Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker - Surprisingly Faith Promoting

[Lament]

I find Porter's piece inadequate to the important topic -- inadequate characterization of Dawkins, etc., inadequate in showing how Dawkins inadvertantly promotes faith, and inadequate in counterargument. His post makes no persuasive argument and offers references (websites) which do NOT say what he claims. And asserting weakness of Dawkins argument does not establish anything about the strength of arguments for opposite view.

Here are some brief thots in response:

* Asserting that Dawkins dismisses philosophical arguments that there is no such thing as complexity is not equivalent to making a warrantable counterargument.

* The provided websites do NOT claim application of "ALL principles of evolution" including "sexual selection ...." In fact, while using the term "evolved" they do not specify any of those principles. Nor show how any of them could have been involved in the development of designs of radar antennae and combustion engines. Gasoline engines were invented more than 120 years ago and without modern complex math algorithms. Radar was developed during WWII decades prior to the antenna "evolution" identified in the ucsc article. And the "evolution" of antennae design simply means change and refinement; it does not mean Darwinian evolution.

My father happened to be one of the central developers of sonar during and after WWII and he did not use anything from bats or concepts from evolution or the kind of math and computational technology referred to in the article. While sonar in bats is "sophisticated", it is not especially complex. Indeed the principles of sound transmission and reception and echo location are simple and were part of physics before knowledge of bats or sonar in WWII. And note that sound (involved in sonar) is quite different from electro-magnetic phenomena (involved in radar).

Second, how is "studying genetics the same as studying computer science"? Porter does not tell us.

Third, a more productive line of critique would be a frontal assault on Dawkins' claim that "the appearance of design can arise through cumulative natural selection without a designer". That is an important argument but can be (and has been) undermined.

* There is too much in the paragraph about the inevitability of evolution for adequate response herein. But the argument for Darwinian evolution being "inevitable or highly probable" is both weak and, in some forms, violative of principles of probability and statistical analysis (for expl, the flawed argument of Nobel biologist George Wald on probability increasing with the elapse of time). There are several strong arguments against that claim, including systems complexity, probability, and application of reaction-rate theory (by a physical chemist who won a Nobel prize).

- The claim (as presented) about being "lucky" with only one of two improbabilities is not well described or made and does not make much sense in probability theory or logic.

- Abiogenesis (origin of "life") has been the focus of much thot and scientific effort for at least 80 years. The main result is to establish that there is no known physics and chemistry which could have produced the hypothesized conditions and transitions. (See, for expl, Freeman Dyson on that problem [in his Origins of Life and Infinite in All Directions]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson for info about this Nobel-level physicist.)

The are strong rebuttals of Dawkins (and others) and of some critical aspects of neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, but most do not make a strong case for Intelligent Intervention (or Design). Undermining one theory is insufficient to establish a competing theory. Such requires additional argument. Critique of existing theory is a form of error reduction (Popper's "refutations"), but not necessarily of truth establishment.

Allen Lambert

Ithaca, NY

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[mfbukowski]

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

1998?

[supersnail]

I just read The Blind Watchmaker by the obnoxious atheist Richard Dawkins, and I found it to be - He believes that human evolution is (gasp!) inevitable or highly probable, because cumulative selection is so powerful. His reasoning is that we can have so much luck to be here. Of the two phenomenon, abiogenesis (beginning of life) and evolution, we can only get lucky with one of them. Since abiogenesis is highly unlikely, the evolution of intelligence has to be highly likely. And not just any intelligence, intelligence strong enough to wonder how we got here. Nonetheless, he runs right into what theistic evolutionists have been saying, that intelligence is written into the laws of nature (see this series of talks given at the Vatican). Most atheists say we are complete accidents.

I have addressed this in recent science & religion and evolution threads. Start at http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amormondialogue.org+supersnail+convergence and http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amormondialogue.org+supersnail+Gould

I would respond to your paragraph above at multiple levels.

1) It tries to use science to justify what is supposed to be a faith-based belief.

2) That particular theory is highly controversial even among atheist and agnostic evolutionary biologists. So you are putting faith on a precarious foundation. I suggest reading up on Gould and historical contingency if you aren't familiar with them.

