• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Evolutionary/Genetic Algorithms

digitalgoth

Junior Member
Jun 4, 2014
258
47
✟32,820.00
Faith
Other Religion
Every now and then in the Creation/Evolution debate, I see mention of evolutionary algorithms or genetic algorithms and some sort of issue with them, or flaw in them, or words to that effect.

I'm not understanding how a particular subset of optimization techniques has some association with the debate. I never see discussions centered on simulated annealing or particle-swarm optimization, but only genetic or evolutionary algorithms.

Is there a reason for this? What is the point of issue with these particular programming techniques?
 

digitalgoth

Junior Member
Jun 4, 2014
258
47
✟32,820.00
Faith
Other Religion
I am discussing computer science. There is an optimization technique called evolutionary algorithms, and they've come up in Creation/Evolution discussions before, and I was curious as to what about them made them relevant to the discussion. I believe William Dembski, has a book "No Free Lunch" (I haven't read it) which brought them up. I assume it was a discussion involving intelligent design, and was curious if someone could explain what the issue was if they knew.
 
Upvote 0

digitalgoth

Junior Member
Jun 4, 2014
258
47
✟32,820.00
Faith
Other Religion
So this line of questioning is refuted then? It's an elder expression of anti-mutation that is no longer followed then?

I just don't understand the "mutation doesn't create new information" argument but this has been covered, I'm a new member, so I'm only starting to read through the discussions, my apologies that this must have been covered before.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,884
66
Massachusetts
✟410,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Genetic algorithms are sometimes offered as proof of the principle that random variation filtered by selection can generate information and complexity. Since this fact undercuts a creationist/Intelligent Design argument against evolution, creationists find it necessary to attack it. Their attacks have little or no validity, but they do succeed in confusing the gullible, which would seem to be their main purpose.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,474
806
73
Chicago
✟140,871.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Genetic algorithms are sometimes offered as proof of the principle that random variation filtered by selection can generate information and complexity. Since this fact undercuts a creationist/Intelligent Design argument against evolution, creationists find it necessary to attack it. Their attacks have little or no validity, but they do succeed in confusing the gullible, which would seem to be their main purpose.

Why would this be a surprise? If random is interfered, it would not be random any more. Right? If so, how would this algorithm help the argument of evolution?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,884
66
Massachusetts
✟410,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why would this be a surprise? If random is interfered, it would not be random any more. Right? If so, how would this algorithm help the argument of evolution?
Because adaptive evolution operates on exactly the same principle: random mutation filtered by what works best.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,474
806
73
Chicago
✟140,871.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Because adaptive evolution operates on exactly the same principle: random mutation filtered by what works best.

What does the genetic algorithm do AFTER it sees the randomness is broken?
I have no problem to see mutation produces some anomalies. But how do you program on what would take place after that?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,884
66
Massachusetts
✟410,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What does the genetic algorithm do AFTER it sees the randomness is broken?
I have no problem to see mutation produces some anomalies. But how do you program on what would take place after that?
You run the mutated algorithms and see what they do. Simulations that are intended as models of evolution have different, mutated programs competing for CPU and memory resources. Genetic algorithms written to solve problems compare the mutated programs for how well they carry out the desired function.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,474
806
73
Chicago
✟140,871.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You run the mutated algorithms and see what they do. Simulations that are intended as models of evolution have different, mutated programs competing for CPU and memory resources. Genetic algorithms written to solve problems compare the mutated programs for how well they carry out the desired function.

Thanks. It sounds like that this could be turned into a wonderful computer game. A few mutants could be generated from an original and see which mutant became more powerful than others (see recent movie Godzilla yet? A good example is presented in there).
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,534
God's Earth
✟278,316.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Thanks. It sounds like that this could be turned into a wonderful computer game. A few mutants could be generated from an original and see which mutant became more powerful than others (see recent movie Godzilla yet? A good example is presented in there).

There are games like that. Here is a pretty simple one.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,532
Antwerp
✟165,905.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I am discussing computer science. There is an optimization technique called evolutionary algorithms, and they've come up in Creation/Evolution discussions before, and I was curious as to what about them made them relevant to the discussion. I believe William Dembski, has a book "No Free Lunch" (I haven't read it) which brought them up. I assume it was a discussion involving intelligent design, and was curious if someone could explain what the issue was if they knew.

I have been known to point to these algorithms in such discussions. Reason is fairly simple: to demonstrate that the mechanism works. That reproduction with random variation + a fitness test (=natural selection) indeed does result in more complex and specified output.

Which is exactly why the algorithms are used in a wide variety of practical applications.

As for the issue creationists have with them? Well... I'm sorry that this answer won't be very satisfying to you... but in my experience, the issue they have with them is about the same as the issue they have with evolution itself and a whole load of scientific theories: they don't agree with their preconceived beliefs. And that's about it.

I have never heared an actual sensible argument against these algorithms.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,532
Antwerp
✟165,905.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
What does the genetic algorithm do AFTER it sees the randomness is broken?
I have no problem to see mutation produces some anomalies. But how do you program on what would take place after that?

I don't understand your question. And I'm a professional software engineer who actually implemented genetic algorithms.

What you do when using this algorithm is work towards a pre-determined goal. But that goal is not a specific system. That goal is a certain outcome, an achievement. And it is based on parameters.

Take a very simplistic textbook example: the traveling salesman.
The salesman needs to visit 10 location. He could visit all off them in a wide variety of orders.
We can impose parameters on his journey. For example, we want to shortest route. Or we want the fastest route. Or, for some reason, we might even want to most innefficient route.

Using a genetic algorithm for this would test against those parameters. You'ld have a population of "possible" routes and calculate the fitness of each individual route - with respect to the parameters.

If we are trying to get to the fastest route, we'ld calculate completion time and continue with the fastest individuals.
When we are trying to get to the most fuel efficient route, we'ld calculate that, etc.

And based on that "fitness", we'll choose the best performing (again: best performing as relative to the parameters) to reproduce, mutate and restart in a new generation.

And we'll inevitably end up with systems that perform well and seem designed to do exactly what they do. But they aren't. Instead, they are filtered based on their performance. And because of the filter, they get better at it with every passing generation.

Here's a fun example of such an implementation... http://boxcar2d.com/
Just click it open and leave your browser open for a few hours (it might be required to leave it as the active window as well - not sure if it continues to run in the background, some browser might block it). After that, you'll see cars driving quite happily over the track, while at first you only had shapes with perhaps more then 1 wheel that breaks down 1 second after it appears on screen.

The goal of that GA is to evolve "cars" that perform well on the track.
The first generation is fully random. It's just a bunch of polygons with random wheels in random places, with a random torque and spring tension, etc.

Generation after generation, small random and unguided mutations are introduced. A fitness function then selects best performing cars.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,474
806
73
Chicago
✟140,871.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand your question. And I'm a professional software engineer who actually implemented genetic algorithms.

....

Generation after generation, small random and unguided mutations are introduced. A fitness function then selects best performing cars.

How do you get the best car on one hand, and also get another best car on the other hand?

If you don't get it, then think about this: Why should chimp evolved into human on one hand, but also continue to thrive on the other hand?

How do you improve your algorithm to make that happen?
 
Upvote 0