Proof that evolution works

[QED]

Many people argue that evolution cannot work even in principle. This can be discounted by pointing to examples of practical applications based on the evolutionary principle. For example this report tells us that

Computer programs that "evolve" in ways that resemble natural selection can solve complex problems even their creators do not fully understand.

At the core of all evolutionary systems are genetic algorithms whether they be natural or synthetic, the same principles apply and are found to work as highly effective and autonomous design tools.

That nature uses more elemental ingredients is of no significance. The process is entirely scalable which is why we see evidence of evolution in a wide variety of different realms. Our own best tool for modelling evolution at the moment is the computer (our latest toy) but we may soon be able to work at the same atomic scale that nature uses and importantly, the transition would be a smooth one.

So given that we have taken a hint from nature and found her methods to be effective at producing such autonomous designs, why would we continue to doubt that this is the very system responsible for all the apparent natural "designs" we see around us? After all, would it not be an incredible coincidence if we had misinterpreted natures methods yet still ended up with a powerfully creative yet autonomous system purely by chance?

Additional material is widely available on the internet, for example:
The Genetic Algorithms Archive (a repository for information related to research in genetic algorithms and other forms of evolutionary computation.)
Genetic Algorithms and Artificial Life Resources
Wikipedias entry for genetic algorithms

[jwu]

I'm not trying to argue any point here except that the analogy is fallacious. Whether one shows that a computer algorithm evolved or was designed does not prove nor disprove the theory of evolution.

Hmm...this seems to be a semantics issue. The OP did not claim to have proven that the theory of evolution (et common descent) is correct. The point is just that the mechanism of mutation and natural selection works, and that it is capable of producing complicated designs.

[QED]

I'm not trying to argue any point here except that the analogy is fallacious. Whether one shows that a computer algorithm evolved or was designed does not prove nor disprove the theory of evolution.

How does the analogy break down? Bear in mind that the genetic algorithms we are discussing here are modelled on nothing more than evolution by natural selection: The only difference between our understanding of how nature goes about it and our own implementation is in the material composition of the genes. Are you suggesting that there is magic in the molecules that we are failing to implement in our code?

If this is the case then how come we still get complex, operational designs (never thought of by man) popping out from our analogous system. I suggest that this demonstrates that the theory as understood has all the power necessary to produce autonomous design. In which case, it suggests that we have understood nature correctly.

[Jose]

f this is the case then how come we still get complex, operational designs (never thought of by man) popping out from our analogous system. I suggest that this demonstrates that the theory as understood has all the power necessary to produce autonomous design. In which case, it suggests that we have understood nature correctly.

I agree entirely. We have designed an algorithm to mimic the random mutation aspect of evolution.

Aside from that, there remains the fact that many of the creationists, including our own YEC, accept "microevolution" as proven. Mutations occur. Selection occurs. Even speciation occurs. They choose to deny that this is "evolution" because no new "kinds" are produced over the short time that we have observed. Nonetheless, it is evolution. It is, in my opinion, rather odd that the YEC/ID folks can take antibiotic resistance or the peppered moths and say that they are just microevolution, and therefore do not demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate every necessary feature of evolution, because that is what they are.

The only question seems to be accepting the geological evidence of the history of the earth, so that "microevolution" can be faced fearlessly by the YEC/ID folks. If it is accepted that it has operated over millions of years, then the logical outcome is what we see--the nested hierarchy of life forms, and the reality of common descent. This conflicts with people's notion that they should be "special" and the ID premise that evolution must have proceeded with humans in mind. It conflicts with people's desire to have "someone else" have a purpose for them. Most of all, it conflicts with the notion of afterlife. Maybe, if evolution is true and creation 6000 years ago is not, then there is no afterlife in paradise, and this life really is the only one I have, and my grandchildren will have...I wonder if I've screwed up the world ecology so badly that my grandchildren will starve...I won't think about it.

