Evolution Falsified By Genetic Algorithims?

For the interests of people who read this blog sans comments (shame on you), I have “promoted” a short debate taking place in the comments of Heather’s post titled “ID Advocates Never Sleep.” I have done this, largely, because I think it is interesting and one side of the debate shows how a misconception about the applicability of a theory over different domains can lead to all manner of, what I think is, illogical reasoning.

Please feel free to add any comments of your own, either here or on the original post. This is quite long, and it broadly just repeats posts from previously so it is under the fold for those viewing on the blog.

The debate was initiated by Looney with:

You bored?

Engineering = Science + Intelligent Design.

a) ID is not science. Per the above defiition, this is a banality.
b) ID does not exist. That is the same as declaring that engineering doesn’t exist.
c) Science has proven that ID doesn’t exist. Per the above definition, we can easily deduce that scienctists are not trained on ID and not competent to even discuss the matter.
d) Scientists are paid much less than Engineers. Obviously. It is the lack of ID skills which make scientists less employable.
e) Biologists can explain the design of life. Um, biologists can explain anything with their methodology. Orcs and Elves, Romulons and Klingons, evolution explains everything. Welcome to the science of Douglas Adams.

And I responded:

(assuming your post is tongue in cheek)

a) I certainly agree.
b) ID is not something which you can claim “does not exist” In the first place, so I am not sure what you are getting at here. Intelligent Design, in the context that “humans” can intelligently design tools certainly does exist. ID as a “counter claim” to evolution certainly exists but is false.
c) I disagree and your conclusion seems based on the assumption that ID is the thought process behind engineering and little else. ID in the context of a counter to evolutionary theory tries to pass itself off as a science. As for the “not trained” argument, well…
d) I agree..
e) Isn’t it wonderful.

Looney replied:

Actually, it wasn’t tongue in cheek at all.

The theory of evolution and the existence of technology are mutually exclusive. It is resolvable only through a bipolar disordered view of science. This is more apparent to me when I face a young engineer who thinks he can “do technology” by plugging a genetic algorithm into a CAD system.

The key, of course, is c). Scientists can’t explain the processes of technological design. They have no theory or philosophy of design. When it comes to design, they are just babbling.

e) Evolution can be used effectively by modest intellects to explain complex things that they don’t understand with an amazing lack of effort and a near total absence of data. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, on the other hand, can only explain a hand full of things before becoming mathematically intractable. If we view evolution as being founded on fiction rather than science (after all, Darwin’s only training was as a theologian), then it is quite easy to explain the explanatory powers of evolution!

I responded to looney with:

Ok, but I really do disagree that the theory of evolution and technology are exclusive. Evolutionary theory has, in the past, been used to model how technologies develop which – at first glance at least – seems to imply they can live together.

The mistakes made by the inexperienced engineer do not strike at the underlying value of evolutionary theories, they are simply mistakes.

I am not sure what you mean about scientists explaining (or otherwise) the processes of technological design. Do you mean modelling the inspiration and “Muse” which seem to drive designers or do you mean the technical steps?

I actually agree with you (a bit) on E. However, this is not a bad thing. Newton’s theory of gravitation allows people to explain all manner of things with almost no effort and it is a theory that is rock solid on the scales most people will have to think. General relativity only really comes into play at scales beyond which modest intellects will get interested.

Evolution, founded on fiction or otherwise, has survived the critical tests and requirements of the scientific method. Intelligent design as a way of looking at speciation has not even been able to try.

Evolution is not the same theory which Darwin first presented – it has, as all science does, evolved. Evolution is a bit of a misnomer in itself and often leads people to think it is an almost religious dogma based on the teachings of Darwin. This is not the case. Evolutionary biologists have advanced the science, and the theory, in leaps and bounds. Like all good scientific theories it has branches which seek to explain the as yet unknowns.

I suspect, from having a friend who is heavily into Evolutionary Biology and teaches it, that the modest intellect who uses it to explain complex things is doing it the same justice as when a modest intellect tries to use Newtonian gravity to explain how the universe is shaped.

Heather also responded to looney with:

Looney

(How disrespectful is that as an opener. maybe you should work on your nom de blog a bit?)

My understanding of biology is pretty rudimentary. As is my understanding of what you are trying to say. So I guess I must yield to the modest intellects bit.

So, I’ll try to break down this argument into components that make sense to me.

Engineers are human and therefore intelligent. When they design things, they use their intelligence.
If Intelligent Design means using one’s intelligence to design things – you won’t get much argument from me. Unfortunately, it then looks like everyone in the ID camp has misunderstood the premise of their argument then. It’s not about evolution- it’s about CAD. 🙂

Scientists generally don’t have theories of design (unless they are engineers) I thought that’s what artists did.

