Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2019 4:47 PM
25 online now:
caffeine, celestialGyoud, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, ramoss, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,007 Year: 7,043/19,786 Month: 1,584/1,581 Week: 406/393 Day: 40/90 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your First Ever EVC Post
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 140 (572092)
08-03-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-09-2009 8:30 PM


Re: Yesterday All My Troubles Seemed So far Away
Interesting thread!

Message 12

quote:
I'm glad someone brought up the relationship of computer software, evolution, and intelligent design hypotheses. I was pondering starting a new thread but I'm glad I don't have to. (I'm new to the forum, so hello everybody.)
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.)


I think it's held up pretty well. Not all my old posts have, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2009 8:30 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 08-03-2010 6:25 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 140 (572099)
08-03-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Straggler
08-03-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Yesterday All My Troubles Seemed So far Away
True. Well, I struggled to find my "voice" for some time. Then, one day, I decided to try "asshole"!

No, just kidding. I think it was more of a slow evolution as my patience was worn down by the belligerent ignorance of creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 08-03-2010 6:25 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 08-03-2010 6:33 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019