Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
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.
I'd be interested in seeing some of the useful predictions of evolution that you mention. Most "predictions" of evolution start with current observations, and add "just so" stories describing how evolution could account for those observations.
However, evolution is full of failed predictions, starting with Darwin himself. Some of Darwin's failed predictions include:
. The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features;
. The failure of the fossil record to provide the millions of intermediate forms Darwin predicted;
. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent;
. The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code;
. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
But these failings are usually dismissed by evolutionists as "just a theory needing some fine tuning." They should be considered falsifications of the theory. But evolutionists have long since given up admitting any observation that would falsify their theory. Other scientific disciplines are required to state falsifiers up front.
As I've said elsewhere, that's not science. It's religion.
Consider the theory that DNA contains information for cellular construction. Based on previously collected data, Pauling, Crick, and Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure. From this hypothesis and the mathematics of the helix transform, they predicted that DNA's X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped. Rosalind Franklin then crystallized pure DNA and took an X-ray diffraction image. The results showed the predicted X-shape. When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix. He and Crick then produced a physical model of DNA based on this result and known molecular interactions.
The quantum criticality researchers hypothesized that selected chemicals presumed to be a primordial mixture, placed in a specific energetic environment, will spontaneously combine to create amino acids, components of DNA. But the researchers had no prior data that their primordial mixture is correct. So the best they can hope for, whatever their predictions and experimental methods, is to demonstrate that amino acids can be created by the careful arrangement of selected chemicals. They cannot say this happened in nature, and thus can draw no conclusions supporting evolution.
Yet people are trumpeting that something has been discovered about the actual origin of life
That's not science. It's an "activity".
And the solar system is completely unexplainable with quantum physics, and particles are completely unexplainable with relativity. It doesn't mean we should just say "God does it", and be done.
The idea that belief in God somehow interferes with scientific discovery is unfounded. Most scientists, until recent history, believed in God without conflict, and made great discoveries without seeing any inconsistency. Mendel, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Planck and many others handily disprove the idea that belief in God and science are mutually exclusive. Many living scientists today are happy to explain why they believe in God and don't see any conflict
So your statement "It doesn't mean we should just say "God does it", and be done." is actually true for both atheists and theists: we don't stop seeking truth because we believe in God, any more than atheist stops seeking truth because they have no reason for living.
Yet another religion
And I haven't stopped asking questions. I am only questioning that evolution is a viable explanation. The atheist's position that "it must be, because we reject any alternative explanation" is not science, it's religion. The agnostic's position that "God may exist but I don't that he does, so I rule that out" is also not science, because it excludes a possible explanation without justification.
Evolutionists want to claim their theory is "settled science". It's not. It's not even a testable theory. That makes it dogma.
Atheists want to preclude the existence of God, as a prerequisite to the scientific method. But science is failing to explain the origin of life, and it's failing harder as time passes.
Are you trying to claim that life was created like watches are and although seemingly endlessly complex, all we have to do is understand the same physics the creator used?
No, I'm saying that the theory of evolution is being called upon to explain increasingly complex layers of life's intricacies that are more simply explained by the existence of a creator.