Excuse me but your algorithm uses telic processes- goal oriented processes- to achieve its solution. The FI smuggled in is in the fact that the starting sequence is just granted reproduction. Then there is the fitness function that selects and directs generational solutions towards the goal.
There isn’t any way evolutionary algorithms mimic evolution by means of natural selection
Hi- Could you please reference a model of evolution that demonstrates vision systems can arise? Please use the posited mechanisms which are all said to be blind, mindless and without a purpose:
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless
At least tell us how to test the claim. Thank you for your time.
By the way, ID seems to be exemplified by genetic algorithms.
Which of the half-dozen or so genetic algorithms I’ve mentioned in this thread are you referring to?
That makes no sense whatsoever. Biological organisms reproduce. If reproducing smuggles in FI, then FI can be generated by biological organisms and this while discussion is moot.
Yes. So? Biological organisms effectively have a fitness function (the environment), in that some survive to reproduce and some do not, and some produce more offspring than others.
I disagree. I reject your assertion.
That would be true if ID was concerned only with the design of the environment, the reproductive method and the selection process, and not with the ‘organisms’ within that environment, since they are (with the possible exception of an initial seed ‘organism’) not designed.
But ID is full of claims that features of organisms are designed, so ID is not exemplified by genetic algorithms.
Have you ever written or experimented with a genetic algorithm?
Then “the survival of the fittest” is a telic process.
I didn’t.
That wasn’t the statement that I found obnoxious and false. It was your statement that followed it:
It is obnoxious to make false claims about what other people believe.
This may be about your weak belief, but we don’t believe. We go by the evidence you ignore and change our conclusions if new evidence contradicts the existing ones.
So if you think we are wrong, present real evidence, not silly rhetoric disembodied from the evidence.
Also, by the way, I don’t think that any of the scientists here are so ignorant of evolutionary biology that they discount neutral mechanisms. Why does your statement about what we believe ignore that?
Speaking of evidence, where’s your calculation of FIa? I suspect that you’ve done it and realized that it falsifies @gpuccio’s claim.
No, formatting is not new data.
What strikes me about the ID movement is how little work its proponents are willing to do. It’s as if they have no faith in the things they are claiming.
There are several thousand research papers on all aspects eye evolution readily available on Google Scholar and PubMed. Which of those if any have you read?
Nice bluff! 
Roy, Evolutionary algorithms are goal-oriented. That is just a fact. And according to mainstream evolution is not goal oriented. And genetic algorithms have all of the information required to achieve that goal. They contain the criteria and specifications the final solution has to meet. And all generational solutions are guided towards that goal.
You can disagree all you want. That isn’t going to change the facts. And the fact remains that nature can’t even produce biological replicators.
Have you read any of them? If so please make your case that vision systems evolved via blind, mindless and purposeless processes. Thank you in advance.
Specifically tell us how those processes could produce the HOX genes required.
“Survival of the fittest” is not only wrong it isn’t telic by any means. With natural selection it is the “survival of whatever is good enough”. There isn’t any guidance. There isn’t any direction. Loss of function can be beneficial.
With genetic algorithms they are goal oriented and given everything they need to achieve that goal. That is nothing like mainstream evolution.
Can you reference the work that evolutionists are doing that confirms or supports evolution by blind, mindless and purposeless processes?
You’re doing an uncanny imitation of YEC Joe Gallien, even down to repeating his usual inane ID buzz-phrases. Are you related to female retired marine biologist Sharon Mahoney by any chance? 
Does this mean you cannot support what you claimed? Is Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr and Jerry Coyne also YECs and also named Joe Gallien?
This.
Prions.
Avida is not a genetic algorithm. Prions do not reproduce. Prions make other like proteins conform to their misguided shape.