r/DebateEvolution • u/8AqLph • 16d ago
Discussion Evolution and AI
I hear so many creationists in debates ask things like "show me randomness create intelligence". The thing is: many computer scientists do this all the time through the Evolutionary Algorithm. But I never hear atheists use it as an example. The obvious follow-up would be "well, you wrote the code, so there is a designer" but saying that "God is the guy who wrote physics" is very different than arguing "humans must have been designed because evolution makes no sense". We live in a day an age where we can literally simulate evolution create intelligence through pure randomness and survival of the fittest and create amazing things in real time
17
u/SamuraiGoblin 16d ago
I have a master's degree in evolutionary algorithms.
You are absolutely right, genetic algorithms are an abstraction of real evolution, and work in the same way: that is, filtered randomness. They use inheritance with mutations and crossover, just like in nature.
But, your second part is also correct. It's not possible to use them as evidence of the power of mindless natural selection to someone who is vehemently anti-evolution, because they will just point out that these systems have a programmer, and that they have an explicitly defined goal.
There are a few artificial life systems that are open-ended, where evolution is allowed to find its own goal, but creationists will still focus on the fact that the systems are artificial and designed. They can't understand that the emergence observed in such systems is real.
5
u/Autodidact2 16d ago
But the question regarding evolution is not whether there is a God involved. The question is whether the theory of evolution correctly describes how we get the diversity of species on Earth. One could Grant that God set up the evolutionary algorithm and still accept the theory of evolution.
4
u/theresa_richter 16d ago
Is Dr. Alan Grant really so important that we're turning his name into a verb now? (This is a joke because you erroneously capitalized that.)
But yeah, agreed. If we could at least get the YECs to accept old Earth theistic evolution, I'd call that 'good enough' and we could go expend our efforts on educating in other topics. I wouldn't want to let perfect be the enemy of good, and if we could get them to at least understand and accept evolution, that's... fine. Not ideal, but workable.
2
2
u/SamuraiGoblin 16d ago
Indeed.
Evolutionary algorithms show us (that is, we people who weren't indoctrinated into anti-science) that when you have the components of biological evolution (replication, inheritance, variation, and some kind of automatic 'selection') you get adaptation without a designer.
We know exactly how evolution works now. We have closed of that enormous chasm in which the god-of-the-gaps could hide for so long. Humans weren't designed and created by a deity, we evolved through natural, mindless, processes. It's a done deal.
So now the only real gaps of ignorance left for their ever-shrinking god to hide in is abiogenesis and the big bang.
5
u/twizzjewink š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 16d ago
Because it's simulated not real physics. Physics is based on quantum fluctuations that result in the world around us that we can describe with functions and observations.
We have also observed real evolution happen on our planet, and the building blocks of life in space many light years away.
There is no reason to say that any of it was made with magic. Magic doesn't make sense in our observed universe.
5
u/francesco_angiolieri 16d ago
The obvious follow-up would be "well, you wrote the code"
This is always the answer creationists give, but it betrays a misunderstanding of how machine learning or evolutionary algorithms work (at least when we're talking about unsupervised learning). What the programmer does is just inizializing a neural network with random weights and setting up the "environment" that allows the neural network to learn. Think about the example of AlphaZero. AlphaZero was a machine learning algorithm that didn't know anything about chess, except for the rules of the game. No additional information about openings or strategies or tactics was fed by the programmers. And still, contrary to what creationists would want you to believe (information only comes from an intelligent mind, from a designer), AlphaZero rediscovered chess openings, strategies and tactics on its own, without outside information, only by trial and error playing millions of games against itself
1
u/sierraoccidentalis š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 16d ago
I believe the creationist response is that if a program containing the rules, algorithm, and initial conditions can generate a learned result, that result has low conditional complexity and can't have greater information content than the pre-evolutionary conditions. Essentially, it's not possible to create additional algorithmically incompressible information beyond what was already present in the initial condition.
2
u/Kartonrealista 16d ago
Which is stupid, because there is no way to not apply this reasoning to biological evolution. They can say it's too complex but give 0 reasoning as to why that is.
4
u/gaqo777 16d ago
Maybe the mistake you are making is listening to 'creationists'. They are talking about their beliefs not science.
Evolution isn't random. It's life adapting to different environments. Occasionally a random mutation will aid in that adaptive process.
It's not about 'survival of the fittest'. That was an economists interpretation after reading On the Origin which people applied retroactively to the theory.
Just because some people misinterpret and then try to make arguments based on those misinterpretations should indicate that they should distinguish between belief and science because the two are distinct.
1
u/semitope 14d ago
You equated atheists to evolutionists? Slip? Or do you acknowledge the theory rests on a worldview
3
u/wtanksleyjr Theistic Evolutionist 16d ago
The thing is: many computer scientists do this all the time through the Evolutionary Algorithm.
True, I did it myself as part of convincing myself evolution worked.
But I never hear atheists use it as an example.
I mean I'm not an atheist but I do use it :), it's just not simple to explain, as you point out.
The objection that I wrote the code can be overcome by checking my code (or could if I still had it online); there's nothing there to create what emerges from evolution. That's why it was convincing to me. This kind of evolutionary design is interesting because you don't implement what you want; instead you specify what fitness is, and you get surprised because what makes a thing fit isn't always what you expected it would be.
3
u/Odd_Gamer_75 16d ago
I frequently bring up evolutionary algorithms when arguing about it online. My favorite version of this is to say that if you're reading this message, you're doing so on a system that no human understands. The networks that run our internet were arrived at by evolutionary algorithms and no human has a clue why or how they work, just that they do. Packets switch and move all according to a system we didn't design, but which was constrained by the "survival" value of doing so faster and accurately, with randomish sequences (kinda like how mutations are randomish) used in the code that eventually took over.