If we move on from the Popper side of the traditional A level sociology Popper-Kuhn debate on the nature of “science” to looking at Kuhn’s argument that science uses paradigms to explain things. When a prevailing paradigm is challenged by new ways of thinking, it is replaced by one that works. (A bit like evolution in the realm of ideas.)
Evolution is a theory that seems to work – there’s no evidence to disprove it and lots of evidence that experiments and predictions based on it are proved to work. (Including the Frankenstein style-genetic modification that I might personally object to on philosophical grounds )
There is no reason not to abandon it when an alternative theory provides a better model. ID is so far from this as to be laughable.
If there were an omniscient intelligence behind the inconceivably vast universe, one of the very last things that s/he/it would be afraid of would be the efforts by an insignificant species on a minor planet to understand how the universe works without constantly crediting him or her or it

Looney’s most recent response was:

Cool, I like Popper.

Popper began by looking at Marxism and astrology. His complaint on Marxism was that it could fit any data, due to the malleability of the theory. Thus, he began trying to understand why and how to distinguish this from real science. In Chalmers book, “What is this thing called science?”, the common problem with Marxism and astrology was that they were “vague and multifarious”. Evolution is a synonym for change, thus, Darwin created the most “vague and multifarious” theory in the universe. Like Marxism, evolution evolves to fit any data. Wouldn’t no theory at all be preferable from a science viewpoint?

Anyway, Dawkins lists five major areas where evolution was falsified in The Blind Watchmaker. He proposes some ad hoc fixes (e.g. viruses moving genes at random between branches of the tree of life) which are methods heavily critized by Popper. Thus, I am puzzled (not) as to why non-scientists fight so hard for this theory.

Regarding usage of genetic algorithms with engineering, I have done this and I can assure you that it works. I can also assure you that it does not eliminate one single step of the ID process and the convergence rates and reliability of GA are always worse than my existing optimization methods (ref. Numerical Recipes).

Now at the risk of being rude, this has confused me a little but then I am not a social scientist so I will leave untangling the analogies to Heather. I did respond with:

It is interesting that you try to use a Popperian argument against Marxism as an argument against Evolutionary theory. There is a massive difference, but the basic one is Marxism is a political theory and evolution is a scientific theory.

You are falling foul of the false analogy fallacy.

Evolution does not “evolve to fit any data” in any way other than all science does. A theory is put forward and makes testable predictions. The predictions are tested against the evidence and if they match the theory is sound (for now). If they do not match, the theory is reviewed and overhauled where appropriate.

I haven’t read the Blind Watchmaker so I can not comment on that, however I assume you lump all evolutionary biologists as “Non-Scientists” for your claim here.

I assume by this comment that you are not advocating ID per se but simply saying “no theory” would be better than evolution because it has flaws. I assume you think the same about relativity then?

This is where the debate currently stands. Please let me know if you have any opinions over this topic and if you think I am talking out of my backside. Personally I think Looney is talking out of his (but I may be wrong) and the fixation with engineering and GAs as “proof” evolution must be wrong strikes me as simple madness.

[tags]Evolution, Dawkins, Darwin, Intelligent Design, ID, Design, Engineering, Science, Philosophy, Culture, Logic, Popper, Marx, Sociology, Social Sciences, Woo, Nonsense, Creationism, Creation, Engineers, Biologists[/tags]

12 thoughts on “Evolution Falsified By Genetic Algorithims?

  1. Guess I might as well continue here and I want to thank you for your hospitality!

    TW: “Not at all. The false analogy is that evolution as Darwin understood it, is not evolution as it is understood today. If you want to mount a crusade against Darwin, then I suggest you learn to commune with the dead.”

    That was precisely my point: The theory of evolution today is different from the one of Darwin. In fact, there is a new theory of evolution every generation so that what I learned in school is different from what my children learn. My son came home after aceing a biology test and said “any answer is correct, as long as we mention evolution”.

    Similarly, if you pick up a molecular biology text, you will see some exclamations regarding evolution, then they will not mention evolution at all for a few chapters as they get into physical chemistry concepts. Finally it will finish up with some more exclamations about evolution. All the while, there is no mention of how evolution theory connects to anything else.

    So the issue of Popper remains: Is the theory of evolution any more tangible than Darwin’s ghost?

  2. Looney, there is no need to thank me, I felt this was an interesting enough conversation that “promoting” it to a post would be beneficial.

    That was precisely my point: The theory of evolution today is different from the one of Darwin. In fact, there is a new theory of evolution every generation so that what I learned in school is different from what my children learn. My son came home after aceing a biology test and said “any answer is correct, as long as we mention evolution”.

    Assuming this is a 100% correct rendition of the school’s policy then I suggest you change the school your son goes to. This is an indictment of their teaching and assessment methods rather than the theory of evolution. The same with your molecular biology text books. It strikes me that they are badly written rather than anything else.

    All science develops and progresses. Is your complaint that evolution is changing too quickly? All areas of science have progressed from generation to generation – it was not long ago that plate tectonics were not taught at school. Cosmology has developed leaps and bounds in the last twenty years, let alone the massive developments following the second world war. The periodic table, that bedrock of chemistry changes over time (where should H go?)

    A parent in the 1960s could have had the same arguments you have about physics, the standard model was just coming in and new particles were being discovered. Would that have meant the science was flawed?

    If we accept the bedrock of science as being able to make falsifiable predictions which can be experimented against, and the experiments being repeatable, then yes, evolution is not only more tangible than Darwin’s ghost, but it is indeed a science.

    Are you seriously arguing for “no theory” simply because you are uncomforable with your understanding of the current theory – or do you have an alternative theory you think is more sound?

  3. ” …This is an indictment of their teaching and assessment methods rather than the theory of evolution.”

    The biology curriculum here in California is set by the state. He was taking a second year of biology at the time which is all geared towards passing a statewide Advanced Placement test so that the kids can skip a year in college.

    “The same with your molecular biology text books.”

    The molecular biology text I referred to is “Genetics and Molecular Biology” by Schleif. It was used at Johns Hopkins University a few years back. There are a few exclamations regarding evolution, then back to the physical and organic chemistry grind.

    “All science develops and progresses. Is your complaint that evolution is changing too quickly?”

    Mainly, my complaint is that evolution was promoted as scientifically proven fact since about 1870. Newton’s laws were established much earlier, but my father’s Newton’s laws are the exactly same as my Newton’s laws and the same as my son’s Newton’s laws. Einstein’s theory of gravity was not presented as Newton’s law of gravity, but rather as something distinct. The current versions of the theory of evolution would be incomprehensible to Darwin (what is an allele?) but we insist that it is the same theory of evolution for teaching purposes.

    An additional complaint is that the teaching of evolution is done according to the Dobzhansky principle: “Nothing in biology can be understood except in the light of evolution”. On the oher hand, every application of biology, farming, medicine, drug design, virology, etc. has numerous successful practitioners who are quite productive and reject macro evolution. For emphasis, mastering the micro-evolutionary issues associated with drug design is no obstacle to those who reject macro-evolution. Thus, we have medical researchers at my semi-fundamentalist church here in Silicon Valley.

    Similarly, if I accept an ID paradigm for biology, I must admit that I haven’t a clue how God might design things. Thus, I really believe that no theory of biological origin would be preferable to one that insists that we know about biological origins, but then can’t enumerate anyhing that we really do know.

  4. Hi again,

    The biology curriculum here in California is set by the state. He was taking a second year of biology at the time which is all geared towards passing a statewide Advanced Placement test so that the kids can skip a year in college.

    This does not mean it adheres to any of the standards of “good science.” The farce in Dover identified that sometimes a curriculum can be set with little or no input from people who know the subject. Here in the UK the curriculum is set nationally and there are still times when the teaching is markedly divorced from the “real” science.

    The crucial point (IMHO) is that saying (effectively) School X, or even State X are teaching Evolution in this manner, which is wrong therefore Evolution is wrong is simply false.

    I have never read Genetics and Molecular Biology, so I can not comment as to it’s content in any way. However, what I said before still stands. Book X being incorrect does not falsify a theory.

    Mainly, my complaint is that evolution was promoted as scientifically proven fact since about 1870. Newton’s laws were established much earlier, but my father’s Newton’s laws are the exactly same as my Newton’s laws and the same as my son’s Newton’s laws.

    Interesting, and valid comments. In the case of Newton, he was heavily building on an area of science which was already old by human standards – the work of those who went before him contributed to the theories he produced. Given such a pedigree, it is not unusual that he developed a more mature theory. The Evolution Darwin suggested was new – akin to looking at how Hipparchus described planetary motion and wondering why the theory was tweaked for one and a half millennia before becoming solid under Newton’s hand. In the future there will, certainly, be solid and unchanging laws of evolution where people can say their fathers laws were the same as their sons.

    A similar example is quantum mechanics. This changes dramatically on a daily basis. The argument over who should carry the “credit” for its “discovery” could last for eternity. Would Bohr recognise the standard model of today as one which falls out of his early work?

