Genetic Programming as evidence against ID

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".

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".

[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.

The Scientific American example of a GP that produces circuit designs was brought up.There is confusion over where the intelligent design was put in. The genetic program was designed the circuits it produced had no intelligent design put into them at all.The GP is equivalent to the Darwinian process of mutation and selection. When we look at the organisms created by the process (the output -- equivalent to the circuits) the ID'ers argue that there must have been intelligence in the design of those organisms simply on the assertion that something that appears designed must have intelligence.
In the case of the GP discussed the circuits appear designed too. But they have no intelligence put into the design of the circuits tehy are a result of the process and not built into the process at all. This demonstrates that when a evolution-like process exists design can appear and look "intelligent" when it wasn't.That's the fundamental flaw of ID.Now we're back to arguing about what got the Darwinian process started.

Maybe we should spin a thread off to discuss this. I once stood next to someone while he hopped up and down describing the flying saucer he was pointing at with windows, colored lights and speeding across the sky. It took me several minutes to realize he was pointing at Venus. The radio had reported what he was telling me and since he believed it was there he saw it.It is reasonably easy to get people to see what you want them to see. Or, evern more, to see what they want to see. That is the point of Sagan's comment.

Percy, I don't "get" your use of model here.The thing being "modeled" is the evolutionary process. We haven't tried to settle whether that was designed or not.The thing that ID'ers say has intelligent design is the output of the process. In this case that is the circuit design. A GP models the process. The output is not a "modeled" thing. The output is analogous to living organisms but not a "model" of them.Are we in agreement or not? Maybe I just misunderstand your wording.

OK, that we agree on. And that is clear. The nice difference between your example and the GP one is that the GP one doesn't produce "simulated" output. The outputs are very real designs. Or maybe that is not a distinction worth bothering with. We aren't after all getting "real" circuts out so maybe the snowflake pictures are just the same as the circut designs.Ok, ok, I think that's beat to death enough.There is this extra level in there. The creationists don't seem to be able to deal with that.