From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 22:28:02 EST
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:49:42 -0500 Walter Hicks
<wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> > I'm trying to figure where you got the idea that nature via
> evolution
> > either produces optimum solutions, or the theory is erroneous.
>
> I don't understand the "either .. or" nature of the above sentence.
> What
> nature does is one thing and what the theory does is the question. I
> did not
> say anything like the above.
>
> <snip>
> I return to what I have said and elaborate further.
>
> I have friends at DARPA and I have attended some of DARPA's
> presentations
> where a favorite theme is --- given a problem --- look at what
> nature has
> done. For the most part, nature has arrived at a solution that is
> much much
> better than what our engineering tools ever generate. Accordingly,
> DARPA
> often looks to nature for solutions. I see GA used in some DARPA
> programs for
> exactly that reason.
>
> So where do these GA tools some from.? They come for current
> biological
> theory (like yours, Dave). In fact, I notice that some GA books show
> their
> use in the biological field. Wally Hicks did not make all this up.
> It is the
> work of numerous other people.
>
> Now, if the tools fall short of accomplishing what nature does, then
> it is
> fair to say (I think) that the tools do not yet replicate nature --
> because
> the underlying theory is not yet adequate to do so. What on earth is
> wrong
> with that?
>
> I really do not understand why one can accept the fact that
> evolutionary
> theory is a "work in process" and then get in a snit when it is
> pointed out
> that it does yet work. I only say all this because there are many
> who like to
> present evolutionary theory as if it were a "done deal" and that
> leaves me
> rather cold ---- brrrrrrrr.
>
> Walt
>
OK, Walt, if all you are trying to say is that we do not yet understand
how evolution works in adequate detail, I agree wholeheartedly. What I
took you to be saying is that, because the engineering attempts are not
fully successful, evolution fails. My point was that the engineering
application and the natural situation are so different that one cannot
ascribe failure of the latter to failure of the former.
Evolution is a "done deal" only in that life has changed during the
history of the earth. As a theist, I hold that all change was under God's
providential control, which we cannot distinguish from natural law and
random occurrence. To what extent God intervened directly, I do not have
evidence for a certain answer. Assuming that eventually we sequence the
genomes of all (a sufficient number, anyway) creatures, we may find that
all genes go back to an original set, or that there are some that must
have been introduced /de novo/. The latter would indicate that Gordon
Mills' view that God had to introduce new genes from time to time was
probably correct. The former, monophyletic descent and the death of ID.
More likely, there'll be a maybe. But certainly there will be some who
hold on to their views no matter what the evidence. I don't want to be in
that group.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 22:33:10 EST