← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr

"Can Networks Design Themselves?" - or how evolutionists retreat to pantheism

Thread ID: 20531 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2005-10-05

Wayback Archive

Petr [OP]

2005-10-05 20:48 | User Profile

[I]C.S. Lewis predicted that the final struggle between worldviews would not be waged between Christianity and atheistic materialism (which he called little boys' philosophy), but rather between Christianity and [B]pantheism[/B].[/I]

[I]Many evos are using [B]teleological[/B] language all the time, but refuse to admit any [B]theological[/B] implications. In other words they are [B]cheating[/B], not playing strictly according to their own materialist rulebook that they use to declare Intelligent Design "non-scientific".[/I]

[url]http://creationsafaris.com/crev200510.htm#20051004a[/url]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=5] Can Networks Design Themselves? [/SIZE] [B] 10/04/2005[/B]

A molecular biologist and a physicist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel (see also 09/26/2003) wrote a paper in [I]PNAS[/I]1 with an intriguing title: “Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs.” Can a network arise spontaneously?

Biologists increasingly speak of the interaction of genes, proteins and metabolic processes in terms of networks (e.g., 12/20/2004, 03/22/2004, 01/28/2004, 01/27/2003, 01/10/2003).  The networks with which most of us are familiar, like the power grid or internet, came about with intensive programming and intentional engineering.  After the network architecture and the rules of interaction were defined, however, many unforeseen and spectacular patterns emerged.  It could be argued that each emergent property of the internet had its roots in intelligent causes, however, since only sentient beings – humans – use the internet, and they do so with purpose and intent.  In biological system there are also characteristic network-like patterns.  Could these have arisen without purpose and intent?  For Kashtan and Alon to prove this, they need to establish that networking behavior can be an emergent property of the molecules of the cell, without any programming.

In the history of computer software design, one important revolution was the invention of modular programming.  Early programmers got tangled in their own “spaghetti code,” writing routines that jumped to other routines in such complex ways that the entire system became one single point of failure.  Programmers realized that certain functions could be[I] modularized[/I], or segregated into independent routines that, though part of the big system, focused only on their own task.  A module for addition, for instance, might take two undefined inputs, and have the function: “add these two inputs together.”  The next module up the chain can call this module and give it any two numbers, and be assured the sum will be faithfully returned.  Computer systems and networks built with a modular design were found to be much easier to maintain, and became much more robust against perturbations.  A module could be upgraded or replaced without requiring a rewrite of the entire system.  Biological networks also appear to work in modular fashion.  Kashton and Alon believe that they have found purely natural reasons for why this is so:

[COLOR=Indigo] Biological networks have an [B]inherent simplicity[/B]: they are [B]modular [/B]with a [B]design[/B] that can be [B]separated into units[/B] that [B]perform almost independently.[/B] Furthermore, they show [B]reuse of recurring patterns[/B] termed [B]network motifs[/B][B]. Little is known about the evolutionary origin of these properties[/B]. Current[B] models of biological evolution[/B] typically produce networks that are [B]highly nonmodular[/B] and lack understandable motifs. Here, we suggest a possible explanation for the [B]origin of modularity[/B] and network motifs in biology. We use standard [B]evolutionary algorithms [/B]to evolve networks. [B] A key feature in this study is evolution under an environment (evolutionary goal) that changes in a modular fashion. [/B] That is, we repeatedly [B]switch between several goals[/B], each made of a different combination of subgoals. We find that such [B]“modularly varying goals” lead to the spontaneous evolution of modular network structure[/B] and network motifs. The resulting networks [B]rapidly evolve[/B] to satisfy each of the different goals. Such switching between related goals may represent biological evolution in a changing environment that requires different combinations of a set of basic biological functions. The present study[B] may shed light on the evolutionary forces[/B] [sic] that promote structural simplicity in biological networks and offers ways to improve the evolutionary design of engineered systems. [/COLOR]

(Emphasis added in all quotes.)

In short, if the environment is modular, the network will become modular. This has been the problem, they reason, with computer models of evolution. Modelers used to give the computer a fixed goal and let the evolutionary algorithm figure out the way to reach it, by rewarding each routine’s “fitness” as it got warmer. These two researchers, instead, tried routinely switching the goal during the run. The networks that won out in the end were the modular ones:

[COLOR=Indigo] The networks evolved under modularly varying goals were [B]able to adapt to nearly perfect solutions for each new goal[/B], within about three generations after the goal was switched. This[B] evolvability[/B] was caused by the fact that the evolved networks for the different goals differed only slightly. For example, in many cases they differed in the threshold value of a single neuron, allowing switching between the networks with a single mutation....

