Is evolution a fact or theory?

[dcalling]

No, that's wrong. Check out "genetic algorithms." It's not what you seem to think it is.

Read the definition and usage and come back to tell me if what I said is right.

Below is my original quote:

1. find less optimal solutions with quicker times under current hardware constrains,
2. accumulate states from input data to feed bad and constrain designed parameters to approximate desired outcome.

You've been misled about that. They randomly modify an feasible solution, and then use natural selection to find the best output. Then they use those surviving examples for the next generation, again randomly changing them and using natural selection to find the best. This is repeated until the optimal solution is determined.

Nope. In some cases, they don't even know for sure why the optimal solution works.

So in the word above you said "till optimal solution is determined" and below you said "Nope. In some cases, they don't even know for sure why the optimal solution works"....
Anyway, in most cases there is an optimal solution, sometimes the optimal solution needs too much computation power and we opt to use less optimal solutions with a better time.

And from my above post, that is exactly what the so called genetic algorithms is. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[The Barbarian]

Read the definition and usage and come back to tell me if what I said is right.

Below is my original quote:

Well, let's take a look...

ANope, engineers never abondoned design, the so called evolutionary process is just a per-designed way to either:
1. find less optimal solutions with quicker times under current hardware constrains,
2. accumulate states from input data to feed bad and constrain designed parameters to approximate desired outcome.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Check out "genetic algorithms." It's not what you seem to think it is.

You see, if you find something that works, and copy it for your own uses, that's not "design." Instead of designing solutions, engineers merely copied a natural process that is the antithesis of design. It works by random mutation and natural selection.

As God already knew, evolution works better than design.

Nothing new under the sun.

Yep. God, as usual, knew the right way.

 

[dcalling]

Well, let's take a look...



Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Check out "genetic algorithms." It's not what you seem to think it is.

You see, if you find something that works, and copy it for your own uses, that's not "design." Instead of designing solutions, engineers merely copied a natural process that is the antithesis of design. It works by random mutation and natural selection.

You are the founder of some website right? You should know coding. Code will never be able to do what its not designed to do.

As God already knew, evolution works better than design.

God's design is so good that after He is done and sin enters the world, we are all in a constant state of degrading. We are not getting any smarter or better, all we are doing is keep accumlating more and more genetic defects.

Yep. God, as usual, knew the right way.

Agreed again.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are the founder of some website right? You should know coding. Code will never be able to do what its not designed to do.

No, I can tell you for a fact that it often does what it's not designed to do. That's why we debug.

As God already knew, evolution works better than design.

God's design is so good

God is the Creator. He has no need to design as imperfect creatures must.

We are not getting any smarter or better,

The Flynn Effect:
https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Flynn-effect-from-1900-voracek-294x300.png

And various human populations have accumulated mutations that make them more likely to survive in their environments. Would you like to learn about some of those?

 

[dcalling]

No, I can tell you for a fact that it often does what it's not designed to do. That's why we debug.

Those are bugs, and they usually made programs worse or crash. You know full well what I was talking about, the programs can not exceed their design boundaries.

As God already knew, evolution works better than design.

God knows full well what boundaries He had for all his creations.

God is the Creator. He has no need to design as imperfect creatures must.

So you are claiming that it is impossible God had setup certain goals or designed certain creatures? Are you claiming that God does not know what all living things might evolve to? Are you claiming that God must have just kick start the life and let it evolve, instead of created a list of things, and that they have certain boundries that they could mutate?

The Flynn Effect:
https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Flynn-effect-from-1900-voracek-294x300.png

And various human populations have accumulated mutations that make them more likely to survive in their environments. Would you like to learn about some of those?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html

Do you think humans evolved (or devolved) in the time span of less than 100 years to the extent that our IQ score varied that many points? Or do you think education, nutriation are most likely a factor? Isn't it more likly a design parameter?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, I can tell you for a fact that it often does what it's not designed to do. That's why we debug.

Those are bugs, and they usually made programs worse or crash. You know full well what I was talking about, the programs can not exceed their design boundaries.

You've been misled about that. From about 2007...

Creatures from primordial silicon – Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands. Clive Davidson reports
“GO!” barks the researcher into the microphone. The oscilloscope in front of
him displays a steady green line across the top of its screen. “Stop!” he says
and the line immediately drops to the bottom.

