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

[Grumpy]

boris010666

This is PURE speculation and is nothing more than state-supported religion!

And all the thousands of tons of fossils that prove you wrong are all hoaxes??? The thousands of scientists are all in a collusion to lie??? Everyone is oblivious to this conspiracy except an uneducated, know-nothing Bible-thumper such as yourself???

Ben Franklin said,"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt!"

Grumpy

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

Personal remarks in the form of name-calling are against the rules.

Everyone is oblivious to this conspiracy except an uneducated, know-nothing Bible-thumper such as yourself???

Please curb your rhetoric and maintain civility.



The rules also expect assertions to be backed with evidence. I know that positions on this issue are well-worn, but this post contains a lot of what I would characterize as unsubstantiated assertions.

This is where common people, especially school children are duped! Microevolution is merely variations within the same kinds of animals! But proponents of evolution assert that since this happens, then automatically, given enough time, macroevolution MUST be true! This is PURE speculation and is nothing more than state-supported religion!

Also, please keep comments relevant to the topic. QED is asking specifically about what Genetic Programming might have to say about biological evolution. Let's address the questions in the OP and not make blanket statements about evolution in general that are irrelevant to GP.

[boris010666]

boris010666

This is PURE speculation and is nothing more than state-supported religion!

And all the thousands of tons of fossils that prove you wrong are all hoaxes??? The thousands of scientists are all in a collusion to lie??? Everyone is oblivious to this conspiracy except an uneducated, know-nothing Bible-thumper such as yourself???

Ben Franklin said,"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt!"

Grumpy

So these dead animals just lied around without rotting or being scavenged so they could be buried with layers of dirt over the course of millions of years? And of course, trees stood for millions of years as well without rotting away, waiting to be covered up to?
And at one time, most scientist believe big objects fell faster than little ones, the earth was the center of the solar system, the earth was flat, sick people's blood was leeched out to "cure" them! We could go on an on how majorities ruling didn't make them right, let alone correct!

Now as far as "Bible thumping" goes I used to be an atheist, but God, in His mercy opened my eyes to the truth a long time ago!

[Cathar1950]

We could go on an on how majorities ruling didn't make them right, let alone correct!

Now the majority of people belive in God. Maybe they are all wrong. They believe in different Gods maybe they are all wrong. Besides many animals were covered by natural disasters many times such as volcanos, floods, mud slides and tar pits. What is your point.

Now as far as "Bible thumping" goes I used to be an atheist, but God, in His mercy opened my eyes to the truth a long time ago!

You were wrong once maybe you are wrong again.
I always enjoy those that claim to have once been atheist and now are not as if that is suppose to prove they are right now.
There are many believers that are now atheist. Change only proves change, not correctness.
One guy claims he lived in a cave but now he is all right.
As if we should be impressed.
Like they say on south park; it is the Mormons that are right everyone else is going to hell.
No mater what I believe loving others is a good idea and it works and it sure can't hurt. If there is a God that cares then it seems loving others, yourself and creation is the only way you can love God besides gardening.

[boris010666]

We could go on an on how majorities ruling didn't make them right, let alone correct!

Cathar wrote:

Now the majority of people belive in God. Maybe they are all wrong. They believe in different Gods maybe they are all wrong. Besides many animals were covered by natural disasters many times such as volcanos, floods, mud slides and tar pits. What is your point.

well, if you'd read what i was talking to grumpy about and his point that he thinks i must believe all the thousands of scientists are in a conspiratorial lie........

Now as far as "Bible thumping" goes I used to be an atheist, but God, in His mercy opened my eyes to the truth a long time ago!

Cathar wrote:

You were wrong once maybe you are wrong again.
I always enjoy those that claim to have once been atheist and now are not as if that is suppose to prove they are right now.
There are many believers that are now atheist. Change only proves change, not correctness.
One guy claims he lived in a cave but now he is all right.
As if we should be impressed.
Like they say on south park; it is the Mormons that are right everyone else is going to hell.
No mater what I believe loving others is a good idea and it works and it sure can't hurt. If there is a God that cares then it seems loving others, yourself and creation is the only way you can love God besides gardening.

Im not out to impress you or anyone, Cathar. I merely stated a fact. I once beleived as an atheist in evolution, but I have reasons(that you of course can't comprehend) to believe in the Almighty now, quite contrary to the religion of evolution! And i certainly don't expect to prove anything to people of your mindset. You are stuck with yourself, all alone with nothing going on inside your mind except what you percieve to be yourself. I won't even attempt to touch that! And as far as loving others being a good idea? HA!! Tell me. Do you love mass murderers? Rapists? Child molestors? Politicians? Drug dealers? I bet the mere idea of it repulses you! But in a nutshell, that is why we are all here on this earth---to learn to love one another! And love does conquer all, but we need the love and respect for the One to even attempt to try! We can't do it by ourselves; only with His nurturing and care (if we accept it) can we really and truly love one another! But why am i wasting my time explaining myself to you? You aren't impressed!

