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.
[[You are only making it worse; we both know that all science is based on assumptions.]]
No- assumptions are based on assumptions- science is based on evidence
[[Just face it you were busted using a quote mine that you thought I would not know.]]
Not hardly- the statements stand on their own merrit- they say exactly what they say- period-
lol silly little assumption driven charts- Macroevolution is impossible- aint ya heard the news? Chemically, biologically, and mathematically, not to mention it violates the second law- not just in a few instances or singular events’ but in trillions of steps- no amount of ‘singular examples of static instances’ such as ice crystal formations will overcome these impossibilities either-
Hey- I set a round rock next to an orange the other day and by golly they looked similar too- spose they too evolved one from another? Homology is NOT an evolutionist’s best friend I’m afraid
I take it you pilferred those charts from coyoteman?
Which shows you do NOT understand genetic algorithms - implementation or application. You say you're a programmer, go and LEARN about them. I've posted excellent references to them, and on that Java site there are even code samples you can examine to disabuse yourself of your notions about GAs.
It's really fruitless to argue about GAs; you don't understand them, you admit you don't understand them, and apparently you have no desire to understand them.
Tell me who else existed at the time Cain slew Abel, other than Cain, Abel, Adam and Eve. Please. There is NO record.
Short of showing where anyone is born between Abel and Enoch, you have NO choice but to admit the Bible is lacking in details and is NOT a historically accurate recording of what happened.
Then you do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. Please tell us what you think it is, and why it is being violated.
Better yet, why don’t you tell us all how static non living systems such as Ice crystals and metal and mineral formations allow for serious violations of the second law trillions of times- we need a good laugh here-
I must warn you- Tim Wallace made a scientist run away crying and whining about ‘being bullied’ because the scientist couldn’t defend his silly notion that static non dynamic systems and an ‘open system’ were conducive to life seriously violating the second law not just a couple of times, but literally trillions of times when there are NO excamples of dynamic systems violating hte second law in nature. If you wish to try to advance the silly notion that life ‘could have’ violated the second law, I’ll be more than happy to indulge your sense of self-inflicted abuse. Care to engage?
==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.
I believe AndrewC answered your question just fine.
But you have still not addressed my answer to your question. You asked:
==So, give me the Biblically-based reason why evolution cannot be.
I replied:
Jesus Christ said we were made both male and female at the beginning of creation. We can’t be made both male and female at the beginning of creation and evolution be true at the same time. The Bible also says death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. Evolution, on the other hand, requires that death has been present since the beginning of life.
PS you have yet to demonstrate why the O.P. and the David Abel link are invalid.
[[Then you do not understand the second law of thermodynamics.]]
LOL- You might want to try another line of Macroevolutionist parroting talking points- Trust me, Creationists understand it far better than those silly scientists who insist life could have violated the law- Hint- Open systems are even WORSE for your side’s claims- NOT better.
As well, it was suggested that mathematics ‘couldn’t factor in all possible angles when determining whether or not species could evolve’ (I think it was tactic logic that suggested that) and it was suggested that ‘If you bought all possible combinations of hte lottery numbers every day of the week, you could win hte lotto every day’ and apaprently they htought this was representative of Macroevolution evidently because nature throws a myriad of mutations at a species, and htis is supposed to be equivilent of buying all or most combinations of numbers of hte lottery to ‘increase the chance of winning’ (or getting it right’- however, this is a silly silly notion because akin to claiming that static examples of negative entropy equate to dynamic violations of hte law- Mutations are NOT ‘buying combinations of numbers’ in a word as they are ADDING noise, causing LOSS of information, NOT adding legible info of non species specific info that is absolutely required for the hypothetical process of Macroevolution- the anaology between species Macroevolution and lottory tickets is a rediculous analogy (and one that the fella in the link I provided should not have really used except to show, although inneptly, that hte odds are overwhelming against mutaitons adding any non species specific info necessary for macroevolution)
I find it odd that macroevolutionists cling to such overwhelming odds agaisnt their hypothesis, and hten turn right aroudn and claim Creationists practice ‘faith and not science’- but whetver, think what ya like, just don’t expect us to sit silently when such faith in overhwelming odds agaisnt the hypothesis of Macroevolution is on display- Especially in the face of a complete lack of real world evidence supporting such overwhelming odds. And we’re talking/asking for just a few examples of real world evidences, and they can’t even provide those- Yet we’re to beleive the odds were beaten not just a few times, but literally trillions of times? Talk abotu devotion to a religion!
The second law of thermodynamics states for a closed system; in an open system entropy is not reduced. A good example of this would be a volcanic mountain range. The energy from the core of the earth continues to add to the volcano over time, causing multiple eruption events that continue to build the mountain range.
There’s an example, and one that uses a non living system, to show now it builds and expands on itself over time given additional energy input.
Your turn, tell us how the second law negates the theory of evolution.
AndrewC made up words and facts that do NOT exist in the Bible, so that he can resolve the inconsistencies within. And that is your answer to the problem about Cain's wife? To make up stuff?
How is that different than the theory of evolution, to you?
Jesus Christ said we were made both male and female at the beginning of creation. We can’t be made both male and female at the beginning of creation and evolution be true at the same time.
Please show where the theory of evolution says that mammalian species must arise asexual in nature!
The Bible also says death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. Evolution, on the other hand, requires that death has been present since the beginning of life.
The Bible also states that Cain married a woman who didn't exist.
PS you have yet to demonstrate why the O.P. and the David Abel link are invalid.
Please see post 66 in this same thread. If you choose not to learn about GAs, that's your problem, not mine. But any programmer who's ever used GAs will discount anything you say about GAs if you use Abel's work because it shows a complete lack of understanding of GAs.
Yet I notice that, for all your bluster and bravado, you do not define the second law, nor state how it is violated by the theory of evolution!
Please state how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated by the theory of evolution.
==AndrewC made up words and facts that do NOT exist in the Bible, so that he can resolve the inconsistencies within.
I didn’t see AndrewC making anything up. He merely quoted Gen 4:14 to demonstrate that the Bible clearly states that there were others around who Cain thought might slay him.
==And that is your answer to the problem about Cain’s wife?
I really don’t see a problem. Adam and Eve had other children:
Gen. 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.
Is it really your contention that Adam and Eve did not have any more children between the time Cain and Abel were born and Cain’s murder of Abel? They could have had a dozen or more children by the time Cain and Abel were grown up.
==Please show where the theory of evolution says that mammalian species must arise asexual in nature!
Hmmm...so you won’t accept the rest of the biblical creation account, but in order to save evolution you will accept that God specially created us male and female right from the beginning?
==The Bible also states that Cain married a woman who didn’t exist.
Boy, you sure are willing to twist the Bible in order to allow for Darwin’s materialist creation myth.
==Please see post 66 in this same thread. If you choose not to learn about GAs, that’s your problem, not mine. But any programmer who’s ever used GAs will discount anything you say about GAs if you use Abel’s work because it shows a complete lack of understanding of GAs.
Somehow I doubt that Abel lacks a thorough understanding of how GSs work:
Dr. David Abel:
University of Maryland (C.P.), Virginia Tech (Blacksburg), University of Georgia (Athens) Doctorate 1972
Research interests: Dr. David L. Abel is a theoretical biologist focusing on ProtoBioCybernetics. He is the Program Director of The Gene Emergence Project, an international consortium of scientists pursuing the natural-process derivation of initial biocybernetic/biosemiotic programming and control.
You keep stating that without addressing the arguments. It was your citation to genetic algorithms which states that these programs are searches through solution space. The program I listed does that albeit in a fashion which seems to bother you. Simply, its selection criteria is that only "solutions" having an intial "T" are selected to pass on to be tested for the second letter "O" and so on. The programmer cheats since he does not check for spaces, but that really would be another solution space. The fact that the "genetic" algorithm bothers you(it uses "elitism") does not make it different in class then what you consider a genetic algorithm. I stated this before and you have failed to see it, so this time I will put it in all caps so that you can hardly miss it.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN TOUTED THIS PROGRAM AS SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION.
NOw did you see that? You got a problem with it, argue with Scientific American. The real point being is that the solution space is generated by the programmer
I don't have to tell you that since it is your assertion that no one else exists. He could have been Elmer Fudd, but that would make no difference. By your reckoning, nothing is a historically accurate recording of what happened, since they don't list all persons names.
Put up or shut up.
Cain's wife was born of Adam and Eve; that is your assertion.
Enjoy!
Scientific is hardly a bastion of computer programming! In this area they are simply wrong.
You’re a programmer, go and learn. If you choose to remain ignorant, I see no reason to continue.
Is it really your contention that Adam and Eve did not have any more children between the time Cain and Abel were born and Cain’s murder of Abel? They could have had a dozen or more children by the time Cain and Abel were grown up.
If you take a strict reading of the Bible, then yes my contention is that Adam and Eve did not have any children between the birth of Abel and the birth of Seth. Genesis 5:4 is unequivocal. AFTER the birth of Seth, Adam lived for 800 years AND he had more children. NOT before the birth of Seth, AFTER the birth of Seth.
The structure of the verse is simple and direct, and there cannot be any question about the timing in that single verse.
If your premise is that Adam and Eve had children after Abel but before Cain slew Abel, then the Bible leaves those facts out. That much we can agree on?
And if the Bible leaves such facts out, then why do you reject the notion that the Bible leaves out some of the scientific details about how Creation may have happened?
Somehow I doubt that Abel lacks a thorough understanding of how GSs work:
Yes, Dr. Abel, a biologist is the authority on genetic algorithms and genetic programming. Wonderful to know such a degree conveys such a wide range of knowledge!
I am sure you will readily accept Dr. Francis Collins as a respected and solid biologist. He's a devoted Christian convert, a world-wide leader in genetics, and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner (from George W. Bush).
Perhaps the fact he also is a supporter of the theory of evolution makes him a whackjob in your mind?
I will say it again; we both know that all of science is based on assumptions
You can never prove a scientific theory you can only disprove it.
Repeating the same fallacy over and over again does not make it true.
As far as the thermodynamics misconception please see my post # 50 in this thread
· “You really need to brush up on your talking points
Even one of GGG’s favorite web sites “Creation Minstries International” is advising against using the Thermodynamics argument.
This is listed under “Arguments we think creationist should not use”
‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.’ This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
You seem to overlook the fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not.
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.