Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Little Wesley Elsberry Continues to Choke on Genetic Algorithms

As a "response" to my recent post exposing his ignorance of GAs, Wesley refers us to his bogus rantings of 15 years ago. I had said that natural selection is not a search heuristic, it isn't, and that the information that went into the program is what allowed the computer to provide a solution. We must remember that computers cannot do anything we could not do. They just do it faster given the proper programming and resources.

Specifically the following:

  1. Natural selection simulated on computer produces solutions which are informed by the intelligence that went into the operating system, system SOFTWARE, and evolutionary computation software.
Natural selection can't be simulated on computers. Too many unknowns. But that is beside the point as that sentence is what Wesley tries to refute:
If we take a limited form of evolutionary computation for simplicity's sake and analyze it, I think that we will come out ahead. Genetic algorithms, as presented by John Holland in 1975, work on a population of fixed-length bit strings. The bit-string representation is generic. The operations which the genetic algorithm performs involves the manipulation of these bit strings, with feedback from an evaluation function.
Nature doesn't have an "evaluation function", but people do. To nature all organisms that are "good enough" survive and may get the chance to reproduce. Natural selection eliminates, it doesn't select Strike 1.

What are the manipulations on the bit-strings? The GA can copy bit-strings with mutation (change in state of a bit), crossover (production of a new bit-string using parts of two existing bit strings in the population), and a variety of other "genetic" operators. The GA selects bit-strings for reproduction based upon results returned from an evaluation function which is APPLIED against each bit string in the population.
Reproduction is the very thing that needs explaining and Wesley thinks it isn't any big deal that bit strings reproduce. And again with that obviously artificial evaluation function- nature doesn't have one. Nature doesn't have any goals. Strike 2

The purpose of the evaluation function is to provide a metric by which the bit-strings can be ranked. The critical point to be grasped is that neither the operations of the GA nor those of the evaluation function need information about the pattern of the end solution. The GA's operations are completely generic; there are a variety of GA shell tools available for use, including plug-ins for MS Excel spreadsheets. Since the same GA tool may be used for job-shop scheduling in one instance, and oilfield pipeline layout in another, the objection that the intelligence of the GA programmer informed the specific designs that result from its application quite soon appear ludicrous. That a programmer might code a generic GA shell and also happen to somehow infuse it with just the right information to optimize PCB drilling movements might be possible, but to insist that the same programmer managed to infuse specific domain knowledge for each and every application to which his tool is put stretches credulity.
Strawman. No one said the programmer had to do that. All that is needed is the properly written program. The evaluation function is the purely artificial part of the GA, meaning it represents artificial selection. Strike 3

Now, let's eliminate the evaluation function as a source of domain-specific information. Obviously the evaluation function does give information to the GA, but that information does not give a direction for adaptive change for each bit-string evaluated, but rather just how well each bit-string performed when evaluated. The result passed back to the GA does not give the GA insights like "Toggle bit 9 and swap 20-23 with 49-52". It merely passes back a scalar number, which when compared to other scalar numbers, forms a ranking of the bit strings. The evaluation function can require very little in the way of domain-specific knowledge. For the PCB drilling application mentioned above, the evaluation function can very simply be instantiated as "return closed path length of the route represented by the input bit-string", which says nothing at all about what the path looks like, and works for any set of hole coordinates. Because the evaluation function can be generic over cases, again we have the argument that domain-specific information is unavailable here on the same grounds as for the GA operations. While we might be able to conceive of an evaluation function that somehow encapsulated information about a particular solution, for problems like the PCB routing one mentioned it is highly unreasonable to credit that information about all possible PCB ROUTE configurations has somehow been instilled into the code.
 More trivial nonsense and a continued strawman. Take that "evaluation function" out of the GA and you won't get a solution to the problem. It does not matter how the computer reaches the solution. It matters that it is guided for a solution it is actively searching for.
What's left? Merely the information content of the initial bit strings in the GA population. Since this is often, if not always, done by filling the bit-strings based upon random numbers, any non-trivial bit representation is highly unlikely to correspond to a final solution state.
Yes the initial conditions are pre-set.No big deal. Reproduction is just a given and that is a big deal. The evaluation function is huge and the solution could not be achieved without it.
The information or designs said to be produced by GA are the contents of the bit-strings at the end of the GA run. It can be confirmed that the end bit-string content differs from the initial bit-string content. It can be demonstrated that the evaluation of the initial bit-string indicates poorer function than the final bit-string. The question which those who object to evolutionary computation via the assertion that intelligence has somehow been infused into the result must answer is that if intelligence intervenes to shape or produce the final bit-string, *how* does it accomplish that, and *where* did the domain-specific knowledge come from? I've already sealed off infusion via the GA, the evaluation function, and the initial bit-strings for "how". The "where" question poses an extremely serious difficulty for proponents of this assertion, since if the information needed to solve all the problems which a GA can solve is present on every machine which a GA can be run upon, the information capacity of each machine is demonstrably smaller than the information content of all those possible solutions. It is problematic where the information is stored, and even if that information were capable of being stored somehow, the problem of *why* computer designers and programmers, who would be shown by this to be very nearly omniscient, would chose to put all that information into their systems when the vast majority of it is very likely never to be used.
Strawman- no intervention required, just the properly written program containing the correct evaluation function. The only thing Wesley has "sealed off" is his mind.
I'll note that it is entirely possible to point to or construct evolutionarycomputation examples whose evaluation functions incorporate a known final solution state. I only know of such simulations done for pedagogy. Dawkins' "weasel" program from "The Blind Watchmaker" is a fine example of this. However, the mere existence of that simulation is not sufficient to show that all evolutionary computation does so.