    The current versions of the theory of evolution would be incomprehensible to Darwin (what is an allele?) but we insist that it is the same theory of evolution for teaching purposes.

    Well, as far as I was aware it isn’t taught as “Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution,” at least not in the UK when I was at school. Evolution is normally credited as a theory first proposed by Darwin but any responsible text will then explain how the theory has evolved since Darwin. It is not formally named “Darwins Theory of Evolution.” On the Wikipedia page for Evolution, three paragraphs pass before Darwin is mentioned. Generally speaking, referring to “Darwinism” and “Darwinian Theory” (etc) is normally used as snide appeal to ridicule or ad hominem by creationists.

    That aside, faulty nomenclature of the theory name, does not falsify the theory. So if your objection is that Evolution is not the same theory that Darwin proposed, it is easily solved.

    An additional complaint is that the teaching of evolution is done according to the Dobzhansky principle: “Nothing in biology can be understood except in the light of evolution”.

    Then the complaint is with the principle and teaching methodologies, not the underlying theory.

    On the oher hand, every application of biology, farming, medicine, drug design, virology, etc. has numerous successful practitioners who are quite productive and reject macro evolution.

    That some practitioners choose to ignore the theories they are using, does not falsify the theory. I can function day in, day out without needing to believe dark matter exists, or that the cosmological constant is what it is. Does that falsify either element of cosmology?

    Young Earth Creationists can also be Geologists – does that falsify plate tectonic theories?

    Similarly, if I accept an ID paradigm for biology, I must admit that I haven’t a clue how God might design things.

    It is a valid theological viewpoint, but is as scientific as saying the flying spaghetti monster designed the universe.

    Thus, I really believe that no theory of biological origin would be preferable to one that insists that we know about biological origins, but then can’t enumerate anyhing that we really do know.

    This is not what evolutionary theory puts forward.

    Can I ask for specific issues about evolutionary theory you feel are false, rather than the teaching methods?

  5. “Can I ask for specific issues about evolutionary theory you feel are false, rather than the teaching methods?”

    Specifically the notion that technology can self-create if we wait long enough. Additionally, the claim that certain kinds of technology can be proven not to have been the result of ID.

  6. Oh, and I would have to reiterate all the earlier complaints, beginning with the fact that the current theory(s) of evolution, like the one of Darwin, is still the most vague and multifarious theory in the universe. It is routinely falsified only to have an ad hoc fix. In summary, it violates all of the criteria for good science.

  7. Specifically the notion that technology can self-create if we wait long enough.

    I am not sure what you mean by this. Evolution does not, of itself, dictate that technology can self-create. Some people use an evolutionary analogy to predict a point at which intelligent systems may be able to do this, but this is not evolution in any real sense of the term.

    Additionally, the claim that certain kinds of technology can be proven not to have been the result of ID.

    Who has made such a claim? How is this related to evolutionary biology?

    Evolutionary theory does not address the development of man-made technology. People use the concept of a selection pressure as an analogy about how some technologies prosper and others fail, but it is not related to the theory of evolution as such.

    This still, as I have said previously, strikes me that you are objecting to the secondary conclusions and analogies people have made about the theory, rather than the science contained in the theory itself.

  8. Oh, and I would have to reiterate all the earlier complaints, beginning with the fact that the current theory(s) of evolution, like the one of Darwin, is still the most vague and multifarious theory in the universe.

    Well, we will certainly have to disagree there. Compared to the more established, mature, sciences, Evolution does look a bit open to such comments, but the reality is all science suffers from the same issues and changes.

    Chemistry had added 26 elements to the periodic table in less than a hundred years, a table which has been radically restructured more than once in the same time span. Physics is awash with conflicting ideas which in the last half century have changed everything from how we think of gravity interacting at the smallest scale, to the very shape of the standard model. Cosmology has re-invented blackholes a few times and postulates such strange concepts as dark energy and dark matter to explain an arbitrary number as a cosmological constant.

    All science is in a state of flux and this is good.

    It is routinely falsified only to have an ad hoc fix

    When you say “routinely falsified,” what do you mean?

    Even if it were routinely falsified (which I doubt) this would mean nothing more than it was actually good science. If it were bad science (vague and multifarious, for example) then it would be impossible to falsify – ala ID/Creationism.

  9. You are generous because actually it was a bit incoherent ! ( I have a habit of typing fast and not pausing for breath before hitting post)
    Looney and I have been having a debate but it has become smeared out over various posts on my blog and his blog. See his posts reviewing Dawkins book. Things then got interesting and he got debating with Dr CC.

Comments are closed.