[otseng]

I'm not trying to argue any point here except that the analogy is fallacious. Whether one shows that a computer algorithm evolved or was designed does not prove nor disprove the theory of evolution.

How does the analogy break down?

Before I go too much farther here and demonstrate the fallacy, let's clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that because we can show evolution through genetic algorithms that it proves that common descent (all lifeforms came from a single ancestor) is true?

[QED]

Before I go too much farther here and demonstrate the fallacy, let's clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that because we can show evolution through genetic algorithms that it proves that common descent (all lifeforms came from a single ancestor) is true?

Let me remind you how I started this topic:

...given that we have taken a hint from nature and found her methods to be effective at producing such autonomous designs, why would we continue to doubt that this is the very system responsible for all the apparent natural "designs" we see around us?

Now you can see that I simply ask why we would doubt that evolution has the power to create autonomous design in nature. For all I know this might give rise to multiple instantiations of life or just one. It is irrelevant to the question I ask.

[otseng]

Now you can see that I simply ask why we would doubt that evolution has the power to create autonomous design in nature. For all I know this might give rise to multiple instantiations of life or just one. It is irrelevant to the question I ask.

OK, I'll interpret this as you are not saying that genetic algorithms prove that common descent is true. Since that is the case, then there is no need for me to show that such an argument would be incorrect.

Some further comments though on genetic algorithms. First is that programmers had to program the genetic algorithms. This fact shows that some sort of intelligent design is in the process. Genetic algorithms also only attempt to solve a very limited set of problems. More specifically, they are created to attempt to solve nondeterministic polynomial optimization problems. And even with those problems, there are other methods to solve them besides genetic algorithms.

Do genetic algorithms show a use for mutation/selection? Sure. But, that is all it demonstrates.

[QED]

Some further comments though on genetic algorithms. First is that programmers had to program the genetic algorithms. This fact shows that some sort of intelligent design is in the process

Yes, we have to put something into the process in order to model the natural environment, but this is highly compartmentalised -- none of the design of the genetic algorithm bleeds over into the final design product. Nature already has her molecules and her electrodynamics (which you might like to argue are designed) to construct her genes so all we are doing in our design work is preparing an analogous framework. Our input stops there.

Genetic algorithms also only attempt to solve a very limited set of problems. More specifically, they are created to attempt to solve nondeterministic polynomial optimization problems. And even with those problems, there are other methods to solve them besides genetic algorithms.

You seem determined to play this down -- that's a pretty big set of problems there!

Do genetic algorithms show a use for mutation/selection? Sure. But, that is all it demonstrates.

Ahem. It demonstrates that positive mutations can drive "designs" autonomously towards selection goals, a fact disputed by certain Christian groups:

It is held by evolutionists that genetic mutations are an avenue of positive change in living organisms. For example, Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, seeks to establish a godless cosmos of chance in which the appearance of design in life has occurred by accident, by the incremental accumulation of positive changes in genes...

...Do mutations have any positive results?
With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.

From Christiananswers.net

[otseng]

Yes, we have to put something into the process in order to model the natural environment, but this is highly compartmentalised -- none of the design of the genetic algorithm bleeds over into the final design product.

I would disagree that genetic algorithms produce a "final design product". Rather, the output produced is simply a numerical solution to a problem. Also, in biological evolution, the data (DNA) and the machinery (physical body) are interdependent on each other. If you change the DNA, it affects the physical body. Whereas in genetic algorithms, the data has no effect on the program. The program remains the same no matter how the data changes.

Nature already has her molecules and her electrodynamics (which you might like to argue are designed) to construct her genes so all we are doing in our design work is preparing an analogous framework. Our input stops there.

At best, the genetic algorithm argument would then point to theistic evolution as jwu alluded to.

You seem determined to play this down -- that's a pretty big set of problems there!

I'm just pointing out that the scope of problems that it addresses is very limited. I'd be surprised if it even represents 1% of all problems addressed by computer algorithms. The vast majority (if not all) of computer algorithm problems require a programmer to use their skills to produce an end result.

