RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolutionary Computation, Stuff that drives AEs nuts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 271
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,07:26   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 11 2009,06:18)
Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success.

From Dembski's abstract.

I keep wondering how this line of argument is relevant to evolution. There are some rare instances in which populations "need" to find solutions to changing conditions. The record of extinction suggests this "search" is not generally successful.

Behe and Dembski suggest that structures such as flagella are the end result of a search, but I am no aware of any biologist who thinks flagella ever constituted a goal. As with many other biological structures, they happened.

But it is a monumental intellectual fraud to suggest that specific structures are sought after by biological evolution.

I'm only a mathematician, so I just wanted to show that Marks and Dembski are wrong according to the rules of their own world, not that their world is just a la-la-fantasy-land...

But a thought: I get the impression that (intelligent design) creationists believe in the power of the word, all words, literally. So, if someone calls some algorithm a evolutionary strategy, it has to be linked with the Theory of Evolution in general, and burning the effigy means destroying the real thing.

Or look at the information shell game: all different kinds (Shannon, Fisher,...) may be used as aspects of the real information, like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are aspects of the real god. Of course, an unbeliever will get that always wrong...

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

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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