35. Algorithms and Evolution

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The page begins below.

algo top

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 parameters 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 parameters 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 parameters 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 his model, as well as a chosen environment, were programmed into his computer.  The environments varied. They were and could be composed of water, or some type of land surface, or even air; or a mix of the three.  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 motions 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 ” pieces of evidence” 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 to 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 makes 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.


  1. gene said,

    I argued with evolutionist recently and he told me these these type of simulations use just simple algortihms. Lets think about “simple algorithm” thingy a bit. Think what it takes to create algorithm.
    Algorithm is a point where your idea (immaterial) connects with a real world (material). I do not see anything simple in this process. Process involves lots of thinking, planning, logic ….I can not envision how would even simplest algorithm write itself. It can only be produced by intelligence.
    BTW I’ll have to see the rest of the video clips by their “pope” Dennet .

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Everything in evo is described as “simple”. It has to be that way or how else can thing evolve? If they are complex?

  2. gene said,

    oops i guess post disappeared.

    Great writing on algorithms. To evolutionist simulations seem so simple. Few algorithms here ,few lines of code there and poof here comes creatures.
    I argue there is nothing simple about any algorithm. It requires symbols, logic, planning….not to mention software and hardware.
    Algorithm is a point at which our ideas interact with real world. It is a tool only intelligent being can use.
    Lets see if this stays.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Gene: The posts take a few hours to post. I had to do a bit of screening because I was getting HUGE evo-comments that just took tons of my limited room. Sorry.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I just removed the screen. I hope I can keep it that way. So if you comment, it will post immediately.

  3. gene said,

    I didn’t want to create too much trouble. Thanks.
    I’m reading some research on epigenetics recently.Mindboggling stuff !

    Anyway, I read your debates and I liked them so much that I printed some of them and sent them to my father back in Europe. I like to see science and logic used in your arguments.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I hope I can keep the comments completely open. Your comment stirred me into giving it a try. But you know how evos will rag on and on , and copyt/paste acres of garbage, which is why I changed to the screening bit. Glad you like my debates. I was on rationalskepticism. org for a few weeks. Long drawn out debates, 20 evos against me. I told them that it wasn’t fair…..for the twenty which irritated heck out of them. They are always irritated anyway. They have three threads dedicated to lil ole me on the “creationism/intelligent design” listing. It went on and on.
      Me: “How would maxillary teeth with one genetic pathway evolve teeth to fit the mandiblular from an entirely different genetic pathway?”
      Ans: “Well, they just did. The one pathway made teeth to fit the other. Is there any proof it didn’t happen?”
      Me: “How did different species at the opposite ends of the earth evolve the same organs/bio-systems?”
      They: “My cousin lives on a different continent than me, and he has the same organ system that I have!”
      After tons more of those, I gave up.

  4. gene said,

    I was on rationalskepticism. org for a few weeks. Long drawn out debates, 20 evos against me.

    If you have the link to those debates handy please post it. I was never on that web site .I wouldn’t mind reading some of those debates.
    I don’t debate much but occasionally will have small discussion. It doesn’t help that English is not my first language ( I’m thankful for spell checkers).Like you mentioned I noticed some evos get angry pretty quickly and start with insults.
    I try to keep it light and hate to insult people even if they do it to me.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      There are three threads with my name on them. Top one is the most active.
      These aren’t light. I ignore the most angry and idiotic posts. Actually they’re all idiotic. There is a guy named Cali who writes acres of stuff, and copy/pastes acres of “peer reviewed” aka fantasy papers. I don’t bother reading him much. Repeat BS over and over. They guy has delusions of grandeur. My bet is none of his peers reads them either. Probably not even his mother.

  5. gene said,

    Wow! Looks like you are thorn in evos side. There are so many comments it gets confusing. Yes, lots of cut and paste boring stuff, too. I noticed some names who post on your blog as well. Please do what you have to regarding your blog filtering. They are like vultures.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I do want to keep the comments open, and I hope it lasts. So you get five stars so far for being the catalyst.

  6. gene said,

    I hope that’s not five out of ten. 🙂

  7. gene said,

    Here is a little algorithm. Lets call it ” incremental replicator”:

    10 a=a+1
    20 print a;
    30 goto 10

    Ah,they don’t make them like this anymore.

    It is a functional logical unit with each element dependent on the other. Certainly looks simple. But looks could be deceiving.

    In example above we do not want any random changes in our software incremental replicator or else it doesn’t work. It is logical unit made of reusable components (commands) and following rules and protocols we may not see immediately.

    Definition :
    A function ƒ takes an input, x, and returns an output ƒ(x). One metaphor describes the function as a “machine” or “black box” that converts the input into the output.

    For example:
    After DNA duplication in the cell we see two helices .We have to assume a copying function was performed on DNA helix. We know that copying function be it done by photocopy machine, computer or chemical assemblies is a very precise,organized and coordinated event.
    It is performed by logically unified set of components regardless of the size or material those components are made of.
    I did quickly switch between abstract ,symbolic world to a material – chemical one. I think that should be acceptable because logic should follow.
    I would even say above example is irreducible if we were to obtain function in question.

    Does this make sense to you?