Again you don't need the solution to be part of the program.

All the information to find the solution is programmed into the GA. GAs would not find solutions if the correct evaluation function was not included in that GA. Therefor evaluation functions are one way of sneaking an intelligent agency into a GA as there isn't any difference between a evaluation function selecting and a human selecting based on the same criteria (except for the speed). The evaluation function is the artificial selection part of the GA. The only part of a GA that could be considered Darwinian or neo-Darwinian, is the mutation process. And even that is debatable.

See the first post Wesley Elsberry Clueless About GAs

Forced Ambiguity and Cherry Picking, Evolutionism in a Nutshell

Evolutionism, AKA unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution and/ or the alleged theory of evolution, is the claim of descent with modification via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral evolution. It also alleges universal common descent via those mechanisms from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms. Unfortunately none of that can be tested, scientifically and that is why the forced ambiguity.

Evolutionism is rife with ambiguity because it cannot be tested. And that is also what makes it forced ambiguity.

Cherry picking- again that is all evolutionism has-> anti-biotic resistance, finches, peppered moths, all of which have no chance at explaining anything beyond slight variations which fit in nicely with baraminology.

The bottom line is the only support evolutionism has are the lies told by evolutionists.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Wesley R. Elsberry, Still Clueless wrt Genetic Algorithms

EvoTARDs just can't it it through their thick skulls that genetic algorithms are search heuristics designed to find a solution for a given problem. Contrast that with natural selection, drift and neutral substitutions, none of which are search heuristics.

Enter Wesley R. Elsberry, clueless evoTARD @large:

It's amazing how little Dembski has learned about evolutionary computation since I introduced the phrase "genetic algorithm" to him in 1997.
It appears that is all you know Wesley, the phrase.

Dembski goes on about Dawkins' "weasel", but I've never heard him address the example I challenged him with back in 1997, which was to explain how a genetic algorithm could find a close-to-optimal path for the Traveling Salesman Problem given that his stance was that functions and algorithms could not generate information.  
1- It was designed to do that
2- All the information and resources required for the algorithm to do that was programmed into the algorithm for that purpose.

Wow, that was easy and it makes it appear as if Wesley doesn't know anything about genetic algorithms.

Again, if you design a program to do something and it does it, then it did it by intelligent design. Period. And you have to be an absolute moron or someone on an agenda to obfuscate to not be able to grasp that simple fact.


Both Dembski and Meyer have said that the amount of information generated by algorithms will never be greater than the information required for them to produce that information. And in most cases the output will simpler than the input. That is it requires more information to get the solution than the solution gives back.

Drought in the Southwest USA?

This is the 21st century in a country that is more technologically advanced than any other and we haven't figured out how to combat droughts and floods. Well most of us haven't, anyway.

Over 2,000 years ago the Romans figured out how to get water from where it is plentiful to areas where it is needed. Heck New York City, Boston and Los Angeles get their drinking water from areas many miles away from the respective cities. If we can do it on that scale, all we would have to do is ramp it up to a larger scale so that although parts the country may not get any rain they will still have plenty of water.

If we can connect towns and cities with roads and highways we should be able to do that with canals, aqueducts and tunnels. All it takes it workers, equipment and yes, money. The money part is where the 1%ers come in. They can finance it and then get paid back by a water tax. It would be an investment.

See also:

The Interstate Canal System   and   Got Drought? Get the Interstate Water Distribution System

Look we know the climate changes. That means we should change too and this is the change we need to survive.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

An Evolutionary Biologist Said What? HT Evolution News and Views

I am in shock!
If the overall biology of the animals tells you that they are very different, and the genetics tells you that they are nearly identical, it follows that the genetic comparison is telling you something relatively trivial about the overall biology.
Kudos to Jonathan Marks for being an evolutionary biologist who makes sense!

He also wrote:

Does it not stand to reason that if you essentially cannot tell human hemoglobin from gorilla hemoglobin, the sensible thing to do is to look at something else? In other words, if you cannot tell a human from a gorilla, you really should not be in biology.
If hemoglobin provides you with a lens that blurs the difference between human and gorilla, then just get a different lens. What is curious is why anyone would want to privilege such a weird dataset, a dataset that makes a human seem like a gorilla.

There may be hope after all...

Friday, August 29, 2014

Evolutionism, 155 Years After Darwin is Still a Failure

In 1859 Darwin's "On the Origins of Species..." was first published. In it Darwin posited a mechanism by which design could be reached without a designer. That mechanism Darwin called "natural selection". However Darwin didn't have any evidence to support his claim of design without a designer. All he had was a concept for which he was hoping to find evidence for. Unfortunately he never did and neither has anyone else in the 155 years since the book was first published.

The lack of supporting evidence and the lack of science has not prevented evolutiuonism from being accepted by scientists and taught in schools around the world. And is given the fact that it has been pointed out again and again that evolutionism is a worthless concept that no one uses because it cannot be tested and cannot even be modeled. All issues that evolutionism has are hand-waved away by the evolutionists who are intent on saving evolutionism at all costs. This is not how science is supposed to proceed but then again evolutionists don't seem to understand nor care about science.They just want to push their pseudo-scientific nonsense on unsuspecting children so that they can hope to keep their bullshit alive.

So if someone tells you that evolutionism is science, or that natural selection has proven to produce design-like features, ask them for a model and evidence. Then sit back and watch the flailing begin.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Human Chromosome 2- Evidence Against Fusion

Yes, you read that correctly, there is evidence against the alleged fusion of two smaller chromosomes to form human chromosome 2. The evidence is a functional gene in the alleged fusion site- that is the alleged fusion site is in the middle of the gene! And that means the fusion site is not indicative of the ends of genes spliced together.

Did evolutionary biologists discover this? Nope. Jeff Tomkins found it- he is a member of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research).

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Intelligent Design- Still Supported by Science and Going Strong

Let's face it, materialism has proven to be a total failure. This also includes all materialistic concepts of the origin of life as well as its subsequent evolution. Yes, that's right, materialistic concepts of evolution have been a total failure also. That is because it cannot be modeled. Wm. Dembski, yes he's an ID advocate, tried to model materialistic evolution as a random search only to be told by evos that it isn't a search at all!

On the other hand Intelligent Design has expanded beyond biology and is evidenced in, for example, cosmology, physics and chemistry. Irreducible complexity has proven to be well beyond the reach of materialistic processes. Heck it seems that anything requiring more than two specific mutations is beyond the reach of materialistic processes unless one has an unrealistic unlimited population with short reproduction times.

Intelligent Design Evolution is exemplified by genetic and evolutionary algorithms. IOW it is a known and used commodity. No one uses materialistic evolution for anything. It is useless mainly because it cannot be modeled. And it cannot be modeled because no one knows how it works.

So if your hear someone say or write about ID being dead or that ID books/literature has been thoroughly refuted, you can be assured that the person/ people writing and saying such things are totally ignorant or just pathological liars. Seriously just ask them for the evidence for natural selection actually producing something and see what happens. The only way natural selection does anything of note is via bald declarations and that is just a fact.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Kevin R. McCarthy (D- Texas) is an Ignorant Coward

Yup Kevin the shit eater is at it again. He spews:

I have had a creationist argue for years (and I mean that literally, late 2009 through 2012) that
I wonder how Kevin defines "creationist"? He never sez.

  • ice was not water
It isn't. Ice is less dense than water. Go to a restaurant and ask for a coke with ice and see what they bring you, moron. Then order a glass of water and see what they bring you. Also the molecular lattice of ice is different from the molecular lattice of water.

We can swim in water and we can skate on ice. We cannot swim in ice and skate on water. We can ski on both ice and water- perhaps that is what has Kevin so confused.
  • that “size” included a measurement of mass (so a rock could never be the same size as a baseball because it would have a different mass)
LoL! It all depends on what type of rock But yes size does include weight. That is just a fact. Why does Kevin doubt that fact? Educated people would say that the rock is the same diameter as the baseball. Educated people say the hail was the diameter of a nickel. Eductaed people know the correct words to use. Kevin doesn't. Go figure.
  • that TICKS preferred watermelon to oranges (ticks, of course, being obligate hemovores)
More ignorance as I never said why they preferred watermelon to orange peels. And again that was an observation that was reproduced, ie science.

The funny part is Kevin's post is about the alleged "Gish Gallop" and yet evos are guilty of using this tactic on a daily basis. Not only that they don't have any evidence to support their claims- heck it has been proven that they don't even have a model!

Kevin sez something about never admitting being wrong- well that is Kevin as he has been proven to be wrong on many occasions yet he never has admitted it.

For example he posted here that I was wrong to say that with universal common descent there had to be organisms with 47 chromosomes. That is because with the chromosome 2 fusion there would have been 23 in the sperm but 24 in the egg (or the other way with 23 in the egg and 24 in the sperm).

Another example is ID is not anti-evolution. Kevin sez it is because it is anti-Darwinian evolution. Kevin is too stupid to grasp the fact that not all evolution has to be Darwinian. And when asked in what way ID is anti-evolution Kevin the coward refuses to answer.

Kevin also sucks Prothero, not realizing that Donald did not show how Darwinian evolution produced the Cambrian nor pre-Cambrian organisms. Prothero is a joke that Kevin takes seriously. That is part of the problem. Everything someone sez against ID Kevin accepts as the truth because he is just too stupid to do any real research. And anything people say against Kevin's views are just wrong cuz he sez so.

Kevin the coward won't let me post on his blog because he is sick and tired of me correcting him all the time.