The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Dembski Wakes Up, Smells the Steiners, Pushes Snooze Button

Posted 18 February 2011 by Dave Thomas

I talked to Bill Dembski in person about my work on using Genetic Algorithms to solve Steiner's problem way back in 2001. He didn't "get" it then, and he still doesn't! Reacting to this news story, "Supercolony trails follow mathematical Steiner tree", Dembski writes today that
Some years back, ID critic Dave Thomas used to tout the power of genetic algorithms for their ability of solve the Steiner Problem, which basically tries to minimize distance of paths that connect nodes on a two-dimensional surface (last I looked, he's still making this line of criticism - see here). In fact, none of his criticisms hit the mark -- the information problem that he claims to resolve in evolutionary terms merely pushes the design problem deeper ... In ID terms, there's no problem -- ants were designed with various capacities, and this either happens to be one of them or is one acquired through other programmed/designed capacities. On Darwinian evolutionary grounds, however, one would have to say something like the following: ants are the result of a Darwinian evolutionary process that programmed the ants with, presumably, a genetic algorithm that enables them, when put in separate colonies, to trace out paths that resolve the Steiner Problem. In other words, evolution, by some weird self-similarity, embedded an evolutionary program into the neurophysiology of the ants that enables them to solve the Steiner problem (which, presumably, gives these ants a selective advantage).
Kudos to Dr. Dembski for this classic Goal-Post movement! The purpose of my original article was simply to move the discussion of Genetic algorithms beyond the ID "Dawkins Defense," namely that all genetic algorithms suffer the "Weasel" flaw of needing the solutions to be incorporated directly into the fitness function. Dembski's response is remarkable in that it totally avoids the issues I raised. Just because ants can find ways for colonies to make efficient paths has no bearing on whether genetic problems can be applied without having solutions in hand already. My original article on Steiner (Target? TARGET? We don't need no stinkin' Target!) showed that there are also physical methods for solving Steiner's problem, including minimal-surface soap films. If soap films can solve Steiner problems, why not ants? And this bolsters the Weasel defense, how? My Skeptical Inquirer article from last year, "War of the Weasels: An Evolutionary Algorithm Beats Intelligent Design" has a nice summary of these Weasel Wars, including the marvelous story of UD's software engineer, Sal Cordova, getting whupped by a Genetic Algorithm on an open-book design problem. The article posting is courtesy of Southern Methodist University's Critical Thinking/Physics Class! More: Panda's Thumb's "EvoMath" category.

78 Comments

PseudoNoise · 18 February 2011

I just wanted to thank you for your initial set of articles. The concrete examples of what the gene and sex would mean for solving this problem made complete intuitive sense. It got me really interested in GA, and plan on coming back to it once my hobby time allows for "programming for fun" again.

Maya · 18 February 2011

Typical ID creationist non-answer:
In ID terms, there’s no problem – ants were designed with various capacities, and this either happens to be one of them or is one acquired through other programmed/designed capacities.
Who, what, when, where, and how, Bill?

Darth Robo · 18 February 2011

---"On Darwinian evolutionary grounds, however, one would have to say something like the following: ants are the result of a Darwinian evolutionary process that programmed the ants with, presumably, a genetic algorithm that enables them, when put in separate colonies, to trace out paths that resolve the Steiner Problem."

Translation: "Algorithms need programmers! DUH!"

Reed A. Cartwright · 18 February 2011

"And programmers are just sophisticated algorithms. Thus programmers need programmers too. Ad infinitum. Except for God, she has a magical ability to program herself before she existed. She created magic as well, which is how she was able to program herself the ability to program herself the ability to program herself the ability to program herself . . . blah blah blah."

mrg · 18 February 2011

Darth Robo said: Translation: "Algorithms need programmers! DUH!"
So ... the Darwinian evolutionary algorithm was created by an Intelligent Programmer?

mrg · 18 February 2011

Reed A. Cartwright said: Except for God, she has a magical ability to program herself before she existed.
Hey, you gotta have a bootstrap loader somewhere in the system, right? Somehow I just had an ancient memory of flipping front panel switches on a PDP-8 and watching the paper tape zip through the reader. And, unfortunately, the pounding sound of an ASR-33 teletype. Which I would say would have to be the appropriate soundtrack for labored creationist software analogies.

Stanton · 18 February 2011

I see Bill Dembski is making good on his excuse that Intelligent Design proponents are still not obligated to "sink to (our) pathetic levels of detail."

Pity, I'm surprised that he still doesn't understand that this is one of the main reasons why Intelligent Design Theory is never going to amount to anything scientifically.

OgreMkV · 18 February 2011

So, is Dembski saying evolution is God? or God is evolution? I can't keep track with this guy. He needs to pick a story and stick with it.

Flint · 18 February 2011

Who, what, when, where, and how, Bill?

Probably the wrong questions, since they've already been answered: By God, who crated these capacities, at the beginning of time, in heaven, by divine miracle. Maybe a better question might be, can you propose any test, even in principle, that might indicate ants were NOT designed. Would you find the results of your own test convincing?

Joshua Zelinsky · 18 February 2011

So, obviously the laws of physics were intelligently designed so that you could solve Steiner tree problems with soap bubbles.

Ok. Need to make a productive comment rather than a silly joke. Um, how about this: So I had a thought a while ago about genetic algorithms. I don't know how correct it is and genetic algorithms are very far from my expertise. Anyways, the thought was that we should in general in some vague sense expect genetic algorithms to outperform evolution, since genetic algorithms can concentrate purely on meeting the fitness function whereas evolution requires living things to actually meet a large number of conditions including the ability to actually reproduce (which is in the case of genetic algorithms taken care by the software rather than simulated entities themselves). Is this vague idea correct? Is it known? Is it useful? (My guess is that the answers are "sort of yes, yes, no.")

mrg · 18 February 2011

Joshua Zelinsky said: So, obviously the laws of physics were intelligently designed so that you could solve Steiner tree problems with soap bubbles.
Well, of course. Either all of the Universe is Designed, or none of it is. One of the list of oddities of ID / Stealth Creationism is its attempts to sort out natural things that are Designed from those that are not. And then they go and ruin the exercise by pushing Cosmic Fine Tuning arguments.

