True science follows the evidence wherever it leads (The design of the eye)

There's no need to pay money; it's sufficient to use the internet.

quote:

---

Genetic programming (GP) is a patented[1] automated methodology inspired by biological evolution to find computer programs that perform a user-defined task. Therefore it is a machine learning technique that uses an evolutionary algorithm to optimize a population of computer programs according to a fitness landscape determined by a program's ability to perform a given computational task. The first experiments with GP were reported by Stephen F. Smith (1980)[2] and Nichael L. Cramer (1985),[3] as described in the famous book Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection by John Koza (1992).

---

Genetic programming - WikipediaIn other words, they're using the "accidental" mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection to design computer programs and solve problems. Other researchers are using the same technology to design things like electronics and jet airplanes.Hi, IC. Glad to see you participating. Since the topic of this thread is ostensibly the evolution of the eye, I'll pop in later with a post that describes how scientists (following the evidence) construct the evolutionary history of the eye, from the simple light-sensitive spots found in flatworms to the complex, lenticular eye of cephlopods. As an aside, you may be interested to know that your perfect human eye actually suffers from a major design flaw - the retina is inside out! It's true - the light sensitive cells of the eye actually point backwards into the skull, and light that enters the eye actually has to pass through the network of capillaries and nerves that connect those cells to the rest of the body.That's why we have blind spots; that's why our low-light vision is so poor compared to other mammals. Inside-out retinas.

Then I suggest we keep our replies content-rich, rather than reinforcing his behavior.He's new here, and I don't think he's been a lurker - he only registered because I asked him to, because I don't debate evolution via email. Perhaps it would be prudent for our own posts to be the example for him to follow.

Irrelevant. The researchers specifically programmed the computer to generate designs and programs at random, and then select from them those that best met certain criteria.Just like evolution happens in the real world. It's not relevant who built the computer; the program runs the same whether or not it's running on hardware from Dell, or Intel, or whathaveyou.

Did you even go and read the link? That's the point - these programs were generated without programmers. The programmers specifically programmed themselves out of the process.Nothing but random mutation and selection generated these programs and designs; intelligent was not only not necessary, but programmed out of the process.Look, ICDESIGN. You reminded us that true science follows the evidence. But you don't seem to be very interested in looking at the evidence we've been presenting to you. How can you therefore claim to be doing true science when you're ignoring evidence?

See, you say "respect", but nothing in your post comes off respectful to me or my arguments. Why is that? Sure. That's what people build computers to do - simulate things.In this case, they simulate the evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural selection, operating without intelligent guidance, and use them to create complexity.Something that you said couldn't happen. If it can't happen, IC, how is it that we're seeing engineers doing it? I'm sure that I could come up with an eye that didn't feature a backwards retina. I'm curious why you haven't addressed that point.I'll be honest with you, IC. We're used to a higher standard of debate here, and when you reply to content-rich posts with nothing but one-liners, you're not meeting that standard. I'm not an admin here, but believe me when I tell you - unless you drastically increase the standards of your posting you're looking at a suspension, probably.I was under the impression you wanted to debate, which is why I asked you to register here. If all you're interested in doing is calling me names and referring to evidence as "BS", then I see I was correct in not debating you via email. It would have been just a waste of my time.I think you can do better, though. But doing better is going to require you do a lot more than call your opponent's arguments "BS." As a suggestion? Post less, but write more in each post. You're not under an obligation to respond quickly. We prefer quality over quantity. Why don't you try posting only once or twice, and try to have a point in your post beyond "you guys are wrong?" There are far more transitional species than can be listed in a single post, and I'm not sure transitional species are the subject of this thread, but a great resource for seeing the known transitional fossils for vertebrates is located at: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQAs you can see, there are many - not none, as you've been misinformed.

Hrm, actually I've told you a couple of different times, but maybe I wasn't being clear.Random mutation and natural selection, the mechanisms of evolution, are how you can have design without a designer. It is these processes that are responsible for the diversity and history of the Earth's various life forms. Unless the lights are out.Doesn't work so well then, does it? But that's exactly what it is. Those programmers took the thought out of the outcome. That's what they set out to do. Are you saying that they failed?I'd like to point you to one more article. Call it the "case of the accidental radio." It proves that intelligence really has nothing to do with it. In this case, a group of researchers set out to use these genetic algorithms to develop an oscillator - a simple electronic circuit. They wanted to see if random mutation and selection could be used to design electronic circuits.To their surprise, their program invented a functional radio instead! See, it turns out that's one way to make an oscillator - build a radio and just tune in to the various oscillating frequencies currently being transmitted for other applications. Page has gone | New ScientistIf intelligence had been involved in the design, they wouldn't have wound up with a radio. No human being would have thought to build a radio just to get an oscillator. So who designed the radio?The processes of random mutation and natural selection programmed into the simulation, that's who. Just as the processes of random mutation and natural selection at work in the real world are responsible for the living things on our planet. Talkorigins.org has been working hard to do exactly that, but as you can see, scientific ignorance is very widespread and pernicious. It doesn't help that there's all those creationists out there, telling lies about the science and misinforming people, as you were misinformed.Surely you can appreciate how hard it is to accurately inform the public on science matters, when so many of them are just "simple nuts and bolts" kinds of people? Not to say that they're dumb - intelligence doesn't have anything to do with it - but just about everybody has something better to do than devote their interest to biology and evolution beyond what they half-remember from school.We're different, you and I. You, I, the people at this board. Our interest in the debate is an interest in the science. We have a responsibility to inform the public about true science, and that starts with learning the science, ourselves. Who else is going to do it?

(Turn down your caps, please.)Lol, it's a knock-out punch, all right - in this sense:Think it through, ICDESIGN. If the best - the absolute, tip-top best designs in the entire history of design - is unable to match the complexity and effectiveness of the human body, isn't that proof that it's too complex to have been designed? Er, it seems like you've just disproven your own point. If the best intelligent designers can do doesn't even come close to the complexity of the human body, then it hardly makes any sense to credit intelligent design with the human body, now does it?