From: DNAunion@aol.com <DNAunion@aol.com>
[...]
>>Face it. The in silico circuit evolution experiment absolutely required
>both the hardware and the software, and they both absolutely required
>intelligence for their design and creation, and the selection does not
model
>nature – it incorporates the external teleological process of
>comparing each output along the way with a desired, predetermined, fixed,
>goal and retaining the one that is the closest match.
No. You are confusing the overall goal with the fitness function.
The fact that there was an overall goal (to evolve a circuit to discriminate
between square waves of 1kHz and 10kHz ) is irrelevant, because this goal
was not built into the experiment. This is analogous to biological
evolution, where some people (based on religious or anthropic principles)
might claim that biological evolution had the overall goal of producing
intelligent life. But such an overall goal (if it exists) is irrelevant to
the performance of biological evolution.
There was indeed a fitness function built into the experiment (maximising
the difference between the average output voltage when a 1kHz input is
present and the average output voltage when the 10kHz input is present), but
this again is analogous to biological evolution. The fitness function of
biological evolution, roughly speaking, is maximising the reproduction rate
of the individual.
So the experiment *is* analogous to biological evolution. It demonstrates
that random variation plus a suitable fitness function can lead to new and
complex results.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 07:41:19 EDT