Evolution: Contribution To The World

[Springer 5]

The theory of evolution has done nothing to advance science and has provided no benefit to mankind. It is a theory which has only degraded man’s image of himself in the world and has promoted moral relativism and everything that goes with it. This is in contrast to other scientific disciplines, all of which have served to benefit man either directly or indirectly.

The study of evolution is an intellectual exercise which is analogous to playing video games. It can be intellectually entertaining but, in the final analysis, it is a waste of time.

[chance 1]

The theory of evolution has done nothing to advance science and has provided no benefit to mankind. It is a theory which has only degraded man’s image of himself in the world and has promoted moral relativism and everything that goes with it.

OK, for the moment lets assume this is true, and the presumption I must assume is that evolution is true, yes? .

 

What then, are we to make of this situation. Do we, lament at the loss of “the good old daysâ€ÂÂ, or, pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and make the best of a bad situation?

[Guest 92g]

OK, for the moment lets assume this is true, and the presumption I must assume is that evolution is true, yes? .

I see no reason for that assumption.....

 

What then, are we to make of this situation.  Do we, lament at the loss of “the good old daysâ€ÂÂ, or, pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and make the best of a bad situation?

We are trying to make the best of a bad situation. Darwinism is one of the worst concepts ever to plague the human race. Maybe communism is worse, but since they often seem to go hand in hand, we'll call it a tie.....

 

All we can do is teach the truth about it, and pray as the Lord said,

 

""If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."

 

Terry

[Springer 5]

OK, for the moment lets assume this is true, and the presumption I must assume is that evolution is true, yes? .

 

What then, are we to make of this situation.  Do we, lament at the loss of “the good old daysâ€ÂÂ, or, pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and make the best of a bad situation?

5588[/snapback]

Actually, the purpose of this thread was to bring to peoples' attention the fact that the entire study of evolution is a complete waste of time, and those who devote their lives to it are doing so ultimately because of religion. What other reason is there? It does not benefit mankind. Why would someone immerse themselves in something that is degrading and depressing and offers nothing positive except perhaps intellectual stimulation?

[chance 1]

OK, for the moment lets assume this is true, and the presumption I must assume is that evolution is true, yes? .

 

I see no reason for that assumption.....

I was an assumption on my part, just seem to make the question more apt. e.g. if the assumption is that evolution is not true, then you the only direction this will lead to is how to convince the world that YEC is correct and science is wrong, and that what every other post on this forum is attempting to do. Perhaps I read too much into the question.

 

 

What then, are we to make of this situation.  Do we, lament at the loss of “the good old daysâ€ÂÂ, or, pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and make the best of a bad situation?

 

We are trying to make the best of a bad situation. Darwinism is one of the worst concepts ever to plague the human race. Maybe communism is worse, but since they often seem to go hand in hand, we'll call it a tie.....

Ok, you have seem to confirm my point above, i.e. if evolution is not true, then you are already doing what is required i.e. challenge it and pray. But if evolution is true that is a whole different question.

[chance 1]

OK, for the moment lets assume this is true, and the presumption I must assume is that evolution is true, yes? .

 

What then, are we to make of this situation.  Do we, lament at the loss of “the good old daysâ€ÂÂ, or, pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and make the best of a bad situation?

 

Actually, the purpose of this thread was to bring to peoples' attention the fact that the entire study of evolution is a complete waste of time, and those who devote their lives to it are doing so ultimately because of religion. What other reason is there? It does not benefit mankind. Why would someone immerse themselves in something that is degrading and depressing and offers nothing positive except perhaps intellectual stimulation?

Sometimes (usually) knowledge is sought for knowledge alone, and no other reason. Science (especially research) takes you in unplanned directions, e.g. could the Curie’s have known that the discovery of Uranium would lead to the atomic bomb? no, they were just investigation a curious property of nature.

 

If that knowledge has benefits or detrimental affects on society that is something that must be dealt with by that society, you can’t turn back the clock, once the ‘genie is out of the bottle’.

[Springer 5]

Sometimes (usually) knowledge is sought for knowledge alone, and no other reason.  Science (especially research) takes you in unplanned directions, e.g. could the Curie’s have known that the discovery of Uranium would lead to the atomic bomb? no, they were just investigation a curious property of nature.