3) Dinosaurs disappeared only 60-70 million years ago, and there is no evidence of any intelligent species from when they existed, a time span much longer than 70 million years. Even without getting into why theories such as Dawkins' are likely to be wrong, we would still have to deal with the scientific finding that humans have existed for only a tiny part of the 3.5-4 billion years that life has been on earth. Even *if* human evolution or the evolution of a human-like species is inevitable or highly probable (that is, would certainly or likely happen again according to scientific theory if the clock were turned back), God may have intervened after evolution was underway after preparing the earth for abiogenesis. It could have taken even longer for humans to evolve, and God may have intervened to made human evolution more likely in a certain time period. (Even if human evolution is inevitable, that does not mean the appearance of humans is inevitable in any given time period.)

4) There is a reason why some atheists, like Dawkins, might prefer a theory of inevitable or likely human evolution. The theory may equally favor atheists and Christians, so I would not assume that it supports Christianity.

5) The attitude that God's creation should be manifest in basic laws of nature not only implies that faith-based beliefs should be abandoned/revised if they aren't supported by current scientific theories and data, I would argue that it reflects a lingering attachment to the creatio ex nihilo doctrine of traditional Christianity. By contrast, Mormonism as I understand it puts more emphasis on the organization of pre-existing matter that is fundamentally co-eternal with God. I expect Mormons to have fewer reasons to be obsessed with ideas like those of Simon Conway Morris, a non-LDS Christian whose view of convergence and human evolution is similar to Dawkins'.

*****

No, I am not arguing that human evolution lacks of evidence. If someone's first inclination is to think that I am disputing any mainstream scientific theory, please read the previous threads and re-read this post closely.

[Lament]

A brief reply to the first video on "Abiogenesis" about which the poster said:

"This is a good summary of where the field is at."

* It may be a good representation of the presentation by true believers in neo-Darwinian evolution. But NOT of the field as a whole. It starts with the kind of religious approach of William Provine of Cornell Univ. who explicitly "preaches" evolution as a belief system alternative to traditional Judeo-Christian religion and does so as the functional equivalent of religion. The video misrepresents and distorts. For Expl:

-- Claim that "abiogenesis" is not part of evolution and evolutionary theory is simply false -- which I have demonstrated elsewhere by quoting contemporary standard biology textbooks as well as prominent evolutionary theorists. Origin of life problem is an integral part of explaining the "origin of species" which has to include the first "species" and which idea is also suggested by Darwin himself. Attempts to separate origin of life from origin of species reflects an implicit recognition of the problem of origins and transitions confronting neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

-- Spontaneous generation has not been talked about for more than a hundred years -- another demonstrably false assertion (as can be shown by quotes from standard biology textbooks in chapters on origin of life which assert that while spont gen does not happen now, it did happen in the beginning (because it is the only way life could come out of nothing by accident).

-- Probability. The treatment is grossly inadequate and misleading. Actually, probability calculations have been made using reaction-rate theory (among other approaches). And that is the main problem which Nobel biologist George Wald perceived and tried to combat in his famous article in the 1950s.

-- To use a single simplification from Ben Stein movie to refute critics of evolution is intellectually dishonest.

-- Miller-Urey. Actually, despite the rhetorical simplification, Stein did represent the essence of the Miller-Urey experiment and resulting claim by evolutionists for decades -- until finally rejected by more recent science, including Miller himself. Read, for expl, Freeman Dyson (cited in my earlier post) for analysis of the problems of origin of life, of the impossibility by known physics and chemistry to account for the transition from physical chemistry of initial (hypothesized) conditions to the biochemistry of "life".

-- And so on.

Allen Lambert

--

[The Nehor]

How would you propose to test the probability?

Once I am a God I intend to create a plethora of universes and figure out how many of them have a creator. Finally science will be brought to bear on this conundrum.

[Lament]

On the video by astronmer Neil DeGrasse Tyson in which he makes an argument against Intelligent Intervention or Design by reference to alleged "mistakes" and imperfections of human (and other) bodies as if that represents bad design and therefore not possible by a god.

This is one of the silliest and weakest arguments against II or ID for several reasons, including making untenable assumptions about the nature God and His Design purposes and implementing processes and procedures. A judgment about perfection, goodness (of design), nature and purpose of this mortal life, etc., depends on premises and standards which (a) cannot be known, and (b) simply do not hold in LDS theology. These can be (and have been) explored at great length.

For one thing, Tyson is laboring under the faulty understanding of those issues which are inherent in the traditional conception of god and man, etc., deriving from medieval theology and philosophy and which dominates historical Christianity today. But is not part of the teachings of Joseph Smith and modern scripture.

Allen Lambert

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

I don't understand your question.

[Hamilton Porter]

I find Porter's piece inadequate to the important topic -- inadequate characterization of Dawkins, etc., inadequate in showing how Dawkins inadvertantly promotes faith, and inadequate in counterargument. His post makes no persuasive argument and offers references (websites) which do NOT say what he claims. And asserting weakness of Dawkins argument does not establish anything about the strength of arguments for opposite view.

Here are some brief thots in response:

* Asserting that Dawkins dismisses philosophical arguments that there is no such thing as complexity is not equivalent to making a warrantable counterargument.

* The provided websites do NOT claim application of "ALL principles of evolution" including "sexual selection ...." In fact, while using the term "evolved" they do not specify any of those principles. Nor show how any of them could have been involved in the development of designs of radar antennae and combustion engines. Gasoline engines were invented more than 120 years ago and without modern complex math algorithms. Radar was developed during WWII decades prior to the antenna "evolution" identified in the ucsc article. And the "evolution" of antennae design simply means change and refinement; it does not mean Darwinian evolution.

My father happened to be one of the central developers of sonar during and after WWII and he did not use anything from bats or concepts from evolution or the kind of math and computational technology referred to in the article. While sonar in bats is "sophisticated", it is not especially complex. Indeed the principles of sound transmission and reception and echo location are simple and were part of physics before knowledge of bats or sonar in WWII. And note that sound (involved in sonar) is quite different from electro-magnetic phenomena (involved in radar).

Second, how is "studying genetics the same as studying computer science"? Porter does not tell us.

Third, a more productive line of critique would be a frontal assault on Dawkins' claim that "the appearance of design can arise through cumulative natural selection without a designer". That is an important argument but can be (and has been) undermined.

* There is too much in the paragraph about the inevitability of evolution for adequate response herein. But the argument for Darwinian evolution being "inevitable or highly probable" is both weak and, in some forms, violative of principles of probability and statistical analysis (for expl, the flawed argument of Nobel biologist George Wald on probability increasing with the elapse of time). There are several strong arguments against that claim, including systems complexity, probability, and application of reaction-rate theory (by a physical chemist who won a Nobel prize).

- The claim (as presented) about being "lucky" with only one of two improbabilities is not well described or made and does not make much sense in probability theory or logic.

- Abiogenesis (origin of "life") has been the focus of much thot and scientific effort for at least 80 years. The main result is to establish that there is no known physics and chemistry which could have produced the hypothesized conditions and transitions. (See, for expl, Freeman Dyson on that problem [in his Origins of Life and Infinite in All Directions]. See http://en.wikipedia....i/Freeman_Dyson for info about this Nobel-level physicist.)

The are strong rebuttals of Dawkins (and others) and of some critical aspects of neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, but most do not make a strong case for Intelligent Intervention (or Design). Undermining one theory is insufficient to establish a competing theory. Such requires additional argument. Critique of existing theory is a form of error reduction (Popper's "refutations"), but not necessarily of truth establishment.

Allen Lambert

Ithaca, NY

Thanks for addressing the central point of my post, but you are mistaken in all your assertions. Both the particular combustion process treated in the ScienceDirect article (not the combustion engine, silly!) and the NASA antenna were designed using genetic algorithms, which are based on code, sexual selection, random mutation, fitness function, and natural selection.

Genetic algorithms weren't discussed in the links. Here are the notes from my mathematics class:

https://docs.google....Lrq28Xa0CU/edit Starting with slide 38.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[pmccombs1]

Except we know the universe was not uncreated. I'm talking about what is actual, not what is probable.

"We" know the universe was not uncreated? I was unaware that the argument had been laid to rest. I only thought that "we" know the universe exists, and that the evidence suggests it sprang into being from an initial singularity and is still expanding from the force of that moment of creation-sans-creator. Maybe God and the Universe are the same thing.

Because we know it isn't.

