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.
And that is the intelligent part.(along with the darn program to implement the process)
Sure. And where have I argued against intelligence in terms of design of the problem? NO WHERE.
Why do you stop running? Not because the problem decides “it’s done”. It’ll keep going! It’ll stop ONLY when YOU decide it’s done.
BUT, if you let it run and run and run you’ll end up with a fairly stable population that tends to resemble itself generation after generation because the predominant member of the population is a pretty good solution.
Anyway, we’re way beyond the original question, which was about some author’s rant about GAs, and in fact it’s been shown that he doesn’t understand GAs at all. The mechanisms we’re discussing would not even be considered by the author as he doesn’t even acknowledge the basics of a GA that you and I - clearly on opposite sides of the theory of evolution - agree on!
The author, David Abel, is pretty much lost when it comes to understanding of a GA as he shows with his ignorance about what they are, how they work, and where they are used. It would make as much sense as asking a 3 year old to tell us how a multi-axis CNC machine works, when you use it, and what kind of things you can make with it.
So let’s get back to the fundamental question about the whole evolution/creation thing:
If the Creation story is to be taken as literal and inerrant and complete, then tell me where Cain’s wife came from. If the Bible is historically accurate enough to provide complete details of the Creation story, then isn’t it also accurate enough to tell us where Cain’s wife came from?
OK, so you claim to know what GAs are and how they work, yet you show you really don’t based upon your reasoning above.
No use talking about GAs any more...
So answer me the question: where did Cain’s wife come from? If the Bible is historically inerrant then where did she come from?
Failing to answer that leaves the whole historical inerrancy of the Bible in question, especially about the earliest chapters.
My point entirely.
Anyway, we’re way beyond the original question, which was about some author’s rant about GAs, and in fact it’s been shown that he doesn’t understand GAs at all.
It does no such thing. He is arguing against this point made by the headline of that "Science Daily" article.
'Evolutionary Algorithms' Mimic Natural Evolution In Silico And Lead To Innovative Solutions For Complex Problems
Genetic Algorithms (or whatever name you choose to call it) may have extraordinary and useful functions, but to equate it with the "natural process" that some are trying to hammer it into is wrong.
If the Creation story is to be taken as literal and inerrant and complete, then tell me where Cain’s wife came from
I don't know and I don't care. I do not read early Genesis literally. Also, the bible doesn't tell us the day of the week that Jesus was born.
I've made no such overt claim. I've related that I've programmed computers since 1965. I also presented the fact that the largest university in Australia called a certain program a Genetic algorithm and you can follow that link and see what they are teaching as genetic algorithms. Plus I posted a listing of another "genetic algorithm" which was cited in Scientific American.
Your Cain question has already been addressed.
Well the Bible did not mention God creating other people either - so what is your point? Did you also notice that the Bible did not spell out the years involved in the marriages and progeny produced in both chapters 4 & 5? So you simply assume no overlap is construed nor allowed.
Your arguments are baseless b/c they argue from the same assumptions that you don’t want to allow in others. Worse still for evolution to prove true you’d need assumptions an order of magnitude larger than those posed by creation while also completely ignoring any/all facts that fly in the face on long ages and macro-evolution.
Also everything about GA is mirrored most closely with intelligent design NOT evolution. Just using the terminology and trying to codify some of the ‘evolutionary’ logic does not prove anything regarding neither micro nor macro evolution.
Then go and educate yourself about GAs. It’s apparent you don’t know of what you speak, and you refuse to learn. I’ve given you a few good starting points, learn how it MIMICS the theory of evolution.
And Cain? Not addressed, other than “well the Bible didn’t say anything but we know it must have happened”. Can I use that for evolution? The Bible doesn’t say exactly how the animals were formed, so we can use evolution?
So why is the theory of evolution anti-Biblical? Why does the theory of evolution say that God didn't create everything? You've already acknowledged that the Bible is either missing some information (such as who was Cain's wife), or perhaps it's flat-out wrong when it comes to historical issues (again, the order and birth of Adam's children).
Did you also notice that the Bible did not spell out the years involved in the marriages and progeny produced in both chapters 4 & 5? So you simply assume no overlap is construed nor allowed.
Please read Genesis 4 again. Tell me where it states that Adam and Eve had children between the birth of Cain and the birth of Seth. Please.
Or are you willing to admit that the Bible is NOT a definitive, inerrant historical record? Note that I am NOT questioning the inerrancy of the theological and philosophical truths contained in the Bible; just the historical veracity.
Therefore by your supposed strict reading, Cain and his family are STILL living East of Eden in Land of Fugitiveness where he build a city all by himself.
According to your “strict reading”.
The Genesis account was treated by Christ, Peter, and Paul as historical events not philosophical fables.
Myself, I take evolution as a metaphorical fable designed to denigrate the Genesis account.
According to John 3:16 it was the giving of His son that evidenced God's love for mankind. Not fables, myths, etc. Afterall Genesis starts out “in the beginning” not “once upon a time”.
From what I’ve seen, the evidence disproves evolution. I do not believe that there ever was a time when mammals lacked fully-functioning organs and systems. It is a leap of *faith* to believe otherwise. To my logic, everything would have had to evolve *at once* for any organism to have survived, and that is preposterous. How would any early humanoid have lived without kidneys, liver, heart, brain, bones, muscles, excretory, reproductive and vascular systems all in place, to name a few essentials.
You do make some interesting points, but evolutionary theory depends upon thousands, maybe millions of individual “coincidences” which are not subject to hard experimentation. Electrons *must* exist to balance the charge of an atom. But there is no rational reason why a spider would have randomly developed the ability to spin a web to capture food. Clearly, ancestor spiders have had this capacity from day one. Cordially, Bob
EXCELLENT POINT! THANK YOU! Cain must surely still be living, since it's not written about. I mean, if the Biblical record of Creation - exactly how it happened - is inerrant, then Cain must still be alive. Unless you choose to believe some parts of the Bible more than you believe others?
