Re: CSI, GAs, etc.

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Tue Oct 03 2000 - 00:06:33 EDT

  • Next message: Wesley R. Elsberry: "Re: CSI, GAs, etc."

    At 04:18 PM 10/02/2000, you wrote:

    >****If I might comment on Nelson's comments....see below...
    >mine are preceded by *****
    >
    >
    >
    > >I spoke at the University of Colorado a couple
    > >of weeks ago, a bright undergraduate came up after
    > >the talk and said, "Dr. Nelson, you've just GOT to
    > >go on the net and play Conway's 'Game of Life' --
    > >that will answer all the questions you have about
    > >natural selection!" I listened as this young man
    > >described the remarkable, organismal-appearing
    > >patterns that arise from what he called "a few
    > >simple rules."
    >
    > >Interesting, I replied. But then there's Conway.
    > >Right?
    >
    >Ed
    >***Do you think this scores a point for I.D.?
    >I still see it at best as a stalemate.
    >If Conway's program was invented to mimic random
    >mutation and selection then it doesn't matter WHO
    >or WHAT came up with the original program.
    >Obviously the human mind has a lot of knowledge at
    >it's disposal with which it can do marvelous things,
    >but it was not always so. Mankind's own knowledge
    >was gained over hundreds of thousands of years,
    >and began to advance most rapidly after the advent
    >of written languages and numbers. In fact, one might
    >argue that it often advanced by trial and error,
    >or mutation and natural selection.

    Further, the computer and the software are only a means of experimenting.
    The question is, do (or can) any of these programs relevantly model
    *unintelligent* natural events, such as autocatalytic molecule evolution?
    The answer is that they can, in various ways. In fact, in some ways, the
    very *dumbest* computer model is the best, because it demonstrates the
    ultimate power of unintelligent cumulative variation to produce complexity,
    especially *without* selection (ID folks need to claim -- and prove -- that
    selection *prevents* complexity, not that it can't *cause* or create
    complexity). Besides, the power of variation is provable in a strictly
    mathematical way, so such algorithms are experimental tools for doing
    things that we *don't* know how to do mathematically yet, such as study the
    effects of various kinds of selection on the distribution of kinds of
    results versus the results that would occur *without* selection, etc.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 00:11:13 EDT