[UndauntedR]

if made correctly...if designed correctly...that was the point.

You seem to have a grasp of evolutionary algorithms... unless you mined that information... I'm confounded how you can understand evolutionary algorithms but not understand the natural process the idea came from.

Of coarse DNA is not an example of information theory. There is no information involved. (Pardon the sarcasm)

You said so yourself: "Evolutionary algorithms don't produce anything new, just find different parameters..

x[t+1] = s( v( x[t]) )".

ALL you need to do is let x be an open set (a "population") in the unbound genetic search space, v() be genetic variation (reproduction, mutation, etc), and s() be natural selection. Working in the space, you would not be able to tell me which genotype contains more information... they're all simply points in genetic space. Only the fitness function (which, as you know, is implicitly built into the s() function and, in this case, is completely environment dependent) can give you a sense of "good" and "bad" adaptation - the gradient (slope) of the fitness function (in a billion-dimensional space remember). No "information"... no "new"... Just a simple evolutionary algorithm in an unbound genetic search space with really really complicated v() and s() functions (which are dependent on time and position within the search space).

[FreedomProtector]

I'm sure you must be on the something here....executing a designed heuristic search algorithm that includes designed mathematical abstractions and a designed ("really really complicated") selection operator and a designed ("really really complicated") variation operator on a pre-exisiting designed computer must indeed prove that the world was not designed.

In fact even saved yourself a lot of work....on your next programming assignment, (I enjoyed graduate school as well) when you design coded instructions for specific actions... ....Obtain the use of as many computers as you can (make the search space as big as you want) to randomly type characters....... and then evaluate the random characters via a (designed) fitness algorithm on a pre-existing (designed) computer. If you get computers to generate enough random characters over and over and over again, and keep evaluating them with a "really really complicated" fitness algorithm, over and over again on a machine with pre-existing design and order.. I'm sure that you will eventually have a meaningful program. Given enough time and enough characters, I'm sure that random characters will eventually compile. In fact not only will they compile, they will of coarse create a meaningful program. In addition you should take the existing meaningful programs the computers you are running your heuristic search method on and apply random changes to them. I'm sure this will save you some work as well…..surely you won't introduce any bugs, and of coarse not ones that will crash the system. In fact, I am really confident that you could make multiple beneficial positive random changes in a row by typing random characters, and certainly won't produce any software that will crash from memory corruption or a stray pointer. It will also be beneficial to make random changes to the hardware the software is executing on via static electricity. This will provide external energy so the computer is not a closed system so the hardware can achieve less entropy or disorder. The new software with random changes will of coarse be more better then the existing. The software you design by generating random characters over a large search space will be so good and so fit that it will you are sure to earn an "A". Your professor will be so happy to get a gigantic pile of paper with random characters, or a gigantic stack of burned CDs full of random characters, you will surely get an A.

[grey_whiskers]

Only the fitness function (which, as you know, is implicitly built into the s() function and, in this case, is completely environment dependent) can give you a sense of "good" and "bad" adaptation

I call BS!

To quote from the Hugo-award-winning Science Made Stupid:

"As research has conclusively shown, animals that bore their young dead generally got nowhere."

Anancephaly for example is deleterious for more reasons than "not fitting the environment" -- at least in a layman's sense.

Full Disclosure: Of course, it might've helped if you had given a link, or some source to define the s, and v, and t.

Cheers!