Genetic Programming as evidence against ID

Didn't get any response to this the first time I posted so I'll start a new topic.
{Note by edit - This message first appeared at message 12 of the topic "Software Maintenance, Intelligent Design, and Evolution" - Adminnemooseus}The technique of so-called "genetic" or "evolutionary" programming is not new; however a recent article in Scientific American highlights its use in creating patentable electronics. To put it simply, genetic programming is a kind of problem-solving computer-driven technique that applies the basics of evolutionary models (inheretable variation, descent with modification, survival of the fittest) to solving general problems, such as (in the case of the article) filtering out high or low frequency signals. The computer designs random electronic circuits from standard parts and puts them to the test - do they do any filtering, for example - and selects the most successful circuits. Then, processes like mutation and genetic crossover are applied to generate new circuits, which are then tested again, and so on.The gist of the article is not only does this process give rise to successful circuits, it creates circuits that are often more efficient than the same circuit designed by a human. Also, while the article doesn't make this comparison, such circuits often bear similarities to living systems, in that they possess elements that are redundant or have no purpose. Also, many of the circuits made defy our understanding of their operation. They're simply too complex.Basically, if evolutionary processes (random chance plus natural selection) can give rise to complex systems - in fact, can make them better than humans can design them - what does that say for "intelligent design" theories? Ignoring the fact that the whole genetic programming system is human-made - if you need God to set up evolution in the beginning, that's fine - doesn't this spell defeat for a theory based on the premise that complexity can't come from chance?(P.S. I'm sorry the article is subscription-based; I suggest you get to your library. It's the Feburary issue. Great diagrams.)------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-23-2003]

Until you get a nibble you can live vicariously by starting at Message 142 of the Give your one best shot - against evolution thread. In it I provide and describe a very simple C++ model of evolution just to falsify the notion that information theory renders evolution impossible.--Percy

Thanks, Percipient, I've been reading the thread. Very interesting. I see that I wasn't the first to mention the Evolving Inventions article. Understandable since it came out in Feburary.Your program was astute. Reminds me of some of Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" simulations. Pity that a lot of creationists can't seem to tell the difference between creating a system and directing its outcome. Like, if I build a car, doesn't mean I'm the one who drives it (or that it's driven at all).Looks like I picked a quiet board to start my first topic. I'm a little disappointed. Aren't there any serious, scientific IDer's out there to refute how "design" can come about without a designer?------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Design without a designer? Hardly. I've yet to see anything in life that I could seriously say came into existance without some level of intelligence behind it. "Everything" has a blueprint and blueprints to be designed require intelligence, they do not just appear. Not only must they be designed but they must be designed precisely or the end result will fail miserably. Building a car requires vast amounts of intelligence, a designer, a design, and the assembling of approximaletly 10,000 ( designed as well ) components. Even if we laid all the components on the shop floor ready to go, the completion of the car would never happen without the input of the designer and their design on how to assemble the car. If something as simple as building a birdhouse requires intelligence, and a designer/design, how much more then would the beauty of nature, the wonder of the universe, and the awesomeness of the species require a designer?? There's nothing new my friend, it's all part of the master blueprint and anything discovered ( and thats all inclusive ) was simply yet to be found. I have no problem whatsoever believing that all that beauty, wonder and awesomeness came from one designer. Then again I've always thought outside the "seeing is believing" box.Until Next Time :-)Paul

What does this have to do with genetic programming?--Percy

quote:

---

Then again I've always thought outside the "seeing is believing" box.

---

But some people have a problem with, as Sagan said, "believing is seeing".

Everything. If we can get computers to function, create, grow and solve on their own, then I could see that only adding fuel to the fire of evolutionary theories. Especially when Darwinian principles are used in GP. The fact of the matter is that ID is behind all things, sustains all things, and creates all things new. It will be interesting to see how much a computer will be able to do with the influence of GP, however we must remember that at the foundation of whatever it is, there was an initial strong injection of ID.GP is a worthwhile endevour and I'm sure it will help us in many ways. However if we're hoping that it will somehow eventually solve the mysteries, problems and specifically the origins of life, I think we're sorely mistaken. If the human mind has great difficulty in figuring these things out, then how can we expect a computer to do this? Remember, a computer is the ongoing design and extension of the human brain. Faster? Yes.. Smarter? No.My Point? "everything that is" including Genetic Programing,is an extension and product of Intelligent Design. You simply cannot get something from nothing.Paul :-)

It is beside the point that an intelligence designed the computer and the program. GP merely models the way evolution works.Creating a computer model takes intelligence, but that doesn't mean that the thing being modelled was designed. We create computer models of many things, like the weather and planetary orbits, and these things were not designed, either.In other words, you're confusing the intelligence necessary to create the model with the thing itself.--Percy

quote:

---

If we can get computers to function, create, grow and solve on their own,

---

You seem to be missing the two separate levels in what is happening here. At one level is the computer with a human designed program. At the other is the designs that this program produces.The first level is, obviously, "intelligently designed". The second level, the solutions to the problem that the GP is being applied to is not designed in any way by a human. The human only creates the process which, when run without any intelligence, produces what someone, not knowing how it was created, would say was an "intelligent design".Let me try the dangerous step of an analogy. The computer and the GP program are like the DNA and it's replication processes. In this analogy you'd say the human was equivalent to God who created these things.Then left alone to run without further tinkering the GP program produces designs without intelligence. In exactly the same way DNA and it's processes has been demonstrated to be capable of producing "design".That's the evolutionary side.The remaining step is the original origin of life. What is needed there is a self replicator with a little bit of error in it's replication. Since such a thing can be visualized as being one heck of a lot simpler than a computer and it's program it's not as hard to see it arising from natural chemistry.One issue is how simple can that replicator be and still work? If it's simple enough it could arise "from nothing".

The point of my reference to GP wasn't to suggest that it holds the key to life, the universe, and everything, but rather to support the position that if sophisticated function can result from random mutation and natural selection (in clear opposition to the position of most creationists), then sophisticated function cannot be used as a design criteria.If NAPA stores could reproduce, with heritable variation, and if there was a selection pressure on those things that were most car-like, you'd get cars. Random, heritable variation + natural selection can equal complexity and apparent "design". As the GP experiments prove, it works pretty well - even better than sitting down to design from scratch.Obviously the computer won't be doing our thinking for us. It's just a tool for simulating models. Nobody's saying you can. Remember, the point of GP is essentially to keep as much design as possible OUT of the system. No direct human intervention past the initial conditions is allowed (or required).By extension, life from non-living matter (abiogenesis) is not something from nothing. Life is simply a collection of molecules whose chemical interactions are governed by catalytic controls. It's not some kind of magic "field" or "lifeforce". Life is just another state of matter. Remember that all the matter that comprises you was once lifeless. (Arguably, the mineral components of your skeleton, for example, still are.)If life isn't more than chemical interactions, and we see chemicals interact constantly outside of living systems (it's a property of our universe that atoms interact), then it's not unreasonable to suggest that the proper set of chemical interactions to make "life" could result at random.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

According to Paul's arguments, we must conclude that crystals are constructed by some little fairies that place the molecules into crystal-lattice arrangements -- crystals have order, and they must therefore be designed, right?Furthermore, there are numerous features of the Earth's biota that suggest multiple, finite, and fallible designers. The multi-design inference, as it may be called, is often used in studies of various human designs, studies like detection of plagiarism and handwriting forgery.Simply consider multiple designs.Wings: bird, bat, pterosaur, insect
Camera-like eye: vertebrates, squid/octopuses
Gripping limbs: primates, perching birds, some arthropods (mantids, scorpions, lobsters/crabs)
Fishlike shape and fins: squid, fish, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, sea turtles, sirenians, seals, cetaceansAnd conflicts in ecologies.Grass vs. deer vs. wolves vs. fleas, heartworms, and canine-distemper virusesGrass has phytoliths that wear down deer teeth; teeth which are millstone-ish for grinding up grass.Deer have forward-sideways eyes and ears for detecting wolves, while wolves have completely-forward eyes and ears for detecting and chasing deer.Fleas have piercing mouthparts for getting to blood and sucking it, while wolves scratch to get rid of fleas.Heartworms and CD viruses live parasitically inside of wolves, while wolves' immune systems fight them.[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 04-12-2003]

That is a very interesting argument(mainly a reductio)against mainstream ID theory, and should probably be started as its own thread.Personally I would love to see an ID explanation against this. All the main ID theorists say that current science used to detect that "someone did something" can be used to detect that "someone did life". Well then that logically means science can detect whether multiple creators were involved, using the tools science uses to do that in daily life.I know for certain that scientists have been using analytical techniques to determine such things as if Beowulf was written by more than one person (they've determined it was), and at different times (still up in the air).So why not if there had to be mutliple creators (it seems likely there would have to be) and at what times they intervened (the multiple extinctions/gaps between static equilibiria?).Then again, the ID theorist might simply claim that God is so diverse he would seem to be many different creators, unlike man who is forced to have only a limited style of creativity.------------------
holmes

That's the problem with "godidit" explanations to scientific questions. By definition, god can contain all possible qualities, including contradictory ones. If we don't understand his motives we can just say "we're too dumb to understand". Honestly, if this is the best answer creationists can come up with, why do they even bother to do science? This adds nothing to knowlege except to make god more confusing (or as the faithful like to say, "mysterious".)

Hi Percy,
Sorry but you are the one who is confused. Paul is right on the money.S.------------------
"We arrive at the truth, not by the reason only, but also by the heart."
Blaise Pascal

[quote]Sorry but you are the one who is confused. Paul is right on the money.[/quoute]This is your assertion. Please explain how this is the case.