On 5/22/26 6:27 AM, sticks wrote:Wow...you can't seriously believe what have written is true? You are saying natural selection, but what EA actually is are algorithms based on the theories and principles of natural selection in an effort to solve problems. NOT actual selection. This has absolutely ZERO to do with natural selection as it refers to Darwinian Evolution. If anything, with the intelligent setup, artificial fitness, and isolated variables usually used, it resembles Intelligent Design more than natural selection!This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it is quite convincing. He begins by giving a full history lesson on the 1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated between biologists and mathematicians. The biologists had no answers for the math, but the math side wasn't very good at pressing this and the debate was considered a draw. Nothing much has been done in the years since then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution crowd. Day details this all in depth.Perhaps you were unaware that evolution by natural selection is being used regularly and profitably in design and manufacturing. Google "evolutionary algorithms" or look it up on Wikipedia. Obviously, natural selection works well enough. In fact, the fact that it continues to be used at all shows that it works better than human intelligent design, at least for some applications.
>
He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened. Not enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of creating species. He is not saying he believes evolution didn't happen, he is saying natural selection was not the method. That should make Martin happy. I think he would be considered a Theistic Evolutionists, but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation and doesn't really pick a manipulator. His main objective is in proving the math doesn't work for selection. If correct, this is a death sentence for Darwinian evolution which relies on natural selection.
>
Though I don't agree with IGM theory, I found his math on selection impressive. I decided to check into his models and whether or not they had been reviewed and objections leveled. He does have chapters in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges. All the objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the book. The consensus loving AI even accepted his math and his assumptions were said to be completely valid. I have not found anything that adequately refutes his findings. As back in 1966, it just gets ignored.
>
Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is quite impressive in my view. He simply lays it all out there. I also found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing. He basically says they're a bunch of idiots, and then goes on to show why.
>
I could probably give much more on this book, but nobody is gonna read it anyway, so in case Martin or MarkE are interested in this stuff, it is a worthwhile read. If anyone has read it and wants to comment I would love to hear about it. I sincerely believe his math has not been seriously refuted.
But since you mention it, I don't recall you piping up when I wrote about Stuart Burgess book "Ultimate Engineering" where the entire book are his thoughts on this. In the book he describes how design engineers are often using biological systems as templates for new and innovative designs. Of course his book IS relevant and DOES make interpretations you would not agree with. You just won't try and counter them other than saying, "We don't know."
As for evolutionists not understanding math, look up also the Wikipedia page on Ronald Fisher, which contains quote describing him as ""a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science" and "the single most important figure in 20th century statistics."Wow...That settles that! You're being so ridiculous in the last two posts I believe I've probably misjudged you. I did not say Day claimed evolutionists don't understand math. I said he claimed that, "biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math in their research" when referring to the issues involved in the subject title of his book.
Bringing up someone who died several years even before the Wistar Institute Conference has absolutely nothing to do with his claim about the actual biologists at the conference, or the work done on the issues discussed after it. I realize you won't read this book, so you will not be able to do much more than try and get the target moved. Noted.
What a waste of time!
--
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.