IlliGAL Blogging

Sisu has a post relating work and genetic algorithms and genetic programming to arguments against creationism and intelligent design. Taking this subject up is probably a good way to drive more traffic to the site, but I've always thought that it was better to avoid such distractions and stick to our knitting. Work in GAs and GP can stand on its own two feet. Once we've plugged into the metaphor, we can push the envelope on how much artificial evolution and genetics can do in how short a time. I do agree with Barry Kearns of VekTor:

I've been frankly startled by the power and efficacy of the evolutionary process for solving problems, without even stating the nature of the problem itself to the solution engine. Watching powerful solutions arise out of the 'digital goo' in real time is downright spooky. And that's with relatively tiny population sizes.

But I'm not sure that anecdotal observation of GA performance is all that helpful in "settling" anything. If fossil records and increasingly detailed undestanding of genetics and cellular function down to the molecular level aren't persuasive, should we expect the caricature simulations of GAs and GP over evolutionary time scales to really turn the tide?

Having said this, understanding GA/GP time complexity, problem class appropriateness, and solution quality (see DoI) may be able to put to rest unsophisticated arguments equating natural evolution to simple random search. Moreover, these complexity arguments (with a good bit of work) might yield a detailed bound on the plausibility of the complexity of natural systems we now observe.