greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (12/10/88)
I'm posting a query here because I need information of the
creation-science mailing list type by this Tuesday. Specifically, a
creationist is coming to Princeton, and I would appreciate any advice
I could receive on 1) who this person is 2) what his organization does
3) what is the majore line of argument of his work 4) how best to
respond with picky questions and 5) what sort of devices are used by
the speaker to control the flow of discussion. Post or email as you
wish; I'll summarize email anonymously if enough info comes that way.
Here's the announcement I received:
DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life
by
Charles B. Thaxton, Ph. D.
Director of Research
The Julian Center
Julian, California
on
Tuesday, December 13, 1988
at 8:00
Dodds Auditorium, Woodrow Wilson School
Princeton University
[Show up if you want!]
Since the time of Charles Darwin, natural selection has been
considered the cause of apparent design, which the faithful mistook
for dvinely produced order in the world. Contemporary research into
the structure of DNA, however, has shown that it has high information
content, and the only evidence at present is that it takes
intelligence to produce this kind of order. Dr. Thaxton, from his
background in molecular biology and the history of science, wll
discuss how unravelling the secrets of the genetic code hae opened
again the possibility of seeing true design in the universe.
**************
There it is. It show all the signs of a weak creationist argument
which will descend into technical gibberish at the first sign of
trouble. If anyone has any information on Thaxton or the Julia Center,
I'd be grateful for it. I'll post a report on this meeting after it
takes place.
many thanks--
rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ
"Take 2*3*5*7*11*13. It's divisible by 59." --Matt Crawfordoffutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) (12/10/88)
There is an argument that you can use against creationists which has not been used before, to the best of my knowledge. There are maybe a couple of hundred people in the computer sciences and engineering today who are using a certain simulation of biological evolution as a computational function maximization method. The simulation algorithm is called a "Genetic Algorithm". There is now substantial evidence from thousands of experiments that genetic algorithms can be highly-efficient optimizers of otherwise very hard to optimize functions. One researcher saved his company $140,000 (with an expected continuing savings amounting to $1,000,000 per year) using this algorithm to evolve ever-better communication network designs. This algorithm is generating increasing interest among people with practical optimization problems to solve. A genetic algorithm simulates a population of linear chromosomes, crossover, and fitness-based differential reproduction over a period of hundreds or thousands of generations of simulated evolution. The algorithm was originally intended as a model of evolution; it is quite interesting that it just happens to also be a very efficient function optimization method. So to come to the point: If creationists are right and evolution is nonsense, then how can it be that when one implements a computer simulation of evolution (of the right type) the simulation turns out to be an algorithm that has tremendous practical value? ===================================================================== Daniel Offutt offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (12/10/88)
> Contemporary research into >the structure of DNA, however, has shown that it has high information >content, and the only evidence at present is that it takes >intelligence to produce this kind of order. Nope, sorry, I know of some evidence to the contrary: 'Evolution' programs. These are programs that simulate an environment using simple rules, and have 'organisms' which are controled by a code, which allows for mutations during replication. Well to make a long story short after running for a sufficuent time, these codes evolved (purly by chance with no intelligence other then the physical laws set down in the program) and seemed to exhibit "intelligent" behavior (ie moving toward food, moving away from poison etc.). Also there was another program, on the Mac, I believe, that simulated the rusults of 'crossing' two 'genetic patterns' of things that controlled how a 'bug' looked. After some time they got some pretty interesting patters (I believe one was a chalice or something that looked NOTHING like the orignal parents...) In any case, there's a very good reason that DNA has the kind of order it does, and that is because organisms need it to exist, so if you have organisms you must have that order. However there is alaways a probability that random events (ie chemical reactions that occur spontaneously) can create order (of course it takes a lot of TIME ie Billions of years, but the universe has time to spare...). -Rick Golembiewski rg20+@Andrew.cmu.edu "Biology, the liveliest of sciences..."
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (12/10/88)
Please, for the sake of everybody's sanity, please don't discuss
evolution vs. creationism in sci.bio. Isn't there another group (probably
a talk group) for this stuff? Nobody on one side or the other is ever
going to have his mind changed by any argument the other side might ever
come up with, and nobody on sci.bio wants to listen to the two sides
ranting at each other.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net
"The connector is the network"bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (12/11/88)
In article <3631@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
#
# Please, for the sake of everybody's sanity, please don't discuss
#evolution vs. creationism in sci.bio. Isn't there another group (probably
#a talk group) for this stuff? Nobody on one side or the other is ever
#going to have his mind changed by any argument the other side might ever
#come up with, and nobody on sci.bio wants to listen to the two sides
#ranting at each other.
Second the motion. The proper place for this discussion is talk.origins.