386sx · 18 February 2011

mrg said:
Joshua Zelinsky said: So, obviously the laws of physics were intelligently designed so that you could solve Steiner tree problems with soap bubbles.
Well, of course. Either all of the Universe is Designed, or none of it is. One of the list of oddities of ID / Stealth Creationism is its attempts to sort out natural things that are Designed from those that are not. And then they go and ruin the exercise by pushing Cosmic Fine Tuning arguments.
It's not ruined if you think of it in the context of the wedge strategy. The natural things that are designed are the wedges, and the things that are not designed are the wedgies. First get the wedge in there and then later on they plan to take over the whole universe and give it the wedgies. It's called the "wedge strategy".

Mike Elzinga · 18 February 2011

Of course this is exactly what happens to ID/creationists when they refuse to learn physics and chemistry, but instead, jump right into biology with attempts to make mathematical refutations of evolution without initializing variables in their programs.

ID/creationists simply don’t understand how computers are used in modeling research, whether those computers are digital or analog. One would think they would “get” it looking at an analog computer result, but they don’t.

Real scientists put the strategies that nature uses into their programs and get results that one sees in nature. ID/creationists still think this is putting the answer into the program, and they would rather dictate how nature is supposed to behave according to their own preconceptions about what is consistent with sectarian dogma.

The ICR puts a lot of publicity into the “heroics” of their founder, Henry Morris; but Morris introduced so many misconceptions into "scientific" creationism that everyone following on that lead thought they were building on a solid foundation in science.

Well, the joke is on them.

Mike Elzinga · 18 February 2011

Over on UD Dembski made a reference to his “Evolutionary Informatics” Lab page. Here is what we find there.

By looking to information theory, a well-established branch of the engineering and mathematical sciences, evolutionary informatics shows that patterns we ordinarily ascribe to intelligence, when arising from an evolutionary process, must be referred to sources of information external to that process. Such sources of information may then themselves be the result of other, deeper evolutionary processes. But what enables these evolutionary processes in turn to produce such sources of information? Evolutionary informatics demonstrates a regress of information sources. At no place along the way need there be a violation of ordinary physical causality. And yet, the regress implies a fundamental incompleteness in physical causality's ability to produce the required information. Evolutionary informatics, while falling squarely within the information sciences, thus points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.

I have highlighted the fundamental misconception that permeates all of ID/creationist “science.” It is inexcusable these days to be that unaware of what goes on in physics and chemistry. Yet these characters manage to remain clueless even when hit between the eyes with a steel I-beam. (Hey Bill; bet you can’t figure out why steel can be a solid. How do all those damned atoms know where to go?)

mrg · 18 February 2011

386sx said: It's not ruined if you think of it in the context of the wedge strategy.
Oh yeah, the "Designed / Not Designed" gambit is clearly a wedge strategy. Stealth Creationists get very antsy when assailed on the "Not Designed" component -- it is, after all, easy to cook up arguments that show any specific natural object is Designed -- since they know that it's the only obstacle that prevents them from drifting into the camp of the dreaded TEs: "Then we won't be creationists any more!" "You say that as though it were a bad thing." I still maintain that Cosmic Fine Tuning arguments blow their cover on this game -- but the game was pretty obvious to the critics all along, and logical consistency was never an issue to the game-players. Indeed, logical consistency would be very inconvenient in the game, since it would eliminate the ability to spin the argument in either direction depending on the convenience of circumstances.

Henry J · 18 February 2011

"Dembksi"?

Dave Thomas · 18 February 2011

thanks Henry!

Joe Felsenstein · 19 February 2011

William Dembski's recent argument (with Robert Marks) that the success of natural selection means that the fitness surface is designed has been addressed here at PT last year. It is a completely
different issue than whether he has theorems that show that natural selection cannot put adaptive information into the genome. My take on the latter can be found here.

Dembski's Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information has, as explained there, been shown not to be correct and it has been shown that even if it were it is not in the correct form to show that natural selection cannot put adaptive information into the genome. He has never replied to this demolition of his work. Instead he points to his newer theorems, which do not rule out that natural selection could be the mechanism of adaptation. So it is as if he has given up on the earlier arguments that led to his reknown among ID types. But he has never admitted that he has given up on them!

386sx · 19 February 2011

In ID terms, there’s no problem – ants were designed with various capacities, and this either happens to be one of them or is one acquired through other programmed/designed capacities.
It's hard to believe a grownup adult would say that and be serious. But there it is I guess. Lol. I like the "programmed/designed capacities" part the best because it's so hilarious.

John Kwok · 19 February 2011

Maya said: Typical ID creationist non-answer:
In ID terms, there’s no problem – ants were designed with various capacities, and this either happens to be one of them or is one acquired through other programmed/designed capacities.
Who, what, when, where, and how, Bill?
Of couse my dear "friend" Bill knows the answer: GODDIDIT!!!!

John Kwok · 19 February 2011

Henry J said: "Dembksi"?
Nah, how about Dumbski. That's far more fitting IMHO.

mrg · 19 February 2011

386sx said: It's hard to believe a grownup adult would say that and be serious.
He not. Darth Robo is a Loki Troll.

TomS · 19 February 2011

Flint said: Maybe a better question might be, can you propose any test, even in principle, that might indicate ants were NOT designed. Would you find the results of your own test convincing?
How about giving even a hypothetical example of something which might not be designed? Something which an Intelligent Designer could not, or would not, or did not design? What difference does "being designed" make?

Jim Wynne · 19 February 2011

Stanton said: I see Bill Dembski is making good on his excuse that Intelligent Design proponents are still not obligated to "sink to (our) pathetic levels of detail."
Actually what Dembski said is "ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories." Thus Dembski was saying that ID's level of detail doesn't rise to the level of "pathetic." The quote in its original form may be found here. It's the sixth post down--there are no permalinks for each post.

John Kwok · 19 February 2011

TomS said:
Flint said: Maybe a better question might be, can you propose any test, even in principle, that might indicate ants were NOT designed. Would you find the results of your own test convincing?
Of course there is also the somewhat semantical issue that Design does exist in Nature, but its existence does not mean automatically that one needs to explain it by invoking an Intelligent Designer. Instead, one could say that Design can and does arise out of natural processes like Natural Selection. How about giving even a hypothetical example of something which might not be designed? Something which an Intelligent Designer could not, or would not, or did not design? What difference does "being designed" make?

John Kwok · 19 February 2011

TomS said:
Flint said: Maybe a better question might be, can you propose any test, even in principle, that might indicate ants were NOT designed. Would you find the results of your own test convincing?
How about giving even a hypothetical example of something which might not be designed? Something which an Intelligent Designer could not, or would not, or did not design? What difference does "being designed" make?
Of course there is also the somewhat semantical issue that Design does exist in Nature, but its existence does not mean automatically that one needs to explain it by invoking an Intelligent Designer. Instead, one could say that Design can and does arise out of natural processes like Natural Selection.

Renee Marie Jones · 19 February 2011

" ... the information problem that he claims to resolve in evolutionary terms merely pushes the design problem deeper ... "

Is this not a direct admission of moving the goal posts?

fnxtr · 19 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Over on UD Dembski made a reference to his “Evolutionary Informatics” Lab page. Here is what we find there.

(snip) patterns we ordinarily ascribe to intelligence, when arising from an evolutionary process, must be referred to sources of information external to that process. (snip)Evolutionary informatics thus points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.

And yet, at the same time, identifying the source of the information is, apparently, outside the scope of ID, or, indeed, all science. Why do you suppose that is?

Mike Elzinga · 19 February 2011

fnxtr said: And yet, at the same time, identifying the source of the information is, apparently, outside the scope of ID, or, indeed, all science. Why do you suppose that is?
As often as I have observed this kind of behavior on the part of ID/creationists over a period of 40+ years, I still find this kind of intransigence hard to believe. These people are incapable of learning anything except how to subvert political processes. It is repeatedly pointed out to them that there are entire branches of science they are misusing and that they know nothing about, yet they continually brush it off as irrelevant. They don’t even appear to have heard what others have told them. The fact that living organisms are a product of natural, energy-driven process in condensing matter is far more interesting than some “unspecified designer” they refuse to talk about for political reasons. The boring consequences of their claims are written large within these fundamentalist ID/communities; and it shows up in the pure blindness, hatred, and fear that are nurtured in these groups, even in a technologically advanced society with millions of face-slapping examples coming at them every second of their existence. Look at any list of the accusations they make of secular society and other religions and you see them engaging in these very behaviors even as they accuse. They are telling you about themselves in extremely graphic terms.

mrg · 19 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: It is repeatedly pointed out to them that there are entire branches of science they are misusing and that they know nothing about, yet they continually brush it off as irrelevant.
It IS irrelevant. If you trace back to Henry Morris's "use science against science", that established an effort to create a PARODY of science, intended to mock it. Any logical criticisms of a parody are meaningless, all that matters is the mockery. The real craziness comes in because this effort at parody, though willful, is not deliberate -- because in all deluded sincerity the creationists try to promote their parody of science as real science, even though they built it from the ground up as a parody.

TomS · 19 February 2011

John Kwok said: one could say that Design can and does arise out of natural processes like Natural Selection.
Is there any claim by the advocates of ID about how much "design" increases when an animal with sight is introduced into an environment? Maybe there is just a transfer of the amount of "design" from the environment to the new animal?

Mike Elzinga · 19 February 2011

mrg said: The real craziness comes in because this effort at parody, though willful, is not deliberate -- because in all deluded sincerity the creationists try to promote their parody of science as real science, even though they built it from the ground up as a parody.
Which, I believe, translates colloquially as: they are just plain bat shit insane.

Flint · 19 February 2011

Which, I believe, translates colloquially as: they are just plain bat shit insane.

If one part of your brain observed that something clearly is not the case, and another part of your brain "knew" that it HAD to be the case and could not be budged, wouldn't YOU go insane?

mrg · 19 February 2011

Flint said: If one part of your brain observed that something clearly is not the case, and another part of your brain "knew" that it HAD to be the case and could not be budged, wouldn't YOU go insane?
This is somewhat worse. Hearing a blatant joke and thinking it's for real is one thing. CREATING a blatant joke and thinking it's for real is another. But it didn't drive them crazy. They couldn't have done it if they weren't crazy in the first place.

Mike Elzinga · 19 February 2011

mrg said: This is somewhat worse. Hearing a blatant joke and thinking it's for real is one thing. CREATING a blatant joke and thinking it's for real is another. But it didn't drive them crazy. They couldn't have done it if they weren't crazy in the first place.
I seriously doubt that there are any statistics on this; but I have often wondered how many fundamentalists come to their “religion” because they are insane compared with how many are driven insane by their “religion.” There is little doubt however that their subculture keeps them in that state.

mrg · 19 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: I seriously doubt that there are any statistics on this; but I have often wondered how many fundamentalists come to their “religion” because they are insane compared with how many are driven insane by their “religion.”
I've known enough secular crazies to think that the crazy came first and they just found a way to express it. People complain about nutcase fundies -- and with PLENTY of good reason -- but their secular counterparts seem to have much the same sort of operating system. They just have different user interfaces. I've been going around with antivaxers lately. They're 100% bonkers. I will hand secular nutcases one thing, though: They NEVER cite scripture at me.

Flint · 19 February 2011

I will hand secular nutcases one thing, though: They NEVER cite scripture at me.

This depends on how broad your definition of scripture is. For example, something like this rewards a careful reading. This might beconsidered secular, but those involved look uncomfortably familiar.

mrg · 19 February 2011

Flint said: This depends on how broad your definition of scripture is.
I can draw the line at formal scriptures. Ayn Rand or whoever isn't quite in the same league. I suppose L. Ron Hubbard is a borderline case. However, the truth does apply: "Beware the person of One Book."

Mike Elzinga · 19 February 2011

mrg said:
Mike Elzinga said: I seriously doubt that there are any statistics on this; but I have often wondered how many fundamentalists come to their “religion” because they are insane compared with how many are driven insane by their “religion.”
I've known enough secular crazies to think that the crazy came first and they just found a way to express it. People complain about nutcase fundies -- and with PLENTY of good reason -- but their secular counterparts seem to have much the same sort of operating system. They just have different user interfaces. I've been going around with antivaxers lately. They're 100% bonkers. I will hand secular nutcases one thing, though: They NEVER cite scripture at me.
Yeah; I have pretty much the same impression. The more dangerous, however, are the fundamentalists; they have tax-free status, are guaranteed their churches by the US constitution, and don’t hesitate to use “freedom of speech” as an excuse for proselytizing. The “secular crazies,” as you refer to them, don’t have the tax-free status and, hence, don’t appear to be as well funded. And most don’t try to introduce stealth legislation requiring their views to be taught in public schools. Also, politicians - and those who have bought them - have a long history of elevating fundamentalist crazies to high profile status in the national news media whenever it is useful in clouding the issues.

mrg · 19 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: The more dangerous, however, are the fundamentalists ...
That depends. I have the lowest opinion of HIV denialists, lower than Holocaust deniers: "Stop taking the anti-retroviral drugs. They're what's REALLY making you sick." There have been a number of HIV denialists who were AIDS patients. That is something of a self-limiting position, though in some cases they have taken their kids with them. We were talking about the Microsoft Kinect gesture recognition system on my own little message board the other day. Somebody made a joke about MS using it to spy on people; I laughed, and then did a double take and started scouting out Google. To my relief, nobody seems to have come up with that idea except as a gag. However, given the popularity of notions such as HAARP and chemtrails among the tinfoil-hat community, it may only be a matter of time.

marion delgado · 19 February 2011

And if space aliens came and dumped yottabytes of data showing species developed on Earth via mutation, selection, etc. and that "intelligent design" was one reason they avoided our backwater planet, that wouldn't be a problem for ID, because ... and if Yahweh produced a burning acacia bush in Dembski's office and boomed out IT WAS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN - I USED A GENETIC ALGORITHM, YOU MORON! that's not a problem for ID, because ... and if we in fact found a microbe that developed into a Discovery Institute colleague in 10 generations, that's not a problem for ID, because ...

John Kwok · 19 February 2011

TomS said:
John Kwok said: one could say that Design can and does arise out of natural processes like Natural Selection.
Is there any claim by the advocates of ID about how much "design" increases when an animal with sight is introduced into an environment? Maybe there is just a transfer of the amount of "design" from the environment to the new animal?
The closest I have seen is quite pathetic logic from Stephen Meyer in his "Signature in the Cell" in which he claims it is possible to test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Desin as seen via the lens of the fossil record.

Matt Ackerman · 19 February 2011

If I ever get around to teaching a class on evolution, I will have to make a program to instantiate this GA (mit nice GUI). It seems to have many advantages as a pedagogical device. In particular I think I could emphasize how the function which encodes where to place nodes and connections can make some solutions more or less likely, talk about local optimums, mutation pressure, neutral evolution.... Oh so many possibilities....

Mike Elzinga · 19 February 2011

mrg said:
Mike Elzinga said: The more dangerous, however, are the fundamentalists ...
That depends. I have the lowest opinion of HIV denialists, lower than Holocaust deniers: "Stop taking the anti-retroviral drugs. They're what's REALLY making you sick." There have been a number of HIV denialists who were AIDS patients. That is something of a self-limiting position, though in some cases they have taken their kids with them.
I go back to a time when there was a tremendous surge in cults, both New Age, and “Christian” fundamentalist back in the 1960s through the 1980s. I suspect there are many on this board who have dealt with, or have known people who have dealt with, the extraction of loved ones from cults. It wasn’t pretty; and the so-called “Christian” fundamentalist cults were, by far, the worst (remember Jim Jones?). Unfortunately many of these cults persist today. They have managed to stay below the radar or have received “legitimization” by a large influx of money and political influence. I think most of us can remember who they are. May we never forget.

mrg · 19 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Remember Jim Jones?
"Worst. Kool-aid. Flavor. EVER!"

william e emba · 19 February 2011

Remember Jim Jones?
"Worst. Kool-aid. Flavor. EVER!"
Speaking of Flavor, it was Flavor Aid. Well, at least according to Kraft Foods.

Rumraket · 20 February 2011

It seems to me that the people termed "secular crazies" (HIV denialists, anti-vac'ers) could still be religious fundies too. Nothing is preventing you from being religiouosly insane, and simultaneously hold ridiculous scientific views. In fact I would argue that the likelyhood of that is directly proportional to your degree of religious fundamentalism.

Karen S. · 20 February 2011

Remember Jim Jones?
Yes, and the whole thing was ghastly.

mrg · 20 February 2011

Rumraket said: It seems to me that the people termed "secular crazies" (HIV denialists, anti-vac'ers) could still be religious fundies too.
Yeah, you get crossovers -- there are some fundy antivaxers, but in my experience they're unusual, the core of the antivax movement is the "natural health" / "alternative medicine" crowd. In reverse, there is the rare secular creationist, someone who isn't a fundy who still embraces creationism. Actually they're more just blatantly anti-evolution; broad-spectrum contrarians, Forteans, operating on the basis that "science is bunk". People usually have specific motives for crackpottery and there's no particular necessity that they be religious. I've run across a fair number of "Einstein bashers" and the motive is usually wanting to prove: "I'M smarter than EINSTEIN!" But there's a small minority of antisemites among them, immediately recognizable because they rail about "the JEW Einstein!"

DaveL · 20 February 2011

How does the fitness function for a Steiner Tree algorithm include the solution within it? Doesn't it just measure the overall length of the tree? Isn't it the same fitness function for any set of nodes? Can Dembski reproduce the solution given only the fitness function, given an arbitrary set of nodes?

Or is he saying Intelligent Design is built into plane geometry? If so, how does that not push ID out of the realm of science and back into the realm of philosophy?

DS · 20 February 2011

mrg said: It IS irrelevant. If you trace back to Henry Morris's "use science against science", that established an effort to create a PARODY of science, intended to mock it. Any logical criticisms of a parody are meaningless, all that matters is the mockery. The real craziness comes in because this effort at parody, though willful, is not deliberate -- because in all deluded sincerity the creationists try to promote their parody of science as real science, even though they built it from the ground up as a parody.
I think of the difference between creationism and science as the difference between the show Red Green and the show Yankee Workshop. One is a great lesson about how real craftsmen create beautiful and functional forms everyday, complete with tips on recycling and safety. The other is sleazy parody about nut jobs completely divorced from reality who constantly endanger themselves and those around them through sheer ignorance and hubris. You could actually try to do things they way the guy with the red and green suspenders suggests, but that would be bat shit insane. And saying you say it on TV wouldn't help in a court of law when it came time to pay for the damages. I wonder if Norm ever watches Red Green?

Joe Felsenstein · 20 February 2011

DaveL said: How does the fitness function for a Steiner Tree algorithm include the solution within it? Doesn't it just measure the overall length of the tree? Isn't it the same fitness function for any set of nodes? Can Dembski reproduce the solution given only the fitness function, given an arbitrary set of nodes? Or is he saying Intelligent Design is built into plane geometry? If so, how does that not push ID out of the realm of science and back into the realm of philosophy?
If he can come up with the solution based on just looking at the fitness function, then he will be acclaimed as a great figure in computer science, because the Steiner Problem in the plane is NP-hard. So if Dembski has a way of coming up (in polynomial time) with the solution for the Steiner Tree in the plane for any number N of points, he has solved the most important problem in computational complexity theory, and thereby proven that P = NP. (For those who do not know what these terms mean, I refer you to Wikipedia, whose pages on this are good). Suffice it to say that Dembski can walk into any department of computer sciences anywhere, ask for a full professorship and expect to get it. All he has to do is publish his polynomial-time algorithm for getting the optimal solution for a general set of N points. Of course there is the small chance that maybe the solution has not been shown to be derivable from the points using a polynomial-time algorithm, in which case Dembski has not proven the most important theorem in computational complexity. There is a similar situation with his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information. If, as he seems to argue, it proves that natural selection cannot make organisms better adapted, then he has overturned a century-and-a-half of evolutionary biology, and will stand as a figure at least as important as Darwin. I will then myself write a letter of recommendation for him for the Nobel Prize. Here is an explanation of why I have not done so.

TomS · 20 February 2011

WRT the assumed Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information, I have a couple of problems:

1. If CSI is conserved, I do not see how that forbids the transfer of CSI from the environment to a living thing in that environment. Let us suppose that an animal with sight has more CSI than an animal without sight. Now tell us how much CSI there is in the respective environments.

2. If CSI is conserved, I do not see how that means that an Intelligent Designer can violate that law. If an animal with sight has more CSI than its unsighted ancestor, at most what that means is that somewhere in its ancestry the Law of Conservation of CSI was violated.

Gabriel Hanna · 20 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
mrg said:
Mike Elzinga said: The more dangerous, however, are the fundamentalists ...
That depends. I have the lowest opinion of HIV denialists, lower than Holocaust deniers: "Stop taking the anti-retroviral drugs. They're what's REALLY making you sick." There have been a number of HIV denialists who were AIDS patients. That is something of a self-limiting position, though in some cases they have taken their kids with them.
It wasn’t pretty; and the so-called “Christian” fundamentalist cults were, by far, the worst (remember Jim Jones?).
In what sense were Jim Jones and the People's Temple Christian fundamentalists? They were a dangerous cult, certainly, and leftwing activists. Did Harvey Milk's campaign attract a lot of Christian fundamentalists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple The move to San Francisco permitted Jones to return to urban recruitment and made better political sense because it permitted the Temple to show its true political stripes.[52] By spring 1976, Jones openly admitted even to outsiders that he was an atheist.[53] Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977, Jones's wife, Marcy, openly admitted to the New York Times that Jones had not been lured to religion because of faith, but because it served his goal of social change through Marxism.[20] She stated that, as early as age 18 when he watched his idol Mao Zedong defeat the Nationalists in the Chinese Civil War, Jones realized that the way to achieve social change in the United States was to mobilize people through religion.[20] She admitted that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion" and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling, "I've got to destroy this paper idol!"[20] With the move into San Francisco, the Temple more strenuously emphasized that its members live communally.[54] It stressed physical discipline of children first, and then adults.[55] The San Francisco Temple also carefully vetted newcomers through an extensive observation process.[22] The Temple distinguished itself from most cults with its overtly political message.[56] It combined those genuine political sympathies with the perception that it could help turn out large numbers of votes to gain the support of a number of prominent politicians.[57] Jones made it known after he moved to San Francisco that he was interested in politics, and legal changes strengthened political groups like the Temple.[58][59] After the Temple mobilized volunteers and voters instrumental in George Moscone's narrow election victory in 1975, Moscone appointed Jones as Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission.[60][61] Jones and the Temple received the support of, among others, Governor Jerry Brown, Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, Assemblyman Willie Brown, San Francisco mayor George Moscone, Art Agnos, and Harvey Milk.[62] Willie Brown visited the Temple many times and spoke publicly in support of Jones, even after investigations and suspicions of cult activity.[63][64] After his rise in San Francisco political circles, Jones and Moscone met privately with Vice Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale in San Francisco days before the 1976 Presidential election.[65] Jones also met First Lady Rosalynn Carter on multiple occasions, including a private dinner, and corresponded with Mrs. Carter.[66][67]

fnxtr · 20 February 2011

DS said: I think of the difference between creationism and science as the difference between the show Red Green and the show Yankee Workshop. One is a great lesson about how real craftsmen create beautiful and functional forms everyday, complete with tips on recycling and safety. The other is sleazy parody about nut jobs completely divorced from reality who constantly endanger themselves and those around them through sheer ignorance and hubris. You could actually try to do things they way the guy with the red and green suspenders suggests, but that would be bat shit insane. And saying you say it on TV wouldn't help in a court of law when it came time to pay for the damages. I wonder if Norm ever watches Red Green?
Except that Steve Smith gets the joke. (Like the difference between Alice Cooper and Marilyn Manson.)

Mike Elzinga · 20 February 2011

DaveL said: How does the fitness function for a Steiner Tree algorithm include the solution within it? Doesn't it just measure the overall length of the tree? Isn't it the same fitness function for any set of nodes? Can Dembski reproduce the solution given only the fitness function, given an arbitrary set of nodes? Or is he saying Intelligent Design is built into plane geometry? If so, how does that not push ID out of the realm of science and back into the realm of philosophy?
The Steiner Problem is a subset of a whole class of problems that nature solves easily and in massive parallelism. The soap bubble solution is an analog technique that makes use of some fundamental physics; namely finding local minimums by minimizing potential energy. In this case, the soap bubbles are minimizing their potential energy by releasing energy into the surrounding environment. Energy is released in the form of mostly phonons transmitting energy through the matrix of interconnecting molecular chains (conduction). Additional energy is carried away by molecules going off into the surrounding air (convection and ejecta from breakages), and still less is carried away by photons (radiation of heat). The massive parallelism comes from the fact that nearly all possible connections are explored simultaneously as the array of posts is lifted from the soap bubble solution; but the interconnections with the highest internal energy (i.e., the highest tension) break first. Then, provided that the debris from high energy breakages don’t destroy the lowest energy structures, the process cascades down until only the lower energy paths remain. Lowest energy corresponds to minimum surface area; and since the width of the soap bubbles is fixed by the length of the posts, this translates into minimum length. This problem can also be observed in three dimensions by children blowing through a straw into a soap solution. There the bubble structures begin collapsing into minimal energy states in which the surface area of the soap bubbles explore local minima. It is a fascinating analog of how complex systems of molecules condense. All of nature does this; it has been taking place since the Big Bang when quark/gluon plasmas condensed into protons and neutrons which subsequently condensed into hydrogen and helium and then into heavier elements in the gravitational wells of stars and in the shockwaves of supernova. It happens with the molecular structures in any complex system of molecules, including organic systems that become living organisms. None of this would happen if energy couldn’t be released from complex systems of molecules so that they can condense into what ever local minimum potential energy states are available. Then, with sufficiently complex systems sitting within an environment that provides a gentle heat bath that maintains the system near its melting point (these are starting to receive the name “soft matter’), the energy flowing through the system can produce highly organized collective behaviors that mimic the appearance of purpose. When Dembski asserts a “conservation of information” principle, he is in effect denying the second law of thermodynamics. Without the second law, the universe would still be a quark/gluon plasma.

Mike Elzinga · 20 February 2011

Gabriel Hanna said: In what sense were Jim Jones and the People's Temple Christian fundamentalists? They were a dangerous cult, certainly, and leftwing activists. Did Harvey Milk's campaign attract a lot of Christian fundamentalists?
Well, you put your finger on one of the most serious side effects of the First Amendment and the tax-exempt status of religion. Religious sects, particularly fundamentalist cults, have become a haven for charlatans who draw people in using sectarian exegesis. Most of these groups do in fact have a political, anti-establishment element to them. Lee Atwater and his protégé, Karl Rove, learned how to use this to disrupt rational discourse in political elections. Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, and a whole host of charismatic leaders of personality cults have made millions using political connections even as they push pure garbage off onto their followers as they foment culture wars. And what about Ken Ham’s organization, Answers in Genesis? Is it religious or politically anti-establishment? Is it a business or a ministry? The more you look at the material over on AiG, the harder it is to distinguish. I have my own ideas about what Ken Ham is, but whatever he is, he is protected by the “free exercise of religion” and he has tax-exempt status. And there is no question about the garbage science he generates over there. The same can be said for the ICR and the DI. On the other hand, the up side of the First Amendment regarding religion is that it allows people to observe the craziness that frequently goes on in religion by providing visibility to the general population. However, in recent years since the 1960s, these “religions” have taken on a sinister and well-funded political dimension with some of them hell-bent on creating a theocracy. And they mask their intent with pseudo-science in order to give themselves the appearance of legitimacy. Those of us who have lived through the rapid rise of this phenomenon since the 1960s have seen the effects on people who become trapped in these cults. Society can’t just ignore them; especially now.

harold · 20 February 2011

Gabriel Hanna said -
In what sense were Jim Jones and the People’s Temple Christian fundamentalists?
1) It depends on what you mean by "fundamentalist". I don't know if they held YEC beliefs or were otherwise theologically fundamentalist. You certainly don't need to be a creationist to be a brainwashed fanatic. 2) Although the massacre was contemporary with the early years of the Republican-affiliated anti-woman, anti-gay, money-worshiping, authoritarian, judgmental/hypocritical, post-modern, "we can and do do anything as long as we 'repent' later, but you should be violently forced to obey the proclaimed arbitrary taboos of our religion (which we are ourselves don't obey)" mainstream religious right that we are all so familiar with today, it is true that Jones was not formed with that particular cookie cutter. Jones was profoundly mentally ill and could not be said to have a coherent dogma to speak of. However, particularly before his mental illness expressed itself, he was a rare twentieth century example of a cult leader who was sympathetic to progressive ideals; he was particularly opposed to ethnic discrimination, for example. In the past, it was not uncommon for religious discipline and humane, progressive attitudes to run together. Quakers were once derided for their puritanical and parsimonious ways, rather than for being "liberal", yet they were early opponents of slavery and held many relatively enlightened social views (by the standards of past centuries), even when they dressed like the man on the oatmeal box. It has tended to be uncommon for humane attitudes and religious violence to run together, of course. However, again, by the time of the massacre, Jones was profoundly mentally ill, and not acting on a coherent agenda of any type.

Klaus H · 21 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: The more dangerous, however, are the fundamentalists; they have tax-free status, are guaranteed their churches by the US constitution, and don’t hesitate to use “freedom of speech” as an excuse for proselytizing.
There is no such guarantee in the US Constitution, it is merely a tradition.

John Kwok · 21 February 2011

Klaus H said:
Mike Elzinga said: The more dangerous, however, are the fundamentalists; they have tax-free status, are guaranteed their churches by the US constitution, and don’t hesitate to use “freedom of speech” as an excuse for proselytizing.
There is no such guarantee in the US Constitution, it is merely a tradition.
Actually it is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The very guarantee that Mike writes of is noted here in the First Amendment: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

harold · 21 February 2011

Klaus H -

I'm not sure if you meant to say that freedom of expression and conscience (which is what creationists VIOLATE when they try to use taxpayer dollars to teach their own divisive, sectarian, anti-scientific dogma as "science" in public schools, or to force schools to deny science for all students because their narrow dogma is offended by it) is not guaranteed in the US constitution. If so, you are wrong, as is pointed out just above.

Alternately, you may have meant that tax exempt status of churches is not guaranteed in the US constitution. This is true; however, their tax exempt status is a matter of law, not tradition. I personally oppose tax exempt status for religious organizations, but doubt if it will ever go away.

Klaus H · 21 February 2011

John Kwok said:
Klaus H said:
Mike Elzinga said: The more dangerous, however, are the fundamentalists; they have tax-free status, are guaranteed their churches by the US constitution, and don’t hesitate to use “freedom of speech” as an excuse for proselytizing.
There is no such guarantee in the US Constitution, it is merely a tradition.
Actually it is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The very guarantee that Mike writes of is noted here in the First Amendment: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I fail to see where where any organizations are granted tax free status. I only see that Congress can't directly tax lawful religious practices; any organization with a cash flow is fair game.

Klaus H · 21 February 2011

harold said: Klaus H - I'm not sure if you meant to say that freedom of expression and conscience (which is what creationists VIOLATE when they try to use taxpayer dollars to teach their own divisive, sectarian, anti-scientific dogma as "science" in public schools, or to force schools to deny science for all students because their narrow dogma is offended by it) is not guaranteed in the US constitution. If so, you are wrong, as is pointed out just above. Alternately, you may have meant that tax exempt status of churches is not guaranteed in the US constitution. This is true; however, their tax exempt status is a matter of law, not tradition. I personally oppose tax exempt status for religious organizations, but doubt if it will ever go away.
I meant the later, Tax exemption is not granted by the Constitution.

harold · 22 February 2011

Klaus H -

This thread seems to have died - no doubt some troll is drawing all the attention to the BW.

Anyway, although tax exemption for religion is not granted by the constitution, and I wish it would go away, it is "tradition" only in the sense that giving productive, otherwise law-abiding and ethical people long prison sentences for personal use of marijuana is "tradition". It is a matter of law. I hope that will change some day.

By the way, of course, although I am not personally religious, I can't help noticing that religious entities that practice in the true spirit of the Biblical character Jesus have no reason to fear loss of tax exempt status. If the entity is legitimately non-profit, there will be no income to be taxed. Taxation of salaries of clergy is a trivial matter if clergy live humbly, after the example of Jesus, and in contrast to the example of hypocrites whom he condemned. Property taxes and the like will not be a problem for those Christians who worship in simple structures, among the poor in spirit. We can look at St Francis of Assisi, for example, and see an inspiring example of a man who very effectively preached Christian gospel, in a manner that could not possibly incur the slightest tax liability.

Of course, there is also the great tradition, particularly by the Catholic church, of patronizing great art and architecture. Yet this, too, can be accomplished without excess tax burden.

Dornier Pfeil · 22 February 2011

The thing that lets Dembski lie about Dave Thomas's Steiner GA is that there is only a single solution and we know how to describe that solution(the shortest path). The description is the test in the GA. Dembski is conflating the solution with the qualities the solution must have and claiming that the description is the same as the information of the solution. The best answer to this nonsense is the raft of GA's that solve problems that possess no single solution whose qualities can be described inside the GA. The example I can think of now is the evolved antenna. The test, of how good an antenna is, was not actually part of the GA, if I can remember that article correctly. In natural evolution the test is simply; can I have more babies than my competition. The richness of the world is clear evidence there is no single solution to that algorithm.
DaveL said: How does the fitness function for a Steiner Tree algorithm include the solution within it? Doesn't it just measure the overall length of the tree? Isn't it the same fitness function for any set of nodes? Can Dembski reproduce the solution given only the fitness function, given an arbitrary set of nodes? Or is he saying Intelligent Design is built into plane geometry? If so, how does that not push ID out of the realm of science and back into the realm of philosophy?

mrg · 22 February 2011

Dawkins, in response to critiques of his Weasel program, played up programs to simulate the evolution of spiderwebs as a counterexample. They just started with a sticky thread or two and then generated variations at random, evaluating them on their ability to catch flies.

Spiderwebs are surprisingly diverse, the classic "orb" web being only one configuration among many, and the programs were able to re-evolve many of the variations on the theme.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 23 February 2011

Klaus H said:
John Kwok said:
Klaus H said:
Mike Elzinga said: The more dangerous, however, are the fundamentalists; they have tax-free status, are guaranteed their churches by the US constitution, and don’t hesitate to use “freedom of speech” as an excuse for proselytizing.
There is no such guarantee in the US Constitution, it is merely a tradition.
Actually it is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The very guarantee that Mike writes of is noted here in the First Amendment: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I fail to see where where any organizations are granted tax free status. I only see that Congress can't directly tax lawful religious practices; any organization with a cash flow is fair game.
I believe the theory is that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Freely practicing one's religion may well require an organization, which the government could tax out of existence.

Dave Thomas · 23 February 2011

Dornier Pfeil said: The thing that lets Dembski lie about Dave Thomas's Steiner GA is that there is only a single solution and we know how to describe that solution(the shortest path). The description is the test in the GA. Dembski is conflating the solution with the qualities the solution must have and claiming that the description is the same as the information of the solution. The best answer to this nonsense is the raft of GA's that solve problems that possess no single solution whose qualities can be described inside the GA. The example I can think of now is the evolved antenna. The test, of how good an antenna is, was not actually part of the GA, if I can remember that article correctly. In natural evolution the test is simply; can I have more babies than my competition. The richness of the world is clear evidence there is no single solution to that algorithm.
That's not correct. In the antenna GA, the fitness test uses known laws of electromagnetism to calculate the antenna pattern (shape and strength, over a desired, wide set of variable frequencies) for any configuration that is possible with the algorithm. That test can be used to tell which of a spiral-shaped-antenna, or series of linear segments, or what-have-you configuration(i.e. the bizarre shapes evolved by the GA) offers the best pattern. The test carries no details of the optimum shape(s), but drives the GA to finding splendidly-functioning shapes via selection, mutations, breeding, and heredity. The Steiner GA is quite similar. The "Test" here is for shortest-length, connected networks; besides dispensing numbers representing length and connectivity, the Test carries no design details. While there can be one (or more) "Book Solutions" for a given set of nodes (points to be connected), the GA finds those solutions, and dozens of interesting "also-rans". These (the "MacGuyvers") prove that the GA is not simply repeating a given answer, a la Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a Weasel" illustration. This article has a lot more detail.

Rolf Aalberg · 25 February 2011

I have never noticed a creationist comment on GA-created antennas. Do I smell another creationist tactic: Pretend that you haven't heard it when faced with an argument that can't be hand-waved away?

The difference between designed and evolved antennas is striking, isn't it?

Dave Thomas · 25 February 2011

Rolf Aalberg said: I have never noticed a creationist comment on GA-created antennas. Do I smell another creationist tactic: Pretend that you haven't heard it when faced with an argument that can't be hand-waved away? The difference between designed and evolved antennas is striking, isn't it?
Indeed it is. Not so sure about creo's pretending never to have heard about it - for example, here's a creationist comment on NASA's antenna GA, courtesy Bill Dembksi himself:
Dembski spoke at the Continuing Education Center on November 12th, 2001, in a talk titled "Darwin's Unpaid Debt." ... Dembski then discussed genetic algorithms, and even showed the result of a remarkable study in which herds of wire antenna models were bred, and those that provided more uniform antenna patterns were bred some more. A simple antenna - a straight piece of wire, for example - has a non-uniform radiation pattern, looking much like a donut, uniform on the sides, and vanishing along both ends of the wire. Dembski showed a curious antenna that looped this way and that that was developed in a genetic algorithm, and which actually produces a very uniform antenna pattern. Clearly, there is specified complexity in the loops and twists of the antenna wire, but Dembski says this was snuck in, front-loaded, in the fitness function - the requirement that a uniform pattern is preferred. This is wrong. I have written genetic algorithms, and discussed these with Dembski after the Tuesday debate. I presented him with results of my algorithms that bred solutions to Steiner's problem, involving efficient networks, and some of which displayed striking geometric patterns - design. Dembski said I had simply front-loaded that design into my fitness function, which took the simple form "shorter is better, as long as nodes are connected."

Stuart Weinstein · 25 February 2011

Dave Thomas said:
Rolf Aalberg said: I have never noticed a creationist comment on GA-created antennas. Do I smell another creationist tactic: Pretend that you haven't heard it when faced with an argument that can't be hand-waved away? The difference between designed and evolved antennas is striking, isn't it?
Indeed it is. Not so sure about creo's pretending never to have heard about it - for example, here's a creationist comment on NASA's antenna GA, courtesy Bill Dembksi himself:
Dembski spoke at the Continuing Education Center on November 12th, 2001, in a talk titled "Darwin's Unpaid Debt." ... Dembski then discussed genetic algorithms, and even showed the result of a remarkable study in which herds of wire antenna models were bred, and those that provided more uniform antenna patterns were bred some more. A simple antenna - a straight piece of wire, for example - has a non-uniform radiation pattern, looking much like a donut, uniform on the sides, and vanishing along both ends of the wire. Dembski showed a curious antenna that looped this way and that that was developed in a genetic algorithm, and which actually produces a very uniform antenna pattern. Clearly, there is specified complexity in the loops and twists of the antenna wire, but Dembski says this was snuck in, front-loaded, in the fitness function - the requirement that a uniform pattern is preferred. This is wrong. I have written genetic algorithms, and discussed these with Dembski after the Tuesday debate. I presented him with results of my algorithms that bred solutions to Steiner's problem, involving efficient networks, and some of which displayed striking geometric patterns - design. Dembski said I had simply front-loaded that design into my fitness function, which took the simple form "shorter is better, as long as nodes are connected."
Tails I win. Heads you lose!

TomS · 25 February 2011

Dave Thomas said:
Clearly, there is specified complexity in the loops and twists of the antenna wire, but Dembski says this was snuck in, front-loaded, in the fitness function - the requirement that a uniform pattern is preferred.
Does the "Explanatory Filter" contain a test for whether the CSI has been imported ("snuck in" or "front-loaded")? Is this part of the "Law of Conservation of CSI"? Or is this considered only when it is a counter-example to ID?

Mike Elzinga · 25 February 2011

Dembski’s hollowness and shallowness are absolutely breathtaking, especially in the light of his having obtained several advanced degrees in order to appear formidable to the rubes in his church.

And all these ID/creationist pushers are so unaware of what is going on around them that one can’t help wondering if they are able to avoid constantly walking into walls.

The NASA antenna designed by genetic algorithms is simply making use of our understanding of the way nature works. This “front loading of the solution” ploy of Dembski’s, rather than being an argument against genetic algorithms, is simply a huge neon sign broadcasting Dembski’s profound ignorance; and it is difficult to emphasize just how profound that ignorance is. It’s like being in the presence of an intellectual black hole; hollow, lifeless, and profoundly stupid. It would be easier to teach a clam to crochet.

All the ID creationists I have encountered over the years have this deadly pall they cast on all those around them. It’s as thought their mission in life is to hang like a dead weight on everybody’s neck and suck the life and spirit out of everyone and everything around them.

raven · 25 February 2011

Gabriel Hanna said: In what sense were Jim Jones and the People’s Temple Christian fundamentalists?
The Reverend Jim Jones was an ordained Assembly of God church minister, one of the most fruitbat insane of fundie death cult churches. AofG's latest venture is supporting the murders of alleged child witches in Africa. Violence and murder and never far below the surface of toxic religions.

Dornier Pfeil · 26 February 2011

Thank you for the correction.
Dave Thomas said:
Dornier Pfeil said: The thing that lets Dembski lie about Dave Thomas's Steiner GA is that there is only a single solution and we know how to describe that solution(the shortest path). The description is the test in the GA. Dembski is conflating the solution with the qualities the solution must have and claiming that the description is the same as the information of the solution. The best answer to this nonsense is the raft of GA's that solve problems that possess no single solution whose qualities can be described inside the GA. The example I can think of now is the evolved antenna. The test, of how good an antenna is, was not actually part of the GA, if I can remember that article correctly. In natural evolution the test is simply; can I have more babies than my competition. The richness of the world is clear evidence there is no single solution to that algorithm.
That's not correct. In the antenna GA, the fitness test uses known laws of electromagnetism to calculate the antenna pattern (shape and strength, over a desired, wide set of variable frequencies) for any configuration that is possible with the algorithm. That test can be used to tell which of a spiral-shaped-antenna, or series of linear segments, or what-have-you configuration(i.e. the bizarre shapes evolved by the GA) offers the best pattern. The test carries no details of the optimum shape(s), but drives the GA to finding splendidly-functioning shapes via selection, mutations, breeding, and heredity. The Steiner GA is quite similar. The "Test" here is for shortest-length, connected networks; besides dispensing numbers representing length and connectivity, the Test carries no design details. While there can be one (or more) "Book Solutions" for a given set of nodes (points to be connected), the GA finds those solutions, and dozens of interesting "also-rans". These (the "MacGuyvers") prove that the GA is not simply repeating a given answer, a la Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a Weasel" illustration. This article has a lot more detail.

SAWells · 28 February 2011

A commenter "Tristan" at Jerry Coyne's site makes an interesting observation here:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/debmski-pwned-ant-trails-and-intelligent-design/#comment-81032

The ants are solving the wrong problem; an intelligent designer would have made ants walk in straight lines between each two nests. The Steiner solution doesn't do this.

Henry J · 28 February 2011

The ants are solving the wrong problem;

Is the criteria to minimize travel distance, time, effort needed, or amount risk along each path? Henry J

gucci bags · 6 March 2011

The real craziness comes in because this effort at parody, though willful, is not deliberate – because in all deluded sincerity the creationists try to promote their parody of science as real science, even though they built it from the ground up as a parody.