Networks that evolve under modularly varying goals [B]seem[/B] to [B]discover the basic subproblems [/B]common to the different goals and to evolve a distinct structural module to implement each of these subproblems.  [B]Evolution under modularly varying goals produces networks that can rapidly adapt to each of the different goals by only a few rewiring changes[/B]. [/COLOR]

So the winners evolved not only to be modular, but to be evolvable. This, they think, is the secret of how biological networks became so robust in spite of changing circumstances. Once a module for chemotaxis arose, for instance, a bacterium could reuse it with just a few “rewiring changes” if the chemical attractant changed. But who is doing the discovering? The subject of their sentence was, “Networks that evolve... discover...” The language of intent continues in another sentence in the ending discussion. Watch the subject: [COLOR=Indigo] In such cases [evolution with fixed goals], when the goal changes, [B]the networks take [/B]a relatively long time to adapt to the new goal, [B]as if it starts evolution from scratch.[/B] Under modularly varying goals, in contrast, [B]adaptation[/B] to the new goal is greatly [B]speeded up by the presence[/B] of the existing modules that were [B]useful[/B] for the previous [B]goal[/B]. [/COLOR]

That last sentence used a passive voice verb: “adaptation... is greatly speeded up.” This hides the implication that the modules are seeking to adapt with goal-directed behavior. The authors are clearly not intentionally attributing intrinsic purpose to the modules. Their discussion of “fitness landscapes” in the subsequent paragraph treats the modules as pinballs on a bumpy landscape. Shifting goals keeps the landscape undulating so that the pinballs don’t get trapped on “local fitness maxima.” So is goal-effective modularity a true emergent property, as pointless and aimless as water running down a slope and seeking the least obstructed path? They actually experimented more to clarify this possibility. Notice the words [I]information processing [/I]and [I]useful: [/I] [COLOR=Indigo] One possible explanation for the origin of the [B]motifs[/B] in the evolved networks is that modular networks are locally [B]denser[/B] than nonmodular networks of the same size and connectivity. This local density tends to increase the number of subgraphs (42). [B]To test this possibility, we evolved networks to reach the same modularity measure [/B]Q as the networks evolved under modularly varying goals, [B]but with no information-processing goal[/B] (see Supporting Text). We find that [B]these modular networks have no significant network motifs[/B] (Fig. 9). They show relatively abundant[B] feedback loops that are antimotifs[/B] in the networks evolved under modularly varying [B]goals.[/B] It therefore seems that the [B]specific network motifs[/B] found in the evolved networks are not merely caused by local density, but [B]may be useful building blocks for information processing.[/B] [/COLOR]

In other words, unless [I]information processing[/I] was programmed in as a goal, mere environment-shifting produced [I]anti-[/I]motifs – a backward step. That is why their only success came with emphasis on achieving [I]useful [/I]building blocks for “information processing.” But what is “useful” to a network? Why would a non-sentient network seek to process information? If not the network, is there an outside agent that cares about such things? Like the tree in the woods falling without a sound, can there be “information” without a mind to conceive of it?

At this point, they compared their computer models to [B]actual biological networks[/B].  Here, they could not escape portraying the genes and cells as if they were tiny sentient beings:

[COLOR=Indigo] How is evolution under modularly varying goals related to actual biological evolution? One may [B]suggest[/B] that organisms evolve in environments that require a certain set of basic biological functions.... [/COLOR] [They discuss chemotaxis evolving as the chemical attractant changes.] [COLOR=Indigo]When environments changed, these[B] modules adapted over evolution[/B] to [B]sense [/B]and [B]chemotax toward [/B]other nutrients. Had [B]evolution [/B]been in a fixed environment, perhaps a [B]more optimal solution[/B] would have mixed the genes for these different tasks (e.g., a [B]motor[/B] that can also [B]sense[/B] and transport the nutrient into the cell), resulting in a nonmodular [B]design[/B]....

    An additional [B]biological [/B]example occurs in [B]development.[/B]  Different cells in the developing embryo take on different fates.  Each cell type [B]needs [/B]to [B]solve[/B] a similar set of [B]problems[/B]: expressing a set of genes in response to a given time-dependent profile of a set of extracellular [B]signals.[/B]  However, in each cell type, the identity of the input [B]signals [/B]and the output genes is different.  Thus, in development, cells [B]need[/B] to [B]perform[/B] essentially the same [B]computations[/B] on varying inputs and output: a modularly varying goal.  The [B]solution found by evolution[/B] is a modular [B]design[/B] where signal transduction pathways (such as mitogen-activated protein kinase cascades), which are common to many cell types, [B]hook up[/B] to[B] specific[/B] receptors and transcription factors that are cell type specific.  This [B]design[/B] allows simple [B]rewiring [/B]of the same pathways to work with diverse inputs and outputs in different cell types.  [B]Over evolutionary time scales,[/B] this[B] design [/B]allows [B]the addition of new cell types[/B] without the[B] need[/B] to evolve dedicated new pathways for each input and output....[/COLOR]

