A “cost” is a “goal”
|February 1, 2013||Posted by niwrad under Intelligent Design|
In the phys.org news “Researchers solve biological mystery and boost artificial intelligence” is cited a research about “The Evolutionary Origins of Modularity” (in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Jan. 30, 2013).
The researchers have simulated “25,000 generations of evolution within computers” and believe to have discovered why biological systems show modularity.
“Researchers have discovered why biological networks tend to be organized as modules – a finding that will lead to a deeper understanding of the evolution of complexity. […] As it turned out, it was enough to include a “cost of wiring” to make evolution favor modular architectures. […] Once you add a cost for network connections, modules immediately appear. Without a cost, modules never form.”
What means to program a “cost” in a computer simulation of evolution? In two words, it is to write a set of instructions that says: “if the digital organism behaves or develops X then reward it with a bonus; differently if it fails X then punish it”. In one word, a “cost” is a “goal”.
Darwinists always said that evolution works because of a “cost of unfit” only. Today they add a “cost of wiring” to get modules. I suspect tomorrow they will add a “cost of blindness” to get eyes, the day after tomorrow they will add a “cost of immobility” to get legs … and so on.
Also, Darwinists always said that evolution is blind and has no goal. But each “cost” is a “goal”. So, what they call “deeper understanding of the evolution of complexity” seems to me simply additional contradictions of their theory.