[[Notice his use of the phrase “the desired outcome”—that right there betrays his assumption that the purpose of a GA is to produce a particular outcome rather than just some functional outcome.]]
Good golly- th4e only thing it exposes is the fact that the programs aren’t random as are claimed- That is the whole premise of his points-
[[ Some GAs are aimed at a specific result—like his example, Dawkins’s “weasel” sentence generator—but many are just aimed at finding *a* solution or *the best* solution without defining in advance what that is.]]
Not “A” solution but “THE BEST solution- which makes them absolutely not representative of nature- end of story- Next point?
[[I also see that in Batten’s essay, he says “Note that we are *not* saying that mutations and natural selection *cannot* generate information.” He seems not to share your belief that new information is impossible.]]
A generation of CHANGED informaiton is NOT a generation of NEW information-
[[Yes, the writer of the algorithm has to define what “fitness” consists of—in evolution, nature defines what “fitness” consists of by changing the environment (mostly). It’s possible that Batten doesn’t understand the distinction between a “desired outcome” in the sense of a predefined result, and a “desired outcome” in the sense of “anything that works.” But it’s an important distinction and one often overlooked by creationists.]]
You missed again the whole crux of issue- that GA’s are directed intelligence programs which have to rely on unrealistic environments in order to direct a process to produce insignificant pattern results which in no way coem even close to hte compelxities of nature’s designs.
Tired of pointing htis out- if you have valid criticisms, then present them- otherwise you’re doing nothign but trying to explain away the design of the programs and the unrealistic environments and artificial inflations intended to produce predetermiend outcomes. ALL of the points/problems have been dealt with- I’ll not continue re-explaning it over and over again as it seems that you can’t grasp the seriousness of the problems associated with the programs- not being belittlign here- but you’re tryign to salvage a borken vessel that went down long ago.
>> Tired of pointing htis out- if you have valid criticisms,
I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to be belittling either, but just like when we were talking about the geological dates, you’re proving yourself incapable of understanding the criticisms I’m making. This will be my last attempt:
1. If I ask you to flip a coin until you get five heads in a row, I have set a desired outcome. You will eventually achieve that outcome. That does not mean the algorithm isn’t random. It does not mean the process is directed.
2. “Generate” means “to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.” When Batten says, “we are *not* saying that mutations and natural selection *cannot* generate information,” he’s talking about NEW information, by the very meaning of the words.
3. >>Not “A” solution but “THE BEST solution- which makes them absolutely not representative of nature- end of story
Umm...because you say so?