No we don't. And if we did, the "knowing" wouldn't make it so.

Thanks for the Wolfram mention. Yes, here we reached the limits of science.

The limits indeed. Look, maybe there is a God, and maybe he is our Father in some sense and has some care for us. I like to think that there is and that my prayers don't just go into the void. I can't pretend, though, that science makes the prospect any more reasonable than it would be otherwise. It doesn't stand to reason that there must be a God; at least my own view of the evidence suggests otherwise. The epistemology of God is difficult if not impossible; It's chaos out there--a printing press exploded and spewed matter willy nilly onto the canvas of space and time. Most of it is nonsense, but some of that ink ran down the wall a bit and ended up in the shape of clouds and trees and people going about their business. Maybe a few of the most complex of those organic blots are worthy of being called Godly.

The problem with certainty, and all of the "knowing" that we claim, is that it makes us cruel to each other. We know how correct and righteous we are, and we know how misguided and wrong and unrighteous everybody else is. They must be changed and brought into the fold; made to see, made to believe, made to behave. How can we manipulate them and their feelings and perceptions? We have competitors in the same business, who somehow "know" just as as surely as we know our own brand of truth. We're all marching about, shaping the world in our own image, even the godless among us.

It's so much easier to get along when we realize how little we know about anything. The limits of science. The limits of religion. They're limited because we are limited; our capacity for understanding and experiencing falls so far short of "certainty" that our language ought to be full of humility, but it isn't. Certainty is the destroyer of courage and hope and charity, for when we "know" we have no use for those things. If God is a proven necessity, then faith is no gift.

[Hamilton Porter]

"We" know the universe was not uncreated? I was unaware that the argument had been laid to rest. I only thought that "we" know the universe exists, and that the evidence suggests it sprang into being from an initial singularity and is still expanding from the force of that moment of creation-sans-creator. Maybe God and the Universe are the same thing.

No we don't. And if we did, the "knowing" wouldn't make it so.

The limits indeed. Look, maybe there is a God, and maybe he is our Father in some sense and has some care for us. I like to think that there is and that my prayers don't just go into the void. I can't pretend, though, that science makes the prospect any more reasonable than it would be otherwise. It doesn't stand to reason that there must be a God; at least my own view of the evidence suggests otherwise. The epistemology of God is difficult if not impossible; It's chaos out there--a printing press exploded and spewed matter willy nilly onto the canvas of space and time. Most of it is nonsense, but some of that ink ran down the wall a bit and ended up in the shape of clouds and trees and people going about their business. Maybe a few of the most complex of those organic blots are worthy of being called Godly.

The problem with certainty, and all of the "knowing" that we claim, is that it makes us cruel to each other. We know how correct and righteous we are, and we know how misguided and wrong and unrighteous everybody else is. They must be changed and brought into the fold; made to see, made to believe, made to behave. How can we manipulate them and their feelings and perceptions? We have competitors in the same business, who somehow "know" just as as surely as we know our own brand of truth. We're all marching about, shaping the world in our own image, even the godless among us.

It's so much easier to get along when we realize how little we know about anything. The limits of science. The limits of religion. They're limited because we are limited; our capacity for understanding and experiencing falls so far short of "certainty" that our language ought to be full of humility, but it isn't. Certainty is the destroyer of courage and hope and charity, for when we "know" we have no use for those things. If God is a proven necessity, then faith is no gift.

Thanks. I disagree with most of the universe being nonsense, but your post was beautifully said. Do you have the title for the Wolfram book?

[Hamilton Porter]

He seems to be a well functioning lunatic then. He still writes articles and tours making presentations on a regular basis, like 5 a month.

Yeah and try reading The God Delusion or his new evolution book if you want to see some lunacy.

[shalamabobbi]

Read, for expl, Freeman Dyson (cited in my earlier post) for analysis of the problems of origin of life, of the impossibility by known physics and chemistry to account for the transition from physical chemistry of initial (hypothesized) conditions to the biochemistry of "life".

Hi Allen,

Being LDS I'm certainly not going to find myself in agreement with every point, position and nuance of the video. But it does eliminate the problem of imagining how life might have gotten a start on its own. As for the Dyson quote, note the following:

Dyson envisions seven stages of life: (1) garbage bag stage — metabolism without replication; (2) parasite emerges from garbage bag creature, parasite can replicate but not metabolize — “zooms around” cells as viruses in packages; (3) collaboration of metabolic and parasitic creatures, RNA invention of “most mysterious” ribosome; (4) coupling of metabolic and RNA worlds (modern cell), two billion years of speciation and sex, beginning of Darwinian era; (5) multicellular organisms; (6) “us” and end of Darwinian era with cultural evolution replacing biological evolution; (7) whatever happens next.

http://www.counterpu...-life-on-earth/

So while apparently you use him to support the *impossibility* of abiogenesis he is in fact pursuing his own theory of how it works. That is a tip off that you may be involved in "cherry picking" and "confirmation bias."

And from your reference:

I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension

So he is not an IDist either.

[thesometimesaint]

Hamilton Porter:

Most of the universe is dark energy something which we know virtually nothing about. Maybe 5% or less is matter that we recognize.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

I don't understand your question.

Because you never reference what you are talking about I have no idea what you are usually commenting on or talking about so join the club.

I don't even know what question you are talking about.

[shalamabobbi]

A great video is by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

[media=]

At about 1:00 he starts in on intelligent design and goes through all the mistakes that are part of our existance and bodies. If it was designed, then it was very poorly done.

Thanks for the post! The funniest part was the theologians complaining that Ben Franklin was thwarting the will of God with his lightning rod!

On a sadder note, I came across a site where well meaning LDS posit that the moon landing was indeed a hoax based upon Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that we would never go there. All it takes is a laser beam to hit that reflector left behind to measure the distance and recession of the moon precisely.

[Lament]

Porter replies to some of my post as follows:

"Thanks for addressing the central point of my post, but you are mistaken in all your assertions. Both the particular combustion process treated in the ScienceDirect article (not the combustion engine, silly!) and the NASA antenna were designed using genetic algorithms, which are based on code, sexual selection, random mutation, fitness function, and natural selection.

Genetic algorithms weren't discussed in the links. Here are the notes from my mathematics class:"

* "Combustion engines" was your (Porter) own phrase, not mine. So don't call me "silly" for using it in the same context.

* Yes, the phrase "genetic algorithm" was used. And certain antennae may have been designed using such an algothim. But that does not support your larger claim or undermine my reply. Pay close attention to what I actually said in reply to your actual words. You made a much larger claim about evolution, to which I replied. And the phrase "genetic" does NOT imply "all the principles of evolution" including "sexual reproduction", etc.

* You also made general claims about radar and sonar, to which I responded.

* You made claims and offered website addresses as sources or proof of your claims. The provided sites, I repeat, do NOT provide evidence of your large claim about "all principles of evolution...." A so-called "genetic algorithm" has no necessary connection to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. Genetic is not equivalent to evolution and does not even necessarily have any connection whatever -- "genetic" often means something completely outside or independeent of the theory of evolution. The cited articles do not show how their algorithms were derived from evolution, and you do not show such either (in your post or citations). So if there be a connection, show it.

Alle Lambert

[Lament]

shalamabobbi offers some responses to some of my post to which I reply:

S claims that the one video "does eliminate the problem of imagining how life might have gotten a start on its own" but does not show how. The first part of video asserts separation of problems, but does not demonstrate such, let alone "how ...". Later part does not show any science which solves ("eliminates") the problem of origin of life. So if you see something I don't, please elaborate.

The quote from Susan Mazor about Freeman Dyson not only does not adequately represent Dyson's analysis of the problem of origin, but does not establish that the problem has been solved.

My claim about Dyson, etc., was not the "impossibility" of abiogensis, but of the inability of any current science to give an adequate account thereof, thus the essentially non-scientific nature of the speculation about it.

Yes, Dyson has been "pursuing" (thinking about) the problem for decades and has a suggestion for a process, but not one for which there is yet an adequate physics and chemistry for explaining.

S accuses me of "cherry picking" while what S does is merely offer a short quote from someone else (in a pop site) rather than reading the full Dyson analysis.

Agreed that Dyson is not an "IDist". But I did not claim he is or was. He was cited as an expl of a strong analysis of the failure of contemporary science to come up with a defensible and testable theory of origin (and the transitions necessary).

Allen Lambert

[shalamabobbi]

shalamabobbi offers some responses to some of my post to which I reply:

S claims that the one video "does eliminate the problem of imagining how life might have gotten a start on its own" but does not show how. The first part of video asserts separation of problems, but does not demonstrate such, let alone "how ...". Later part does not show any science which solves ("eliminates") the problem of origin of life. So if you see something I don't, please elaborate.

The quote from Susan Mazor about Freeman Dyson not only does not adequately represent Dyson's analysis of the problem of origin, but does not establish that the problem has been solved.

My claim about Dyson, etc., was not the "impossibility" of abiogensis, but of the inability of any current science to give an adequate account thereof, thus the essentially non-scientific nature of the speculation about it.

Yes, Dyson has been "pursuing" (thinking about) the problem for decades and has a suggestion for a process, but not one for which there is yet an adequate physics and chemistry for explaining.

S accuses me of "cherry picking" while what S does is merely offer a short quote from someone else (in a pop site) rather than reading the full Dyson analysis.

Agreed that Dyson is not an "IDist". But I did not claim he is or was. He was cited as an expl of a strong analysis of the failure of contemporary science to come up with a defensible and testable theory of origin (and the transitions necessary).

Allen Lambert

Your *critique* could have been equally valid against a theory of gravity prior to Newton/Einstein and whoever figures out quantum gravity.

Thanks for your contribution..

[Hamilton Porter]

Porter replies to some of my post as follows:

"Thanks for addressing the central point of my post, but you are mistaken in all your assertions. Both the particular combustion process treated in the ScienceDirect article (not the combustion engine, silly!) and the NASA antenna were designed using genetic algorithms, which are based on code, sexual selection, random mutation, fitness function, and natural selection.

Genetic algorithms weren't discussed in the links. Here are the notes from my mathematics class:"

* "Combustion engines" was your (Porter) own phrase, not mine. So don't call me "silly" for using it in the same context.

* Yes, the phrase "genetic algorithm" was used. And certain antennae may have been designed using such an algothim. But that does not support your larger claim or undermine my reply. Pay close attention to what I actually said in reply to your actual words. You made a much larger claim about evolution, to which I replied. And the phrase "genetic" does NOT imply "all the principles of evolution" including "sexual reproduction", etc.

* You also made general claims about radar and sonar, to which I responded.

* You made claims and offered website addresses as sources or proof of your claims. The provided sites, I repeat, do NOT provide evidence of your large claim about "all principles of evolution...." A so-called "genetic algorithm" has no necessary connection to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. Genetic is not equivalent to evolution and does not even necessarily have any connection whatever -- "genetic" often means something completely outside or independeent of the theory of evolution. The cited articles do not show how their algorithms were derived from evolution, and you do not show such either (in your post or citations). So if there be a connection, show it.

Alle Lambert

Allen, genetic algorithms and evolutionary algorithms are the same thing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, This is quite the discussion we have going on. Ill just sit back and watch the show.

[Lament]

shalamabobbi reduces and dismisses serious comments with the following:

Your *critique* could have been equally valid against a theory of gravity prior to Newton/Einstein and whoever figures out quantum gravity.

So I ask "how so?" Just what part of my comments would be equally applicable to Newtonian mechanics? In other words, at least illustrate (if not back up) such an assertion. BTW, Newtonian mechanics still works quite well for the vast majority of things we do, including calculating what it takes to get to the moon.

Allen

[Lament]

While ignoring most of my response, Porter replies to me:

"Allen, genetic algorithms and evolutionary algorithms are the same thing."

* Yes and no and it does not matter to my argument.

-- First, your claim was that "ALL principles of evolution" including "sexual reproduction...", adaptation, etc., were involved. Such is not the claim of evolutionary algorithm and not true in the specific context to which I replied and not relevant to most of my claims.

-- GA and EA are not identical (see stuff below), but are related for some folks. They are related in a certain speech community (one way of identifying the cultural underpinnings and boundaries of a particular group, professional or otherwise), but not in others. That means that "genetic" and "evolutionary" as general abstractions are not necessarily related in all contexts, or are related in situation specific ways a certain paradigm proposes.

