RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolutionary Computation, Stuff that drives AEs nuts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,11:35   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 18 2009,15:57)
Some Id-ists have trouble understanding why abstractions like GA/EC are relevant - ie. but it ain't wet! An important point for these folks (and others) is that GA isn't a model of evolution, it _IS_ evolution.

This is true in one sense, but let's not lose the distinction between genetic optimization algorithms and simulations of biological evolution.

It seems to me that Dembski makes mischief in just this way. All this criticism of modelers "sneaking in" information just isn't relevant to simulation models. The entire model, every bit of it, came from the modeler. The real issue is the fidelity of the model; does it match reality sufficiently to justify any conclusions one makes based on the model.

--------------
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  
  355 replies since Mar. 17 2009,11:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]