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.
Sure, it MUST be literal because as we know the Lord never spoke in metaphors or parables...
Maybe the Lord was talking philosophically that since the beginning of human consciousness we have sinned and forsaken God?
If the Bible is exact historically, then explain Cain's wife. It's NOT in the Bible, and there ARE no other children from Adam and Eve until after Seth (which happens after Cain's wife gives birth to Enoch).
Apparently Cain had a wife that was not born or Adam and Eve (if you read the Bible literally). So where did she come from, since there weren't any other people at that time except for Adam, Eve, and Cain?
I gave an answer; the article that GGG referenced was nonsensical, as is the Schneider paper you reference. Both articles clearly show a fundamental LACK of understanding of what a Genetic Algorithm is.
If you’d like to really learn - from a pure computer science standpoint - what a GA really is, then I can suggest some excellent textbooks for you. Of course, it does mean you’ll need to just put on your math and programming hats and drop your theological lenses.
Of course, since the Bible makes no mention of computers and programming, perhaps anything to do with either is witchcraft? Are you allowed to even use computers and programs?
But the mathematical models that are used in support of "irreducible complexity" are perfect.
By the logic you’re using there were not any daughters born to Eve nor most every other matriarch in the Bible - at least not until and unless explicitly mentioned. The most ridiculous assertations come from people who don’t truly study God’s Word and then mangle it further trying to interweave it w/ evolution.
Is doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters (Gen 5:4). Were there any daughters born between Cain and Abel or how about Abel and Seth? There must have been which must also imply that when Cain became a wanderer, a sister of his must surely have followed after him at some point.
It would not be considered incest - not as that which is prohibited in the modern day to avoid birth defects - not the same at all when the newly created DNA is perfect and pure. And it would be required for the survival of any species where God created them male and female.
Also have you not heard of a literary device called fast forward? Do you know for certain the chain of events that were happening in Adam and Eve’s lives when Cain settled with his Wife in the land of Nod? Or how about the beginnings of civilization in Gen 4:17-22?
Apparently we are supposed to believe that you failed English and therefore can not distinguish literal text (Gen 1), from metaphors and parables (mostly New Testament stories), symbolics (Revelation), and even fast forwards. Yet you are intelligent enough to understand all the inner-workings of evolution enough to distinguish truth from error.
Listen pal, every book I’ve read on evolution resembles fairy tales using many of the same literary devices much moreso than any truly scientific research text. Have you not noticed any conjecture (and lack of scientific data) in Darwin’s precious Origins book? And let us not forget Darwin’s esteemed educational credentials either!
You don’t really see man as a ‘creator kind’ when he develops any simple program or something as complex as a genetic algorithm?
Computer logic and programming was created to simulate life - in it’s infancy in order to perform repetitious mind-numbing tasks involving math, sorting, filtering, and decision-making - but as our knowledge base grows who knows how close it may come to resemble God’s creation.
But have you not researched DNA/RNA enough to see the logic and coding similarities that God has created for every living breathing creature that He saw fit to create - many operations that happen automatically in just fractions of a second? Every organ being built, repaired, and even rebuilt throughout every second of any creature’s life? The massive communications that occur between the brain (mainframe) and the nervous system (network)?
You can’t have the rich diversity of life we enjoy w/o having an awesome all-thinking, all-seeing, all-powerful God to create it! Let alone the physical infrastructure (earth, solar system, and universe) on which it all life - as we know it - depends!
Your posts show you truly lack imagination enough to let your mind soar when you read God’s Word and try to comprehend the awesome and majestic qualities of the one true God described in the Bible.
Show me any other book written that contains anything approaching the truth and veracity of the statements made in the Bible. No modern archeology has ever refuted one historical fact presented in it. No book can come close to the wisdom either - search the prophecies both fullfilled and yet to be fulfilled (roughly 25% of the Bible is prophecy). Psalm 22 was written approx 1000 years before Christ lived and it describes several prophecies He fulfilled in sacrificing His life on the cross.
Look at the scientific facts that mankind has uncovered that were already simply defined in the Bible (man from dust, water cycle, number of stars in the sky equal to grains of sand on the seashores, descriptions of the monstrous land creature leviathan and behemoth of the sea). See www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml for myriad other examples.
[[But the mathematical models that are used in support of “irreducible complexity” are perfect.]]