 

If that knowledge has benefits or detrimental affects on society that is something that must be dealt with by that society, you can’t turn back the clock, once the ‘genie is out of the bottle’.

I still think that the fact that evolutionists defend ToE with such zeal is peculariar, given the fact that it doesn't benefit society. I can see why someone would get excited about new research in childhood diabetes, or might enthusiastically defend a theory set forth to prevent cancer. The diligence and dedication of evolutionary biologists can thus only be ascribed to ideological incentives. I think this fact is evidence that evolution is a religion, at least to some of its proponents.

[Guest wepwawet]

I still think that the fact that evolutionists defend ToE with such zeal is peculariar, given the fact that it doesn't benefit society.

Excuse me for quibbling about this, but does a theory have to benefit society in some tangible manner in order to be worth discussing? If the ToE does not deserve study and defense because it does not benefit society, then it only seems logical to conclude that neither does ID since they both attempt to explain exactly the same facts. Are you saying that none of this is worth talking about?

 

  I can see why someone would get excited about new research in childhood diabetes, or might enthusiastically defend a theory set forth to prevent cancer.  The diligence and dedication of evolutionary biologists can thus only be ascribed to ideological incentives.  I think this fact is evidence that evolution is a religion, at least to some of its proponents.

5618[/snapback]

So the advance of knowledge is only acceptable when we can see immediate benefit. Otherwise we're better off not knowing the truth? Everyone is subject to bias of some sort. Evolutionary biologists and creationists are no exception to the rule. Proper scientific obeservation and experimentation tries to eliminate the bias and present a dispassionate view and explanation of the universe. It's almost certain that some evolutionary biologists hold ideologically based convictions, but it is likewise almost certain that not all of them do. Similarly many adherents of creationism/ID are very open about their own religious views. Are we free to discount their work just because they are religious? Or should we make our judgments based on the quality of their work.

 

I'm new here by the way....hello everyone!

[Springer 5]

Excuse me for quibbling about this, but does a theory have to benefit society in some tangible manner in order to be worth discussing? If the ToE does not deserve study and defense because it does not benefit society, then it only seems logical to conclude that neither does ID since they both attempt to explain exactly the same facts. Are you saying that none of this is worth talking about?

So the advance of knowledge is only acceptable when we can see immediate benefit. Otherwise we're better off not knowing the truth?

ToE has had 150 years and has not only failed to benefit mankind... it has been a huge detriment in terms of moral decay. I'm not saying that something shouldn't be studied unless it benefits man. However, I think if evolution were true there would have been some benefit by now. I realize that's somewhat of a philosophical statement.

Everyone is subject to bias of some sort. Evolutionary biologists and creationists are no exception to the rule. Proper scientific obeservation and experimentation tries to eliminate the bias and present a dispassionate view and explanation of the universe. It's almost certain that some evolutionary biologists hold ideologically based convictions, but it is likewise almost certain that not all of them do. Similarly many adherents of creationism/ID are very open about their own religious views. Are we free to discount their work just because they are religious? Or should we make our judgments based on the quality of their work.

I agree with you. The problem with evolutionary biology is lack of accountability, ie, it's difficult to completely eliminate bias, especially when there is virtual unanimity as to ToE... they all assume its true. Therefore, all data is interpreted in that light.

Bias is an enormous problem. A skewed perspective can result in completely erroneous conclusions. This is why I think it's imperative that science should never become ones religion. It is obvious that many evolutionary biologists are emotionally attached to ToE. Now, you may say that ID is a religion. Of course it is... both sides need to try to be as objective as possible.

[Guest wepwawet]

ToE has had 150 years and has not only failed to benefit mankind... it has been a huge detriment in terms of moral decay.  I'm not saying that something shouldn't be studied unless it benefits man.  However, I think if evolution were true there would have been some benefit by now.  I realize that's somewhat of a philosophical statement.

I'd agree with you that it is a philosophical statement but if we are discussing contributions to the world then certainly philosophy is fair game. Personally I see nothing in the ToE that contributes to moral decay although I admit that Darwin's concepts have been seized by evil people to justify evil deeds. Religion has been used the same way by the same sorts of people. On the other hand the Theory of Evolution is not intended for use as a guide to leading a moral life. So, to steal a slogan: Darwin doesn't decay morals, people do. Evil people seize whatever justification they find handy...using survival of the fittest as an excuse is just as reprehensible as using God.

