Wings

[Kenelm Philip]

	Mark Walker said, regarding genetic algorithms in computer work:

> It would be very wrong to suggest that this technology in any way
> provides evidence that all of life came into being by such a process. 

I can't argue with him about what he does for a living--but I have read
some descriptions of what some of the academically-oriented pioneers of
this process have done: people like J. H. Holland (who, although not the
first researcher to have worked with systems that reproduced evolutionary
behavior, was stated to have developed the Genetic Algorithm--maybe Mark
has conflicting data at hand?), David Jefferson, John Koza, and W. D.
Hillis.

	Hillis, using random mutation and selection, evolved a program for
sorting 10 numbers that came within 1 step of matching the smallest number
of steps (60) in which computer scientists had ever been able to accomplish
this task. To do this, he introduced parasites--which prevented the 
selection process from getting trapped on local maxima of fitness. The
evolution took all of 15 minutes. As an emergent phenomenon (not programmed
into the system) he found punctuated equilibria occurring during the
evolution. He also found that the introduction of parasites increased
'biodiversity' by a factor of two.  A noted biologist (Graham Bell of McGill
University) said that Hillis' system was "the first logical demonstration
of the Darwinian theory of evolution." If a _biologist_ accepts this work
as relevant to the evolution of life, I would think there might be something
to it even if some computer scientists (Walker?) have their doubts. John
Maynard Smith approved of this work--and he is an evolutionary biologist.
Nor do I feel inclined to argue with him...

	All this work appears to be very different from what Mark described
as the current use of the genetic algorithm in the projects he is involved
with. It's possible that the above-mentioned people were in fact _doing_
something quite different. They were, on the whole, working in the field
of 'a-life', which may not overlap Mark's area (for all I know).

	Nor do I claim this "provides evidence that all of life came into
being by such a process". Rather I claim that it indicates the _possibility_
that natural selection produced life--because it shows that the raw al-
gorithm of mutation and natural selection is indeed capable of producing
order from randomness. (I should note that Hillis found that evolution
occurred even when he turned off mutation--simply from genetic recombina-
tion. Sexual reproduction may be a major factor in evolution all by itself.)

	This line of reasoning also answers the usual creationist complaint
that the probability of useful genes, or combinations of genes, is so small
that they could never occur during the life of the universe. Selection is
so powerful a driving force that one can proceed stepwise through small
changes, each not at all improbable, and end up with something that could
ever have been assembled in a single step from the raw ingredients.

	Mark also said: "You can't rebuff the entropy argument simply by
limiting the discussion to smaller pieces of the whole, and refer to them
as open systems."

	I won't argue the creation of the universe here--since that is not
germane. We appear to live in a universe with various physical laws, one
of which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law applies to closed
systems, _by definition_. Whether or not the _creation_ of the universe
involved a higher set of laws, and violated some laws which operate within
the universe, does not affect the validity of the laws we now have. I have
a vision of Mark protesting the use of Newton's first law of motion because
he won't allow us to limit the discussion to an isolated body...

	None of this proves natural selection produced macro-evolution. I
don't know of any better explanation, however, at this time. (I don't
_think_ that's an arrogant or presumptious statement. :-) ) I will agree
with Mark that scientists can be quite arrogant--so can any humans, includ-
ing those who believe in various religions. But I have noticed that when
someone's theological toes are being stepped on by scientific ideas, you
often hear claims of 'arrogance'. (And vice versa, of course--human nature
is human nature either way).

	This is getting rather far from wings on butterflies. Maybe Mark and
I should continue off line...

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu