Evolution and the NFL theorems
| December 30, 2007 | Posted by idnet.com.au under Intelligent Design |
Ronald Meester CLICK HERE FOR THE PAPER Department of Mathematics, VU-University Amsterdam,
“William Dembski (2002) claimed that the NoFreeLunch-theorems from op-
timization theory render Darwinian biological evolution impossible. I
argue that the NFL-theorems should be interpreted not in the sense that the models can be used to draw any conclusion about the real biological evolution (and certainly not about any design inference), but in the sense that it allows us to interpret computer simulations of evolutionary processes. I will argue that we learn very little, if anything at all, about biological evolution from simulations. This position is in stark contrast with certain claims in the literature.”
This paper is wonderful! Will it be published? It vindicates what Prof Dembski has been saying all the time whilst sounding like it does not.
“This does not imply that I defend ID in any way; I would like to emphasise this from the outset.”
I love the main useful quote it is a gem!
“I will argue now that simulations of evolutionary processes only demonstrate good programming skills – not much more. In particular, simulations add very little, if anything at all, to our understanding of “real” evolutionary processes.”
“If one wants to argue that there need not be any design in nature, then it is hardly convincing that one argues by showing how a well-designed algorithm behaves as real life is supposed to do.”
241 Responses to Evolution and the NFL theorems
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Unfortunately, the deleted comment is not in google cache either… The impression I got was that S. believed that by its very nature that algorithms that are carried out by naturally occurring processes should perform better than software-based programs. I find this assertion odd since to my mind the constraints of nature either are too wide or too narrow and not at all balanced like a well-designed GA. It should be a rather rare event that an environment provides a balance and the variation provides functionally positive mutations. So on balance I would expect nature to perform worse than even a poorly designed GA. I was hoping to ask for his justification for his assertion.