Bill Jefferys
--
Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (12/12/88)
You missed "talk.origins", where it goes on all the time! Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!!!" - D. Duck
pmd@cbnews.ATT.COM (Paul Dubuc) (12/13/88)
In article <4029b61d.ffb5@bumper.engin.umich.edu> (daniel m offutt) writes: }There is an argument that you can use against creationists which }has not been used before, to the best of my knowledge. } }There are maybe a couple of hundred people in the computer sciences and }engineering today who are using a certain simulation of biological }evolution as a computational function maximization method. }The simulation algorithm is called a "Genetic Algorithm". }There is now substantial evidence from thousands of experiments that }genetic algorithms can be highly-efficient optimizers of otherwise }very hard to optimize functions. One researcher saved his company }$140,000 (with an expected continuing savings amounting to $1,000,000 }per year) using this algorithm to evolve ever-better communication }network designs. This algorithm is generating increasing interest }among people with practical optimization problems to solve. } }A genetic algorithm simulates a population of linear chromosomes, }crossover, and fitness-based differential reproduction over a period }of hundreds or thousands of generations of simulated evolution. }The algorithm was originally intended as a model of evolution; }it is quite interesting that it just happens to also be a very }efficient function optimization method. } }So to come to the point: If creationists are right and evolution is }nonsense, then how can it be that when one implements a computer }simulation of evolution (of the right type) the simulation turns }out to be an algorithm that has tremendous practical value? I have no reply, but I've crossposted this to talk.origins on the assumption that your question is not merely rhetorical. (Follow-ups to talk.origins.) -- Paul Dubuc | "I can never be sure of writing a line that will cbdkc1!pmd | not some day be published by friend or foe." | John Quincy Adams |
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (12/13/88)
In article <4029b61d.ffb5@bumper.engin.umich.edu> offutt@caen.engin.umich.edu (daniel m offutt) writes: > >A genetic algorithm simulates a population of linear chromosomes, >crossover, and fitness-based differential reproduction over a period >of hundreds or thousands of generations of simulated evolution. >The algorithm was originally intended as a model of evolution; >it is quite interesting that it just happens to also be a very >efficient function optimization method. > >So to come to the point: If creationists are right and evolution is >nonsense, then how can it be that when one implements a computer >simulation of evolution (of the right type) the simulation turns >out to be an algorithm that has tremendous practical value? > The characterization of genetic algorithms may have reversed the cart and the horse. Genetic algorithms may be said to have been inspired by chromosomal behavior, but I think it would be an exaggeration to call them a simulation, of any organic situation. Nevertheless, genetic algorithms do appear to exhibit some rather impressive performance in the implementation of optimization techniques. The trouble is that, if you want them to "solve a problem" for you, you have to formulate that problem in terms of a function to be optimized. This is all very well and good if you are, for example, analyzing flows through networks; but I, for one, am not yet ready to believe that any life form constitutes an "optimal fit" of some yet-to-be-discovered "life function." Thus, impressive as they may be, genetic algorithms are probably not an appropriate standard bearer for the virtues of evolution.
bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (12/14/88)
> So to come to the point: If creationists are right and evolution is > nonsense, then how can it be that when one implements a computer > simulation of evolution (of the right type) the simulation turns > out to be an algorithm that has tremendous practical value? It appears you are offering support for an argument from design (probably not your intent): > nonsense, then how can it be that when one implements a computer ^^^^^^^^^^ (design) Paul DuBois dubois@primate.wisc.edu rhesus!dubois bin@primate.wisc.edu rhesus!bin
danielg@earl.med.unc.edu (Daniel Gene Sinclair) (12/14/88)
Just a note from a former evolutionist (though no PhD). I will try
to avoid all the gibberish possible ;-). I imagine that I would like
to make three quick points:
1. Go with a critical mindset, but not a critical attitude.
I have seen too many creationist/evolutionist "debates" and "Q&A
sessions" turn into dogmatic spittle exchanges. What does this
guy have to gain? Scientific recognition? There must be easier
ways. Religious conversion? Maybe, I'm not sure who this guy is
anyway. Maybe he's got something? Well, postpone judgement
until 10 minutes after he's done, as opposed to 10 minutes after
he starts :-).
2. Be critical of your own position as well.
I know that sounds absurd in light of current data, but would a
real scientist do anything less?
3. Don't get bent out of shape.
My perspective is that the truth will stand up under pressure.
If evolution proves (as if we will ever be able to "prove" either
side definitively) wrong, no big hassle. And no great men ever
went without having their opinions challenged openly, as well as
on a personal level. Have fun!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
DANIELG@UNC.MED (I THINK)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"...because what may be known about God is evident among them, for God has
shown it to them. For since the creation (there's that word :-) ) of the
world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made...so that they are without excuse, because, although
they knew God, they did not glorify (that is, acknowledge) Him as God,
nor were they thankful (see the progression here : 1. didn't acknowledge
God 2. became unthankful, and consequently...) but became futile in their
thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise,
they became fools..."
- Romans 1:19-22 (couldn't resist)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::