They threw in a bonus that their study might help engineers “evolve” improved networks. But understanding biology was clearly the intent of the paper. How to get biological design without a designer – that quest was evident in their last two sentences. “In summary,” they said, “this study presents a [B]possible mechanism [/B]for [B]spontaneous evolution [/B]of [B]modularity[/B] and [B]network motifs.[/B] It will be important to [B]extend this study[/B] to understand [B]how evolution could generate additional design features of biological systems[/B].” [I] 1Nadav Kashtan and Uri Alon, “Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online before print September 20, 2005, 10.1073/pnas.0503610102.[/I][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [COLOR=DarkGreen]Foul, time out, game over. They just violated the No Free Lunch Principle. You just caught them in the act. This is the persistent sin of evolutionists, engraved with an iron stylus on their stony hearts. They only get away with this evil because no preacher is allowed past the walls of the Darwin Party fortress to call them to repentance. [B]Naturalists cannot attribute will, purpose, intent and information processing to mindless entities. [/B]This violates their core assumptions as philosophical naturalists (materialists), whose goal was to rid natural explanations of teleology (purpose, final causes).

    William Dembski in his writings, especially the book [I]No Free Lunch, [/I]drives home the point that “no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search” – that is, unless [I]information[/I] has been smuggled in behind the scenes.  Consider his famous treasure island analogy.  If you are on an island where treasure is buried, and have no clues, blind search is your only option – a very inefficient method, becoming more hopeless as the size of the island increases.  A friend tells you there is a treasure map.  Happily, you go to the hostel where the map is locked in a cabinet.  You find, to your despair, that there are a million treasure maps, all different, all claiming to be the right one.  In a real sense, you now have moved your blind search to another space: the space of maps, where the the correct map is the new treasure.  This analogy can be extended indefinitely: your friend says a guru knows which map is the correct one.  You go to the mountain top, only to find again, to your despair, that a million gurus await you promising you the path to enlightenment.  The only way out of this infinite series is to get [I]true, useful information [/I]from someone with[I] knowledge[/I] of the treasure’s location.  Anything else is blind search.

    Now, to a Darwinist, who is going to provide that information?  Surely not the environment.  Surely not random strings of DNA.  Surely not randomly floating bits of protein.  None of them can possibly have any goal or purpose in mind, or any embedded knowledge of the best way to build modular networks that grow, reproduce, and function robustly in changing environments, complete with error-checking, coded instructions.  We must emphasize this point: any attempt by a Darwinist to impose wish fulfillment, goal-directed behavior, or teleology on these molecules is strictly forbidden.  One must visualize these molecules as completely and utterly indifferent to success or failure.  They care nothing if a function is achieved, and nobody is there to cheer them on.  Kashtan and Alon conveniently left the [I]origin[/I] of any primitive network as an unsolved problem.  Fine; then they must maintain the impersonality of that initial network, and picture a bunch of unthinking robots that had an initial purpose imposed on them by some unexplained inventor – say, to sort and stack rocks.  Get real, now, and ask yourself: realistically, is changing the environment going to improve their modularity and evolvability?  If you come back after the magic factor of “evolutionary time scales,” will you expect to see the robots building airplanes, printing books and conducting orchestras?  Of course not.  Remember, the robots are not sentient beings.  They couldn’t care less whether some new “function” emerges, or whether they rust in a colossal heap of rubbish (a more thermodynamically favored outcome).

    Where evolutionists cheat incorrigibly is by personifying molecules into goal-directed entities, or by invoking [I]mindless processes[/I] as creative agents.  Notice again how subtly they do this: “One may [B]suggest[/B] that organisms evolve in environments that require a certain set of basic biological functions....”  This “suggestion” makes no sense unless one personifies the environment as a manager setting design requirements, and the evolving entity “needing” or “wishing” to fulfill them.  Whether invoking Tinker Bell with her mutation wand, or shuffling environments to get the desired outcome, evolutionists are playing the guru telling the treasure hunter which map is the correct one.  This is forbidden.  The only evolutionary algorithm that is permissible on Darwin Island is blind search.  The island is the size of the universe, and according to our online book, the chance of getting even one useful protein, let alone a modular, functional network that can adapt to changing environments, is less than Dembski’s “universal probability bound” of 1 chance in 10150.  It would be easier for a blindfolded man to pick a single marked penny out of a whole universe packed with pennies than to expect chance to succeed at this task.  But [I]chance is all they have[/I] according to the No Free Lunch Principle.  [B]And no, they cannot cheat by saying “Well, we are here, therefore it must have happened somehow.”  Unless they are willing to consider intelligent design, this is a post hoc fallacy.[/B]

    [B][U]In conclusion, Darwinian materialism must retreat into pantheism, or else give up in despair. [/U] You just read two Darwinists whispering about biological entities as if they were sentient beings.  Their pantheism is implicit, despite their intent to explain biological networks in materialistic terms.[/B]  As such, they are teaching pantheistic nature religion, not science – and of all places, right there in central Israel!  This is right where Baal worship, another nature religion, was condemned by the Hebrew prophets 2800 years ago.  Where is Elijah when we need him?  Phillip Johnson?  Henry Morris[/COLOR]?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Happy Hacker

2005-10-06 00:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]In the history of computer software design, one important revolution was the invention of modular programming. Early programmers got tangled in their own “spaghetti code,” writing routines that jumped to other routines in such complex ways that the entire system became one single point of failure. Programmers realized that certain functions could be[I] modularized[/I], or segregated into independent routines that, though part of the big system, focused only on their own task.

Just an aside, when you're writing a program in Assembly and it must fit in 512 bytes, you don't have the luxury of modularity. Spaghetti code is inherently faster and more compact. Modularity came with the luxury of stronger computers.

Petr

2005-10-10 22:53 | User Profile

Well, would Angler or any other evo-defender around here like to refute this claim that evolutionism must rely on pantheistic vocabulary in order to look even remotely possible?

Petr

Angler

2005-10-11 14:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Well, would Angler or any other evo-defender around here like to refute this claim that evolutionism must rely on pantheistic vocabulary in order to look even remotely possible?[/QUOTE]That claim is so laughable as to not even be worth refuting. But here's a brief analogy:

Sometimes when I'm trying to loosen a screw or a bolt with a hand tool and the thing is stuck or rusted tight, someone will walk by and notice my struggle. I'll tell them in an exasperated voice, "This damn thing doesn't want to come out!"

Just about everyone I know has used such words in a similar situation. Does that mean we think the screw or bolt has a soul, a will, or goals? Does it mean we believe in pantheism? Think about it.

Desperate non-arguments like the above from DelusionalSafaris are so typical of creationists. Anything goes in the War Against Reality. That's why I rarely argue with creationists anymore. How does one argue with people who are so desperate to see reality in a warped manner that they can't even figure out the difference between pantheism and the use of common figures of speech?! How does one argue with people who are impervious to facts and logic whenever those don't fit into what they want or need to believe?

Evolution is made even more plausible by the fact that the Bible (and all other supposed "holy books" written by men) cannot be true. They're self-contradictory.

Consider first these Bible verses:

Matthew 25:31-46

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The above words clearly and indisputably say that people will be judged by how they treated their fellow men. There is nothing about "faith" or "belief" in the above text.

But then there's this:

Acts 13:37-39

37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Romans 10:9-11

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

The above verses say that belief is the key to salvation.

So, what if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, but are selfish, cruel, and merciless to your fellow men? Or what if you are an atheist who works tirelessly to feed and clothe the poor? There are many people in each of these categories.

You may find evolution improbable, but I can tell you this: For all of the above verses to be simultaneously true is logically impossible. Anyone who doesn't see that is being willfully blind. Every single Bible-thumper would point out that those verses were contradictory if they were found in the Koran rather than in the Bible.

If the Bible had been inspired by God, it would have been much, MUCH more clear, convincing, and logical than if it had been written (mostly) by Jews.

This is enough out of me for one day, though. If you want to keep on believing that creatures such as [url=http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/]THESE[/url] were once docile plant-eaters living in harmony with all other creatures in the Garden of Eden before an "infinitely just" God condemned them to prey endlessly on each other for something that wasn't their fault, then be my guest. Enlightenment isn't for everyone.

[img]http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/guinea_worm.jpg[/img]

(Above: One of the nice Guinea worms that used to feast on fruits and veggies in the Garden of Eden before Adam's and Eve's sin made him reconsider his dietary habits. LOL)

Petr

2005-10-11 14:06 | User Profile

[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "That claim is so laughable as to not even be worth refuting."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

Old, old trick: when you find yourself embarrassingly challenged, feign superiority and cop-out with a cliché like this.

