Evolution as an Algorithm

I have to agree that more than just an abstract mathematical theorem or a computer simulator is neccesary to to bring the ToE out of its arcane understanding. There are programs that simulate how diversity can arise within a population, none of which anyone is in disagreement about. However, this is precisely why there are multiple threads open on the differences between a macroevolutionary process and a microadaptive process. Furthermore, models tend to be grossly oversimplified to the point that it cannot be cited as a proof in defense of the theory.As well, computer simulations of an evolutionary process seem to imply that the development which is being measured over so many generations is independent of development of other structures which are necessary for basic function. This, of course, is what IC "Irreducible Complexity" is all about. And perhaps this is what Darwin was alluding to when he said that if it can be demonstrated that nothing could have come together by successive chance, my theroy would utterly break down.Lastly, the changes observed from the simulation are dependent on the original data input which could clearly be construed as biased reserch or leading the research in the direction of the programer desires. When the theory is still lacking evidential credibility, why abandon the field and the lab and grind out abstract theorems or abstruse computer simulations? We need something far more laudable than these to seal the deal on the plausibility of the ToE.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Did you take into consideration my objections? Aside from my previous objections, I think you would be able to appreciate that no amount of algorithmic or logarithmic expressions could ever substitute actual empirical data. Perhaps you are looking at the substrate, the material, and the very clinical definitions of what these algorithms are able to produce. The way it makes it happen, there are no catastrophic variables that would throw these readings in a tizzy. But as we should all know quite well, nothing in life is free, and things don't organize themselves by chance innumerable times.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

quote:

---

The way it makes it happen, there are no catastrophic variables that would throw these readings in a tizzy. But as we should all know quite well, nothing in life is free, and things don't organize themselves by chance innumerable times.

---

My apologies. In retrospect I barely understood it myself. Allow me to clarify. What I meant to say is that I doubt variables, such as catastrophes are not introduced as possible scenarios that would effect the outcome. In other words, it makes the presumption that life just kinda organizes itself beneficially without assistance. If ever there was one single argument that is truly presenting a problem for pro-evolutionists is IC. Are these evolutionary programs advanced enough to factor in such improbablities? I say that I doubt it because I've seen a few evolution simulators that are about as complex as "Pong." How did you determine that I leave out selection? There is only so far the genes can drift in a population before you hit a brick wall. The fallacy is that the genome of any given organism is basically infinite in its variability. That's obviously not the case.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

I'm glad you added that element, because history is full of catastrophe's that surely would effect numerous populations and how and when they would evolve, supposing that would at all. Well, this a chicken-egg argument I suppose. But you make the distinction for me that if organisms were so prone to variabilty, we would not have the populations that we do. In fact, if evolution were true why wouldn't we see so much more variabilty than we do?There are some common objections to evolutionary simulators and their applicable feasibility. For instance, AiG feels that algorithms cannot mimic biological evolution for the following reasons:

A ”trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative”it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

​

A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A "GA" (Genetic Algorithm) will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.

​

Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome”any move in the right direction is protected.

​

(And this objection could be applied to your introduction of the catastrophe. I agree that such variables should exist simply because they surely exist in actual nature, however, one cannot introduce a catastrophe simply because their algorithm is no longer producing viable organisms any longer).

​

Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ”reproduce’ to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population. Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored.

​

Those are just a few objections to the simulator/algorithm programs.

​

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

I don't know how much its a Holy Grail as opposed to just being a good argument in support of an ID and a conundrum for pro-evo's to overcome. As far as redundant complexity supplanting or claiming parity with ID is misleading. I assume you are referring to Behe's Blood Clotting Cascade and Kenneth Miller's refutation on that as not having to necessarily have to do with intelligence. I have to disagree with that and I feel that the 'evidence' compiled had more to do with circular reasoning than it did anything else. As for your last bit, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking for an example of something that could not have come about by random, successive copying errors?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Macroevolution is the major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. To be sure, I would expect a microevolutionary process, i.e., a form of evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies, to precipitate the possibility. But unfortunately, all we see is subspecies, not the advent new species, genera, etc, either in the fossil record, walking amongst us today, or in our imaginations. We just see organisms well-defined, not any in a state of transition, or as Darwin called it, "in a state of confusion."

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton