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

[QED]

Of course Human intelligence is required to set up an environment in which the principles of natural selection can run their course: this is, if you will, is God creating the universe complete with its all atoms and laws. But once this task is complete the human engineer sits back and leaves the apparent design generator to churn out the apparent designs.

At least we both agree this still cannot remove a designer from the system. However you seem to have contradicted yourself here.

Not so Sleepy -- we don't necessarily agree on this point. I said that you might like to consider the human engineer who uses his intelligence to set up a design generating system in the same role as God when he created the universe and its laws. Whether this was indeed the case or not matters not one bit to the outcome of such a system once set in motion. Both the human and the God may walk away and leave the generator to do its thing.

Notice that this is precisely what happens in practice when Genetic Algorithms are run. They can be "left unattended overnight" so to speak and the eagerly anticipated products will be there waiting to be inspected the following morning. If you are implying that the requisite amount of intelligence was invested in the Algorithm before it was run then you are quite mistaken. As I mentioned before, the algorithm itself acquires knowledge about the "world" and the most appropriate way to adapt the design for it's "purpose" -- which itself was a statement of some desired goal -- analogous to the criteria for natural selection; namely ability to persist generation after generation.

Unless of course that you imply that either your algorithm or your computer is not generated by intelligence you cannot take this as true. We otherwise may then have to jump into philosophy and mathematics to argue exactly what intelligence is.

I don't think we need muddy the waters that much. Of course I do not believe that no intelligence went into the design of the computer or algorithm. What I understand, just as clearly, is that it is entirely irrelevant. The example of the spacecraft antenna evolved by NASA is all we need study to tell us if it is a product of intelligent design or not. In order to design an efficient antenna a key concept must be appreciated. This is a technical matter that is probably only appreciated by engineers familiar with Radio Frequency designs -- namely that peak power is developed in a conductor exposing 1/4 of the RF signals wavelength.

While being essential to any engineer setting out to design an Antenna, this vital knowledge need not be possessed at all by the developer of the Algorithm who might quite realistically be purely versed in computer software as the extent of his technical expertise. His algorithm however has the capacity to learn this fact for itself and that will become an essential part of its knowledge. How this knowledge is expressed is totally unpredictable and will probably be buried too deep to be retrieved on reverse engineering the final algorithm. Now, I would like to know, how can we reasonably say that this knowledge originated in the human engineer?

Like I said all these systems do is suggest that the theory works in theory. Something I do not disagree with. You can hardly call this hard science but it is wonderfully 'designed' mathematics.

Unless you don't accept the fact that NASA etc. can evolve hardware through using the same principles as natural selection then it's more the case that the theory works in practice. I think your apparent desire to equivocate on this matter is unjustified in the face of a wide variety of apparently designed products that are neither the result of human or divine intelligence, but have been constructed through a series of design decisions arrived at essentially through fully automated system of trial and error.

[QED]

I dunno, QED. You're back at the usual bottleneck: if an intelligence was ever involved, it seems that the whole thing is intelligent. It's like the notion that if real evolution ever uses anything random, then the whole thing is random.

I don't think it's a bottleneck that would resist too much thinking on the part of individuals willing to give the matters due consideration.

I would encourage anyone who still beleives that GA's achieve their novel, apparent, designs through some sort of intellectual leakage to take up the debate in the topic titled Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination?

Can you give us an example of GP in which the computer produces its mutations randomly, but the testing of the mutants is by a non-designed process? I agree that it's quicker to use the computer; it's also quicker, in designing airplane wings (for example) to use an intelligently-designed wind tunnel than to throw things off a ridge into an updraft. Still, the latter would work, even if it is more cumbersome. Whaddyathink?

I can supply no end of links to artificial life & evolutionary computing for example. What I haven't as yet come across is a "real world" simulation wherein the natural selection criteria is allowed to operate upon generaitions of autonomous entities (i.e. robots) in competitioin with each other. I would imagine this would be the "killer" demonstration for most people but for you and me it's enough to see the generation of complex, novel, apparent design in other products to understand that this is totally achievable in principle (if not in practice with our technology just now).