 

I agree with you.  The problem with evolutionary biology is lack of accountability, ie, it's difficult to completely eliminate bias, especially when there is virtual unanimity as to ToE... they all assume its true.  Therefore, all data is interpreted in that light.

There is a widespread belief in the validity of the ToE, I can grant you that. Lots of people do their daily work relying on it. What we've observed, very pragmattically, is that it seems to work. Over time that sort of thing does tend to lead to fewer people questioning the theoretical foundation in much the same manner that you don't expect to drop a hammer and see it fall up. If we were to see a few hammers falling up we'd probably ask more questions.

 

Bias is an enormous problem.  A skewed perspective can result in completely erroneous conclusions.  This is why I think it's imperative that science should never become ones religion.  It is obvious that many evolutionary biologists are emotionally attached to ToE.  Now, you may say that ID is a religion.  Of course it is... both sides need to try to be as objective as possible.

5650[/snapback]

Bias is a problem and that's why the scientific method and practice try to eliminate bias. Everything in science can be observed first-hand (albeit if you have a sufficient budget). If you don't believe what the scientist says then you can go do exactly the same thing and draw your own conclusions. You can write a scathing review of the scientist and their pet theories and send them screaming to scientific perdition to roast in the flames of their failed theories....if you have the proof to back up your assertions. It takes a lot of work to overturn a well accepted theory and history shows us cases of scientists persecuted for being ahead of their time, but there's no way around it.

 

Right now the ToE is the 800 pound gorilla in the Scientific community. You can fight it in the tabloids and on the talk shows and even in congress, but the only way ID will become scientific is if it comes up with a testable hypothesis and survives the tests of all their opponents who want to shoot it down in flames. A PR genius might make every last person in the world believe in ID tomorrow, but that would still not make it a scientific truth. Bias exists on both sides in this debate; if you aren't making the attempt to overcome your own bias then you can't make a claim that your theory is scientific. Scientists routinely challenge beliefs and there is nothing sacred in the laboratory.

[Springer 5]

I'd agree with you that it is a philosophical statement but if we are discussing contributions to the world then certainly philosophy is fair game. Personally I see nothing in the ToE that contributes to moral decay although I admit that Darwin's concepts have been seized by evil people to justify evil deeds. Religion has been used the same way by the same sorts of people. On the other hand the Theory of Evolution is not intended for use as a guide to leading a moral life. So, to steal a slogan: Darwin doesn't decay morals, people do. Evil people seize whatever justification they find handy...using survival of the fittest as an excuse is just as reprehensible as using God.

It is natural for one to assume that if there is no God and that morality evolved, then there is nothing absolutely wrong with killing your competitor. If you truly believe that we are nothing more than a peculiar arrangement of molecules, then everything in terms of moral values becomes relative.

 

 

There is a widespread belief in the validity of the ToE, I can grant you that. Lots of people do their daily work relying on it. What we've observed, very pragmattically, is that it seems to work. Over time that sort of thing does tend to lead to fewer people questioning the theoretical foundation in much the same manner that you don't expect to drop a hammer and see it fall up. If we were to see a few hammers falling up we'd probably ask more questions.

I see evolution as a choking paradigm. It makes sense to people only because that's the perspective in which they view the world.

 

 

Right now the ToE is the 800 pound gorilla in the Scientific community. You can fight it in the tabloids and on the talk shows and even in congress, but the only way ID will become scientific is if it comes up with a testable hypothesis and survives the tests of all their opponents who want to shoot it down in flames. A PR genius might make every last person in the world believe in ID tomorrow, but that would still not make it a scientific truth. Bias exists on both sides in this debate; if you aren't making the attempt to overcome your own bias then you can't make a claim that your theory is scientific. Scientists routinely challenge beliefs and there is nothing sacred in the laboratory.

The problem with evolutionary biology is that bias is out of control. If everyone doing paleontological research already assumes ToE to be a fact, they're not going to look for anything outside of the paradigm of evolutionary thinking. All data is interpreted from the evolutionary perspective, and never otherwise.

 

I don't see a sharp difference between "science" and "religion". The delination of the two is man made and somewhat artificial. One truth can never contradict another. There are many who see direct evidence of God's existence and base their beliefs on what they consider to be objective evidence.

[chance 1]

I still think that the fact that evolutionists defend ToE with such zeal is peculariar, given the fact that it doesn't benefit society.

