step how evolution defies scientific examination


38 posted on 05/08/2009 10:44:12 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
PS You never did give me your thoughts on the following re: GA’s...

Yes I did. I said the author doesn't understand GAs. And it's painfully obvious to anyone who's actually programmed them that he is ignorant of how they work. There is no way to "address" his statements since he doesn't even define what a GA is properly; it would make as much sense as me demanding you to address how the spark plugs work in your bicycle.

39 posted on 05/09/2009 2:42:32 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Gen. 5:4 says Adam had other children, sons and daughters, after Seth. How could you miss that?

Chronologically this is after Cain slew Abel and bore Enoch. Where did Cain's wife came from? There is NO mention in the Bible of other children anywhere before Genesis 4:17. In fact, the Bible is VERY explicit in that Adam and Eve do NOT have another child until Genesis 4:25, after Enoch is born.

How can you miss that? Unless you're saying the timeline of the Bible is not exact?

Then what an apostle of Christ wrote at Romans 5:12 fits evolutionary theory?

Yes, yes it does. Evolution is a scientific theory of how man evolved from primates; Romans 5:12 is theology which tells us that once man became aware of God, that first man sinned and caused separation for all men from God.

40 posted on 05/09/2009 2:43:28 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Binghamton_native
To follow up on what GGG said, a further reason for opposition to evolution is that if we deny what Jesus said when referring back to Adam, we are implying that He is a liar. If He were to be a liar, He could not be our Savior.

Sure, it MUST be literal because as we know the Lord never spoke in metaphors or parables...

Maybe the Lord was talking philosophically that since the beginning of human consciousness we have sinned and forsaken God?

If the Bible is exact historically, then explain Cain's wife. It's NOT in the Bible, and there ARE no other children from Adam and Eve until after Seth (which happens after Cain's wife gives birth to Enoch).

Apparently Cain had a wife that was not born or Adam and Eve (if you read the Bible literally). So where did she come from, since there weren't any other people at that time except for Adam, Eve, and Cain?

41 posted on 05/09/2009 2:47:43 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I gave an answer; the article that GGG referenced was nonsensical, as is the Schneider paper you reference. Both articles clearly show a fundamental LACK of understanding of what a Genetic Algorithm is.

If you’d like to really learn - from a pure computer science standpoint - what a GA really is, then I can suggest some excellent textbooks for you. Of course, it does mean you’ll need to just put on your math and programming hats and drop your theological lenses.

Of course, since the Bible makes no mention of computers and programming, perhaps anything to do with either is witchcraft? Are you allowed to even use computers and programs?


42 posted on 05/09/2009 2:51:45 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Be sure to give this link a read too as it points out the ludicrous idea that computer models simulate some supposed imaginary evolutionary process:

But the mathematical models that are used in support of "irreducible complexity" are perfect.

43 posted on 05/09/2009 5:10:41 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

By the logic you’re using there were not any daughters born to Eve nor most every other matriarch in the Bible - at least not until and unless explicitly mentioned. The most ridiculous assertations come from people who don’t truly study God’s Word and then mangle it further trying to interweave it w/ evolution.

Is doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters (Gen 5:4). Were there any daughters born between Cain and Abel or how about Abel and Seth? There must have been which must also imply that when Cain became a wanderer, a sister of his must surely have followed after him at some point.

It would not be considered incest - not as that which is prohibited in the modern day to avoid birth defects - not the same at all when the newly created DNA is perfect and pure. And it would be required for the survival of any species where God created them male and female.

Also have you not heard of a literary device called fast forward? Do you know for certain the chain of events that were happening in Adam and Eve’s lives when Cain settled with his Wife in the land of Nod? Or how about the beginnings of civilization in Gen 4:17-22?

Apparently we are supposed to believe that you failed English and therefore can not distinguish literal text (Gen 1), from metaphors and parables (mostly New Testament stories), symbolics (Revelation), and even fast forwards. Yet you are intelligent enough to understand all the inner-workings of evolution enough to distinguish truth from error.

Listen pal, every book I’ve read on evolution resembles fairy tales using many of the same literary devices much moreso than any truly scientific research text. Have you not noticed any conjecture (and lack of scientific data) in Darwin’s precious Origins book? And let us not forget Darwin’s esteemed educational credentials either!


44 posted on 05/09/2009 7:03:08 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

You don’t really see man as a ‘creator kind’ when he develops any simple program or something as complex as a genetic algorithm?

Computer logic and programming was created to simulate life - in it’s infancy in order to perform repetitious mind-numbing tasks involving math, sorting, filtering, and decision-making - but as our knowledge base grows who knows how close it may come to resemble God’s creation.

But have you not researched DNA/RNA enough to see the logic and coding similarities that God has created for every living breathing creature that He saw fit to create - many operations that happen automatically in just fractions of a second? Every organ being built, repaired, and even rebuilt throughout every second of any creature’s life? The massive communications that occur between the brain (mainframe) and the nervous system (network)?

You can’t have the rich diversity of life we enjoy w/o having an awesome all-thinking, all-seeing, all-powerful God to create it! Let alone the physical infrastructure (earth, solar system, and universe) on which it all life - as we know it - depends!

Your posts show you truly lack imagination enough to let your mind soar when you read God’s Word and try to comprehend the awesome and majestic qualities of the one true God described in the Bible.

Show me any other book written that contains anything approaching the truth and veracity of the statements made in the Bible. No modern archeology has ever refuted one historical fact presented in it. No book can come close to the wisdom either - search the prophecies both fullfilled and yet to be fulfilled (roughly 25% of the Bible is prophecy). Psalm 22 was written approx 1000 years before Christ lived and it describes several prophecies He fulfilled in sacrificing His life on the cross.

Look at the scientific facts that mankind has uncovered that were already simply defined in the Bible (man from dust, water cycle, number of stars in the sky equal to grains of sand on the seashores, descriptions of the monstrous land creature leviathan and behemoth of the sea). See www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml for myriad other examples.


45 posted on 05/09/2009 7:44:32 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[But the mathematical models that are used in support of “irreducible complexity” are perfect.]]

Hmmmm BIG difference between the two issues Tactic- big difference- The mathematics don’t figure in biologically impossible and unrealistic factors like the GA’s do- they simply figure out the naturally probable without comming to some highly improbable conclusions based on assumptions like hte GA’s do as well


46 posted on 05/09/2009 7:57:50 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

[[I gave an answer; the article that GGG referenced was nonsensical, as is the Schneider paper you reference. Both articles clearly show a fundamental LACK of understanding of what a Genetic Algorithm is.]]

LOL- Yep- nonsensicle- just make hte statement, and that’s the end of it- BOTH those articles broke down EXACTLT what was goign on- obviously you didn’t bother to even give htem a read- Your only point was about ‘stop executing’- but BOTH those articles addressed everyhtign you brought up-

[[Of course, since the Bible makes no mention of computers and programming, perhaps anything to do with either is witchcraft? Are you allowed to even use computers and programs?]]

Teee heee heee- look everybody- Puget thinks he’s a smartie because he can ‘insult’ right alongside hte kiddies in the higher classes

You addressed NONE of the points in EITHER article- the points brought up were entirely valid and representative of what GA’s consist of- and htey expose the silly notion that GA’s are representative of anythign even resembling macroevolution- IF your textbooks tell you differently, they are lyign to you and I’ll take a pass on them thank you very much- Stick to your theological GA’s if you like- but as for us- We’ll look at hte ACTUAL DATA and determine that they are unsound from a scientific standpoint-


47 posted on 05/09/2009 8:04:36 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

[[ not the same at all when the newly created DNA is perfect and pure. And it would be required for the survival of any species where God created them male and female.]]