* Note the following taken from standards sources in the EA-GA paradigm:

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~gusz/ecbook/Eiben-Smith-Intro2EC-Ch2.pdf

“What is an evolutionary algorithm?”

http://www.solver.com/gabasics.htm

“Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Algorithms”

-- “In a "genetic algorithm," the problem is encoded in a series of bit strings that are manipulated by the algorithm; in an "evolutionary algorithm," the decision variables and problem functions are used directly.” I.e., not identical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

-- “Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems [in marketing, engineering, and many other areas as well populations] because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape ...” Note that marketing and engineering do not lend themselves to evolutionary analysis (reproduction, etc.)

-- “Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolutionary processes. ...

“A possible limitation of many evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype-phenotype distinction. ....

“Genetic algorithm - This is the most popular type of EA [hence a subset]. One seeks the solution of a problem in the form of strings of numbers (traditionally binary, although the best representations are usually those that reflect something about the problem being solved), by applying operators such as recombination and mutation (sometimes one, sometimes both).”

* So where are ALL principles of evolution including sexual reproduction in these algorithms? Or more generally, where is the value of GA in establishing your claims (as stated in your post)?

* And what about the other questions/issues I raised about several of your statements?

Allen Lambert

[supersnail]

- He explains how complex life is, using examples from bats and genetics. Sonar in bats is so sophisticated that engineers in WW2 used the same design in submarines. Studying genetics is the same as studying computer science. He later explains how the appearance of design can arise through cumulative natural selection, without a designer. What he does not mention is that engineers also use algorithms based on all the principles of evolution (sexual selection, random mutation, fitness function, natural selection) to design optimal antennas (http://idesign.ucsc....vo_antenna.html) and combustion engines (http://www.sciencedi...010218005001732).

This is the second time in recent weeks that an evolutionary algorithm sciencedirect.com article about something other than a species has been mentioned on this board in a context implying that human evolution is inevitable. (By "species", I don't mean something like an engine design process artifact that is used to accomplish a very specific goal.) These articles do not support the idea that human evolution is inevitable. The articles indicate that something complex can evolve through evolutionary mechanisms, not that it must evolve in nature. Whether it evolves depends on the circumstances. A computer that is programmed to preserve incrementally changed designs meeting certain criteria obviously imposes constraints on what can evolve and may lead to results that are optimal or quasi-optimal as defined by the programmer. These are not holistic simulations of reality. They are limited crafted simulations with few variables and selection rules. A computer program could have just one rule representing natural selection. The output of such a program can do little to show how one species such as Homo sapiens "evolved" over a long period of time in a vast, complex and changing environment.

When a phenotype arises that happens to be relatively helpful for survival or reproduction itself, the underlying genes tend to be kept in the population compared with other genes, and something like an eye can evolve in situations where eyesight is helpful. If a large terrestrial or aerial animal active during the day somehow didn't have a functioning eye, its progeny's reproductive success would probably benefit from having eyes, and any genes that its offspring have (if the animal manages to have any offspring) relevant to functioning eyes may be perpetuated in the population. Not all lineages of life that will continue have evolved or will evolve an eye, though, and the human species is no more optimal than species of fungi or the thousands of cockroach species with eyes that exist today, or more optimal than impressive dinosaur species were that lived for millions of years before dying out.

We exist, but that doesn't mean we have to exist, scientifically speaking. The notion that nature has been constantly selecting for H. sapiens or a human-like species as some kind of optimum tends be scientifically illiterate, whether the person holding the notion is a Christian or an atheist. Unfortunately, even atheists with Ph.D.'s who know better are capable of perpetuating misunderstandings or distorted impressions of mainstream scientific evolutionary theory. The Simon Conway Morris view is not mainstream. If all someone reads is Dawkins, though, because he or she is more a follower of that high-profile atheist than a follower of evolutionary biologists, he or she could get the wrong impression despite Dawkins' own admissions in some places that his particular view of how evolution happens and similar views are not shared by the majority of scientists.

Edited September 12, 2012 by supersnail

[supersnail]

Laboratory evidence of the importance of historical contingency:

http://www.pnas.org/...05/23/7899.long

This article actually focuses on the emergence of a particular trait, not speciation. If historical contingency plays a major role even at the level of one highly favorable trait, though, that does not support any strong convergence view or inevitable human evolution.

Edited September 12, 2012 by supersnail