Code evolution vs Intelligent design

ufo wrote: post #3

There is experimental evidence that computer programs are insteligently designed, as opposed to real lifeforms: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/05/03/linux-vers...

The problem with this analysis is that it seems to analyze the subject with the assumption that the intelligent designer does not have bounded rationality. If we want to use articles like this to truly reject declarations of intelligent design of lifeforms, we must then attack intelligent design's declaration that the designer does not suffer from bounded rationality. Otherwise, it's constructing a strawman to take down intelligent design. The debate needs to be more rigorous, if there is to be a debate.

Re: Code evolution vs Intelligent design

#5

Post by RyanMcGreal » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 1:50 PM UTC

Every time I try to do this, I end up having to rip it all up anyway when the requirements change. As John Gall famously said:

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work."

Over the years, I've gotten much better at writing components in such a way that I don't end up painting myself into a corner and can easily add/modify functionality later.

Re: Code evolution vs Intelligent design

#6

Post by billswift » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 1:58 PM UTC

All systems evolve, if they can change at all. Systems with intelligent actors (software, language, economics, etc) involve more factors than biological evolution does. Biological evolution is mainly through variation and selection. Intelligent evolution also involves borrowing (acquisition) from outside the "genome", planning of future changes, analogical reasoning between "lineages", and other means of generating and fixing variations.

Re: Code evolution vs Intelligent design

#7

Post by ufo » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 2:00 PM UTC

PakG1 wrote: post #4

ufo wrote: post #3

There is experimental evidence that computer programs are insteligently designed, as opposed to real lifeforms: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/05/03/linux-vers...

The problem with this analysis is that it seems to analyze the subject with the assumption that the intelligent designer does not have bounded rationality. If we want to use articles like this to truly reject declarations of intelligent design of lifeforms, we must then attack intelligent design's declaration that the designer does not suffer from bounded rationality. Otherwise, it's constructing a strawman to take d…

The point of the article was to show that Linux works differently then a real life form. E Coli being a product of evolution is already a settled issue, as far as biology is concerned.

Re: Code evolution vs Intelligent design

#8

Post by adrianmsmith » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 2:00 PM UTC

"To implement the next step you are going to have to go back and dig up all that perfect code you have just finished writing..."

"This sounds nice, but nothing has really changed - we have just shifted the problem from the coding to the design stage."

Things have indeed changed.

- If I spend 4 hours designing something and then have to throw it away due to realizing the next piece of functionality doesn't fit in with the design, then I have to throw away 4 hours work.

- If I spend 2 weeks programming something, and the then have to throw it away due to realizing the next piece of functionality doesn't fit in with it, then I have wasted 2 weeks.

Re: Code evolution vs Intelligent design

#9

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 2:20 PM UTC

adrianmsmith wrote: post #8

"To implement the next step you are going to have to go back and dig up all that perfect code you have just finished writing..." "This sounds nice, but nothing has really changed - we have just shifted the problem from the coding to the design stage." Things have indeed changed. - If I spend 4 hours designing something and then have to throw it away due to realizing the next piece of functionality doesn't fit in with…

[deleted]

Re: Code evolution vs Intelligent design

#10

Post by majmun » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 2:26 PM UTC

adrianmsmith wrote: post #8

"To implement the next step you are going to have to go back and dig up all that perfect code you have just finished writing..." "This sounds nice, but nothing has really changed - we have just shifted the problem from the coding to the design stage." Things have indeed changed. - If I spend 4 hours designing something and then have to throw it away due to realizing the next piece of functionality doesn't fit in with…

yeah but in practice you can't just design without at least writing test program to gather intelligence. I mean you can but it would be like living in a fiction world.