Joined: June 2008
|Quote (Freelurker @ Mar. 19 2009,12:35)|
|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.
I agree. There are folks who deny evolution can exist at all, and there are those who deny what biology does is evolution.
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima