Bob Carling
carling@tcp.co.uk
At 14:44 06/10/96, Glenn Morton wrote:
>Which is a better design technique, rational design or random evolution?
>Creationists often cite the supposed inability of random mutation to create
>new information and its inability to perform better than a human designer.
>
> A.E. Wilder-Smith wrote:
> "Thus Neodarwinian thought requires basically the prebiotic
>autoorganization of raw matter (which the second law categorically
>excludes), the creation of information by random deviations (which
>information theory categorically forbids), the encoding of
>information by chance (without the help of exogenous code
>conventions), the storage of information by chance and its
>retrieval also by chance. The Darwinian hypothesis sets out to
>explain the origin and the replication of a biological organism (a
>super machine), immensely more complex than a modern automobile, by
>means of random deviations. If we were to accept such an
>hypothesis, we would have to be willing to in principle to accept
>the origin and the development of any other teleonomic machines
>solely exclusively by means of the molecular deviations of iron
>molecules and by selection on the car market in the game of supply
>and demand, but without the aid of any teleonomic construction
>mechanisms, blueprints, or concepts.
> "According to this scheme, competition plus chance would
>suffice to explain the development and origin of all cars. Thus
>engineers, machines, and workshops would no longer be required to
>produce cars."~A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know
>Nothing of Evolution, (San Diego: Master Books, 1981), p. 65
>
>Maybe engineers are on their way out. Below is an excerpt from this month's
>Scientific American:
>
> "Brian Howley of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space
>guided the evolution of a program that can figure out
>how to maneuver a spacecraft from one orientation to
>another within 2 percent of the theoretical minimum
>time--10 percent faster than a solution hand-crafted by
>an expert. And researchers at University College in
>Cork, Ireland, grew a system that can convert regular
>programs, which execute instructions one at a time, into
>parallel programs that carry out some instructions
>simultaneously.
> "To create their software, Fernandez and Howley did
>not have to divine insights into neurophysiology or
>rocket science. The task of the genetic programmer is
>simpler. First, build an environment that rewards
>programs that are faster, more accurate or better by
>some other measure. Second, create a population of
>seed programs by randomly combining elements from a
>"gene pool" of appropriate functions and program
>statements. Then sit back and let evolution take its
>course. Artificial selection works just like the natural
>variety: each program is fed data and then run until it
>halts or produces a result. The worst performers in each
>generation are deleted, whereas the best reproduce and
>breed--that is, swap chunks of code with other
>attractive programs. Occasionally, a random mutation
>changes a variable here or adds a command there.
> "The technique can generate solutions even when the
>programmers know little about the problem. But there is
>a price: the evolved code can be as messy and
>inscrutable as a squashed bug. Fernandez's
>gesture-predicting program consists of a single line so
>long that it fills an entire page and contains hundreds of
>nested parenthetical expressions. It reveals nothing
>about why the thumb moves a certain way--only that it
>does.
> "Just as in the real world, evolution is not necessarily the
>fastest process either. Howley's speedy workstation
>churned for 83 hours to produce a satellite-control
>program that beat human ingenuity in eight test cases.
>And when it was presented with situations it had never
>encountered, the program failed, a common problem
>with evolved software. (Of course, the human expert's
>program failed on the new cases as well.)"~W. Wayt Gibbs, "Programming with
>Primordial Ooze", Scientific American cot 1996, pp 48-50
>
>Notice that the evolved programs were better than the intentionally designed
>programs. The interesting thing to me is that in a real sense both types of
>programs are designed. The traditional algorithm is well thought out by an
>intelligent agent with each part intricately designed. The other is designed
>by designing an environment in which solutions to various problems can be
>found via random mutation. Design can take several forms. It does not have
>to be the traditional form of design.
>
>For those who have been on the reflector for a couple of years, you will
>remember those programs I offered to demonstrate this process. My program
>would mutate itself at certain locations and a huge, almost infinite variety
>of screen shapes (which I likened to species) could be generated by that
>process. I designed the system, the environment which produces these
>pictures. Because I chose which mathematical system to place into the
>computer, I therefore, also designed each and every picture.
>
>Wayt concludes his article with a more interesting example. Evolving
>hardware:
>
>"Ultimately, evolved software may lead to evolved
>hardware, thanks to the recent invention of circuit
>boards that can reconstruct their circuit designs under
>software control. Adrian Thompson of the University of
>Sussex turned a genetic programming system loose on
>one such board to see whether it could produce a
>circuit to decode a binary signal sent over an analog
>telephone line. Using just 100 switches on the board,
>the system came up with a near-perfect solution after
>3,500 generations. Although the task is simple, "it
>would be difficult for a designer to solve this problem in
>such a small area and with no external components,"
>Thompson says.
> "Hardware evolution demands a radical rethink of what
>electronic circuits can be," he argues, because evolution
>exploits the idiosyncratic behavior that electrical
>engineers try to avoid. Although genetic programs are
>largely still fermenting in their primordial ooze, it seems
>just a matter of time until they crawl out to find their
>niche."~W. Wayt Gibbs, "Programming with
>Primordial Ooze", Scientific American cot 1996, p 50
>
>Christians should be aware that design via evolution is a coming field.
>
>glenn
>
>
>Foundation,Fall and Flood
>http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
>
>
>
==============================================================
Dr R.C.J. Carling, Senior Editor, Life Sciences
Chapman & Hall Tel: +44(0)171-865-0066
2-6 Boundary Row Fax: +44(0)171-522-9624
London SE1 8HN, UK
www.chaphall.com/chaphall.html www.tcp.co.uk/~carling
bob.carling@chall.co.uk (work) carling@tcp.co.uk (home)
==============================================================