  8. mdmeach said,

    Just stumbled on your site. I admire your attitude to questioning and your demand for sound evidence. And I am impressed by some of your knowledge of biology. But I do think your logic is in error at various points, that you have often tended to draw conclusions too quickly and that you have developed a bias as seriously infective as many evolutionists. Not trying to be negative, just some constructive criticism. Just my point of view. Keep thinking!


    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks I guess.You make the same mistake as intense evos. No examples.

  9. Dany Menko (@MenkoDany) said,

    Yeah… no. Give me a moment and I’ll debunk all this ignorance and delusion.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Who is limiting your time? Have at it. You can have all the “moments” you want.

  10. Mike Bloomfield said,

    Wow.Looks like Dany still requires a moment to ‘debunk all this ignorance and delusion.’ Hopefully,somewhere between then and now,he’s come to the realization that evolutionism is quite ignorant and deluded in itself.I’m not holding my breath though.Evolution is really religion disguised as science and Dany seems to be way too immersed in its dogma to ever come to such epiphany.(I was struck with a moment of genius.If someone hasn’t already written and published an anti-evolutionism book titled ‘The Evolution Delusion,’ it would make for an excellent title.indeed.I’m sure that it would put a burr under Ricky Dawkins’ saddle,as the book title would be like a shot below his belt.)

    I just recently registered at RatSkep myself.I was thinking about having a go at some of the so-called critical thinkers there.I scanned through some of the postings and-though I admittedly have a tendency to compose long-winded and wordy stuff myself-that it makes my most lengthy material look like a walk in the park by comparison.I think you’re being way too nice by saying that they post ‘acres of garbage,’ Stevebee.From what I’ve seen so far from them,it’s more like square mileage.I picture a Mount St.Helen’s type of volcano ejecting massively large quantities of liquefied fecal matter everywhere within a thousand mile radius when I see some of the long,drawn out,postings of these supposed rational skeptics.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I like your title idea: The Evolution Delusion. It is just that: a delusion, and named after “The God…”
      I call it an illusion. The title of my book is “Evo-illusion”, which it is also. It will be out in about a month.

  11. Mike Bloomfield said,

    Glad you liked the book title idea.If you decide to write a follow-up to “Evo-Illusion,” you got a title idea to work with.As far as your yet-to-be-released work,will it be in bookstores or sold exclusively online? I would certainly like to read it.I came across this blog just recently and have been slowly going through it (along with some of the evo-tard responses to it.) I agree with a lot about what you said,especially with respect to indoctrination,groupthink,and the excessive reliance on ‘peer-reviewed’ material by evolutionists who are not only unable to think for themselves but exhibit selective skepticism.These people are so quick to mock and deride that which doesn’t align with their own secularist/naturalist point of view but fail to employ the same skepticism to that which they believe in….especially when what they believe in is on shaky ground.I’m sure that you’ll be subject to more gang-style attacks by the evolutionists when the book is out-who will most certainly defend their precious little Darwinian theory with the same fervor that they despise in religious fundamentalists and extremists.But people like me,who don’t blindly accept everything that ‘science’ tells us,appreciate what you’re trying to do.I hope that it works toward the shattering of delusions and illusions. 🙂

    • stevebee92653 said,

      The book will be on Amazon and Barnes and Noble online. Probably rare in bookstores. I will be showing it here on this blog. It will be ready before the end of July, so keep an eye out, and thanks for asking. You are a rare thinker. I find so few of you these days. Your comment is right on. This isn’t an argument about whether God or Evo is correct. It’s an argument about whether Evo is valid, and if mankind is astute enough to scientifically figure out the Greatest Puzzle. The only possible scientific conclusion is: we aren’t close. Evos try so hard to make it a battle between religion and “science”. If they didn’t, their belief would collapse instantly.

  12. Mike Bloomfield said,

    I have my own spiritual beliefs and the sense that there’s more to this,as you called it,puzzle than what meets the eye.You’re right,this isn’t an argument about whether God or evolution is correct.I personally don’t believe that Charles Darwin landed the decisive death-blow to God as much as I don’t believe that science and religion can’t intersect.In fact,I believe that they can co-exist and even compliment each other.The problem is that-on the evolutionist’s side of things-they NEED Darwinian theory to be right,even in the face of the challenges that threaten to knock it down,because it ‘confirms’ their secularism to be ‘true.’ (I mean,look at how quick some of the evo-tards were to attack the ENCODE project last year when ‘junk DNA’ was proven to be a myth.) It’s the underlying atheistic ideology that really compels them to be staunch evolutionists.(Although,to be fair,not every supporter of evolution is an atheist just like not every opponent of evolution is a creationist/proponent of intelligent design.I wouldn’t want to employ the “if you don’t believe in x,you must be y” type of thinking that these so-called ‘critical thinkers’ often use.*Rolls eyes* Jeez.)

    If evolution were indeed 100% true,there wouldn’t have been a need for hoaxes,like the Piltdown Man ,to be created to give people the illusion of evolution’s veracity.I know that it was a century ago and much in the way of research has been undertaken since.But it doesn’t mean that similar attempts to deceive the masses aren’t made today as they were then.To a point,I can appreciate skepticism and the need for evidence.But I think that we also need to be skeptical of Darwinian theory when there’s evidence against it.I’ll keep my eye out for your book.I hope it does well.

Leave a Reply to Mike Bloomfield Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: