It is remotely possible that Joel Lehman’s and Kenneth Stanley’s new paper on evolvability might have some useful, practical application. Perhaps it could help in designing better self-learning systems. Or maybe it could lead to improved training software. I certainly hope it leads to something useful because I paid for it—me and my fellow taxpayers. Unfortunately the paper appears to be yet another waste of taxpayer’s hard earned money in support of the unscientific, religiously-driven belief that the entire world of biology, and everything else for that matter, arose by itself. Read more
7 Replies to “Evolutionists Are Now Saying They Have Solved the Problem of Evolvability”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
neo-Darwinian processes, as Behe has revealed with his 2010 paper ‘The First Rule’, has an overwhelming tendency to degrade already existent molecular structures. Apparently this degradation neo-Darwinism imposes on anything it touches extends to the macro level of degrading science itself and even to the degradation of human morality:
Notes as to simulating ‘evolvability’ with computer programs:
Here is what Gregory Chaitin said about the limits of the computer program he was trying to develop to prove evolution was mathematically feasible:
Here is the video where, at the 30:00 minute mark, you can hear the preceding quote from Chaitin’s own mouth in full context:
Moreover, at the 40:00 minute mark of the video Chaitin readily admits that Intelligent Design is the best possible way to get evolution to take place, and at the 43:30 minute mark Chaitin even tells of a friend pointing out that the idea Evolutionary computer model that Chaitin has devised does not have enough time to work. And Chaitin even agreed that his friend had a point, although Chaitin still ends up just ‘wanting’, and not ever proving, his idea Darwinian mathematical model to be true!
In the following podcast, Robert Marks gives a very informative talk as to the strict limits we can expect from any evolutionary computer program (evolutionary algorithm):
Here are a few quotes from Robert Marks from the preceding podcast, as well as link to further quotes by Dr. Marks:
Supplemental note:
Notes as to simulating ‘evolvability’ with computer programs:
Here is what Gregory Chaitin said about the limits of the computer program he was trying to develop to prove evolution was mathematically feasible:
Here is the video where, at the 30:00 minute mark, you can hear the preceding quote from Chaitin’s own mouth in full context:
Moreover, at the 40:00 minute mark of the video Chaitin readily admits that Intelligent Design is the best possible way to get evolution to take place, and at the 43:30 minute mark Chaitin even tells of a friend pointing out that the idea Evolutionary computer model that Chaitin has devised does not have enough time to work. And Chaitin even agreed that his friend had a point, although Chaitin still ends up just ‘wanting’, and not ever proving, his idea Darwinian mathematical model to be true!
In the following podcast, Robert Marks gives a very informative talk as to the strict limits we can expect from any evolutionary computer program (evolutionary algorithm):
Here are a few quotes from Robert Marks from the preceding podcast, as well as link to further quotes by Dr. Marks:
Supplemental note:
Note to moderator, please delete comments 3 and 4 (and this one, which will be 5)
Evolvability evolved. That’s certainly rich. James Shapiro seems to promote a similar idea:
Now that we’re discovering the stunning non-random nature of organismal change, the conclusion is that this mechanism for allowing responsive, non-Darwinian adaptation is itself the product of Darwinian evolution.
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology
This video lecture featuring Denis Noble parallels the above article: Physiology and the revolution in Evolutionary Biology