Proof that evolution works

[QED]

Many people argue that evolution cannot work even in principle. This can be discounted by pointing to examples of practical applications based on the evolutionary principle. For example this report tells us that

Computer programs that "evolve" in ways that resemble natural selection can solve complex problems even their creators do not fully understand.

At the core of all evolutionary systems are genetic algorithms whether they be natural or synthetic, the same principles apply and are found to work as highly effective and autonomous design tools.

That nature uses more elemental ingredients is of no significance. The process is entirely scalable which is why we see evidence of evolution in a wide variety of different realms. Our own best tool for modelling evolution at the moment is the computer (our latest toy) but we may soon be able to work at the same atomic scale that nature uses and importantly, the transition would be a smooth one.

So given that we have taken a hint from nature and found her methods to be effective at producing such autonomous designs, why would we continue to doubt that this is the very system responsible for all the apparent natural "designs" we see around us? After all, would it not be an incredible coincidence if we had misinterpreted natures methods yet still ended up with a powerfully creative yet autonomous system purely by chance?

Additional material is widely available on the internet, for example:
The Genetic Algorithms Archive (a repository for information related to research in genetic algorithms and other forms of evolutionary computation.)
Genetic Algorithms and Artificial Life Resources
Wikipedias entry for genetic algorithms

[micatala]

Some further comments though on genetic algorithms. First is that programmers had to program the genetic algorithms. This fact shows that some sort of intelligent design is in the process.

Yes, computer programs as we know them are designed by computer programmers, agreed. However, this does NOT show that a computer programmer is necessary to the production of a program.

Another analogy. We have snow-making machines which can 'create snow.' I don't know the exact details or if the man-made snowflakes are indistinguishable from natural snowflakes (I'll assume they are, for now). Obviously, there is a 'designer' involved in the man-made flakes, but this does not mean the designer is necessary.

I would agree with otseng that these programs do not necessarily 'prove' that common descent is true. However, in my view, it does provide another independent and powerful line of evidence showing that evolution, including common descent, is entirely plausible. Even if the analogy between the computer progams and biological life is not perfect, this does not mean what we are learning from these programs is irrelevant to evolution.

All science works by creating models, which are necessarily only approximations, of reality. It seems to me that some of the criticisms you make are based on this inherent limitation of science. In other words, I think you expect too much (IMHO)!

[otseng]

Note that i had stated that "you" can get to theistic evolution at best (from your point of view) with this. Naturalistic evolution is perfectly compatible with my statement about this. Please don't try to turn around the direction in which i argued.

I'm not stating whether you support theistic evolution or not, but simply that you had brought it up. Heck, even I don't support theistic evolution (at least not in the traditional sense).

I would disagree that genetic algorithms produce a "final design product". Rather, the output produced is simply a numerical solution to a problem.

I'm surprised you that you would choose to say this, as evidently an engineer yourself, I would have expected you to realise that the numerical solution you refer to might represent an optimally efficient turbine of the sort General Electric produced using this method.

I do not believe that the turbines are produced directly from any computer algorithm. Rather, humans still had to be involved in the intermediate process. That is, humans took the design produced from computer algorithms, then got the materials necessary and constructed the turbines based on the design. So, that is why I say that the end result from the algorithm is a numerical solution, not a final product.

Are you sure you've understood the nature of the algorithm we're discussing here? Note that there is potential for confusion because there are in fact two programs being considered. One is the static program that we devise to simulate the environment in which evolution takes place (this could be substituted for anything classed as a Turing Machine) and the other is the "product" evolving within that environment. This represents the organism in the natural parallel. It is the machine instructions of this program that are analogous to DNA. This program is also completely foreign to us in that nobody has written a single line of its code.

Perhaps I don't completely understand the analogy. If the machine instructions are analogous to the DNA, then it should be the machine instructions themselves that would be mutated. I do not see that to be the case.

But the class of solutions that GAs are best suited are those that are analogous with the sort of design challenges faced by nature such as laminar flow or aerofoil design. Hint hint.

But then humans would have to take the laminar flow or aerofoil design and construct them. I hint hint also.

At what point would a transition from silicon-technology to nano-technology become discontinuous, and then again form nano-technology to biology?

Our current technology has quite a way to go before all three can be synthesized together. So, as of now, there is quite a disconnect between all three.

Yes, computer programs as we know them are designed by computer programmers, agreed. However, this does NOT show that a computer programmer is necessary to the production of a program.

That's interesting. What computer programs were not created by programmers?

All science works by creating models, which are necessarily only approximations, of reality.

I would agree. What I am challenging is the applicability of the model of genetic algorithms to biological evolution.

[QED]

I do not believe that the turbines are produced directly from any computer algorithm. Rather, humans still had to be involved in the intermediate process. That is, humans took the design produced from computer algorithms, then got the materials necessary and constructed the turbines based on the design. So, that is why I say that the end result from the algorithm is a numerical solution, not a final product.

You're showing argument through incredulity here. You see there are things called Computer Numeric Controlled (CNC) Machine Tools that can turn those numbers into material objects. And to save another round of debate, I'll point out that this too is all irrelevant anyway because you've failed to grasp the scope of this analogy. With improved technology, the product could be material.

But then humans would have to take the laminar flow or aerofoil design and construct them. I hint hint also.

See above.

At what point would a transition from silicon-technology to nano-technology become discontinuous, and then again form nano-technology to biology?

Our current technology has quite a way to go before all three can be synthesized together. So, as of now, there is quite a disconnect between all three.

A way to go indeed, but I did not ask how far we were away, but in what way there might be a road-block that stops us transitioning smoothly from one level of technology to the other.

That's interesting. What computer programs were not created by programmers?

Duh, the sort we've been discussing here in this topic!

All science works by creating models, which are necessarily only approximations, of reality.

I would agree. What I am challenging is the applicability of the model of genetic algorithms to biological evolution.

It's just a question of degree otseng. The transition from crude to ever more sophisticated technology is all it takes to reach biology from where we are now. If this was not the case then people wouldn't be up in arms about GM foods.

[otseng]

I do not believe that the turbines are produced directly from any computer algorithm. Rather, humans still had to be involved in the intermediate process. That is, humans took the design produced from computer algorithms, then got the materials necessary and constructed the turbines based on the design. So, that is why I say that the end result from the algorithm is a numerical solution, not a final product.

You're showing argument through incredulity here.

No, not argument through incredulity, but simply drawing on my experience as a programmer for 20 years.

And to save another round of debate, I'll point out that this too is all irrelevant anyway because you've failed to grasp the scope of this analogy.

I think you're right. I fail to see the scope of your analogy.

That's interesting. What computer programs were not created by programmers?

Duh, the sort we've been discussing here in this topic!

I do not see anything here about computer programs being generated. Please provide a link to a computer program that was created without the intervention of a programmer.

[harvey1]

Duh, the sort we've been discussing here in this topic!

"Duh" is a little condescending in my opinion...

[QED]

You're showing argument through incredulity here.

No, not argument through incredulity, but simply drawing on my experience as a programmer for 20 years.

This is what I've been trying to figure out about your position on this subject. I know that you have had considerable experience in this field - you said earlier how you worked with 4-bit processors so I know you've been writing in machine code. The experience of using modern computers is nothing like the experience of using those that had to be fed programs from toggle switches, punch-cards or paper tape (I wrote my first programs on punch cards back in 1968!) so I though the concept of assembling programs from random machine codes might easily make sense to you.

I do not see anything here about computer programs being generated. Please provide a link to a computer program that was created without the intervention of a programmer.

The proper search term fro this is not Genetic Algorithm, but Genetic Programming. There are numerous instances of this on the net.

Genetic programming is much more powerful than genetic algorithms. The output of the genetic algorithm is a quantity, while the output of the genetic programming is a another computer program. In essence, this is the beginning of computer programs that program themselves.

From this tutorial

There are also commercially available applications specially for this purpose.

Genetic Programming (GP) is the automatic, computerized creation of computer programs to perform a selected task using Darwinian natural selection...

...Discipulus™ [18] is a linear-genetic-programming (LGP) software package
that operates directly on machine code. The LGP algorithm in Discipulus is surprisingly simple. It starts with a population of randomly generated computer programs. These programs are the “primordial soup” on which computerized evolution operates. Then, GP conducts a “tournament” by selecting four programs from the population—also at random—and measures how well each of the four programs performs the task designated by the GP developer. The two programs that
perform the task best “win” the tournament.

From a white paper published by the vendor.

[QED]

"Duh" is a little condescending in my opinion...

I for one would be more interested in your opinion about the actual topic

[otseng]

This is what I've been trying to figure out about your position on this subject. I know that you have had considerable experience in this field - you said earlier how you worked with 4-bit processors so I know you've been writing in machine code.

My programming experience has been limited to firmware programming and web programming. I am fortunate that I've never had to program using punch cards.

The proper search term fro this is not Genetic Algorithm, but Genetic Programming.

I guess the thread has now evolved from Genetic Algorithm to Genetic Programming...

With GP, I can see your point about programs being created through evolutionary means. But I still fail to see your point about it offering anything new in the discussions about biological evolution.

[Jose]

With GP, I can see your point about programs being created through evolutionary means. But I still fail to see your point about it offering anything new in the discussions about biological evolution.

It seems to me that the point is that these types of programs model the process of evolution. Admittedly, this is not a new point, since it was raised early in the thread, but it serves to demonstrate that random mutation followed by selection according to some set of rules causes evolution to occur. It proves that it works. It also proves that people are smart enough to recognize the mechanism of evolution, and take advantage of it to search for new solutions to a variety of problems.

[boris010666]

For example, microevolution is undisputed. One aspect of the ToE that is under dispute is common descent.

This is an obviosuly untenable position. Microevolution + reproductive isolation = macroevolution. There's no missing link there.

DanZ

This is where common people, especially school children are duped! Microevolution is merely variations within the same kinds of animals! But proponents of evolution assert that since this happens, then automatically, given enough time, macroevolution MUST be true! This is PURE speculation and is nothing more than state-supported religion! I think it takes more faith to believe we all came from a rock 4.5 billion years ago, which came from a cosmic "burp" 15-20 billion years ago, than to believe that we are created by God!