From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 19:18:31 EST
Iain Strachan wrote:
>
> I would like to thank those members of the list with whom I have been able
> to have interesting and gracious conversations. You know who you are. In
> particular, Walter, thanks for the discussions we had off-list about my
> thoughts on evolution and genetic algorithms. You encouraged me to post
> them to the list in general, but I never got round to it; and frankly do not
> believe they would be analysed in a fair or objective manner,
I can relate to Ian's fear. Rather than ask Ian to do it, I think that I can
spell out the issue. I will get my head beat in, but that's O.K.
I have been working with university research groups that use Genetic Algorithms
(GA) to develop various physical systems. The GA (in a true DARPA like fashion)
tries to imitate nature. The algorithms include chromosomes, genes, swapping,
mutations, generations, and on and on. It is supposed to work just like
evolution. The nice thing is that it does a fairly good job. However, the
significant phrase is "fairly good". After the GA, it is necessary to use it as
starting point for more conventional engineering optimizations. Sorry, Mr.
Dawkin, but there is no "Climbing Mount Improbable" with this theory.
So what does that say? I guess that it says that the theory does not yet work.
When the theory is correct, it will be possible to demonstrate a theory of
evolution that really works.
We are not there yet!!
IMO
Notice how I stopped short of calling all evolutionists "fools" or "satanically
deluded" ;)
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 19:24:57 EST