Intelligent Design - another failure

lucaspa said:

Don't you use genetic algorithms in your part of the aerospace industry?

Click to expand...

No we do not. And you can be assured that behind the above method there are some very big brained people solving the everyday details of manufacturing. We do have mathematical models that try and get close to reality. But behind all the models are creative, problemsolving, intuitive, risk-taking, curious, analyzing dreaming, humans.

lucaspa said:

Right, which is why human engineers use Darwinian selection when the design problem is too tough for them.

Click to expand...

Things are not so simple that all we need to do is apply Darwinin selection and then no problem is too tough. I have a >20GHz (K band) RF chain that needs to fit in a 1" X 1" X 4", box. I need 5dBm output power over -20C to 70C. And I have very tight (< 50dBc) spur specs. The power can only vary 1dB over all conditions over the entire 10+ year lifespan in a very harsh high radiation environment. We will thermal cycle this thing for weeks, we will shake it and bake it, We will freeze it under a vacuum, spray it with RF. There is a list of specifications that goes on for several pages. And we want to make a buck. This is not a profit free zone.

Armies of engineers and business weenies are looking for a better way. If you really had a better way than you would not be here talking to us. Your time would be priceless as you solve all the worlds engineering problems.

lucaspa said:

Here's some more examples:
1. Nature doesn't make DNA sequences that are also enzymes. So we have no idea even where to start in designing a DNA enzyme. But Joyce and co-workers simply started out with random DNA sequences, tested them for any enzymatic activity, kept those that did, and then introduced random changes in the sequence each generation. Each generation the sequences were tested against the environment of enzymatic activity. Now there is a whole family of DNA enzymes, some of which will be used on patients.

Click to expand...

Some starting point! Two big brained scientists with a purpose and the highest data density structure in the known universe. Nature has no purpose, it does not know where it is going, and can't select for unknown future goals. All the examples you cite require humans with a specific purpose.

lucaspa said:

So, all in all your argument comes down to:
1. Personal incredulity.
2. Ignorance of what is happening in your field of engineering.

Click to expand...

And I am proud to be incredibly ignorant.

Peace.

mythbuster said:

And I am proud to be incredibly ignorant

Click to expand...

Which, in a nutshell, is the standard creationist position.

mythbuster said:

And I am proud to be incredibly ignorant.

Click to expand...

You're proud to be ignorant?

You have my pity.

mythbuster said:

And I am proud to be incredibly ignorant.

Click to expand...

What a sad, sad thing for a human being to admit.

The Bellman said:

What a sad, sad thing for a human being to admit.

Click to expand...

Please, don't be sad for me.

I am ignorant of many things, especially the greatest mystery, which is our human existence, life, and consciousness. The claims by a few that this, the greatest of mysteries, been essentially solved, short of a few details, is the ultimate demonstration of pride and arrogance.

As I view images of space produced by the curious, seeking, human mind, I can only say how incredible it is and how insignificant we are. Looking the other direction into a microscope, into the vast, amazing, beautiful, world of life, we see engineering sophistication and technologies that humiliate all our human efforts to date.

And I am proud not to be counted among those who are not incredulous, who fail to be impressed at any level, with the scope of creation.

Oops. Double post. See below

mythbuster said:

No we do not. And you can be assured that behind the above method there are some very big brained people solving the everyday details of manufacturing.

Click to expand...

Manufacturing is not the same as design.

We do have mathematical models that try and get close to reality. But behind all the models are creative, problemsolving, intuitive, risk-taking, curious, analyzing dreaming, humans.

Click to expand...

And they are using Darwinian selection in their minds.

Things are not so simple that all we need to do is apply Darwinin selection and then no problem is too tough. I have a >20GHz (K band) RF chain that needs to fit in a 1" X 1" X 4", box. I need 5dBm output power over -20C to 70C. And I have very tight (< 50dBc) spur specs. The power can only vary 1dB over all conditions over the entire 10+ year lifespan in a very harsh high radiation environment. We will thermal cycle this thing for weeks, we will shake it and bake it, We will freeze it under a vacuum, spray it with RF. There is a list of specifications that goes on for several pages. And we want to make a buck. This is not a profit free zone.

Click to expand...

Fine. Then make all these requirements part of the adaptive landscape (environment) of your genetic algorithm. This is where Darwinian selection works best, or didn't you read the quote from Thompson? Here, let me give it to you again. Please read it this time:
"There are properties that humans have great trouble designing into a system, like being very efficient, using small amounts of power, or being fault tolerant. Evolution can cope withthem all."-- Thompson.

The point is that Darwinian selection solves problems and creates design when it is too tough for humans. It appears that you missed that point, because you come back with what you think is a tough design problem. I suggest you let Darwinian selection do it, since you feel you are going to have problems at it. Is it possible that having Darwinian selection do it will hurt your feelings or ego? OTOH, if you really do get this design right in a short amount of time using Darwinian selection, just think how much you will impress your boss.

Armies of engineers and business weenies are looking for a better way. If you really had a better way than you would not be here talking to us. Your time would be priceless as you solve all the worlds engineering problems.

Click to expand...

The point is that I am not going to solve the problem, Darwinian selection is. Have any of you guys tried to use a genetic algorithm for this?

Some starting point! Two big brained scientists with a purpose and the highest data density structure in the known universe. Nature has no purpose, it does not know where it is going, and can't select for unknown future goals.

Click to expand...

Darwinian selection working in nature doesn't have to select for unknown future goals. It is selecting for known short term goals. Which is what the people are setting up. Again, all the engineers did was pick the environment. Darwinian selection did the designing. You have an environment in your pages of specifications. Let Darwinian selection design your RF chain. What Darwinian selection does best is find designs to best fit conflicting requirements.

All organisms have a specific purpose: survive and reproduce. How that goal is accomplished depends on the specific environment. All the examples you cite require humans with a specific purpose.

And I am proud to be incredibly ignorant.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute. I said you were ignorant of events in your professional field. You are proud of that? I hope none of your bosses see this!

mythbuster said:

Please, don't be sad for me.

I am ignorant of many things, especially the greatest mystery, which is our human existence, life, and consciousness.

Click to expand...

This is called "shifting the claims"

Originally, I posted:
So, all in all your argument comes down to:
1. Personal incredulity.
2. Ignorance of what is happening in your field of engineering.

To which Mythbuster replied "And I am proud to be incredibly ignorant"

Notice that my claim was very specific. It said nothing about "mystery of human existence" but was only about knowledge in the professional field Mythbuster has claimed expertise.

None of us can see any pride in being ignorant of events in your own profession. After all, it is your job to keep abreast of your field. That's what they pay you for.

So, instead of admitting an error, Mythbuster tries to shift the claim to a noble form of ignorance. But one of which he was never accused!

we see engineering sophistication and technologies that humiliate all our human efforts to date.

Click to expand...

But our engineering sophistication has already been "humiliated" by Darwinian selection as Darwinian selection has designed artifacts that humans 1) didn't know how to do and 2) didn't know how they worked after they were designed!

It appears that Mythbuster doesn't want to be humiliated by an unintelligent process, but can only defer to a "higher intelligence"

However, Mythbuster also says "I can only say ... how insignificant we are."

It appears that Mythbuster is only comfortable being insignificant to a deity, but not to Darwinian selection.

And I am proud not to be counted among those who are not incredulous, who fail to be impressed at any level, with the scope of creation.

Click to expand...

Once again human pride prevents us from appreciating "the scope of creation." We can't admit that one creation -- Darwinian selection -- is better than we.

larry lunchpail said:

proofs are for scientists, and/or people with time to amuse people of your ilk, im an artist, i can go around making all the outrageous unsubstantiated claims that i wish. in addition to my own general apathy, the fact that you took that site at face value without investigatings its claims on your own (hey if its online its gotta be true) leads me to believe that youre immune to proofs anyhow. theres some logic for ya, thatll hafta suffice.

"prove this, prove that wah, wah, wah" hahahaha dude you know what i said was true, youre just trying to get me to do your homework, so to speak.

Click to expand...

......

BAHAHA.

That is all.

Can't ID also be used from a deist perspective, saying that the elements, the laws of physics, etc were all designed?