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.
Oh come on now. You corrected your viewpoint about miracles a few posts ago. And models are just that, models. They are incomplete, I repeat, incomplete, "descriptions" of the subject that they address, even if the subject is entirely conceptual, because we have no way of assuring that the model is completely congruent in every way with the concept. So you have attempted to construct a straw man with the computer and program tack.
It seemed to me that that would invalidate any attempt to computer-model natural systems, like storms--at some point, the programmer has to decide what a "storm" is and how he'll know when he's got one.
Show me the model that predicts a storm exactly and I will show you a miracle.
Not wanting to make assumptions about AndrewC's beliefs, I asked if he thought that any natural process happens on its own that way. Apparently he does not.
Not just "apparently", I don't. I stated so. The actual question being, "Do you believe that there's any such thing as an undirected natural process?"
You and I have different concepts of God. God is timeless.
==As I suspected, you are completely disengenuous.
Well, given that it was PSS who challenged the O.P. and subsequent links, and then refused to answer them, other than to say “take my word for it”...let’s just say he appears to be a tad less than candid.
God being timeless, omnipresent, and omnipotent, knew before time began what all of time contained/s. Therefore, nothing "surprises" God since he mandated what would happen even allowing for our "free will".(Now that may run into a religious controversy with others who feel we have no choice in the matter but that aspect I feel is answered in the same fashion)
Hey, I pointed out three specific criticisms of the article, and no one countered those criticisms. If you wish to discount that, so be it.
And if you wish to argue over how a GA operates, then it is incumbent upon YOU to learn how they work first. I see no evidence that you really understand how they operate (much like the author of that article).
So if you don’t understand how they work, and don’t want to learn how they work, why should I try to force you to understand? Wasted effort...
Myopia?
[[Who says we want any particular sequence?]]
Biology says it- if it’s not possible, then it’s not possible
[[That’s only the case if we’re trying to evolve a specific animal—in which case, yes, the odds are small.]]
It’s even worse for evolving life from non life I’m afraid- Everythign after that is ‘evolving a specific animal from previous animal
[[That’s true if you only buy one ticket a week. But if you buy all the tickets each week, it becomes more than probable, it becomes inevitable. Evolution buys a lot of tickets.]]
Lol- ok whatever
[[The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap]]
Assumption and projection/extrapolation- they just dismissed the possibility Macroevolution can be extrapolated from Microevolution, then they, in their undying devotion to a religious ideology, turn right around and make a glaring assumption
[[He plainly states that to two are continuous with notable overlapping,]]
NO Sir! He says ‘probably’, and ‘it’s not so clear’- Again, he leaps from the EVIDENCE to an assumption
[[No amount of slight of hand will fool anybody that you did not take that quote out of context.]]
Tis not I sir that is trying to peddle ASSUMPTIONS as fact/evidence-
Happy Mother’s Day!
All you said is that the authors don’t know what they are talking about, and yet you offered no evidence (that I know of) to demonstrate why. And in those few areas where you explained your understanding of GA’s, as opposed to explaining why the authors are supposedly wrong, you were describing human-level intelligent design, which, according to evolution, has nothing to do with Darwin’s materialist creation myth.
Oh, and no one has addressed the issue of Cain's wife - there are NO other people in the world when Cain slew Abel save for those two, Adam, and Eve. So who did Cain marry? The very next child of Adam and Eve is Seth, who is born AFTER Cain is married and has his own child, Enoch.
I guess that's a Biblical error that will be overlooked for now? Of course, it's only and error and problem if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I would suggest you go and visit BioLogos for a really good site that lays out why Christianity and science are entirely congruent and compatible.
Huh, link didn’t activate... It’s post 66 of this thread.
How do you know what they're factoring in is impossible? You don't, and can't. But you'll say it anyway because it sounds good.
“I still maintain it is possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.”
Well, in that case, I take back some of the stuff I’ve said about you.
“How about this question? Can a person accept evolution without rejecting Christ? A simple yes or no is enough.”
How about this question? Are science and religion different things, mutually exclusive? A simple yes or no is enough.
I was born at night but it was not last night.
I do have basic reading comprehension and I know what Roger Lewin is saying
Just face it you were busted using a quote mine that you thought I would not know.
You are only making it worse; we both know that all science is based on assumptions. You can never prove a scientific theory you can only disprove it.
Nice try.
Usually are different things but NO, not mutually exclusive.
O.K., your turn and if you care to elaborate, that’s o.k. too.
No you made a general statement about the author "that he is ignorant of how they work." You said it was obvious. Later you presented links as some sort of support for what you stated. I quoted the site to show that intelligence is required.
I'm not arguing about how genetic algorithms work. I'm arguing that a genetic algorithm is in the same class as the "To be or not to be" program I cited in post 65. The solution/search/state space is exactly the same for it as any other genetic algorithm for that particular problem. It just goes about finding the "fit" ones in an overtly obvious way.
So Cain was referring to Adam and Eve here?
14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
I think science and religion are two different things that are mutually exclusive. One’s scientific views generally have no reliable bearing on one’s religious views.
Folks that mix them are really having a different argument - fundamentalist Christianity vs. non-fundamentalist Christianity.
The exception, of course, is creationism - a sect of fundamentalism that is anti-science, yet seeks to use science to advance their dogma. They claim faith, but need some sort of scientific proof that God exists.
I won’t go to what creationists need but it appears they oppose the ideas of Darwinism instead of science per se.
Yes, I know, but there is false science or science elevated to religious belief too.
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.