Is it true that the human experience with enhancing complex designs using evolutionary computer algorithms shedding any light on the possibility of random mutations to deliver apparent design?
(Read the article and watch the two short videos at the end and share your opinion)
I offer you this dialogue about the topic where I was arguing for intelligent design, and then the following argument was made by the other party:
— Atheist:
It would surprise you by saying that there are limits to the capability of intelligence to design complexity. So, because of this, engineers now use evolutionary algorithms to design technology that is far too complex for intelligent designers.
To encourage more work in evolutionary algorithms, the Special Interest Group on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation issues a yearly award called a “Humie”. In 2007, Steve Manos of University College London received the award after he used an evolutionary algorithm to develop a new type of holey fiber-optic cable that doubled its bandwidth. At the same event, Joe Sullivan at the University of Limerick in Ireland used an Evolutionary Algorithm to make a USB flash stick that lasts thirty times longer than those on the market at the time. Also, a team led by Pierre Legrand at the University of Bordeaux, France, developed an evolutionary system to configure the electrodes for cochlear implants. Legrand’s team took just one-and-a-half days to configure an optimal pattern for one patient whose doctors had not succeeded in 10 years. The use of evolutionary algorithms is so effective that there are critics who argue that the technique may lead to designs that can’t be properly evaluated since no human understands which tradeoffs were made and therefore where failure is likely.
So, attributing complexity to intelligent design is completely unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable.
— Finding Truth:
I am quite aware of genetic algorithms and other “evolutionary” design techniques.
Don’t be deceived; as behind them is the designer who runs them.
They have an “Objective Function”.
Who is setting ours?
Please read my Article #28 about integrated design!
The algorithm that created the flash drive, how does it integrate with the algorithm that creates the computer in which the flash drive should plug in?!
Who is setting common parameters for the two algorithms so that the resulting subsystems have common protocols.
Open your eyes.
— Atheist:
There are better creationist arguments using the same premise of yours, but they refer to it as “Specified Complexity”.
It’s wrong too.
And in the end, you STILL have shown no real-world applications for the assumption of “integrated design”.
And no, as I said, the issue with evolutionary algorithms is that we DON’T have any intelligence designing them so the danger of failure is incalculable.
Prove the existence of “Objective Function”!
— Finding Truth:
What do you mean that I prove the existence of an objective function?
Last time I checked, you start an evolutionary algorithm from an already existing known design that works (or a set of them), then you program into the algorithm which features it can tamper with and what are the ranges of applicable new features (you cannot let it for example place wooden parts in an electric circuit)…
After each generation, there must be an evaluation of the performance of the new generation, and you would rule out what is significantly diverging from your targeted performance…
So, for example offspring that will have much less storage (in your example) will be eliminated, and then you will start mixing and scrambling for the next ones.
You attribute it to evolution because the name of evolution is forcefully plugged there. It is actually trial and error, with conscious evaluation filters.
We just replace a human with a machine to keep trying in the search space,
And we replace a human with a machine to evaluate the results.
When you have a complex problem with a huge search space, trial and error is a good way.
You see, the matter of evolution is a matter of linguistics too, not just science.
so, in short, regardless the details (that may vary according to the algorithm and available processing power):
You already start with a target in mind (extra storage, less power consumption, better transmission, higher bandwidth, certain filter properties, … etc.)…
i.e. you know what you are looking for: YOUR OBJECTIVE.
The mathematical or logical construct that you interweave in the algorithm to secure you drive towards your objective is your objective function.
Without those you have nothing.
It is through this function that you know you have reached an acceptable result in the first place, by evaluating it!!
— Atheist:
Yes, an intelligence selects the most viable designs of each generation just like the struggle for life or death selects the most viable designs in each generation.
Make no mistake, each generation is designed by random variation, not intelligence.
And the application of intelligence for the selection process is also less efficient in developing better design than natural selection.
Have you noticed that you STILL haven’t even bothered to cite ANY applications for creationism?
Why is that?
— Finding Truth:
Are you willing to change perspective for a little while?!!
Natural selection is totally blind, according to ToE.
So, without an objective function Natural Selection can not help Random Mutations, which will hence remain random…
Result: ZERO.
So, how come you accept that we have a natural process (without an objective function) that is even better than an intelligent human process (with an objective function)?!!
Answer: because this is (… … …)!
Fill in the spaces please!
— Atheist:
Answer: because this is an example of Finding Truth not realizing that natural selection is NOT random, whether or not it has any foresight.
— Finding Truth:
No, the answer is: because this is (NOT random)!
The only non random component it has is that of already living creatures taking decisions through preprogrammed genetics and minds…
So, the real decisions are being taken by “created” (and purposefully designed) living things.
And that’s why there will never be an answer to abiogenesis… (prior to biological evolution). Because there is no life to take decisions.
And never an answer to multicellularity beyond the dumb colonial theory…
Because unicellular organisms don’t care at all to become anything beyond a colony to help each other.
Please don’t try to make blind “natural” selection a deciding (designing) thing, because it is not!
— — —
So, I ask you, do you think that “nature” that is blind, has no direction other than the direction of Entropy (which pushes all things to a state of degradation and disorder), knows nothing and care not about life, do you think it will autonomously create the marvelously designed life from non-life, and then autonomously progress life from the simplest life form into the magnificent human being?!
I offer you this video that explains the impossibility of randomness in creating design:
And this video where I argue that Random Mutations can never cause progressive evolution of species:
Finding Truth