[Sleepy]

Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of sciencein science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures.

Quoted from the much linked site on this forum

http://www.talkorigins.org./faqs/comdes ... tobetested

By definition this is unscientific conjecture

The algorithms are programmed by intelligence which has taken what it assumes is not designed and used it as proof that that very something is not designed.

Nobody disagrees that the theory of biological evolution works in theory, this is hardly news. It strikes me as rather naive to assume it is evidence for the theory as fact.

[Goat]

Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of sciencein science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures.

Quoted from the much linked site on this forum

http://www.talkorigins.org./faqs/comdes ... tobetested

By definition this is unscientific conjecture

The algorithms are programmed by intelligence which has taken what it assumes is not designed and used it as proof that that very something is not designed.

Nobody disagrees that the theory of biological evolution works in theory, this is hardly news. It strikes me as rather naive to assume it is evidence for the theory as fact.

It works MORE than in theory. It makes repeatable predictions and can be tested. It strikes me as rather stubborn to try to hand wave the predictive powers of
the theory of evolution, and to handwave the DNA evidence away.

[QED]

The algorithms are programmed by intelligence which has taken what it assumes is not designed and used it as proof that that very something is not designed.

Of course Human intelligence is required to set up an environment in which the principles of natural selection can run their course: this is, if you will, is God creating the universe complete with its all atoms and laws. But once this task is complete the human engineer sits back and leaves the apparent design generator to churn out the apparent designs.

This happens in all cases where Genetic Algorithms are applied to the production of novel designs. For example, NASA's Evolvable Systems Group get designs for spacecraft hardware that are the direct result of leaving the principles of natural selection to themselves in order to "discover" the optimum way to "design" something. No intellectual input from the NASA engineers go into the actual "design decisions" made by the algorithm. Optimal designs still emerge even if the engineer has absolutely none of the technical knowledge that would be needed to design the object. This of course follows naturally from the claim (that Genetic Algorithms are capable of producing apparent designs without external intellectual input), but is excellent proof that the component of intelligence needed to effect the design is not sourced by the engineer.

It's no mystery either; the knowledge as to what constitutes a "good design" for the "given purpose" is accumulated entirely within the algorithm and may indeed be contained in such a way as to be beyond being "read out" by the engineer implementing the GA in the first place.

Nobody disagrees that the theory of biological evolution works in theory, this is hardly news. It strikes me as rather naive to assume it is evidence for the theory as fact.

Well, I think these concrete examples of hardware designs generated by unintelligent (by conventional standards) systems show a quite remarkable thing: that there are indeed forces for the production of "complex design" in the world other than those presented by sentient beings.

[Sleepy]

It works MORE than in theory. It makes repeatable predictions and can be tested. It strikes me as rather stubborn to try to hand wave the predictive powers of the theory of evolution, and to handwave the DNA evidence away.

You do not have a good history on genetics (refer to our other discussion), I have already said that I do not disagree that the theory works in theory.

Of course Human intelligence is required to set up an environment in which the principles of natural selection can run their course: this is, if you will, is God creating the universe complete with its all atoms and laws. But once this task is complete the human engineer sits back and leaves the apparent design generator to churn out the apparent designs.

At least we both agree this still cannot remove a designer from the system. However you seem to have contradicted yourself here.

Well, I think these concrete examples of hardware designs generated by unintelligent (by conventional standards) systems show a quite remarkable thing: that there are indeed forces for the production of "complex design" in the world other than those presented by sentient beings.

Unless of course that you imply that either your alogrithm or your computer is not generated by intelligence you cannot take this as true. We otherwise may then have to jump into philosophy and mathematics to argue exactly what intelligence is.

Like I said all these systems do is suggest that the theory works in theory. Something I do not disagree with. You can hardly call this hard science but it is wonderfully 'designed' mathematics.

[Jose]

I dunno, QED. You're back at the usual bottleneck: if an intelligence was ever involved, it seems that the whole thing is intelligent. It's like the notion that if real evolution ever uses anything random, then the whole thing is random.

Can you give us an example of GP in which the computer produces its mutations randomly, but the testing of the mutants is by a non-designed process? I agree that it's quicker to use the computer; it's also quicker, in designing airplane wings (for example) to use an intelligently-designed wind tunnel than to throw things off a ridge into an updraft. Still, the latter would work, even if it is more cumbersome. Whaddyathink?