Ahem. It demonstrates that positive mutations can drive "designs" autonomously towards selection goals, a fact disputed by certain Christian groups

However, the context in which they are disputing is in biological evolution, not genetic algorithm evolution. Also, I don't think any Christian groups are arguing that "evolution" is wrong, rather that the point of debate is the "theory of (biological) evolution".

[jwu]

I would disagree that genetic algorithms produce a "final design product". Rather, the output produced is simply a numerical solution to a problem. Also, in biological evolution, the data (DNA) and the machinery (physical body) are interdependent on each other. If you change the DNA, it affects the physical body. Whereas in genetic algorithms, the data has no effect on the program. The program remains the same no matter how the data changes.

There are genetic algorithms which directly come up with electric circuits and such, not just numerical values. Check http://www.genetic-programming.org/ for samples.

Furthermore, in your analogy the "machinery" wouldn't be the physical body, but mutation&natural selection in nature - these are the counterpart of the program, which does nothing but to simulate these.

At best, the genetic algorithm argument would then point to theistic evolution as jwu alluded to.

Note that i had stated that "you" can get to theistic evolution at best (from your point of view) with this. Naturalistic evolution is perfectly compatible with my statement about this. Please don't try to turn around the direction in which i argued.

I'm just pointing out that the scope of problems that it addresses is very limited. I'd be surprised if it even represents 1% of all problems addressed by computer algorithms. The vast majority (if not all) of computer algorithm problems require a programmer to use their skills to produce an end result.

Agreed, but this is rather due to the syntactical restrictions of programming languages. DNA is not restricted like that.

[QED]

I would disagree that genetic algorithms produce a "final design product". Rather, the output produced is simply a numerical solution to a problem.

I'm surprised you that you would choose to say this, as evidently an engineer yourself, I would have expected you to realise that the numerical solution you refer to might represent an optimally efficient turbine of the sort General Electric produced using this method.

Also, in biological evolution, the data (DNA) and the machinery (physical body) are interdependent on each other. If you change the DNA, it affects the physical body. Whereas in genetic algorithms, the data has no effect on the program. The program remains the same no matter how the data changes.

Are you sure you've understood the nature of the algorithm we're discussing here? Note that there is potential for confusion because there are in fact two programs being considered. One is the static program that we devise to simulate the environment in which evolution takes place (this could be substituted for anything classed as a Turing Machine) and the other is the "product" evolving within that environment. This represents the organism in the natural parallel. It is the machine instructions of this program that are analogous to DNA. This program is also completely foreign to us in that nobody has written a single line of its code.

What you need to bear in mind is that we're talking about computers and computer code because we are most comfortable with this level of technology. When we are just as comfortable with nano-technology we will be able to run such algorithms on nano-computers (possibly with very little in the way of adaption) and see results that might be indistinguishable from biology.

Nature already has her molecules and her electrodynamics (which you might like to argue are designed) to construct her genes so all we are doing in our design work is preparing an analogous framework. Our input stops there.

At best, the genetic algorithm argument would then point to theistic evolution as jwu alluded to.

Again, this can be addressed by a totally separate argument. One thing at a time!

I'm just pointing out that the scope of problems that it addresses is very limited. I'd be surprised if it even represents 1% of all problems addressed by computer algorithms. The vast majority (if not all) of computer algorithm problems require a programmer to use their skills to produce an end result.

But the class of solutions that GAs are best suited are those that are analogous with the sort of design challenges faced by nature such as laminar flow or aerofoil design. Hint hint.

Ahem. It demonstrates that positive mutations can drive "designs" autonomously towards selection goals, a fact disputed by certain Christian groups

However, the context in which they are disputing is in biological evolution, not genetic algorithm evolution. Also, I don't think any Christian groups are arguing that "evolution" is wrong, rather that the point of debate is the "theory of (biological) evolution".

At what point would a transition from silicon-technology to nano-technology become discontinuous, and then again form nano-technology to biology?