>Ccogan: The evolutionary algorithm is *hugely* wasteful in design terms,
precisely because it doesn't know what it's doing. And it doesn't know
because it's not intelligent.
> DNAunion: Waste itself is not a sign of lack of intelligence. Industries
intentionally create huge amounts of waste everyday - are they not
controlled by intelligent beings?
>Ccogan: Thios sounds like equivocation of the word "waste".
DNAunion: Okay, if you don't like "waste" meaning something along the lines
of "surplus of something generally useful" (which is a common anti-ID
argument - for example, "what about all the species that have gone extinct,
or all those viable plant spores that don't participate in fertilization and
just go to waste?"), then we can deal with "waste" meaning something along
the lines of "surplus variants that serve no useful function".
What about computer programmers, which are surely intelligently-designed:
there is much "waste" in their "evolution". Programmers first code (we won't
get into the conceptualization steps that proceed the first line of code
being written) then attempt to compile their program. Any but the most
trivial programs written from scratch will have compile-time errors that must
be corrected, thus the programmer has to modify his/her code, then resubmit
it to the compiler. This can take several iterations before a clean compile
is achieved, resulting in waste (code statements that are useless and
eliminated). After a clean compile, the program is run and any runtime
errors (such as invalid paths or files that don't exist) must also be
handled, which usually entails more modifications to the original code,
resulting in more waste (elimination of, or modification to, code that served
no useful function as originally written). Then, once a clean compile is
obtained and no runtime errors are encountered, the system output must be
validated since logic errors in the code would generate results, even if
those results were invalid. Again, since most non-trivial programs written
from scratch are bound to have logic errors (which are sometimes the hardest
errors to track down and fix), then some more modifications must be made to
the original source code - you guessed it: more waste. And even once all of
these steps of debugging are followed and all is okay, then still more
modifications are typically needed as a complete program/system is not
written at once - a prototype might have be generated that gives the end user
an idea of what the final system may look like, but it is useless until
actually "fleshed out". In addition, individual modules have to interact
with each other (passing and accepting the correct number and type of
arguments and parameters), which can cause more modifications to be made (yet
more instances of code that did not perform its function as originally
written - i.e., waste). Not until the full final product is in place is the
source code complete, and up until that point, a "whole buncha" wasted code
would have been created (and subsequently eliminated of modified).
In fact, on top of all of this, more wasted code can found within the final
source code in the form of internal documentation: code that the computer
completely ignores (it is useless and can be discarded without affecting the
system).
>DNAunion: Could you provide the example on which you base your claims? What
exactly evolved in the virtual world by the evolutionary algorithm and where
can one gain access to the guts of this algorithm?
>Ccogan: http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
DNAunion: I am familiar with this work and wrote up a short "problems with"
post. But it is at ARN (note that the board rules here do not say it is
"wrong" for a person to quote his/her OWN material from another site) and I
cannot find it using the Search feature there (which I griped about while
posting there) and the access to the actual board to do a post-by-post search
is not possible. Since I don't feel like re-inventing the wheel, I will hold
off on replying to this computer model until such time as I can once again
gain access to my previously-posted material.
>Ccogan: There is a good example of virtual silicon.
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/971115/features.html
DNAunion: Yes, I am aware of this experiment also. This one was directed
evolution. A predetermined goal was setup before the process began, then
each selection step referenced the final goal to determine which was the most
fit. This "Evolution" was an example of a process governed by external
teleology, something that evolution is nature does not possess.
>Ccogan: … and thus does not need God or any other alleged non-natural
>DNAunion: "Not needing something" is not the same as "something did not
happen".
>Ccogan: True but as Behe clearly stated we cannot conclude or infer design
if a natural pathway could have existed.
"We must also consuder the role of the laws of nature. The laws of nature
can organize matter --for example, water flow can build up silt sufficiently
to dam a portion of a river, forcing it to change its course. The most
relevant laws are those of biological reproduction, mutation and natural
selection. If a biological structure can be
explained in terms of those natural laws, then we cannot conclude that it
was designed." pp 203 Darwins Black Box
DNAunion: Yes, but as Behe also clearly points out, not inferring design
because the indicators of design are not strong enough might mean that we
are overlooking the truth. Both he and Dembski state that their methods of
detecting design can MISS design (but that the methods will not misclassify a
non-designed object/event as design).
>DNAunion: For example, let us hypothesize that 50 years from now, both
intelligence and nature are shown to be capable of producing life from
non-life. At that hypothetical time, if IDists and Creationists stated …
>Ccogan: There is no evidence of intelligence to be able to produce life
from non-life.
DNAunion: I didn't say intelligence could produce life. Why not reread my
statements to which you were replying, paying special attention to this part,
"let us hypothesize that 50 years from now…".
Second, intelligently-directed prebiotic experiments have far more success
than hand-off, synthesis-in-the-whole, undirected prebiotic experiments ever
have. If the current trend holds out (which logic would surely indicate)
then an intelligently-directed method to create life from non-life will be
found before a purely-natural method (if a purely-natural method is ever
found).
>Ccogan: Certainly there is no evidence of intelligence producing IC
systems in biology for instance.
DNAunion: But there is evidence of intelligent design creating biological
things that nature never did - just look at genetic engineering and rational
engineering in protein design.
>DNAunion: [if in the future it was found that] "nature is not NEEDED to
produce life", would you accept that life was designed? I seriously doubt it.
>Ccogan: Design cannot exclude natural selection as the designer.
DNAunion: And naturalists cannot exclude ETI's as the sufficient cause of
life's appearance on Earth?
>DNAunion: So why would you expect IDists and Creationists to accept now
that life evolved purely naturally because intelligence is not "needed"?
(And furthermore, I believe you still have not shown your basic premise to be
true).
>Ccogan: The problem is that ID'ers are trying to infer design through
elimination.
DNAunion: And the other side of the coin is that "naturalists" are trying to
infer purely-natural causes for the origin of life by default: without
evidence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 00:23:03 EDT