35. Algorithms and Evolution
The page begins below.
Algorithms are frequently used by evo-illusionists as evidence that evolution, aka natural selection and random mutations, were capable of inventing, designing, and assembling utilitarian complex biological systems. An algorithm is:
an effective method for solving a problem expressed as a finite sequence of steps. Algorithms are used for calculation and data processing and many other fields. Each algorithm is a list of well-defined instructions for completing a task. Starting from an initial state, the instructions describe a computation that proceeds through a well-defined series of successive states eventually terminating in a final ending state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as randomized algorithms, incorporate randomness.
Algorithms can be used to solve math problems where millions or billions of possible perameters can be tested in a very short time. Before computers, many mathematical problems could not be solved due to the fact that an answer would require a person or persons to manually go through all of the possible perameters and answers which might take years, decades, or centuries. Computers of course give mathematicians the ability to solve these problems by jetting through billions of possible perameters in incredibly short time spans.
At left is an example algorithm that would be used to solve the problem of why a lamp doesn’t turn on. There are three possible fixes that are determined by going through three possible problem steps. Flowcharts are often used to represent algorithms graphically. You can imagine if there are millions or billions of possible problem steps that need to be checked instead of the three in the diagram. No human would be able to solve the problem “X doesn’t work”. Computerized algorithm models give us the tools necessary to be able to solve immense flowchart-type problems quickly.
Evolution “science” has taken computerized algorithms and tech-designed models and attempted to formulate problems and their solutions, and recreate situations, to show that, through millions of steps and natural selections, simpler devices can evolve into more complex ones that can solve those difficult problems. In the video above the technician takes blocks attached together with movable joints and wires that allow the blocks to “communicate” with each other and the computer. The tech made a model, then this model as well as a chosen environment was programmed into his computer. The environments were and could be composed of water, or some type of land surface, or even air. The computer is programmed to run through numerous algorithmic steps that will result in the performance of a specific task such locomotion from a point A to point B. The algorithm is also set so that it must find the fastest and most efficient way to travel between those two points. Once programmed, the computer can run through millions of different types of motion possible with the jointed blocks until it finds the best and most efficient solution for the problem for travel from A to B. Supposedly this is telling us that locomotion was able to evolve through random mutations and natural selection. And by extension, then all complex biological systems also were able to evolve through the trial and error exemplified by the evolution of locomotion in the computer. Evolutionauts proudly and frequently tout this as sure evidence that evolution is the way complex systems formed through trial and error over eons. But, as with virtually all evolution evidence, there are huge problems. The computer simulations and algorithms are far more of a problem for evolution than evidence Which is the case for so many “evidences” for evolution. (see: 36: Phylogenetic Trees, Organs, and Bio-Systems, 32. Muscles of the Eye and Blind Cave Dwellers). They are not really thinking scientifically and logically by bringing attention their mathematical models and algorithms.
The reasons for why algorithms are not good for evolution:
1. Computers are man/intelligently designed and assembled. To test an evolutionary hypothesis that is trying to prove there was no intelligence in the formula that formed complex bio-systems of living things, using a tool, computers, that were intelligently designed by man is injecting intelligence into the formula right at the starting line. Evolutionauts will complain that they somehow have to construct an environment to test evolution’s hypothesis, and a computer is the best humans can do at this time, otherwise there are no tests possible. And millions of generations of algorithms can be tested in a very short time. No matter how you cut it, evolution is starting out trying to prove there was no intelligence in the mix by injecting intelligence into the mix.
2. The “device” that is going to be tested and improved, the jointed blocks, has been designed then modeled and programmed into the computer by an intelligent source. In this case, blocks connected by movable joints and communication wires, were modeled in the real world, then programmed into the computer to represent an early animal species in the process of evolving locomotion. The model is a very simple representation of a multi-celled animal species: a segmented animal with joints and nerve connections. So again, where they are supposed to test how “apparently designed” entities can evolve without the least bit of intelligence in the formula, they are again interjecting not only copies of functioning entities that have already come into existence, but immense amounts of intelligence are being utilized.