Hmmmm BIG difference between the two issues Tactic- big difference- The mathematics don’t figure in biologically impossible and unrealistic factors like the GA’s do- they simply figure out the naturally probable without comming to some highly improbable conclusions based on assumptions like hte GA’s do as well
[[I gave an answer; the article that GGG referenced was nonsensical, as is the Schneider paper you reference. Both articles clearly show a fundamental LACK of understanding of what a Genetic Algorithm is.]]
LOL- Yep- nonsensicle- just make hte statement, and that’s the end of it- BOTH those articles broke down EXACTLT what was goign on- obviously you didn’t bother to even give htem a read- Your only point was about ‘stop executing’- but BOTH those articles addressed everyhtign you brought up-
[[Of course, since the Bible makes no mention of computers and programming, perhaps anything to do with either is witchcraft? Are you allowed to even use computers and programs?]]
Teee heee heee- look everybody- Puget thinks he’s a smartie because he can ‘insult’ right alongside hte kiddies in the higher classes
You addressed NONE of the points in EITHER article- the points brought up were entirely valid and representative of what GA’s consist of- and htey expose the silly notion that GA’s are representative of anythign even resembling macroevolution- IF your textbooks tell you differently, they are lyign to you and I’ll take a pass on them thank you very much- Stick to your theological GA’s if you like- but as for us- We’ll look at hte ACTUAL DATA and determine that they are unsound from a scientific standpoint-
[[ not the same at all when the newly created DNA is perfect and pure. And it would be required for the survival of any species where God created them male and female.]]
Not to mention that those hwo support the silly notion that GA’s represent natural Macroevolution have NO answer for how chemically pure construcitons can occure from chemical impurity found in nature- Right from the start- Macroevolutionists are defeated based on this FACT alone. Life selects from chemically pure constructions created by The One who could do so- but naturalists are boudn and determined to deny htis and insist nature was capable of taking dirty chemicals and making it pure enough for lifeto exist- Bet the GA’s haven’t been intelligently designed to solve htis little mystery yet- let alone the mystery of Metainformation NEEDED to sustain the fitness of life BEFORE any such ‘reconstruction’ can take place via mutations. Apparently, higher metainformation just ‘poofed into existence’ majically from nothing, and apparently, chemically pure biological constructions just ‘appeared’ magically as well.
“In fact, the Bible is VERY explicit in that Adam and Eve do NOT have another child until Genesis 4:25, after Enoch is born.”
Exactly which one of Cain's female relatives became his wife isn't stated or how old he was when he took a wife and fled east. but since he did take a wife there were females, his relatives, alive at the time.
In the book of Romans Paul discusses Adam as a historical individual, not mankind generically, and case as he does Abraham and Sarah. In fact Paul calls Adam the first man in 1 Cor. chapter 15 so there would be no men before Adam to become aware of God and Adam himself was aware of God from his creation.
“Yes, yes it does. Evolution is a scientific theory of how man evolved from primates; Romans 5:12 is theology which tells us that once man became aware of God, that first man sinned and caused separation for all men from God.”
This sort of double-think is described at 1 Kings 18:21.
12. What optimizes genetic algorithms?
Computational methods often employ genetic algorithms (GAs). The appeal of GAs is that they are modeled after biological evolution. The latter is the main motivation for tolerating such an inefficient awkward process. The GA search technique begins with a large random pool of representations of “potential solutions.” Genetic algorithms are seen as a subset of evolutionary algorithms and as “evolutionary computation.” The methodology is inspired by modeling a random beginning phase space, various kinds of mutations, inheritance and selection. The experimenter chooses the fittest solutions from each generation out of the “evolving” phase space of potential solutions. The goal of the process is optimization of a certain function.
All too many evolutionary computationists fail to realize the purely formal nature of GA procedures. GAs are not dealing with physicodynamic cause-and-effect chains. First, what is being optimized is a formal representation of meaning and function. A representation of any kind cannot be reduced to inanimate physicality. Second, “potential solutions” are formal, not merely physical entities. Third, at each iteration (generation) a certain portion of the population of potential solutions is deliberately selected by the agent experimenter (artificial selection) to “breed” a new generation. The optimized solution was purposefully pursued at each iteration. The overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal [refs.]. Fourth, a formal fitness function is used to define and measure the fittest solutions thus far to a certain formal problem. The act of defining and measuring, along with just about everything else in the GA procedure, is altogether formal, not physical [refs.].
Despite the appealing similarities of terms like “chromosomes”, GAs have no relevance whatsoever to molecular evolution or gene emergence. Inanimate nature cannot define a fitness function over measures of the quality of representations of solutions. GAs are no model at all of natural process. GAs are nothing more than multiple layers of abstract conceptual engineering. Like language, we may start with a random phase space of alphabetical symbols. But no meaning or function results without deliberate and purposeful selection of letters out of that random phase space.
No abiotic primordial physicodynamic environment could have exercised such programming prowess. Neither physics nor chemistry can dictate formal optimization, any more than physicality itself generates the formal study of physicality. Human epistemological pursuits are formal enterprises of agent minds. Natural process GAs have not been observed to exist. The GAs of living organisms are just metaphysically presupposed to have originated through natural process. We can liberally employ GAs and so-called evolutionary algorithms for all sorts of productive tasks. But GAs cannot be used to model spontaneous life origin through natural process because GAs are formal.
I've programmed computers since 1965. It is not obvious to me that he is ignorant of how they work. Richard Dawkins seems to think that the Weasel program is a genetic algorithm. At least he touts it as such. Plus there are many others who think so. Monash University, the largest university in Australia, teaches this.
In a genetic algorithm (GA) we try to evolve a population of candidate solutions to a certain problem. In this case we are trying to evolve a population of strings to match the line "methinks it is like a weasel".
I do not think that it is a scientific principle that nature tries to evolve a population to solve a certain problem. I think that is a hallmark of intelligence.
Thanks, I love reading Royal Truman (and his oft co-auther, Peter Borger). I will read it today, after the Renaissance Fair!
All the best—GGG
As I understand GAs, this is misleading. "The optimized solution" implies that there is a single optimal solution that is known to the searcher beforehand. As PGS describes them, though, and from other things I've read, that's not true. The searcher establishes parameters for what will constitute a successful solution, but doesn't know exactly what that solution will be until the GA arrives at it.
He also says "The appeal of GAs is that they are modeled after biological evolution. The latter is the main motivation for tolerating such an inefficient awkward process." From PGS's description, they're not inefficient or awkward at all--they're actually more efficient than trying to arrive at a solution through a completely directed process, because they can explore the entire solution space at the same time.
The rest of that excerpt seems to be mostly bald assertions. For one, I don't see why we can't learn about physical processes from formal representations. He puts it in italics, but it's still just his assertion.
Okay, when the program "displaying" the genetic algorithm terminates, describe the "solution". When does the genetic algorithm program terminate? Why does it terminate?
The tricky thing about evolution--and I agree that it's a philosophical issue, but no more than that--is that the problem is changing along with the solution, and the exact nature of the problem is unknown until after the fact. The problem is survival in a changing environment. The particular problem at any one time may involve an ice age, or it may involve an extended dry period or an asteroid strike, but which it is is unknown while the evolution is going on. But nature comes up with a lot of solutions, and with luck one of them matches the problem.
It's like betting on roulette. You don't know the problem (the ball lands on 18) when you bet, but there are lots of solutions (red, even, 1-18...). It doesn't take any intelligence to come up with a solution for the problem.
When you have a solution that matches your parameters for a successful solution. In #4, PGS said
The fact that there is a pre-determined “stop executing” point is not a function of the evolutionary nature of a GA; it is simply a recognition that there’s not need to continue looking for answers after you have one...As I understand it, that means you know what an answer will look like, but you don't know what the answer is. I'm sure he can explain better.And the fact there is a “stop executing” point does not mean your answer is pre-ordained. I’ve run GAs on the same problem set, with the same initial seeding, and come up with different - but still very viable and useful - results.
I meant to add to my roulette comparison: in real roulette, you don’t know what the answer will be, just that there will be an answer. But if you wanted to model betting strategies, it’d be perfectly reasonable to pick a single answer and use a computer model to see how often you’d win with a particular strategy. It still wouldn’t require manipulating the results to get that answer.
The point being is that an organism doesn't face one problem at a time.
I notice the word “inferences”. Doesn’t sound like solid science to me. I’m not buying. To me, one must duplicate a system starting from scratch to *prove* anything. Sorry, Bob
Yes, and in a programmed genetic algorithm, that "solution" is used in each iteration to tailor the results of the iteration.
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.