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.
Since when have I misrepresented how they work? You have agreed with nearly every aspect that I presented. They terminate. The criteria is human determined. And the modifications of the population are determined by the human in the form of weights to individual parameters. I also have presented the viewpoint of Monash University. So I am not misrepresenting what Genetic algorithms are, since you agree with what I have stated about the selection/termination process.
Anyway your link to the genetic algorithm shows you what I am saying.
For NP-problems is characteristic that some simple algorithm to find a solution is obvious at a first sight - just trying all possible solutions.
See the word solutions in there? They get in that space somehow. Other things are not solutions. They are excluded somehow.
Again you are showing a basic misunderstanding of how science and within that evolution work.
The hard evidence you are looking for is contained in the fossil record.
As far as the spider question this might help explain that process.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081231130944.htm
It appears that most of your doubts regarding evolution are based on many commonly held misconceptions.
“When Charles Darwin first explained the matter, many people either wouldn’t or couldn’t grasp it. I myself flatly refused to believe Darwin’s theory when I first heard about it as a child. Almost everybody throughout history, up to the second half of the nineteenth century, has firmly believed in the opposite - the Conscious Designer theory. Many people still do, perhaps because the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education. It is certainly very widely misunderstood”. ~ Richard Dawkins
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/dawkinsblindwatchmaker.doc
It is a scientific theory that states that “Electrons *must* exist to balance the charge of an atom” and that theory is accepted because to date it has not been disproved.
Your arguments against evolution have provided no information to disprove the theory
In fact each question you have asked I was able the use the google and find a scientific explanation with in a matter of minutes
The theory of evolution does not state that mammals ever existed with out internal organs or a skeletal system. Those systems came about long before mammals appeared on the scene
Do you believe that there's any such thing as an undirected natural process? Formation of a planet, formation of a storm, development of an embryo?
If so, do you think there's any valid way to model that process with a computer, or do you think any such effort would be flawed by the fact that the programmers had the goal of a storm or a birth in mind and weighted things that way?
So what part of the theory of evolution involves a creator that intervenes in the physical world?
In deed, the theory of evolution attempts to describe all life and its origin WITHOUT reference to an intelligent creator.
“Fundamentally, I believe the Bible is NOT a canonical, exhaustive historical record. It is a relationship manual, telling us about our (humans) relationship with God from the past, why God wants that relationship, how He forgives, and how we can enter into relationship with Him.”
Without an Adam as a real person who committed a real sin what need is there of a Christ as a sacrifice?
That is a rather simple and basic teaching of Christianity.
Christ didn't die for metaphor and simile.
“It is when we elevate the written words of the Bible above the message - when we only accept it as an inerrant, literal word-for-word gift from God (much like Muslims hold the Koran) that we lose the majesty that is the Bible. The words themselves aren't relevant; the meanings the convey are.”
The message is expressed by the words. If the words are off, erroneous, dubious, what message from them are we going to get?
When Jesus said, “Your word is truth”, part of that “word”, message, was the Genesis account.
We take very different views of the Scriptures.
[[1. The author claims that GAs are “inefficient awkward process”, when in fact they are the MOST efficient means of solving and optimizing open-solution-set multi-variable solution space problems.]]
Non relevent as to whether they represent nature or not- Next objection?
[[Where else do your chromosomes come from? Biology tells us there’s only two sources, and that’s what GAs use. So here the author tells us he doesn’t understand how GAs even work.]]
You’ve misinterpreted what the author was speakign about- He’s speakign about ‘cause and effect’ not where an intelligently designed computer program ‘gets it’s chromosomes from
[[3. The author states that the “overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal” both of which are false.]]
Really? Mutations have goals? Hmmm- first I’ve ever heard of htis
[[The theory of evolution claims that evolutionary forces have a goal of higher survivability of the entity (rates higher in its fitness function, in the GA world).]]
Do you not see that htis woudl REQUIRE prior metainformaiton IF this were true? Evolution has no goal- it coudl care less if a species dies or survives-
[[Clearly the author doesn’t understand how GAs are rated and scored after each generation, and how natural selection - the fittest tend to (but not always) survive better than the weakest - does in fact mimic the theory of evolution.]]
Oh they do understand it just fine- you’re just stubbornly denying it
No.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Psa 139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light [are] both alike [to thee].
Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well.
Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Psa 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.