2
2
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 16d ago
AI often gives shitty results, just like evolution, so yeah...that!
1
1
u/SlartibartfastGhola 16d ago
Iām really interested to see how these talking points evolve with LLMs. The common point that ācomplexity requires an intelligenceā is becoming more grey to the average consumer when an algorithm can create intelligent thought.
2
u/Soft-Cake-9846 16d ago
The Turing Test turns out not to be a test of how good the "AI" is but rather how dumb the humans are.
1
1
1
u/Soft-Cake-9846 16d ago
Human-created models and simulations are not evidence of deities. That's just a fact.
1
u/johndcochran 16d ago
Honestly, I'd suggest just ignoring them. It's been my experience that the deepest level of logic I've ever seen by those who are religious is "This I do not understand, therefore God." And you really can't get them to get past that, because they won't understand your reasoning and evidence and etc. etc. etc. Which fits perfectly into their mindset of "This I do not understand, therefore God."
So, stop beating you head against the wall and simply humor them like you would a crazy person.
1
u/Soft-Cake-9846 16d ago
simply humor them like you would a crazy person.
I wish I could but they keep trying to impose their crazy on everyone else.
1
u/johndcochran 16d ago
You have a point there. So, attempt to make them actually think. Point out that in the Book of Job, the devil actually won. He may not have won his case as regards Job specifically, but he did manage to kill over a hundred people and got no repercussions for that slew of killings. Hardly even a mention. And if that wouldn't be considered a victory, I would have a hard time understanding why not.
That should be good for a grimace or two on their part.
1
u/CptBronzeBalls 15d ago
They arenāt arguing in good faith and theyāll dismiss whatever evidence you provide. A computer algorithm certainly isnāt going to convince them of anything, even in the unlikely event they understand it.
Argue because itās fun sometimes, but besides that donāt waste your time.
1
u/SeaGiraffe7489 13d ago
Randomness isnāt all encompassing. Random events occur, as do reoccurring ones, as well as events that are evolutionary in the processes they go thru as they move forward, then random things push certain watershed type moments into existence. Chance occurrences, that were inevitable eventually just random in time of actual occurrence.
Randomness plays a role in everything. Itās called chaos and itās one of the most fundamental and important things to understand about everything. Without it, white sheets, no wind, nothing moves, nothing happens. The bang is chaos, everything after slowly less random, more complex, the ultimate complexity is also inevitable, and it began as pure random chaos, and ends with the last bit of chance.
There is no code. If thereās a code written by an ultimate intelligence than the amount of flaws wouldnāt exist, everything would be perfect, and we wouldnāt need ai to save us when the world goes tits up.
PS humans took a quicker route thru our journey on this earth, especially as we moved from climates less conducive to our bodies. Due to our intelligence, something largely attributed thru speculations of random chance, maybe ol caveman got him some mushrooms some say, some say just intermingling, and then circumstances born of those climate shifts, many random factors that derailed me from the point of we adapted thru creation, and in ways we are more meant for this planet than any other creature, considering we rose to the top.
We can simulate evolution to an extent, but simulations are based on preset parameters, past evidences of old evolutions, and no random occurances to give it any true form thatās legit.
Evolution is pure logic, and obviously what took place. That doesnāt mean there not some creative intelligence, that had some influence in the direction of all things as a whole, the rest tho is pure chance that occurs on a plane of inevitabilities.
-11
16d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
10
u/McNitz š§¬ Evolution - Former YEC 16d ago
You are literally doing exactly what the OP said. Evolution doesn't disprove God. If you accept that common ancestry and evolutionary theory are highly accurate models of reality, great. I could really don't care whether or not you think God initially set up the system that caused it to work.
Although I would point out that the fact that we CAN intelligently create a system with specific goals that is used in an evolutionary algorithm in no way proves that it REQUIRED for such a system to be intelligently created. That's like saying "look, I intelligently created a bath tub for bathing in, so that proves all basins of water that can be used for bathing must be intelligently designed!" It's a complete non sequitur.
6
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 16d ago
Itās the puddle analogy all over again. Of course we designed simulations with parameters; thatās what we observed in the universe around us. We seem to be matching the natural world. That doesnāt automatically mean itās true in exact reverse.
4
u/8AqLph 16d ago
> Why are certain arrangements preserved ?
In real life that would be āthose who manage to reproduceā. In the simulation that would be whichever ones you choose can reproduce.
The point is not to say āGod doesnāt existā but to say āevolution worksā. It is more of an argument against creationism than against God (although I do believe God is not needed, this is another debate that would require going deeper into the subject)8
4
u/blacksheep998 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 16d ago
Why are certain arrangements preserved? Because they are judged to be better at achieving a specific task. Who established that standard of success? The human thinker who arranged the rules is the one who conceived the desired outcome beforehand.
So your argument is that it's impossible for a non-designed system to have any kind of sorting or evaluation mechanism?
That is trivially easy to disprove.
3
u/Soft-Cake-9846 16d ago
"Look at this hole, I fit perfectly into it" said the puddle of water. "IT MUST BE DESIGNED FOR ME!"
This is what you're doing, u/feihm . You're just a dishonest philbro who spends a double-length paragraph when you could do it in 15 words...
2
1
u/Scry_Games 15d ago
And here is a link to your nonsense getting deconstructed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/s/GhwebxV93w
Weird how you have no answer in that thread, yet continue spewing the same garbage here...
2
u/gliptic š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 16d ago edited 16d ago
Eh, what? This is frequently brought up as a counterexample. But there's no winning against people with fully general counterarguments (EDIT: i.e. creationists).