I would like to think I defend old earth with the same zeal, it does have immediate benefits. But really, the benefits are not important, what is more important to me is that science and science in the education system is not hijacked using 'politics'.

 

IMO I think is a typical reaction to a perceived threat.

[chance 1]

It is natural for one to assume that if there is no God and that morality evolved, then there is nothing absolutely wrong with killing your competitor. If you truly believe that we are nothing more than a peculiar arrangement of molecules, then everything in terms of moral values becomes relative.

The fact that we don’t kill our competitor every time there is a conflict is proof that it is a better survival strategy to dialogue than fight.

 

We (humanity) are a social animal, our morals are such that it allows us to function in groups, with some loose hierarchical structure. An animal with intelligence as a survival mechanism, has by definition to undergo some “social evolution†i.e. social behaviour is learned to a great extent and passed from parent to child.

 

All this means IMO is that morals are to some extent, relative as you suggest, and dependant upon circumstance. But so what!

 

Challenge - pick any moral situation where you think our morals are black and white, and I will attempt to come up with a dilemma or exception where it seems the right thing to do to go against that moral.

[Springer 5]

quote=chance,Nov 20 2005, 07:52 PM

The fact that we don’t kill our competitor every time there is a conflict is proof that it is a better survival strategy to dialogue than fight.

 

We (humanity) are a social animal, our morals are such that it allows us to function in groups, with some loose  hierarchical structure.  An animal with intelligence as a survival mechanism, has by definition to undergo some “social evolution†i.e. social behaviour is learned to a great extent and passed from parent to child. 

 

All this means IMO is that morals are to some extent, relative as you suggest, and dependant upon circumstance. But so what!

Chance, you claim to be an atheist, but I don't believe for a minute that the only thing that keeps you from stabbing someone in the back is your ultimate survival. You have a conscience... you know what's right and wrong. You can intellectualize ad nauseum but the fact remains that there is something inside of you that's deeper than survival.

 

Challenge - pick any moral situation where you think our morals are black and white, and I will attempt to come up with a dilemma or exception where it seems the right thing to do to go against that moral.

I agree that, for example, murder might not always be wrong. However, it is always wrong to act against what you know to be right. We all have a conscience. Some can deny that it exists, but it is still always there.

[chance 1]

Chance, you claim to be an atheist, but I don't believe for a minute that the only thing that keeps you from stabbing someone in the back is your ultimate survival. You have a conscience... you know what's right and wrong. You can intellectualize ad nauseum but the fact remains that there is something inside of you that's deeper than survival.

(Guilty of over simplifying the matter)

My conscience (that nagging feeling when you do something wrong) IMO is part evolved, part learned and in part affected by an individuals personality. It’s root cause I feel is still a simple Darwinian survival strategy, but that has been overlayed with other more complicated social constructs. A good example of what I mean is portrayed in the classic movie “Lord of the Fliesâ€ÂÂ, (a group of school boys marooned on an island without any adult supervision).

 

I don’t for a moment believe a conscience is some ‘other self’ living separate from my identity.

 

 

Challenge - pick any moral situation where you think our morals are black and white, and I will attempt to come up with a dilemma or exception where it seems the right thing to do to go against that moral.

 

I agree that, for example, murder might not always be wrong. However, it is always wrong to act against what you know to be right. We all have a conscience. Some can deny that it exists, but it is still always there.

hmmmm, now that is an interesting quote, “it is always wrong to act against what you know to be rightâ€ÂÂ, to me that is a good justification to do what you want to do. Explaining - if your individual beliefs are not what society believes as a whole you will find yourself up against the law in very short order. It is a fact that right and wrong are determined by society, then formalised in law/custom.

[Springer 5]

quote=chance,Nov 21 2005, 01:38 PM

(Guilty of over simplifying the matter)

My conscience (that nagging feeling when you do something wrong) IMO is part evolved, part learned and in part affected by an individuals personality.   It’s root cause I feel is still a simple Darwinian survival strategy, but that has been overlayed with other more complicated social constructs.  A good example of what I mean is portrayed in the classic movie “Lord of the Fliesâ€ÂÂ, (a group of school boys marooned on an island without any adult supervision).

 

I don’t for a moment believe a conscience is some ‘other self’ living separate from my identity.

