Spot the design, for fun and profit.

[ENIGMA]

6 Items

In the picture linked above are two circuit diagrams, two antennas, and two pieces of programming code.

One circuit diagram, one antenna, and one piece of programming code was designed and constructed/written by human engineers and programmers. The others were generated from genetic algorithms, the only human intervention being the construction of the genetic algorithms, specifically, the "fitness" function of each, based on whatever performance metric the task requires.

So given the designed and undesigned items, and given a major premise of ID (namely that the universe "appears designed"), it should be a simple matter to determine which was designed and which was not. So, surely someone among us can differentiate between the two sets of items using nothing more than some consistant algorithmic or quasi-algorithmic process without any further information.

To make this interesting, I am willing to give $100 to the first person who correctly classifies all the above items and states a consistant mechanism by which they can correctly classify the above pairs, and potentially any other such pairs of items from simple observation. (In other words, such things as "Search the internet and find its history", or "Randomly guess", etc. don't count)

Note: Each circuit and antenna performs an equivalent function as its counterpart, however the two pieces of code perform different functions.

EDIT: Changed to link to the picture instead of showing it directly, so that the preview pane doesn't go nuts.

[QED]

As you have posted this in a debate forum I am going to assume the question for debate is "which was designed and which was not". That should be sufficient. Excellent! Now perhaps we can engage the Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents in a long overdue debate about the different sources of novel design in the world.

This has been nagging at me for some time now: Paley's argument about the watchmaker is still influencing a large body of people who must be totally unaware of the fact that engineers are now able to evolve an endless variety of products by emulating the process of natural selection. That novel (and in particular cases patentable) design can be generated algorithmically is a fact that every "natutal philosopher" (and there are still a few around!) should bear in mind.

Whether the six particular examples you have presented are identifiable or not, I would stress that there is, in principle, nothing about the appearance of algorithmically designed products that could give them away as being such. The degree to which complexity and subtlety can arise from a Genetic Algorithm is very much limited by the practicalities of the implementation. With an entire world full of atoms and molecular compounds to play with, nature has infinitely more scope for creativity using the same logical process.

From my own experience in electronic engineering I would say that 2, 3 and 6 are human designs simply because they look more familiar to my own attempts at such things. I couldn't say if they were the most efficient solutions though... that is something that GA products generally provide us with: optimal solutions for any given state-space.

[Jose]

It is obvious, from first principles, that 1 and 2 were designed by humans, 3 and 4 were designed by 3rd graders, and 5 and 6 are pure gibberish.

The criteria are so obvious that anyone with half a brain can reach the same conclusions. We can, furthermore, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 5 and 6 are not the product of design because the probability function of intransigent code is asymptotically rationalized through redundancy, reiterated repeatedly through the design space. I have published my work in the peer-reviewed online journal Debasingintelligence.net, so it must be true. And I cited 327 experts, all of whom have positive things to say.

The defense rests.

[Chimp]

Don't know much about the diagrams, but I can say submitting two
code samples that don't do the same thing says nothing. I am intrigued
by the idea of trying to distinguish human/machine code samples, but the
#6 sample is a mess wordwrap-wise and as such unreadable.

[Cathar1950]

I don't know but can I buy one? Do I need one for each room?

[ENIGMA]

Whether the six particular examples you have presented are identifiable or not, I would stress that there is, in principle, nothing about the appearance of algorithmically designed products that could give them away as being such.

If there is a mechanism which could find a difference between intelligent design and generation by a non-intelligent algorithmic process, I have little doubt that the ID proponents here will readily share it with us. Why they have yet to post their readily deducted answers, I can hardly fathom.

From my own experience in electronic engineering I would say that 2, 3 and 6 are human designs simply because they look more familiar to my own attempts at such things.

Close, but wrong. Good guess though.

Don't know much about the diagrams, but I can say submitting two code samples that don't do the same thing says nothing.

Perhaps, but considering that ID proponents claim that our universe appears designed when we lack a designated "undesigned" universe to compare it with, they should have no difficulty telling which is designed and which is not even in the absense of the conterpart code.

I borrowed the examples from another thread (on a different forum) with a similar premise. A quick google search didn't yield any counterparts for either, so I more or less left them as is.

I am intrigued by the idea of trying to distinguish human/machine code samples, but the #6 sample is a mess wordwrap-wise and as such unreadable.

Word-wrap isn't the only thing that makes the code in #6 human unreadable... but I'm getting ahead of myself.

[QED]

If there is a mechanism which could find a difference between intelligent design and generation by a non-intelligent algorithmic process, I have little doubt that the ID proponents here will readily share it with us. Why they have yet to post their readily deducted answers, I can hardly fathom.

Thanks for putting up design challenge ENIGMA. It might seem that all I can do is wave the flag for Genetic Algorithms these days, but I've come to realize only recently that a surprisingly small number of people understand of the creative force that lies within this discipline. Once it is appreciated that novel, (apparently clever or "intelligent") design can be generated without intelligent input, purely from quite simple logic, a whole new world of possibility opens up (literally!).

What is interesting is that not once have I been able to engage an ID proponent in a proper debate about this. Goodness knows I've tried often enough. Set against the background of all other debate topics which run on in stalemate for page after page I can't help thinking that this subject deserves more attention than it gets.

From my own experience in electronic engineering I would say that 2, 3 and 6 are human designs simply because they look more familiar to my own attempts at such things.

Close, but wrong. Good guess though.

Well it was fun to try

Don't know much about the diagrams, but I can say submitting two code samples that don't do the same thing says nothing.

I don't think it adds or takes away much from the challenge to have pairs for comparison. I can picture a collection of algorithmically design artifacts mixed in with human designed products and still see an interesting challenge in sorting them out.

[Jose]

Thanks for putting up design challenge ENIGMA. It might seem that all I can do is wave the flag for Genetic Algorithms these days, but I've come to realize only recently that a surprisingly small number of people understand of the creative force that lies within this discipline. Once it is appreciated that novel, (apparently clever or "intelligent") design can be generated without intelligent input, purely from quite simple logic, a whole new world of possibility opens up (literally!).

What is interesting is that not once have I been able to engage an ID proponent in a proper debate about this. Goodness knows I've tried often enough. Set against the background of all other debate topics which run on in stalemate for page after page I can't help thinking that this subject deserves more attention than it gets.

I agree. It's a great challenge!

I've watched with interest as you've made your efforts to engage the ID proponents in this debate. It seems that they focus on the fact that the computer itself was designed, the algorithm was designed, and the selection criteria were designed. It's the flip-side of the notion that "if mutation is random, then everything else about evolution must be as well." It's apparently difficult to separate the steps of the process, and evaluate each one on its own.

The tradition in education is to illustrate the two steps (mutation and selection) by simulations. You know, the "spoonbill" comes along and eats only the yellow and orange M&M's, thereby selecting for the other colors. The simulations may not make the point precisely because they are simulations--and if you think that to "believe in" evolution you must have 100% of the details from start to finish, well...simulations aren't relevant.

I wonder if genetic programming is also, in some sense, a simulation. So what if it works? It's not monkeys waking up one day as humans.

But hang in there--genetic algorithms are undeniable proof that the mechanisms of evolution really do produce "apparent design."

[QED]

I've watched with interest as you've made your efforts to engage the ID proponents in this debate. It seems that they focus on the fact that the computer itself was designed, the algorithm was designed, and the selection criteria were designed.

Well yes, they often say that to begin with, then I simply point out that the human engineering feat is to simulate a little world in which evolution can happen. Nothing is put into this world to give even so much as a hint as how to go about generating the final design product. Some might be tempted to draw an analogy between the work of the engineer and the work of God in creating the universe; but in both cases, at inception, the universe does not hold any design details for its later content. All we have are raw materials and laws upon which these materials will interact.

As for the selection criteria, this is clearly chosen by the engineer. It represents a goal to be met by the design generator. In the case of the antenna above, for example, it might be a simple measurement of Radio Frequency power into a particular load. The engineer is thus expressing his wish for what he would like to see come out of the design generator. In the case of natural selection I would say that the criteria is ultimately existence. This would seem to me to be a rather inevitable criteria -- one that is not in need of any supernatural explanation (those things that can exist will exist) and while people might like to argue that it looks like just the sort of wish that God would make, it is clearly non-specific -- as anything that can exist will exist.

[Bugmaster]

Thanks for putting up design challenge ENIGMA. It might seem that all I can do is wave the flag for Genetic Algorithms these days, but I've come to realize only recently that a surprisingly small number of people understand of the creative force that lies within this discipline. Once it is appreciated that novel, (apparently clever or "intelligent") design can be generated without intelligent input, purely from quite simple logic, a whole new world of possibility opens up (literally!).

Just because I am a misanthropic bastard, I'm going to point out that there's nothing magical about Genetic Algorithms, either. They are, basically, just another kind of mathematical optimization technique; there are many others. All optimization techniques suffer from the same problems (some more than others), such as the tendency to get "stuck" on local maxima. Genetic algorithms are cool because they're so easy to implement, but their results can vary wildly depending on the mutation rate, the genetic drift rate, and of course on the fitness function. Simulated Annealing is a bit more robust for most cases (I could be wrong though, it has been a while since my CS class...), but it's not nearly as fast.