The Genesis account was treated by Christ, Peter, and Paul as historical events not philosophical fables.
Really? Christ, Peter, and Paul said "God created the World and this is EXACTLY HOW HE DID IT?" Or did they say "God created the World" because it was the theological truth? Jewish tradition uses a lot of simile and metaphor, where the exact, literal meanings of the words aren't as important as the point you're trying to convey...
Myself, I take evolution as a metaphorical fable designed to denigrate the Genesis account.
Fair enough. Myself, I take evolution as a very good theory that describes how life changes over time, and is completely congruent with the fundamental Biblical truth that God created all.
Apparently my belief threatens yours?
According to John 3:16 it was the giving of His son that evidenced God's love for mankind. Not fables, myths, etc.
Yes, and that has what to do with the Creation story?
Afterall Genesis starts out “in the beginning” not “once upon a time”.
You left out "Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away"...
No need to. You seem to be such a font of knowledge, at least according to you. Yet, you have not commented on the definition used by Monash University which I referenced in post 51 to you. You have admitted entirely the fact that humans are intimately involved in the workings of whatever you call genetic algorithms. Yet you somehow equate that with something that is prohibited from involvement with anything intelligent.
Just because I do not agree with what you assert does not make me unwilling or unable to learn. You had better understand that other people understand and have intimate knowledge of what your genetic algorithms run on.
Now answer my questions if you like. I have asked you a few. First about the image representing the "solutions" produced by the German tower building "genetic algorithm" which is in my post 23.
Why should I even try, since you immediately couch everything as “intelligent design thus not support of evolution!”? You don’t even understand that intelligent design is NOT at odds with evolution, so you’re simply out in left field...
I’m done with the GA argument with you; you don’t understand them (by your own admission), you refuse to consider them outside your faith beliefs (worse than the endless C++/Java debates), and you refuse to address the proven historical inaccuracies in the Bible.
Have a wonderful day, I’m off to enjoy some sun!
As I suspected, you are completely disengenuous.
disengenuous = disingenuous
I’ve have not acknowledged that the Bible is wrong nor incomplete! I did acknowledge some leeway but that would only be because God preferred not to spell every detail out for our puny minds.
Perhaps it is you, projecting your own hopes?
Jesus referred to the Genesis account of Adam and Eve's creation as male and female saying “did you not read” at Genesis 2:24. This was a statement that a past event explained God's standard of marriage.
Jesus said God created humans as male and female hence it wasn't by evolving over long periods of time and little steps as Darwinism proposes that they came to be.
Paul said at Romans 5:14 death ruled from Adam to Moses so which one if either person is part of traditional Jewish simile and metaphor?
Peter, in his second letter, 3:5 refers to the creation account as a warning example.
Darwinism has no room for a Creator unless it's one they fashion and is as Carl Sagan put it, “benign and indifferent”.
No, your beliefs don't threaten me or what I believe at all. You may wave a copy of “Origin...” but that's not quite tar and feathers or a pitchfork.
Andrew,
If you wish to learn more about GAs, I’ll provide some good references for you. If you wish to misrepresent what they are and how they work, there’s no need to talk at all. The fact you take umbrage of this is your issue, not mine.
On that we can completely agree! The details being ignored are irrelevant to the central principle that God created us, and that He seeks a relationship with each and every one of us!
Perhaps it is you, projecting your own hopes?
None whatsoever. Rather, I find it even more amazing to learn how this universe works, how the laws of physics govern all, and how the mechanisms He set up are so simple yet incomprehensibly intertwined to make it all work. If anything, I think the theory of evolution points to an even more powerful God, in that He created life that can adapt, grow, and expand! We're not just automatons set down, static forever!
The Messiah was to be a son of Adam; to fulfill the prophecies Luke had to trace such lineage.
Jesus referred to the Genesis account of Adam and Eve's creation as male and female saying “did you not read” at Genesis 2:24. This was a statement that a past event explained God's standard of marriage.
Sure, but that also doesn't say where Cain's wife came from! Even the most basic animals and plants are male and female, it is a trait rampant throughout nature.
Jesus said God created humans as male and female hence it wasn't by evolving over long periods of time and little steps as Darwinism proposes that they came to be.
And the theory of evolution does not say that man was once all one sex; in fact, the apes, lizards, birds, fish, even flowers are of two sexes. It is, in fact, the natural order of things which I believe just reinforces God's word regarding natural sexual relations!
Paul said at Romans 5:14 death ruled from Adam to Moses so which one if either person is part of traditional Jewish simile and metaphor?
But we have no record of the death of Cain or many more, does that mean they never died? Or were just important events captured in the Bible for the message they brought?
Darwinism has no room for a Creator unless it's one they fashion and is as Carl Sagan put it, “benign and indifferent”.
It does not? Does the theory of evolution demand that a Creator be "benign and indifferent"? On the contrary, I see it as an intimate and involved process with the Creator, where the rules are set up and observed, and as needed (and recorded) the Creator will intervene to correct the pathways taken.
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.
The miracle and message of the Bible is not that Cain married a woman not from Adam or Eve, or that Samson slew 10,000 with the jawbone of an ass; the miracle and message is that God loves us and wants to have a relationship with us!
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.
No, your beliefs don't threaten me or what I believe at all. You may wave a copy of “Origin...” but that's not quite tar and feathers or a pitchfork.
Good, it is not intended to be as such! No more so than Maxwell's Equations, or the theory of general relativity should be as scourges on the backs of Christians!
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.