Between the microphone and the oscilloscope is an electronic circuit that
discriminates between the two words. It puts out 5 volts when it hears “go” and
cuts off the signal when it hears “stop”.

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task—except
in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic
components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He
can’t ask the designer because there wasn’t one. Instead, the circuit evolved
from a “primordial soup” of silicon components guided by the principles of
genetic variation and survival of the fittest.

Thompson’s work is not aimless tinkering. His brand of evolution managed to
construct a working circuit with fewer than one-tenth of the components that a
human designer would have used. His experiments—which began four years ago
and earned him his PhD—are already making waves. Chip manufacturers, robot
makers and satellite builders are interested because the technique could produce
smaller, more efficient devices than those designed today using traditional
methods. Thompson’s experiments have also inspired other research projects and
some serious speculation about whether technology is poised to evolve in ways
that will take it well beyond human understanding.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...at-nobody-understands-clive-davidson-reports/

God knows full well what boundaries He had for all his creations.

But you and I don't. And as you see, His way works better than design. He creates; we have to design.

So you are claiming that it is impossible God had setup certain goals or designed certain creatures?

So you're claiming that if God could do something, He has to do it? How so? Why would he use a less effective method to do His will?

Are you claiming that God must have just kick start the life and let it evolve,

For a Christian, God is involved with every particle of the universe. It's just that He created it to work in certain ways, and doesn't have to tinker with it to keep it working. And if you're concerned about randomness...

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” St. Thomas Acquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

instead of created a list of things, and that they have certain boundries that they could mutate?

God isn't a little middle eastern nature deity, prancing around, making a rabbit here and a tree there. He's much greater than that. And so far, no one's been able to show us any organism that is at the boundary where it can evolve no further.

There are limits to evolution, but they are the ones Darwin pointed out. Nothing in them rules out evolution of new species, phyla, or domains.

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that was measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century.[1] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.[2] Similar gains have been observed in many other countries in which IQ testing has long been widely used, including other Western European countries, Japan, and South Korea.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

While we are much, much smarter than people in the previous century, the evidence suggests that northern European nations are seeing a reverse. Not enough to bring them down to 19th century levels, but there's been notable decline there.

Obviously, we're a lot smarter than earlier humans. But the evidence is that it's social, not evolution. Evolution does not work that fast. As you now see, human variation intelligence is mostly social and environmental, not genetic.

There is some evidence that some Ashkenazi Jews underwent selection for greater intelligence in the Middle Ages, due to extreme selection that limited them to professions requiring intelligence. However, the mutations associated with such higher intelligence also sometimes produce genetic disorders. So process is far from complete. We see a similar process in the evolution of hemoglobin to resist malaria. The earliest known mutation, sickle cell HbS, involves a usually lethal effect on homozygotes. But since it was still advantageous to most people in malaria areas, it spread rapidly. Then subsequent mutations, like HbC, gave the same protection but much less risk of health problems.

But the idea that we aren't as smart as earlier humans, is completely false. The evidence shows just the opposite.

But not because of evolution, with the one possible exception I mentioned.

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian observes:
No, I can tell you for a fact that it often does what it's not designed to do. That's why we debug.



You've been misled about that. From about 2007...

Creatures from primordial silicon – Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands. Clive Davidson reports
“GO!” barks the researcher into the microphone. The oscilloscope in front of
him displays a steady green line across the top of its screen. “Stop!” he says
and the line immediately drops to the bottom.

Between the microphone and the oscilloscope is an electronic circuit that
discriminates between the two words. It puts out 5 volts when it hears “go” and
cuts off the signal when it hears “stop”.

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task—except
in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic
components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He
can’t ask the designer because there wasn’t one. Instead, the circuit evolved
from a “primordial soup” of silicon components guided by the principles of
genetic variation and survival of the fittest.

Thompson’s work is not aimless tinkering. His brand of evolution managed to
construct a working circuit with fewer than one-tenth of the components that a
human designer would have used. His experiments—which began four years ago
and earned him his PhD—are already making waves. Chip manufacturers, robot
makers and satellite builders are interested because the technique could produce
smaller, more efficient devices than those designed today using traditional
methods. Thompson’s experiments have also inspired other research projects and
some serious speculation about whether technology is poised to evolve in ways
that will take it well beyond human understanding.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...at-nobody-understands-clive-davidson-reports/

That sounds so great, except, where is Adrian Thompson now? The article is from 2007, how come he didn't do much since then? The idea he has (actually many others have the same) is interesting but won't work, since there are so many combinations to try and the vast majority of them (99.9999999.....%) are bad. Recent advances in machine learning use the same idea, but with a much smaller subset (it is still big but now overcomable by computation power). With such small set of components, his claim of "he does not understand how it works" is total bull [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and we all know it. Else he should be the most famous guy in the tech industry now, and MS/Google/Amazon etc won't need that much man power to define models for learning (and only subsets of it).

With knowledge it is very easy to spot fakes.

But you and I don't. And as you see, His way works better than design. He creates; we have to design.



So you're claiming that if God could do something, He has to do it? How so? Why would he use a less effective method to do His will?



For a Christian, God is involved with every particle of the universe. It's just that He created it to work in certain ways, and doesn't have to tinker with it to keep it working. And if you're concerned about randomness...

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” St. Thomas Acquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)



God isn't a little middle eastern nature deity, prancing around, making a rabbit here and a tree there. He's much greater than that. And so far, no one's been able to show us any organism that is at the boundary where it can evolve no further.

There are limits to evolution, but they are the ones Darwin pointed out. Nothing in them rules out evolution of new species, phyla, or domains.

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that was measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century.[1] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.[2] Similar gains have been observed in many other countries in which IQ testing has long been widely used, including other Western European countries, Japan, and South Korea.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

While we are much, much smarter than people in the previous century, the evidence suggests that northern European nations are seeing a reverse. Not enough to bring them down to 19th century levels, but there's been notable decline there.

Obviously, we're a lot smarter than earlier humans. But the evidence is that it's social, not evolution. Evolution does not work that fast. As you now see, human variation intelligence is mostly social and environmental, not genetic.

There is some evidence that some Ashkenazi Jews underwent selection for greater intelligence in the Middle Ages, due to extreme selection that limited them to professions requiring intelligence. However, the mutations associated with such higher intelligence also sometimes produce genetic disorders. So process is far from complete. We see a similar process in the evolution of hemoglobin to resist malaria. The earliest known mutation, sickle cell HbS, involves a usually lethal effect on homozygotes. But since it was still advantageous to most people in malaria areas, it spread rapidly. Then subsequent mutations, like HbC, gave the same protection but much less risk of health problems.

But the idea that we aren't as smart as earlier humans, is completely false. The evidence shows just the opposite.

But not because of evolution, with the one possible exception I mentioned.

"Obviously, we're a lot smarter than earlier humans. But the evidence is that it's social, not evolution. Evolution does not work that fast. As you now see, human variation intelligence is mostly social and environmental, not genetic." I totally agree with you on that, and so the flyn effect you quoted is not your evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

That sounds so great, except, where is Adrian Thompson now?

Hard to say, He's just the first of many to realize that computer programs can go far beyond what they are designed to do.

Dr. Thompson peered inside his perfect offspring to gain insight into its methods, but what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.


It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors’ absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.

Today, researchers are just beginning to explore the real-world potential of evolving circuitry. Engineers are experimenting with rudimentary adaptive hardware systems which marry evolvable chips to conventional equipment. Such hybrids quickly adapt to new demands by constantly evolving and adjusting their control code.
https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

Thompson was the founder of the science of adaptive hardware systems. It's a very active field now:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=7182694

The article is from 2007, how come he didn't do much since then? The idea he has (actually many others have the same) is interesting but won't work, since there are so many combinations to try and the vast majority of them (99.9999999.....%) are bad.

You have a source for that number? Seeing as Thompson got his result in just a few weeks, your claim sounds unlikely.

With such small set of components, his claim of "he does not understand how it works" is total bull [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and we all know it.

If you think so, you didn't read carefully. It appears that the circuit used properties other than digital signals to optimize performance. In other words, analog properties of the system were involved, properties that are not clearly understood.