 

Perhaps you think that a conscience is strong because it evolved over hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years. I believe there are things a lot deeper that defy any materialistic explanations.

 

hmmmm, now that is an interesting quote, “it is always wrong to act against what you know to be rightâ€ÂÂ, to me that is a good justification to do what you want to do.  Explaining - if your individual beliefs are not what society believes as a whole you will find yourself up against the law in very short order.  It is a fact that right and wrong are determined by society, then formalised in law/custom.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm referring to what I know to be right, regardless of what the consequences might be. I'm not suggesting that I should do whatever I want. Each of us has a "light" within us and we know right from wrong. I would never steal from anyone even if I knew I'd never get caught and even if it meant I would never have to work again. This is because my conscience won't allow it. I imagine you are the same way.

[chance 1]

Perhaps you think that a conscience is strong because it evolved over hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years.

Yes, that would be consistent with the ToE. Social survival is important for an animal that lives in groups, an animal that “cant fit in†or “breaks the rules†wont be welcome nor find a mate.

 

 

I believe there are things a lot deeper that defy any materialistic explanations.

A lot of people do. But by relying on belief as opposed to science one is confronted with a philosophic version of “God of the gapsâ€ÂÂ, i.e. what areas you can attribute to non-materialistic sources are eroded away as discovery finds answerers.

 

 

hmmmm, now that is an interesting quote, “it is always wrong to act against what you know to be rightâ€ÂÂ, to me that is a good justification to do what you want to do.  Explaining - if your individual beliefs are not what society believes as a whole you will find yourself up against the law in very short order.  It is a fact that right and wrong are determined by society, then formalised in law/custom.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I'm referring to what I know to be right, regardless of what the consequences might be. I'm not suggesting that I should do whatever I want. Each of us has a "light" within us and we know right from wrong. I would never steal from anyone even if I knew I'd never get caught and even if it meant I would never have to work again. This is because my conscience won't allow it. I imagine you are the same way.

Good answer. Right and wrong is often quite clear cut, as in the case of stealing for personal gain, but much of this behaviour is learned in childhood. To explain my point lets drop stealing down a notch to this: You find a watch in the street (no inscriptions) statistically you will now find that many people are divided on what to do, do you hand the watch in to the police or, is it “Finder’s keepers Loser’s weepers� To a person that sets themselves high moral standards there is no difference between your example and mine, to others I doubt there would be not an ounce of guilt in keeping the watch. A bit of moral relativism.

 

Doing the right thing is often code for – “the consequences are not worth the riskâ€ÂÂ. To explain - You get caught stealing and you pay the price, but arguably if people know you are stealing (but cant prove it) the consequence is to become ostracised, which is almost as bad. Because of instinctive, instructions and through life experiences, we know this, this fear is what keeps us honest at the basic of behaviour level. Children often don’t understand the concept of honest behaviour and need to be instructed on it.

 

Because we can rationalise our behaviour we are not entirely slaves to it, and thus we can set levels of right and wrong to differing circumstances e.g. there is no one punishment for stealing but many.

[Pazuzu 0]

Okay a little off where the topic has gone, but I'd like to specifically address the original statement: TOE has done nothing to benefit man.

 

I'd like to point out that man intrinsically curious, about everything and anything. It is our nature. And we are not alone in this as many animals are extremely curious, often to the point of endangering themselves. Now the point of science as I understand it is not just learning everything there is to learn regarding our existence and everything around us, but as to why it is there and how that relates to us. Ultimately science is to help us understand ourselves by understanding the world around us. And in that sense I think the TOE has definitely benefited man in our understanding of where we came from and how we fit into the world.

 

And I don’t think that that in any way degrades man. Some seem to think that because some believe that man evolved from simpler forms of life that we are lessened. It is much grander to think that we are the pinnacle of creation from an ultimate being, but I don’t see it that way. Evolving from other forms of live into a being that thinks on its own mortality, thinks on its own mind and its own devices, and thinks to the extent we do to the point of developing cultures and religions with music and art, and complex languages I find absolutely amazing. To think of a being like homo habilis making its living in dry savannahs with stone tools, probably trying to figure out things like death and it’s self, to where we as homo sapien sapiens have arrived is an incredible feat!

 

Just my thoughts,

Darrin

[MRC_Hans 0]

I still think that the fact that evolutionists defend ToE with such zeal is peculariar, given the fact that it doesn't benefit society.  I can see why someone would get excited about new research in childhood diabetes, or might enthusiastically defend a theory set forth to prevent cancer.  The diligence and dedication of evolutionary biologists can thus only be ascribed to ideological incentives.  I think this fact is evidence that evolution is a religion, at least to some of its proponents.

5618[/snapback]

How do you conclude that ToE is of no benefit to society? Assuming iToE true (and we have to because that is what evolutionists do, and thus it is part of their motivation), we need to know about how it impacts us, even if said impact is not thought beneficial.

 

Do you think exploring earthquake prediction is not beneficial just bacause eathquakes are not?

 

Hans

[Guest rthearle]

The theory of evolution has done nothing to advance science and has provided no benefit to mankind.

Counterexample #1:

 

Without the theory of evolution, there would be no logical basis for the field of genetic algorithms and we would have less efficient broad band microwave absorbers.

 

Your claim is false.

 

Note that this counterexample does not require the theory of evolution to be correct.

 

Roy

[Fred Williams 0]

Counterexample #1:

 

Without the theory of evolution, there would be no logical basis for the field of genetic algorithms and we would have less efficient broad band microwave absorbers.

 

Your claim is false.

 

Note that this counterexample does not require the theory of evolution to be correct.

7537[/snapback]

Do you realize you essentially just contradicted yourself?

 

Regardless, your claim about GAs is false. Genetic algorithms are nothing more than glorified trial&error experiments. The more evolutionary thinking is applied to them, the less effective they are. For example, which is more effective and productive, a GA with truncation selection, or one without truncation selection? (truncation selection is where you remove all mutants below an established threshold).

 

Almost every GA I’ve seen is designed with truncation selection, a totally un-evolutionary mechanism. So rest assured you are wrong to claim evolution aided in producing effective trial&error programs. Applying evolutionary concepts ironically stymies their effectiveness.

 

BTW, I’ve been in the engineering design industry for over 22 years and have been involved in numerous complex designs, and not once have we even considered using a GA. They may have their place in some cases where trial&error might provide some help, such as searching for an optimal wing design. But if an engineer told me he was going to try one, he sure as better remove any evolutionary preconceptions and design the thing right, and use severe truncation plus a clear target.

 

Fred

[Guest 92g]

Counterexample #1:

 

Without the theory of evolution, there would be no logical basis for the field of genetic algorithms and we would have less efficient broad band microwave absorbers.

 

Your claim is false.

 

Note that this counterexample does not require the theory of evolution to be correct.

 

Roy

7537[/snapback]

From what I've read about GAs they are just search algorithms, and there are plenty of those around. It would be interesting to see some data that shows that GAs are more efficient search algorithms.

 

How can you claim that without them, that some other algorithms could not produce similiar or even better results?

 

Terry

[Patches 0]

Umm...

 

The theory of evolution is useful when it comes to breeding cows that produce more milk, plants that can stand up to chemicals used to deter insects and weeds, produce that can be grown outside of its natural growing season, etc etc. Pretty much all the food you consume was tamed, bred, and selectively evolved to be of more use to humans.

 

It is also useful in medicine, as being able to predict how strains of viruses will evolve to become immune to current vaccines aids in being able to quickly develop new vaccines to combat the new strains. The current Avian Flu scare is completely rooted in the fear that the virus will evolve into a form capable of being spread from human to human (as such things have happened in the past and caused localized epidemics, but this was before globalization, so it was easier to contain an outbreak).

 

Not really sure why everyone is arguing what sort of moral implications a scientific theory has, considering science in and of itself isn't meant to influence behavior. Science stops at "this is how it is". It's up to individual people whether they do anything with that knowledge.

[MRC_Hans 0]

We can discuss at lenght whether ToE is of benefit to mankind or not, but the quiestion is irrelevant. Whether it is of benefit to mankind or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

 

Hans

[Guest rthearle]

From what I've read about GAs they are just search algorithms, and there are plenty of those around. It would be interesting to see some data that shows that GAs are more efficient search algorithms.

 

More efficient that what? They're certainly more efficient that random search if the solution landscape is smooth.

 

How can you claim that without them, that some other algorithms could not produce similiar or even better results?

 

I didn't. I merely noted that other algorithms have not produced similar/better results.

 

Roy