3. This mathematical modeling doesn’t take into account that life and its species and bio-systems started from absolute scratch: a sterile earth. There was zero intelligence on that early earth that gave birth to life, species, and all of its biological systems. ZERO. None at all. So starting from a synthetic and man designed “species” system, then programming the design of that system into a computer, then designing an algorithm programmed to produce locomotion for that intelligently designed system, is like building the Empire State Building and skipping the first hundred floors. The impossible step here is the formation of that block/joint set from absolutely nothing. Is there a computer code that can be absolutely and completely randomly set up so that many millions/trillions of generations can be run which will synthesize, among many other items, a design for those jointed blocks? My bet is no utilitarian entity will form ever. Junk will be the result for as long as the computer is run. Evolution says that, given enough time, everything will form or occur. Will jointed blocks be one of the “everything” entities forming? If that completely random program ran for trillions of generations? Would other workable entities arise out of the complete randomness that was the starting point?
(4) Now for the real killer. Going from computer images to the real world. Evolutionauts stand by and proudly display the locomotion that the blocks “evolved” through their evolution algorithm. The locomotion that evolved, once it was formed and “selected for”, exists in a computer. It doesn’t exist in the real world. It’s “cyber-locomotion”. Evolutionauts want you to take the immense leap faith of believing that if blocks can come up with locomotion that looks a bit like the locomotion of animal species, then anything could form in the same manner. Heart/lung systems, vision, auditory systems, ball and socket joints, everything could have come about by DNA algorithms that existed early in the history of life on earth. Given enough time, DNA could do the job of the computers and lab techs that produced the cyber-locomotion. DNA and it’s selected changes could invent, design, assemble, and sustain living species and their incredible bio-systems. The reality check here is that all the computer did was construct a code. It make the best choice out of many, with the help of the programmer. It was programmed to do so. But it didn’t make an actual model; a “real life, hold it in your hands, put it on the desk and watch it walk” model. The chasm between an image on a computer screen, which appears so impressive, and a real working model, is light years across. It would be as if DNA made the code for a bio-system, but never actually built the system. The code would remain just that: a code in a mushy chunk of DNA at the bottom of some ocean somewhere eons ago.
There are many types of machines used to make many different types of models from computer generated designs. Electric discharge machining (EDM) uses electric current to cut and shape parts. Computer numerical controlled” (CNC) machines use cutting blades and wheels to shape parts. There are many others, but they all have one thing in common. They are all immensely complicated and they require intelligence to design and operate. For the algorithm produced by a tech in a computer to be the least bit impressive, they would have to think of a way for a computer to then construct a modeling machine; in this case, produce the jointed blocks and have them actually swim or run around the floor. And they need to accomplish this without the least bit of intelligence, just as evolutionauts want you to think life formed species and their bio-systems. A completely absurd notion. Amazingly, putting together the computer, the program, the “evolved” walking/swimming blocks, and then machining them so there is an actual “hold in hand” working model isn’t one quadrillionth of the way to reality: the forming of life, species, and their incredible biological systems. Life did what intelligent man most likely will never be able to do: example and reality test the formation of complex bio-systems.
Because of the great amount of intelligence required to program the algorithms used by evolutionauts as evidence for their science, the fact that they start way past the actual starting line (jointed blocks instead of a cyber-sterile environment that mimics the early sterile earth), the fact that actual models will never arise out of this sham, all evolutionauts are really doing is proving intelligence IS a necessary ingredient in the formula that brought species and their bio-systems into existence. And I want to personally thank them for the assistance. Most of their “evidence” makes my job even easier than I could have ever hoped.
The really astounding thing to me is the lecturer in the above video never asks the obvious questions that any science should ask: Why might this computer animation NOT be good evidence for evolution? This video should be falsified, just as all scientific evidence should be. It never enters his mind that this vid is bad news for his belief system. After all, as he says, he is a “card carrying fundamentalist Darwinian”. Which means he is too indoctrinated to even consider that his stuff may disprove the very things he thinks he is proving. And the audience is most probably 100% dazzled, and completely on board with him on this great journey of belief.