Psa 139:17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
speaking of storms, weathermen are reviled to this day for being inaccurate. even with advanced computers, radar imaging, real-time data from numerous sources, and years of study they still can’t tell us with %100 certainty that it will or will not rain tomorrow. the reason being that even with all of that help they still lack all of the data necessary to model it all accurately.
does that mean that modern meteorology is flawed and we must start from scratch? no. we just need more data points to create better predictions.
[[and that shows his ignorance of how GAs work! GAs, in fact, model the same “physicodynamic” (usually called physiodyanmic) realm as genes in that genes consist of chromosomes you get from either your parents or a mutation.]]
To clear up your misconception of what the author was stating (which resulted in an innappropriate xriticism of the author)- He is stating that you can NOT have Natural process GA’s- As hte author points out, and as I have pointed out previously, Metyainformation is just taken for granted- as htough it poofed out of thin air- This results in ‘formal GA’s’ GA’s that work on an existing set of blueprints (Which I will point out are invovled in the ability of metainformaiton to be forward looking and anticipating problems down the road). This is why Computer Algorithms can not model physiodynamic ‘cause and effect’ from a purely natural standpoint- The authors of such programs are Johnny-come-lately’ inventors that take hte info already present, and figure out hte problems IN ADVANCE, and INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN (anticipate for) for these problems- Negating the actual supposed ‘natural process’ of the hypothetical Macroevolutionary process. As the auhor points out, meaning and function are already precoded into GA’s and do NOT represent nature as chemicals and simpel cells would not have the ability to form their own meaning and function from scratch
“But no meaning or function results without deliberate and purposeful selection of letters out of that random phase space.”
I’m afraid you’ve either misunderstood what the author was talking about, or you’ve misrepresented what he was saying- either way, your objections are not relevent to the issues he discussed I’m afraid. GA’s are an innefficient and awkward process when trying to replicate actual nature for hte reasons the author pointed out in the following paragraphs- the author was not saying they are innefficent and awkward in other applications, and infact stated so further down
We are very very far from completely agreeing. I took the time to read your home page. Somewhat impressive except that while you pay much homage to our founding fathers you completely ignore any reference to the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our republic is founded. After reading your treatise I’m left wondering just where you think true morals and ethics originate. You seem to go out of your way to twist yourself into all kinds of pretzel logic instead of coming to the simple and straightforward truths.
When I said Cain’s wife must have been a sister that was a logical inference from what is in the text. What you said was simply adding something that is not found in the text. Had you not read in Gen 3:20 that Eve is the mother of all mankind?
You do the same thing w/ evolution - no where in the Bible is evolution ever something one could logically infer. God said plainly that he created each kind of creature male and female and the creation was accomplished in 6 24 hour days - no long epochs and no single life form to spawn all other kinds. Anything else is adding to or subtracting from the Holy Words (see Revelation 22:18 for a warning about this).
Evolution does not point to an even more powerful God - most think it points to no God at all! Is it not even more stupendous that He accomplished all the work of creation - we’re talking about the entire universe here - in 6 days. Also the diversity of life we see now as a result of micro-evolution of the several original kinds over less than 6 thousand years?
You are simply all too willing to give science credit where little if any real proof has been shown. Do you have any idea how many have abandoned their faith due to the teachings of Darwin, evolution, and long ages of the earth and universe?
No.
So just to be clear: you believe a storm can only form if God takes direct action at the time of its formation--it's not enough that He set up rules for things like that to run themselves as He saw fit. Is that accurate?
If you don't believe in undirected natural processes, then obviously you don't believe computers can model them--computers can't model something that doesn't exist. It seems to me that renders your opinion of genetic algorithms in particular rather moot--certainly GAs would be no better than anything else at doing the impossible.
No. God is timeless. God is omnipresent. God is omnipotent.
Sure it can. You aren't implying that the game "Doom" does not exist? Or are you implying that the characters and the world of "Doom" does exist? How about Dr. Freeman and "Half-life"?
“Also the diversity of life we see now as a result of micro-evolution of the several original kinds over less than 6 thousand years?”
While biologists do draw a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution it really is a distinction without much difference. Or to put it another way, the distinction is a rather artificial one imposed by biologists. The simple answer is that the process at work in macro-evolution is precisely the same one at work in micro-evolution. So to say I believe micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution may sound erudite to the uneducated,…………it is like saying I believe in molecules, but not in atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons. ~ Steve Verdon
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/micro-evolution_vs_macro-evolution/
“You are simply all too willing to give science credit where little if any real proof has been shown. Do you have any idea how many have abandoned their faith due to the teachings of Darwin, evolution, and long ages of the earth and universe?”
Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true — which is not in doubt, because if we didn’t have ancestors, then we wouldn’t be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. [...]
I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific — crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true — science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith ~ Henery Gee
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/04/wittlessly-quote-mining.html
I have never lost my faith. I am a Christian and I accecpt the theory of evolution.
The evidence supporting it are simply too strong to ignore.
Not disagreeing with you there. But I wasn't trying to ask a trick question. Do you believe a storm can develop without the real-time intervention of God or not? This is what I meant by "undirected." Of course all things are "directed" by God in the most general sense. But do you agree there's a difference between a miracle--the result of a hand-on intervention--and something like a storm? Or is God pulling strings all the time?
I don't think I'd call that "modeling."
That is a meaningless question. God is not constrained by time. He makes/made/will make/has made/etc. storms when we see them occur. We sense time. We sense pain. We are here and not there. God is omnipresent.
What do you consider a miracle? Life turns water into wine each and every day. Life turns non-life into life every day. How does it do that?
Well, I do. A concept is a mental construct.
Modeling - definition.
5. the representation, often mathematical, of a process, concept, or operation of a system, often implemented by a computer program.
Welcome to the most extensive unofficial Doom3 technology knowledge database on the web. You'll find everything you need regarding level editing, modeling, animations, scripting, shaders, particles, physics, tweaking, performance tips, tech support, NVIDIA, Intel Dual or Quad CPU support, editor issues...
Macro-evolution (organic evolution) has never been observed. The coding process of DNA simply doesn’t allow for macro changes. Have you researched Mendel’s Law too? Artificial distinction - NOT!
‘Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution.
Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal” (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity...
Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.’ ~ Dr. Walt Brown PhD
Dr. Brown worked as an evolutionary scientist as well. He simply loved the integrity of science enough to abandon a theory that is full of so many illogical constructs and outright falsifications. His online book is free at www.creationscience.com or can also be purchased in hardback copy for a nominal fee.
I don't think it is. I think you're waxing philosophical or theological in a way that obscures a real difference. Life turns water into wine through well understood, manipulable, controllable, repeatable physical processes. Miracles don't work that way. I understand that it may be all the same to God, but as participants in the physical world He created, I think the difference between things that just happen because of the actions of His physical laws, and things that require a violation or suspension of those laws, is a valid one.
To add to your comment on Macroevolution- Macroevolution ADDS NON Species specific information- MICROEvolution works on Species specific information- it has to- mutations can noly work on information that is already present and coded for- Macroevolution however MUST add non species specific information to ‘move a species beyond it’s own specific kind’ (in time)
Macroevolution doesn’t require mutaitons- mutations do NOT produce non species specific ifnormation. Macroevolution NEEDS lateral gene transference from another entirely different species to “ADD the info that is absolutely necessary IF a species is to gain the non species specific info necessary to move beyond it’s own kind” This is a VERY important key distinction between the two processes- again, Mutatiosn can noly work on info already present
Species have very specific, species specific paramters that limit the amount of change they can undergo- they can only undergo change within these very specific paramters, because hte coding simply is not present to create the necessary macroevolving changes needed for megaevolution- We know htese parameters exist after centuries of experiments and tests, which failed to EVER add non species specific info outside of hte parameters of specific species.
Simply, Altering genetic info via mutation, bound by species specific paramters, can never produce new non species specific info- it can only simply change info already present within the parameters of the code already present-
In order for non specieis specific info to be introduced though, the species MUST have the metainformation ALREADY present in order to deal with the invasion of non species specific info- As I mentioend in past posts, it’s not enough to simply suggest that a cell changes, you MUST explain how these singular changes affect ALL systems within the species- IF the species doesn’t have the metainformation to deal with these intrusions of non species specific info, the species will NOT remain fit, and will break down- simply htrowing NEW non species specific info into the fray is like throwing random noise into a finely tuned computer program and expecting it to ‘just work itself out’ without any higher metainformation controlling and conducting the noise in a meaningful manner- you MUST have the metainformation present BEFORE attempting to introduce NEW non species specific info, and htis introduction of NEW non species specific info is hte ONLY way a species can ‘break their species specific parameters, and move beyond their own kinds’
Simple adaptions as seen in microevolution do NOT have the capability of introducing new non species specific info OR to move a species beyond it’s own specific metainformation controlled parameters
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.