Radio emerges from the electronic soup

The New Scientist ^ | 16:00 31 August 02 | Duncan Graham-Rowe

[gore3000]

Blows my mind how a fascinating article on GA optimisation get's the "Christians" panities in a bind.

Wrong, the Christians are laughing at the silliness of evolutionists arguing that this proves their theory. It shows both their ignorance and their desperation in not finding anything to support their stupid theory.

[AndrewC]

That a human-designed electronic "evolution" environment, ranked only upon producing a wave output of some kind, homed in on an amplification of interference would scarcely be surprising.

Such a clear and succinct analysis indicates your sobriquet is an apt descriptor, at least for the first name. How the redneck fits in ....?

When one of my circuit designs produced "motor boating" my instructor did not praise my "discovery" as a novel solution to the problem at hand. It was back to the drawing board.

[Dead Dog]

Still blows my mind. Ok, lets get rid of the word evolution, since it's the word that freaks (some) Christians out. Instead of evolution, call it breeding. Just like humans breed their best livestock to get improved livestock, this program breeds it best designs. It's like when the French decided to "create" the poodle (for hunting no doubt) with the test case "Small yippee dog" but this time came up with a Taco Bell Bobble Head.

To deny random evolution as the cause of Creation is a Christian's duty, but to deny evolution happens as a process in nature is misguided. If it wasn't, Draft horses and Shetland Ponies would have been here at the time of Adam and Eve, they weren't and we know when and by who they were developed. They are a creation of man using God's OS.

[Dead Dog]

When one of my circuit designs produced "motor boating" my instructor did not praise my "discovery" as a novel solution to the problem at hand. It was back to the drawing board.

He would if you were a group of randomly fired switches. If your single design task was to output a certain signal, and you did with an amp, then you past. The researchers need to control their test better, but the result is interesting.

[gore3000]

to deny evolution happens as a process in nature is misguided. If it wasn't, Draft horses and Shetland Ponies would have been here at the time of Adam and Eve.

Wrong. Dogs and horses are an example of intelligent selection. It is the result of selecting traits already present in a species and reinforcing them by breeding specimens with the desired traits. In spite of all the breeding of dogs and horses, they are still all of one species. Breeding is proof of the adaptability of species without any need for any genetic change.

[Dead Dog]

Wrong.

You're being self righteous, assuming, and rude. Grow up and think.

Dogs and horses are an example of intelligent selection. It is the result of selecting traits already present in a species and reinforcing them by breeding specimens with the desired traits. In spite of all the breeding of dogs and horses, they are still all of one species. Breeding is proof of the adaptability of species without any need for any genetic change.

Which is all GA does, it take the best traits an initial set of solutions, scores them, combines) the best solutions, and throws out the lower 50%. Random variation is only used to avoid closing in on a local optimization. This process will converge on a global optimization. It is just a brute force method of finding a max/min of multiple interdependent equations. The only religious significance about it is that it uses a process we've observed in God's creation.

Be careful though, heredity and breeding cause some genetic variation. That is, your genes are a combination of your ancestors. Genetic Algorithm and Evolutionary Computation could be called Hereditary Computation just as easily.

Don't get so hung up on words like Evolution until you understand the meaning being assigned. Knee-jerk Christians are a weak spot in the Church. More people rebel from Christians than they do from Christ.

[gore3000]

Be careful though, heredity and breeding cause some genetic variation. That is, your genes are a combination of your ancestors. Genetic Algorithm and Evolutionary Computation could be called Hereditary Computation just as easily.

Wrong again. No kind of selection, by man or by any other means creates new genes. It just rearranges the alleles of a species among the members. If anything, selection, either natural or directed by man destroys genetic diversity it does not create it. That is why thoroughbreds of any species are less viable, have fewer progeny and weaker ones in many cases than the 'mutts' of the species.

[Dead Dog]

We're arguing semantics. If you want to look under every rock to find a conflict with your specific version of Christianity, then by all means.

I don't think anyone on this thread, or any information form the article even eluded to the creation of "new Genes". Don't need them.

[gore3000]

We're arguing semantics.

Can't speak for you, but I am not. Evolution requires an increase in genetic information for it to be true. You cannot get from a bacteria to a man by deleting genetic information which is what happens with selection - either natural or by man.

I don't think anyone on this thread, or any information form the article even eluded to the creation of "new Genes". Don't need them.

See above, of course you need new genes for evolution to be true and I do not care how evolutionists dance around that point. It is a sign of the despair for proof of evolutionists that they attempt to claim that processes which destroy genetic information are proof of evolution.