Barbarian explains:
Obviously, we're a lot smarter than earlier humans. But the evidence is that it's social, not evolution. Evolution does not work that fast. As you now see, human variation intelligence is mostly social and environmental, not genetic. It merely shows that we are not less intelligent than our ancestors; we are more intelligent.

 

[dcalling]

Hard to say, He's just the first of many to realize that computer programs can go far beyond what they are designed to do.

Dr. Thompson peered inside his perfect offspring to gain insight into its methods, but what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.


It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors’ absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.

Today, researchers are just beginning to explore the real-world potential of evolving circuitry. Engineers are experimenting with rudimentary adaptive hardware systems which marry evolvable chips to conventional equipment. Such hybrids quickly adapt to new demands by constantly evolving and adjusting their control code.
https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

Thompson was the founder of the science of adaptive hardware systems. It's a very active field now:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=7182694



You have a source for that number? Seeing as Thompson got his result in just a few weeks, your claim sounds unlikely.



If you think so, you didn't read carefully. It appears that the circuit used properties other than digital signals to optimize performance. In other words, analog properties of the system were involved, properties that are not clearly understood.

Barbarian explains:
Obviously, we're a lot smarter than earlier humans. But the evidence is that it's social, not evolution. Evolution does not work that fast. As you now see, human variation intelligence is mostly social and environmental, not genetic. It merely shows that we are not less intelligent than our ancestors; we are more intelligent.

The funny thing is the article you quoted actually said the same thing (in a different wording of course) as me

"But this apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of design variations tested by the system— most of them appallingly unfit for the task— are never revealed"

Yes my number of 99.999999...% is likely too big for his tiny experiment (but again, with that small number of variable items computers can easily permutation through all possible variations).

 

[The Barbarian]

The funny thing is the article you quoted actually said the same thing (in a different wording of course) as me

"But this apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of design variations tested by the system— most of them appallingly unfit for the task— are never revealed"

That's the point. It's true of evolution, too. The apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations acted upon by natural selection - most of them appallingly unfit for the environment- are never revealed. You made my point for me.

So your 99.999999...% number was just an example of the fact that 80.3 percent of internet statistics are just made up from imagination.

 

[dcalling]

That's the point. It's true of evolution, too. The apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations acted upon by natural selection - most of them appallingly unfit for the environment- are never revealed. You made my point for me.

So your 99.999999...% number was just an example of the fact that 80.3 percent of internet statistics are just made up from imagination.

You totally didn't get my point. For a smaller project like his, it will be much efficient to have it designed instead of doing random try outs, it will be a huge waste of time, and even worse, if the circuits is not designed correctly to be able to handle the task, no amount of permutation is enough. So the whole project is moot, and that is why after over 10 years he is still almost nameless while we have all the other big advances in AI. It should be very clear that whatever he did is at best not succesful, at worst a hoax.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's the point. It's true of evolution, too. The apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations acted upon by natural selection - most of them appallingly unfit for the environment- are never revealed. You made my point for me.

(admission that the number didn't have any evidence for it)

So your 99.999999...% number was just an example of the fact that 80.3 percent of internet statistics are just made up from imagination.

You totally didn't get my point.

You didn't get your point. You confirmed what I was telling you:
The apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations acted upon by natural selection - most of them appallingly unfit for the environment- are never revealed.

For a smaller project like his, it will be much efficient to have it designed instead of doing random try outs, it will be a huge waste of time, and even worse, if the circuits is not designed correctly to be able to handle the task, no amount of permutation is enough.

In this case, it not only worked fine, it worked more efficiently than any designed circuit so far. And as you know, genetic algorithms are now routinely producing solutions by evolutionary processes that are better than anything people have been able to design.

So the whole project is moot,

As you now realize, programs can indeed exceed their design boundaries.

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian observes:
That's the point. It's true of evolution, too. The apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations acted upon by natural selection - most of them appallingly unfit for the environment- are never revealed. You made my point for me.

(admission that the number didn't have any evidence for it)

So your 99.999999...% number was just an example of the fact that 80.3 percent of internet statistics are just made up from imagination.

my 99.99...% figure just means vast majority of the mutations are unfit, the more possible permutations, the more 9s.