Not to mention that those hwo support the silly notion that GA’s represent natural Macroevolution have NO answer for how chemically pure construcitons can occure from chemical impurity found in nature- Right from the start- Macroevolutionists are defeated based on this FACT alone. Life selects from chemically pure constructions created by The One who could do so- but naturalists are boudn and determined to deny htis and insist nature was capable of taking dirty chemicals and making it pure enough for lifeto exist- Bet the GA’s haven’t been intelligently designed to solve htis little mystery yet- let alone the mystery of Metainformation NEEDED to sustain the fitness of life BEFORE any such ‘reconstruction’ can take place via mutations. Apparently, higher metainformation just ‘poofed into existence’ majically from nothing, and apparently, chemically pure biological constructions just ‘appeared’ magically as well.


48 posted on 05/09/2009 8:29:42 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Cain's wife is one those “other children, one of his sisters likely. Some of those sons and daughters of Gen. 5:4 born earlier.

“In fact, the Bible is VERY explicit in that Adam and Eve do NOT have another child until Genesis 4:25, after Enoch is born.”

Exactly which one of Cain's female relatives became his wife isn't stated or how old he was when he took a wife and fled east. but since he did take a wife there were females, his relatives, alive at the time.

In the book of Romans Paul discusses Adam as a historical individual, not mankind generically, and case as he does Abraham and Sarah. In fact Paul calls Adam the first man in 1 Cor. chapter 15 so there would be no men before Adam to become aware of God and Adam himself was aware of God from his creation.

“Yes, yes it does. Evolution is a scientific theory of how man evolved from primates; Romans 5:12 is theology which tells us that once man became aware of God, that first man sinned and caused separation for all men from God.”

This sort of double-think is described at 1 Kings 18:21.

49 posted on 05/09/2009 9:29:55 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
You mean "authors" plural. And I have yet to see you concretely address either one of them. Rather than post a link, I will post the excerpt in full. Now what about what Dr. Abel's comments with respect to GA's being irrelevant to evolution do you disagree with?

Genetic algorithms are irrelevant to evolution

David Abel, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin of Life Science Foundation

12. What optimizes genetic algorithms?

Computational methods often employ genetic algorithms (GAs). The appeal of GAs is that they are modeled after biological evolution. The latter is the main motivation for tolerating such an inefficient awkward process. The GA search technique begins with a large random pool of representations of “potential solutions.” Genetic algorithms are seen as a subset of evolutionary algorithms and as “evolutionary computation.” The methodology is inspired by modeling a random beginning phase space, various kinds of mutations, inheritance and selection. The experimenter chooses the fittest solutions from each generation out of the “evolving” phase space of potential solutions. The goal of the process is optimization of a certain function.
All too many evolutionary computationists fail to realize the purely formal nature of GA procedures. GAs are not dealing with physicodynamic cause-and-effect chains. First, what is being optimized is a formal representation of meaning and function. A representation of any kind cannot be reduced to inanimate physicality. Second, “potential solutions” are formal, not merely physical entities. Third, at each iteration (generation) a certain portion of the population of potential solutions is deliberately selected by the agent experimenter (artificial selection) to “breed” a new generation. The optimized solution was purposefully pursued at each iteration. The overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal [refs.]. Fourth, a formal fitness function is used to define and measure the fittest solutions thus far to a certain formal problem. The act of defining and measuring, along with just about everything else in the GA procedure, is altogether formal, not physical [refs.].
Despite the appealing similarities of terms like “chromosomes”, GAs have no relevance whatsoever to molecular evolution or gene emergence. Inanimate nature cannot define a fitness function over measures of the quality of representations of solutions. GAs are no model at all of natural process. GAs are nothing more than multiple layers of abstract conceptual engineering. Like language, we may start with a random phase space of alphabetical symbols. But no meaning or function results without deliberate and purposeful selection of letters out of that random phase space.
No abiotic primordial physicodynamic environment could have exercised such programming prowess. Neither physics nor chemistry can dictate formal optimization, any more than physicality itself generates the formal study of physicality. Human epistemological pursuits are formal enterprises of agent minds. Natural process GAs have not been observed to exist. The GAs of living organisms are just metaphysically presupposed to have originated through natural process. We can liberally employ GAs and so-called evolutionary algorithms for all sorts of productive tasks. But GAs cannot be used to model spontaneous life origin through natural process because GAs are formal.


50 posted on 05/09/2009 9:51:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson