"How about checkers? Let's do checkers, shall we? Or maybe tic-tac-toe. Yes, I'm a machine who thinks, I am! Depending on what the meaning of 'think' is."
Modern AI researchers, knowing how far they are from actual consciousness, are redefining "AI" to include such mechanistic idols as robots and routing algorithms.
It's all reminiscent of the south pacific cargo cults: primitive natives making effigies of airplanes and radios out of bamboo, thinking that the shape of things determines their function, and not their actual construction.
So death or prison are your options. Only a moron would choose this.
In the end, nothing in EA proves anything about evolution, or vice-versa. The experimental realms are totally different.
A much more interesting application of biology to CS is DNA itself, as an information store, and protein construction as programmable machines. No evolution is involved, but the complexities of DNA has given great insight into practical massive computation methods. In particular, a novel proof of concept for solving an NP- hard path problem was devised by computer scientist Leonard Adleman, who employed the massive parallelism of polymerase chain reaction to simultaneously evaluate all possible paths. The final answer was literally spun out of the computation reaction with a centrifuge. This launched the field of DNA Computing.
Saying that you can't test the theory is quite different from saying that the theory is false. And often it's just "we can't *yet* test the theory".
I didn't say it was false. I said it is not science. Like many religions, it may be true. But its adherents must take that on faith. Science can't *yet* prove evolution, just as it cannot *yet* prove God. The two beliefs are on an equal footing, philosophically. Yet evos keep trying to say "it's settled science". Anyone is allowed to call bogus on that position. It is the evos' duty to prove their assertion.