You didn't get your point. You confirmed what I was telling you:
The apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations acted upon by natural selection - most of them appallingly unfit for the environment- are never revealed.

Wrong, the circult are designed by humans, code are designed by humans and life is created by God.
God made His creation able to handle certain amount of variations.

In this case, it not only worked fine, it worked more efficiently than any designed circuit so far. And as you know, genetic algorithms are now routinely producing solutions by evolutionary processes that are better than anything people have been able to design.

Nope, all such so called genetic algorithms does are generate (most of the time) less perfect solutions with in certain time frame. They are able to design better things than us not because of so called evolution, but because we deisgned them to be able to try out vast amount of permutations.

As you now realize, programs can indeed exceed their design boundaries.

That is called a bug and they usually made programs crash. Programs can never exceed what their designed boundaries (if the boundary are intended or unintended). You might have watched too much sifi.

Can you give one instance where a program exceed their design boundaries?

 

[The Barbarian]

my 99.99...% figure just means vast majority of the mutations are unfit,

Show me the source for your number.

the more possible permutations, the more 9s.

Nope. Here's a hint "fitness only applies in terms of environment." Think about it.

Barbarian observes:
You didn't get your point. You confirmed what I was telling you:
The apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations acted upon by natural selection - most of them appallingly unfit for the environment- are never revealed.

Wrong

No, it's correct. Like the computers that are able produce results that even their programmers don't understand, so evolution produces changes by random mutation and natural selection. And as you now realize, it only looks like intelligence, because you don't see all the failures. Only the useful mutations tend to be preserved.

the circult are designed by humans, code are designed by humans and life is created by God.

You're catching on. Humans design, God creates. And His process works better than design for complex problems. Which is why engineers are starting to use it.

God made His creation able to handle certain amount of variations.

Which we can see in the vast variety of living things. All because of random mutation and natural selection.

In this case, it not only worked fine, it worked more efficiently than any designed circuit so far. And as you know, genetic algorithms are now routinely producing solutions by evolutionary processes that are better than anything people have been able to design.

Nope, all such so called genetic algorithms does are generate (most of the time) less perfect solutions with in certain time frame.

If that were true, engineers wouldn't be using them. As you now see, evolutionary processes work better than design for very complex problems.

Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR,Injection Timing and Multiple Injections 2003-01-1853

The present study extends the recently developed HIDECS-GA computer code to optimize diesel engine emissions and fuel economy with the existing techniques, such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and multiple injections.
A computational model of diesel engines named HIDECS is incorporated with the genetic algorithm (GA) to solve multi-objective optimization problems related to engine design. The phenomenological model, HIDECS code is used for analyzing the emissions and performance of a diesel engine. An extended Genetic Algorithm called the ‘Neighborhood Cultivation Genetic Algorithm’ (NCGA) is used as an optimizer due to its ability to derive the solutions with high accuracy effectively.
In this paper, the HIDECS-NCGA methodology is used to optimize engine emissions and economy, simultaneously. The multiple injection patterns are included, along with the start of injection timing, and EGR rate. It is found that the combination of HIDECS and NCGA is efficient and low in computational costs. The Pareto optimum solutions obtained from HIDECS-NCGA are very useful to the engine designers. They show that it is possible to reduce emissions without increasing the fuel consumption by the optimization of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and multiple injections.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2003-01-1853/

A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.

The process of natural selection starts with the selection of fittest individuals from a population. They produce offspring which inherit the characteristics of the parents and will be added to the next generation. If parents have better fitness, their offspring will be better than parents and have a better chance at surviving. This process keeps on iterating and at the end, a generation with the fittest individuals will be found.

This notion can be applied for a search problem. We consider a set of solutions for a problem and select the set of best ones out of them.

Five phases are considered in a genetic algorithm.

1. Initial population
2. Fitness function
3. Selection
4. Crossover
5. Mutation

https://towardsdatascience.com/intr...lgorithms-including-example-code-e396e98d8bf3

They are able to design better things

They don't design at all. They merely randomly change different parameters, with only the best results retained for the next round of mutations. That's all it takes. Evolutionary processes are more efficient at these problems. God had it right, as usual.

than us not because of so called evolution, but because we deisgned them to be able to try out vast amount of permutations.

That is, we copied what we found in nature. It's not designed, it's merely copied.

As you now realize, programs can indeed exceed their design boundaries.

That is called a bug

Not in genetic algorithms. It's called a solution.

and they usually made programs crash.

Unless engineers copy evolutionary processes. Then they make more efficient solutions.

 

[dcalling]

Show me the source for your number.

Somehow you don't get it.....

There are only a finite number of good combinations, and the number of useless combinations are far greater than the useful ones, take coding for example, a certain code of size X have a limited range of changes you can make to it before it breaks, but the possible permutations are 2^X.

Nope. Here's a hint "fitness only applies in terms of environment." Think about it.

Barbarian observes:
You didn't get your point. You confirmed what I was telling you:
The apparent intelligence is an illusion caused by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations acted upon by natural selection - most of them appallingly unfit for the environment- are never revealed.



No, it's correct. Like the computers that are able produce results that even their programmers don't understand, so evolution produces changes by random mutation and natural selection. And as you now realize, it only looks like intelligence, because you don't see all the failures. Only the useful mutations tend to be preserved.



You're catching on. Humans design, God creates. And His process works better than design for complex problems. Which is why engineers are starting to use it.



Which we can see in the vast variety of living things. All because of random mutation and natural selection.

In this case, it not only worked fine, it worked more efficiently than any designed circuit so far. And as you know, genetic algorithms are now routinely producing solutions by evolutionary processes that are better than anything people have been able to design.



If that were true, engineers wouldn't be using them. As you now see, evolutionary processes work better than design for very complex problems.

Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR,Injection Timing and Multiple Injections 2003-01-1853

The present study extends the recently developed HIDECS-GA computer code to optimize diesel engine emissions and fuel economy with the existing techniques, such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and multiple injections.
A computational model of diesel engines named HIDECS is incorporated with the genetic algorithm (GA) to solve multi-objective optimization problems related to engine design. The phenomenological model, HIDECS code is used for analyzing the emissions and performance of a diesel engine. An extended Genetic Algorithm called the ‘Neighborhood Cultivation Genetic Algorithm’ (NCGA) is used as an optimizer due to its ability to derive the solutions with high accuracy effectively.
In this paper, the HIDECS-NCGA methodology is used to optimize engine emissions and economy, simultaneously. The multiple injection patterns are included, along with the start of injection timing, and EGR rate. It is found that the combination of HIDECS and NCGA is efficient and low in computational costs. The Pareto optimum solutions obtained from HIDECS-NCGA are very useful to the engine designers. They show that it is possible to reduce emissions without increasing the fuel consumption by the optimization of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and multiple injections.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2003-01-1853/

A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.

The process of natural selection starts with the selection of fittest individuals from a population. They produce offspring which inherit the characteristics of the parents and will be added to the next generation. If parents have better fitness, their offspring will be better than parents and have a better chance at surviving. This process keeps on iterating and at the end, a generation with the fittest individuals will be found.

This notion can be applied for a search problem. We consider a set of solutions for a problem and select the set of best ones out of them.

Five phases are considered in a genetic algorithm.

1. Initial population
2. Fitness function
3. Selection
4. Crossover
5. Mutation

https://towardsdatascience.com/intr...lgorithms-including-example-code-e396e98d8bf3



They don't design at all. They merely randomly change different parameters, with only the best results retained for the next round of mutations. That's all it takes. Evolutionary processes are more efficient at these problems. God had it right, as usual.



That is, we copied what we found in nature. It's not designed, it's merely copied.

As you now realize, programs can indeed exceed their design boundaries.



Not in genetic algorithms. It's called a solution.



Unless engineers copy evolutionary processes. Then they make more efficient solutions.

You are the owner and designer of your own website, but somehow you show very little understanding of coding.

All computer codes needs to be designed, and even if you say that the internal process is totally randomized and select the best result, the model for best result selection and the method of randomization needs to be designed. Once it is designed the code does not exceed what the owner designed it for, it just go through data and permutations and do calculation.

Let's use your Diesel engine GA for an example, the researchers select models (combastion and selection), and just feed data to it, and it is GA since instead of just do plain permutations, they permutate by crossover and mutation (which basically is just another way of saying permutation, and there is no evidence that this is better than permutation alone since the solution is parto optimal).

It is very clear genetic programming is design first, and none of the steps can be outside of the design. Your claim that "Like the computers that are able produce results that even their programmers don't understand" is laughable, as it merely indicate the programmers are bad. because if a programer can't make up a model, a computer can't do it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Show me the source for your number.

Somehow you don't get it.....

I get it. You made up a number.

There are only a finite number of good combinations, and the number of useless combinations are far greater than the useful ones

That's why natural selection is needed. While useful mutations are constantly turning up, the vast majority of them don't do much of anything. And a good number of them are harmful enough to noticeably harm organisms with them.

Natural selection removes the harmful ones and tends to increase the useful ones.

You are the owner and designer of your own website, but somehow you show very little understanding of coding.

As you learned, genes don't work like code.

All computer codes needs to be designed,

Which is the biggest difference between man-made and natural things. Men, being limited, have do design. God is no so limited. So He can use nature to do it His way.

and even if you say that the internal process is totally randomized and select the best result, the model for best result selection and the method of randomization needs to be designed.

Copied. From nature.

Let's use your Diesel engine GA for an example, the researchers select models (combastion and selection), and just feed data to it, and it is GA since instead of just do plain permutations, they permutate by crossover and mutation (which basically is just another way of saying permutation, and there is no evidence that this is better than permutation alone since the solution is parto optimal).

No. Mutation is how you get variation. This particular system copies sexual reproduction, which offers the advantage of recombination.

Your claim that "Like the computers that are able produce results that even their programmers don't understand" is laughable, as it merely indicate the programmers are bad.

It's just a fact. Like the simple example I showed you, no one knows exactly how it work, because it uses analog properties of the circuit itself.

because if a programer can't make up a model, a computer can't do it.

The Dark Secret at the Heart of AI

No one really knows how the most advanced algorithms do what they do. That could be a problem.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/

See above. Sorry about that.

 

[dcalling]

It's just a fact. Like the simple example I showed you, no one knows exactly how it work, because it uses analog properties of the circuit itself.

Trust me, they know how it work, and if we want to, we can trace each step of the way to get to that point, that is just software engineering, given an input, you know what the output is.

The Dark Secret at the Heart of AI

No one really knows how the most advanced algorithms do what they do. That could be a problem.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/

See above. Sorry about that.

Those are writters who don't know technology and write astonishing titles to attract eye balls. Like the 10+ year old story you posted, that researcher got big hype but not much else. All those algorithms we already have used, giving it a new name does not do much. The engineer of nvidia will not let a car that they don't know how is operated into the road, that will be murder. Instead, what they did is design a model with adjustable parameters, feed data to that model and reduce the parameter to some value that fits most/all data, and use those parameters in the open.

God on the other hand, don't need such thing, because God knows all, and knows already what situation might happen in the future, and He already have the best parameters possible when He creates.

" So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" Gen 1:26

 

[The Barbarian]

Trust me, they know how it work, and if we want to, we can trace each step of the way to get to that point, that is just software engineering, given an input, you know what the output is.

You're locked into thinking digitally. But that's not how some of it works. Evolution works like that, too. It takes something that "isn't supposed to do that" and incorporates it into the solution. For example, it turns out that placental mammals have a gene that causes a membrane to form in the placenta that allows food and waste to be transferred through the placenta. But it was originally a virus that became inserted into an egg or sperm cell, and eventually mutated into a useful gene.

In 2000, a team of Boston scientists discovered a peculiar gene in the human genome. It encoded a protein made only by cells in the placenta. They called it syncytin.

The cells that made syncytin were located only where the placenta made contact with the uterus. They fuse together to create a single cellular layer, called the syncytiotrophoblast, which is essential to a fetus for drawing nutrients from its mother. The scientists discovered that in order to fuse together, the cells must first make syncytin.

What made syncytin peculiar was that it was not a human gene. It bore all the hallmarks of a gene from a virus.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/

Evolution has lots of "but it isn't supposed to do that" kind of variation. Messy, yes. Not design, no. But very efficient, more so than design.

Those are writters who don't know technology and write astonishing titles to attract eye balls. Like the 10+ year old story you posted, that researcher got big hype but not much else.

It was, as you now realize, the first of many.

 

[dcalling]

You're locked into thinking digitally.

things all working in a similar fashion, no matter how different they might look like on the outside. As I said before you can have coding by physical machines, or software, or biological coding. The things the can express are the same. There is no magic there, they are designed to do what they are designed to do, what looks like amazing change are just creative up front design (i.e. most AI are that, they are fake intelligence hide behind algrothms).

But that's not how some of it works. Evolution works like that, too. It takes something that "isn't supposed to do that" and incorporates it into the solution. For example, it turns out that placental mammals have a gene that causes a membrane to form in the placenta that allows food and waste to be transferred through the placenta. But it was originally a virus that became inserted into an egg or sperm cell, and eventually mutated into a useful gene.
In 2000, a team of Boston scientists discovered a peculiar gene in the human genome. It encoded a protein made only by cells in the placenta. They called it syncytin.

The cells that made syncytin were located only where the placenta made contact with the uterus. They fuse together to create a single cellular layer, called the syncytiotrophoblast, which is essential to a fetus for drawing nutrients from its mother. The scientists discovered that in order to fuse together, the cells must first make syncytin.

What made syncytin peculiar was that it was not a human gene. It bore all the hallmarks of a gene from a virus.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/

Evolution has lots of "but it isn't supposed to do that" kind of variation. Messy, yes. Not design, no. But very efficient, more so than design.

Let's use your example. You said " It bore all the hallmarks of a gene from a virus.", that is how we did some of genetic engineering. It is like when God creates placental mammals, He placed this piece of code (maybe by a virus) there. The genetic coding is so complex and succesful (as we can see strange of DNA controls how living things big and small to grow and come to be), we can only be in awe of how great a creator God is. And scientists actually found that cells have a pre-set life span to split, which effectively prevents DNA from mutate too much, all part of God's grand design (must been put their by God after we have sined).

There is no new things under heaven, we are just trying to learn what God has already done.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You're locked into thinking digitally. But that's not how some of it works. Evolution works like that, too. It takes something that "isn't supposed to do that" and incorporates it into the solution. For example, it turns out that placental mammals have a gene that causes a membrane to form in the placenta that allows food and waste to be transferred through the placenta. But it was originally a virus that became inserted into an egg or sperm cell, and eventually mutated into a useful gene.

things all working in a similar fashion, no matter how different they might look like on the outside.

Except of course, computer programs are binary and DNA isn't binary. And genes work different than code, and DNA is natural, not designed, and so on.

they are designed to do what they are designed to do,

That's one of the big differences, but as you learned, the designers of AI often don't understand how the output happened.

Let's use your example. You said " It bore all the hallmarks of a gene from a virus.", that is how we did some of genetic engineering.

As you learned earlier, we copy a lot of non-designed things from nature, because they are more efficient than design.

It is like when God creates placental mammals, He placed this piece of code (maybe by a virus) there. The genetic coding is so complex and succesful (as we can see strange of DNA controls how living things big and small to grow and come to be), we can only be in awe of how great a creator God is.

So you're just saying "look, it's magic!" instead of realizing that God made nature precisely to do things like this. And yes, He can use contingency to get things done, just as easily as He can use necessity. You're trying to demote him to some kind of super tinkerer. He's the Creator.

And scientists actually found that cells have a pre-set life span to split,

You've been misled about that, too. It's merely the number of telomeres on the DNA, and that can be refreshed. There's no clock or counter.

which effectively prevents DNA from mutate too much

You're talking about somatic mutations. Mutations in bodies don't get passed on. Only those in sperm and eggs are passed on. On the other hand, natural selection does have a process to keep a population from having too many mutations (too many would make survival difficult).

Turns out our DNA has an error-correcting process. But it's imperfect. How imperfect? Well, it varies, but the imperfection is just about right for different kinds of organisms. But it's not "designed" and therefore isn't very good for long-term considerations. Because it's mediated by natural selection, it's optimized for the here and now.
Natural Selection Fails to Optimize Mutation Rates for Long-Term Adaptation on Rugged Fitness Landscapes

all part of God's grand design (must been put their by God after we have sined).

You'd think that God would have done a better job of design, wouldn't you? But it makes perfect sense if it evolved by natural selection. It's not great, but it works well enough. God had it right, once again.