Genetic programming is barely related to true evolution Thread

According to Wikipedia, the all-sure source of knowledge:

Mutation Mutation affects an individual in the population. It can replace a whole node in the selected individual, or it can replace just the node's information. To maintain integrity, operations must be fail-safe or the type of information the node holds must be taken into account. For example, mutation must be aware of binary operation nodes, or the operator must be able to handle missing values.

En.wikipedia.org

Therefore, and many will want to slap me for this, there cannot be maintainance of integrity required without
a mutation AWARE of binary operation nodes. And such. Essentually, the technique is akin to procedural
generation.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that because Gibberstein brought it up in the pretty dead Three Issues thread.

Edited by: Robert-33

GP is a pragmatic field more interested in usable techniques than strict modelling, so they will use methods that improve efficiency, even if they aren't perfect mirrors of living genetics.

However, it's not a big difference - the randomisation may be constrained by the syntax, but it is still random - the mutation process has no idea at all about the goal of the overall process. If you want it to be more representative, you can remove the syntax constraints and the overall process will still work, but less efficiently - you'll have a lot more programs that are (by biological analogy) stillborn.

If you're too draw from Wikipedia to suggest "Genetic programming is barely related to true evolution," I suggest not having the linked page use evolution/evolutionary eight times in the course of the page's information; merely sets a bad tone.

Someone wrote: Therefore, and many will want to slap me for this, there cannot be maintainance of integrity required without
a mutation AWARE of binary operation nodes.

Biological evolution has no mechanism beyond the attempted organism itself to determine if a mutation is deleterious, deleterious to the extent of being fatal, neutral, or advantageous. Deleterious mutations, being those which affect the ability of the organism to produce viable offspring, either do not get passed on due to death of the mutation via death of the (potential) organism or become passed on less than advantageous mutations. This would be the fail-safe which you absolutely neglected which lead you to say, "there cannot...without," despite having quoted two possibilities just prior.

Genetic programming is still quite related to biological evolution by using the Mutation/Heredity/Natural Selection scheme, even if it is goal-oriented with controlling observers for efficiency concerns. However, Gibberstein noted in the previous thread genetic programming's use of this Mutation/Heredity/Natural Selection scheme as a counter to your errant, frequent use of code to show that only degeneration is possible.

I don't think he meant evolution by means of mutation is impossible; just very improbable.

Also what thread are you all speaking from?

Edited by: NGS616

Three Issues, a few threads down. As well, Robert-33 has thus far been unable to say what he means even with stark, unequivocal statements.

Vangor wrote: Three Issues, a few threads down. As well, Robert-33 has thus far been unable to say what he means even with stark, unequivocal statements.

Thank you.
I reviewed the thread and have to agree with you.
But i have to say, its good hes interested in it.

And i also have to say; i'm glad you guys are here to correct him. giving the readers the correct information

Edited by: NGS616

Evolution, by nature, as understood to be the Darwinian
process, has no foresight, and cannot use fail safe
mechanisms to ensure enough integrity to function. That
is my point, in simple terms. If you want to throw enough
time at anything you will statistically get the required
result, however. it might take X trillion failures, but in
hypothesis it will work: not that it's ever been seen outside
of hypothesis.
I merely object to Scientific American grade, promiscious
use of the concept 'evolution'. But I respect comebacks,
particularly from Vangor. Anyone who reads my work will
have noticed changes since since November 2008, when
that particular thread started.

ps.
Just thinking, Vangor, should you read this:
You are an American. American's don't use
sodium fluoride in their water. But 20 million
Australians are at risk of neurological damage
because it is added to water there in the
name of dental health. And a recently
there was a malfunction which sent
concentrated, dangerous levels of fluoride
into the water supply. I apologise for the
cultural misunderstanding.

Robert-33 wrote: And a recently
there was a malfunction which sent
concentrated, dangerous levels of fluoride
into the water supply. I apologise for the
cultural misunderstanding.

California uses Fluoride and it tastes funky. Makes the drinking water taste like toothpaste.

It is a mistake to think no one in the union uses Fluoride in the drinking water.

Edited by: w1ngzer0

Robert-33 wrote: If you want to throw enough
time at anything you will statistically get the required
result, however. it might take X trillion failures, but in
hypothesis it will work: not that it's ever been seen outside
of hypothesis.

You do get what kind of timescale we're looking at for biological evolution? There's been countless millenia to allow for trillions of failures. To see something similar happening in a human observable timeframe naturally requires a few constraints to focus the process.

None of which changes the original reason I mentioned it - you stated that a random process would always lead to degeneration, and used program code as your example. This is a random process operating on program code, and it proves your degeneration statement wrong.

Please give your opinion on the following critique of genetic programming
algorithms. It is creationist, but that is irrelevant.

Creation.com

Although I can critique in more detail when I have more time, I can sum it up pretty quickly. Basically he's moaning that the process has been optimised so it's a practical problem-solving technique, rather than a direct model of the biological process. Most if not all of his points can be adddressed at the expense of efficiency if your goal is modelling the biological process rather than solving a specific problem as quickly as possible.

Robert-33 wrote: Please give your opinion on the following critique of genetic programming algorithms. It is creationist, but that is irrelevant.

Merely to imply once more, genetic programming was not designed to simulate biological evolution but to use the Mutation/Heredity/Natural Selection scheme of evolution; he acknowledges this, "GAs use mathematical constructs that parallel mutations..., natural selection..., and even some type of ‘recombination’..." (ellipsis replace statements in parenthesis to clarify).

Despite a myriad of artificial restraints, interactions, etc., he doesn't demonstrate that "GAs do not mimic or simulate biological evolution," but that they are not exactly analogous to the process. One would think this should be obvious considering genetic programming is used to develop software.

Robert-33 wrote: That is my point, in simple terms.

No, your point appears to be to, again, piss out whatever disinformation possible whilst ignoring discussion to the contrary to maintain feeling intelligent and special regarding your lack of study. This is why you link to an article with the same faulty premises as your beginning to this topic.

The issue is WHY the two were even compared in the first place.
The reason is that if someone is an evolutionist, they seek to find parallels
to their chosen worldview in everything. For example, if I were an
evolutionist, I would say that my work is inspired by evolution: I
make many incremental changes to a piece, then keep what works.
But I am not, therefore I say that I am inspired by the principle
of a creator God, where if something does not work, it does not
belong.
But, regardless, Genetic algorithims are a mathematical model which
require outside intelligence to function, whereas Darwinian evolution
is a completely different matter, and is one which should not be
confused. The problem is, Vangor, from an evolutionist perspective,
there is no motive to make sure people know there is a difference.
The only people who care are creationists and intelligent design
theorists.
People are willing to lie: that is a sad fact of life, and science suffers
from it greatly. To take an example, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings
were still being used in 2003, as explained below:
Evolutionnews.org
I only brought this up again because I don't like to leave anything unanswered,
though I frequently find myself doing that.

Robert-33 wrote: The issue is WHY the two were even compared in the first place.

Lets nail this one straight away. The first person to use computer code as an analogy for arguing their case was you. I merely cited a relevant counter example.

Robert-33 wrote:
But, regardless, Genetic algorithims are a mathematical model which
require outside intelligence to function.

This sounds like a deliberate and dishonest attempt to confuse the framework with the process. GA/GP requires outside intelligence to build the framework, but once that is built the GA/GP process is not directed by outside intelligence at all. A smart engineer can tweak things to improve the time it takes to find a good solution, but the technique is robust and general-purpose enough to cope without such tweaks, it just takes longer.

Robert-33 wrote:
People are willing to lie: that is a sad fact of life, and science suffers
from it greatly. To take an example, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings
were still being used in 2003, as explained below:
Evolutionnews.org
I only brought this up again because I don't like to leave anything unanswered,
though I frequently find myself doing that.

Nothing is perfect, and there are disreputable people out there. This is an unfortunate fact of life, and totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed in this thread. If you can't find fault with the facts that are on-topic, I can only assume that you are trying to confuse matters to hide the fact that you have nothing relevant to say.

Robert-33 wrote: The issue is WHY the two were even compared in the first place.

The issue has been covered by both myself and Gibberstein (Gibberstein has now covered this a second time in reply to this more recent comment). You are currently arguing against the relevancy of your own comments in the previous thread.

Robert-33 wrote: The reason is that if someone is an evolutionist, they seek to find parallels to their chosen worldview in everything.

I merely wanted to quote the sentence to assure you do not change anything because this well highlights the recycled rhetoric Creationists engage in; you claim a biased perspective as the rationale behind the comparison of genetic programming and evolutionary theory when, as explained, genetic programming uses the primary mechanisms of evolutionary theory because you've no other way to seemingly dispel the demonstrative powers of the mechanisms except to claim bias.

Robert-33 wrote: Genetic algorithims are a mathematical model which require outside intelligence to function, whereas Darwinian evolution is a completely different matter

Code is not a natural occurring reproductive system. However, as explained genetic programming and evolution are not "completely different", and this is because "genetic programming uses the primary mechanisms of evolutionary theory," but it "is a pragmatic field more interested in usable techniques than strict modelling" - Gibberstein.

Robert-33 wrote: The only people who care are creationists and intelligent design theorists.

No, you don't care. Notice how we are still correcting your repetitious, false assertions.

Robert-33 wrote: I only brought this up again because I don't like to leave anything unanswered, though I frequently find myself doing that.

Already discussed this previously. However, since we've played at your game for a few comments, how about answering some questions for me related to your example?

What do you believe is fraudulent in Haeckel's drawings? Do you believe there is no merit in showing Haeckel's drawings? What fraud have Creationists exposed within any scientific field? What fraud have Creationists exposed to their own detriment?

"I should feel utterly condemned and humiliated by the admission were it not that
hundreds of the best observers and most reputable biologists lie under the same
charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, historical, and
embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored,
systematized, and reconstructed."
- Dr. Haeckel.

I think that answers the tail end of your post, Vangor. The drawings were
falsified because he had an agenda, one which involved tricking people into believing
his doctrine.

The word 'evolution' means anything to anyone. For example, to say that
the 'evolution of transport' consists of on foot, then by wheeled vehicles,
then by flight, then space travel is passable only if the word is understood
to be a simple description of open-ended change. However, I have found,
some choose to use an example such as transport, then subtly imply that this
evolution of transport is a satisfactory equilivent for proving that, indeed, Darwin
was right and all the stupid creationists are wrong.

So, in the case of Genetic Algorithims, I would like to point out that if it truly
were an algorithim which abides by every rule of true Darwinian evolution, it would
not work. Simply because a computing algorithim cannot, foreseeably, create
information from nothing; if we were to invoke quantic computing, that could
open another can of worms, given the unpredictability of the field. Genetic
algorithims are mathematical methods which do demonstrate artificial imitation
of the principle of natural selection, but they are not, nor are they intended to
be, 'evolution in action'. (One again...define evolution as you see fit.)
In addition, Gibberstein, you misunderstood what I was trying to convey
with code: it was that function can be 'created' through corruption, if
that function already existed. However, in all history, there has never
been a demonstration of completely original, functional information
arising through natural evolution. That is the skeleton in the closet which
Vangor dismisses carelessly.

Edited by: Robert-33

Robert-33 wrote: In addition, Gibberstein, you misunderstood what I was trying to convey
with code: it was that function can be 'created' through corruption, if
that function already existed. However, in all history, there has never
been a demonstration of completely original, functional information
arising through natural evolution. That is the skeleton in the closet which
Vangor dismisses carelessly.

We're dancing around definitions here. One thing that would be extremely useful to clean up is that there is a difference between Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming. They share some commonality, as GP is an extension of GA, but it would be wrong to assume that all the limitations of GA apply to GP.

Also 'completely original' is open to a lot of flexibility in interpretation, so I'll state exactly what GP is capable of. It starts with totally random orderings of base programming constructs (if branching, mathematical operators, that kind of thing. Nothing specific to any problem) and through a process that has no awareness of how to fulfil the goal, only how to assess the suitability of a solution, produces a program that correctly solves a complex problem.

It's dangerous to bring a subjective measure into something where I want to avoid ambiguity, but to offer a crude but easily understood guide as to what this means, it's taking something with the functionality comparable to an amoeba up to a complexity comparable to the nervous system of an insect. Please accept that this a broad metaphor measuring against something intuitive rather than a literal comparison of functionality though.

Edited by: Gibberstein

Robert-33 wrote: I think that answers the tail end of your post, Vangor. The drawings were falsified because he had an agenda, one which involved tricking people into believing his doctrine.

Do you earnestly believe you came near answering even one of the four questions I asked?

Robert-33 wrote: The word 'evolution' means anything to anyone.

Because evolution has non-technical definitions, whereas what we are speaking is biological evolution referring to allele frequencies in populations changing over time due to descent with modification via genetic mutation and selection of fitness of traits.

Robert-33 wrote: For example, to say that the 'evolution of transport' consists of on foot, then by wheeled vehicles, then by flight

...is wrong because "transportation" cannot reproduce.

Robert-33 wrote: However, I have found, some choose to use an example such as transport, then subtly imply that this evolution of transport is a satisfactory equilivent for proving that, indeed, Darwin was right and all the stupid creationists are wrong.

Please indicate where I or Gibberstein have made such a reference. If you are unable, please stop constructing straw men; not only is this insulting but you are, as per usual, attempting to obfuscating the short-comings of your argument with fallacy.

Robert-33 wrote: So, in the case of Genetic Algorithims, I would like to point out that if it truly were an algorithim which abides by every rule of true Darwinian evolution, it would not work.

Weren't you attempting to show the inability for evolution to create novel genetic traits despite the examples you gave possessing the same short-comings which genetic programming does which you are now subtly, and without noting the fact that you were initially incorrect, acknowledging despite having previously lambasted it for not being a strict parallel of biological evolution?

Robert-33 wrote: Simply because a computing algorithim cannot, foreseeably, create information from nothing

You ignored my previous requests in the "Three Issues" thread for you to define information, despite your having commented on the nebulousness of the term which I remarked by saying, "Information is difficult to define, true." You appear to have used, immediately thereafter, a rather succinct definition (despite previously stating its difficulty) by saying, "We have no demonstration, however, of random garbage noise creating an identifiably coded pattern. That is what I meant." Do you still accept this as a definition?

I am doubtful as the definition is rather lackadaisacal and previously answered.

Robert-33 wrote: However, in all history, there has never been a demonstration of completely original, functional information arising through natural evolution. That is the skeleton in the closet which Vangor dismisses carelessly.

Do not exaggerate the century we've known of DNA, the half century we've known of DNA's role in heredity, the few decades we've been capable of analyzing DNA, or the half decade since we mapped our own genome. However, I've given examples of novel genetics, novel traits, novel advantageous traits, and more. We have observed exactly what is necessary for descent with modification.

Now, I and Gibberstein have both performed another bout on your tiring little shotgun rants, so I will repost my previous questions. Please, actually attempt to answer them, all four and in your own words. Otherwise, consider this the last attention I grant you,

"What do you believe is fraudulent in Haeckel's drawings? Do you believe there is no merit in showing Haeckel's drawings? What fraud have Creationists exposed within any scientific field? What fraud have Creationists exposed to their own detriment?"

You know what amazes me about this thread...

It amazes me that Robert keeps coming back to try to convince people instead of just accepting that there are people here that believe genetic evolution exists ...

and that people continue to respond to him :o ...

It's nothing to do with existence. It's my stubborn sticking to certain definitions which conflict with most other people's. He who controls definitions, controls the truth. For instance, I am unsure of the benefit of talking about 'fraud' when Vangor has not clarified what 'fraud' actually is. Are peppered moths technically 'fraud'? Are the plethora of ape-men 'fraud'? Is teaching as truth that dinosaurs evolved from birds when there is no evidence, but pretending there is, 'fraud'? Is falsifying embyro diagrams to convince people that unborn children aren't actually human 'fraud'? Who knows, because we don't even agree on a common definition of what 'evolution' is.

that's what your post reminded me of

Hmm...well he lied, which is documented, and 'widely accepted'. I could twist your post to mean whatever I wanted.

Im sure you could twist what anybody says ...

Assaultman67 wrote: Im sure you could twist what anybody says ...

I'm sure of it as well, because he's done it this whole time.

Good reference.

Edited by: NGS616

For a few posts there I was genuinely interested in what you guys were talking about. Then I scrolled down, saw the video, read Robert's post above it and gave up.

Almost held my attention, but that post single-handedly made me give up on the debate. :\