[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Desperate non-arguments like the above from DelusionalSafaris are so typical of creationists. Anything goes in the War Against Reality. That's why I rarely argue with creationists anymore."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

No, rather [B]you[/B] (along with other evos) are becoming more and more incapable to counter our points.

And then you go on to blather about the final judgment as it would help to defend your case.

The point of this piece is that you can't keep using semi-pantheistic jargon to defend evolution - and at the same time insist that "Intelligent Design" is un-scientific [B]by definition[/B].

Petr

Angler

2005-10-11 14:09 | User Profile

I did counter your point. In fact, I squashed it like a bug. Did you even read my post?

Sometimes when I'm trying to loosen a screw or a bolt with a hand tool and the thing is stuck or rusted tight, someone will walk by and notice my struggle. I'll tell them in an exasperated voice, "This damn thing doesn't want to come out!"

Just about everyone I know has used such words in a similar situation. Does that mean we think the screw or bolt has a soul, a will, or goals? Does it mean we believe in pantheism? Think about it.

That is the easy answer to the insane charge of pantheism.

Petr

2005-10-11 14:14 | User Profile

Your comparison was superficial. Evos constantly talk about evolution or natural selection as if they had some sorts of [B]goals[/B], instead of being utterly purposeless processes, and that goes further than just using everyday figures of speech.

[SIZE=3][COLOR=Purple][FONT=Trebuchet MS]"Darwin’s theory contained traces of the natural theology which it would replace. [B]Many scholars have examined the theological resources which Darwin used and transformed: the notion of absolutely perfect divine creations which was gradually replaced by the relative perfection of evolved beings; the idea of natural selection as a divinely instituted mechanism for preserving adaptations; and the personification of an active Nature wielding the creative force of an immanent self-creating deity[/B].5 Even in the passage, above, where Darwin compares Nature to a demiurge making do with junkyard materials to fashion new machines from old, [B]some readers saw this as a remaking of Paley’s watchmaker argument, rather than a refutation[/B]. In the Origin of Species there are many passages which evoke the spectre of natural theology, and Darwin’s Christian interpreters were quick to point out the apparent consonance between his language and Paley’s."[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[url]http://www.thoemmes.com/science/design_intro.htm[/url]

[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial][I] [B] - "That is the easy answer to the insane charge of pantheism."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

Your emotional language would seem to indicate that I hit a soft spot...

Petr

Angler

2005-10-11 14:18 | User Profile

The point of this piece is that you can't keep using semi-pantheistic jargon to defend evolution - and at the same time insist that "Intelligent Design" is un-scientific by definition. Of course I can. "Nature abhors a vacuum," "objects want to fall toward the earth at 9.81 m/sec/sec, but the air resistance won't let them," etc., etc. All of those statements are using common figures of speech to make valid scientific points. None of them have anything to do with pantheism, just as nothing evolutionists say has anything to do with pantheism.

If you aren't even able to understand this, then I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you. If you want to cling to these laughable charges, be my guest. If you want to think that I or other evolutionists are pantheists, indulge yourself in that delusion.

Angler

2005-10-11 14:20 | User Profile

Your emotional language would seem to indicate that I hit a soft spot... Yes: My funny bone! :lol:

Give it up, Petr. Really.

Happy Hacker

2005-10-11 19:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][B]Naturalists cannot attribute will, purpose, intent and information processing to mindless entities. [/B][/QUOTE]

Evolutionists often fall back to implying purpose because without that, Evolution looks pretty worthless. "Fish grew legs so they could walk in land." vs. "Fish grew legs just because they grew legs." The latter version would be continued, "Those fish with legs could walk around on land, those without legs couldn't." (Actually, this "just because" would have happened for every mutation needed to turn fins into legs and feet.)

As I like to point out, Evolution doesn't happen. Natural Selection and Random Mutation do not produce Evolution. This is an empirical fact. It doesn't matter if we're talking about populations of animals or numbers inside a computer.

Every attempt by Evolutionists to demonstrate Evolution is fradulent. There's the bait-and-switch of calling any variation Evolution which is usually used in living populations. In artificial simulations, there is always a target, a goal, which dictates selection. Sometimes this is very blatant, such as when an Evolutionist is telling you how fast evolution (selection of random letters) can produce the word "evolution". Sometimes the goal is obscured, but there is always that goal, that pre-existing final destination.

Gregz

2005-10-13 00:52 | User Profile

Happy Hacker

By Modularity I assume they mean functions. You can't beat well implemented procedural code for raw performance. Functions or classes are computationally expensive and where introduced to increase code base maintainability rather than code reuse.

Greg

"All persons ought to endeavor to follow what is right, and not what is established." - Aristotle