Re: Challenge to Evolutionists...

On Nov 11, 5:20 pm, Gerard <markgerard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 11, 10:09 am, Louann Miller <louan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Gerard <markgerard...@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:19c4eedb-b630-43be-8de1-
c94861a10...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
evolution.

Scientific journals are stuffed with details. It's just that you haven't
read them.

Which doesn't make you particularly dumb, or evolution a sneaky hidden-
by-conspiracies subject. Most things in life are like that.

Unless you do it for a living, you probably can't describe the exact
workings of your television or your computer in any detail. You use them
anyway. You live in a state and/or country with thousands of pages of
laws and legal interpretations you've never read; you get by pretty well.
If you get a serious illness (say, arthritis or cancer) you aren't going
to understand what's happening to you and which treatments are likely to
work on the same level that your doctor will.

As an average person, you may not look at the diversity of life and see
how evolutionary processes cause it. But as an average person, you can't
look at the image on your t.v. screen and see how integrated circuits
and/or cathode ray tubes cause THAT, either.

You don't assume the electrical engineers are lying about t.v., that it's
caused by direct miracles from God instead of electronics. Why do you
assume the biologists are lying?

Electrical engineers make practical use of identifiable electrical
energy. There is no identifiable mechanism in "evolution theory" which
is harnassed to work in biology. If that were possible, we'd be seeing
new species develop in a laboratory. However, before using viruses or
bacterias as faulty examples, you must understand, there must be
distinctions made in certain specimens because of the theological
monopoly placed on some potential specimens used. When that rule is
applied, there is no demonstrable or identifiable mechanism in
evolution. If you want me to elaborate I will. But the challenge is on
every evolutionists' shoulder, not on a faith based religion. Get to
work. Point me to a book or manual which clearly demonstrates
photographically and journalistically, the identifiable players which
work to bring about random mutations, gene regulation, structural
formations and the like.

What rot.

Scientists and Engineers routinely use "evolution" to solve thorny
optimization problems that bedevil traditional mathematical methods..

This is something I posted some time ago..

I've written brief bits about this subject before. The use of
stochastic hill climbing problems in solving systems of equations in a
more efficeint manner than traditional methods is fast becomming
commonplace in the sciences and engineering.

Stochastic hill climbing methods are a class of mathematical methods
which harness randomness to find solutions to equations. It's called
hill climbing in an analogy with Sewall Wrights concept of fitness
landscapes. Such landscapes have peaks, where organisms have much
greater fitness than organisms in the plains and valleys below. The
trick is getting up the peak. Darwin discovered the first such
algorithm. Its called Natural Selection or descent via modification.
As
Dan Dennett distilled it, its quite simple, move up the hill when you
can, don't move back down it. THe simplest method is the Monte Carlo
method. In the monte carlo method (5pts for anyone who can figure out
why its called that, -25 pts for anyone who can't) solutions are
chosen
at random, inserted into the equations and we compute a "cost"; a
measure of how well it satisfies the equations. You keep trying
randomly derived solutions (guesses) until you have a population of
solutions that satisfies your criteria for goodness of fit. Usually
this is a value of the cost which is chosen as a threshold. Below such
a value you keep the solutions, above you reject. Once you have a
population of *good* solutions you can then perform other sorts of
statistical analyses to learn more about the properties that the
hypothetical *ideal* solution has.

Genetic algorithms are more complex than the Monte-Carlo method.
Indeed, they are quite analogous to NS. You have a population of
solutions (sans organisms), you breed a new generation via
x-fertilization and then see how well these new solutions actually
satisy the equations. THose solutions which exceed your cost criteria
are *killed* off. With each generation you can lower your cost
threshold. This is quite like *selection*. Indeed these terms, pepper
the stochastic hill climbing method literature.

In February's Scientific American (2003), there is an article written
by engineers and computer scientists who used GA's to create novel
electronic circuit deisgns. They were able to duplicate or better 15
previously patented designs using GA's.

In the case of the most complicated task, designing a "cubic signal
generator", the GA evolved a design which out perfoms a recently
patented design that performs the same task. GA's don't think. They
have no cognitive ability. Yet this GA *designed* such a good circuit.
Its even more interesting than that. TO quote the authors, "The
evolved
circuit performs with better accuracy than the designed one, but how
it
functions is not understood. The evolved circuit is clearly more
complicated, but also contains redundant parts, such as the purple
transistor that contrbutes nothing to the functioning." (You'll have
to
see the article). (Page 58, Feb 2003 issue of Sci-Am)

So here is a mindless computer algorithm besting intelligent designers
with designs that contain sub-optimal or unneeded parts. How scary is
that?

How will the creationists and ID *theorists* respond?

1. Well the algorithm was designed by humans, therefore by the
transitive property of whatever, anything resulting from a GA is also
designed by humans.

Of course the fact that the authors still have no idea how the
circuit works will not deter creationists from using the above. How
one
designs something while not knowing how it works, even after it is
*designed* is a contradiction that will not bother creationists or ID
theorists.

2. Well so what if the circuit has an unneeded part. Perhaps in the
future they will find it does have a function.

While not stated in the article, it would be a simple matter for
them to remove that transistor and verify that the cost value and the
performance of the circuit remains unchanged.

3. Perhaps the SOL or some dieletric constants will change in the
future, at which point, unneeded parts will have a function.

LOL. But no doubt Bill Dembski and others will take that route.

4. Well its not irreducibly complex.

Sorry, Dr. Behe, you remove something besides the unneeded
transistor, and you no longer have a cubic signal generator. Of
course,
it is likely that transitor was used in a past generation, and is
fixed
in the *design* as a result of an historical contingency (RIP, SJG).

5. The circuit was originally perfect, but it was ruined after the
Fall.

Umm.. not unless the fall occurred a few months ago.

6. This project was rooted in naturalist assumptions. Therefore its
not
valid. Neener-Neener

No Comment.

7. All of the above.



Stuart

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to pick the right transistor?
    ... designs. ... resistor for the transistor. ... understanding how these circuits work and why the components have the ... partcular kind of circuit, and can try using it in a similar circuit. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: How to pick the right transistor?
    ... designs. ... resistor for the transistor. ... understanding how these circuits work and why the components have the ... partcular kind of circuit, and can try using it in a similar circuit. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: op-amps with wide open-loop bandwidth ?
    ... There are op-amps with specs far exceeding your ... :> sound coloration' that sound entirely different in the same circuit ... instrument amplifier should ever let the opamp output saturate, ... circuits and though analysis of those designs didn't reveal anything ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: The real question
    ... I'm sure there must be other discussion forums out ... whether there is a class of designs which is unreachable by evolution. ... scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Obsolete Parts
    ... have inventory of. ... guitar effects are often about polluting the otherwise good signal ... the devices or circuit). ... uses for these old designs that newer components won't accommodate? ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
Loading