Darwinism is slow

Darwinism is the best framework we have currently to undertake the problem of evolution of organisms, but it may be incomplete, not enough powerful. When trying to resolve an extremal problem in physics, for example finding minimum energy states, using computational approaches like Monte Carlo simulations, one thing comes evident: high-dimensional spaces are slow to explore. This is known as the "curse of dimensionality" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality ).

Darwinism is an extremal multi-dimensional method to evolve the species. Dimension in Darwinism means every different possibility available to a life being to evolve. And that number is really huge in the simplest case of a cell even a virus. Nature has the advantage of time. It takes millions of years doing evolution steps. On the other hand, today supercomputers are crunching numbers for months or years as much (1 or 2) to solve one problem, but computers may complete cycles way fast (10 GFlops implies 1 cycle per nanosecond). So, I would say that natural selection counts with a power similar to current supercomputers. If natural selection did it (to evolve species), supercomputers should be able to do it. The fact is that currently huge-dimensional extremal problems cannot be resolved successfully no matter how powerful the supercomputer you use.

It is correct to say that Natural Selection is greatly improved by sex, because sex will upgrade an organism's offspring with the advances achieved by other congeners. So evolution is not just a blind random trial and error mechanism but a sex-oriented one. On the other hand supercomputers also have a "secret weapon" in this "nature vs engineering race". In the Monte Carlo algorithm an "Importance Sampling" or "Score" may be applied to accelerate the convergence of the process. This way, supercomputers may also be oriented to the solution as sex is helping Natural Selection. In other words and roughly speaking: Monte Carlo simulations and Natural Selection remains equally powerful, but Nature can do it meanwhile Supercomputers cannot.


In the above video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCXzcPNsqGA ) we find artificial organisms created in a computer by natural selection processes. The point is these organisms live in a simplified universe, so their evolution space dimensionality is very low. In Nature, the evolution space dimensionality for just one cell is huge. So, Natural Selection works, yeah, but too slow for itself.

Conclusion: maybe some day scientists will realize that the Darwinist Natural Selection is not enough fast to explain life evolution. And here is exactly the point where Creationism makes sense.

Entelechy

As stated at Merriam Webster dictionary ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entelechy ), Entelechy is a philosophical concept (concerning actualization ...) not still proof by science. Between Philosophy and Science there is a gap filled with Metaphysics. Entelechy should dwell in this area.

There is a kind of scientists called positivists that rejects every concept not verifiable directly through experiments. Positivism do not believe in Metaphysics nor Philosophy nor Entelechy. But not all scientists are positivists.

Diversity is vital to tackle unresolved problems. If we censor a point of view for a still unresolved problem we may be censoring the truth, and that is a jackass risk. In the USA culture we find two points of view when approaching the life evolution problem: Creationism and Darwinism. The existence of this diversity warrants an opportunity for the truth someday to be discovered.

In another democratic countries, like mine, things are different. Science diversity, Philosophical diversity and Religious diversity are not preserved. Here, the truth has less opportunities to survive.

Shame on my country. I look for the Entelechy definition in my official language dictionary. I find two definitions. First one is like Merrian Webster's. Second one is literally this quotation: "Not real". You heard it right, you read it right: "Not real". In my country an entelechy is an unreal thing. Shame on my country.

But that is not all. Watching TV in my country, we find public debates. In them, when someone wants to discredit another people argument, he utters: "that you said is an entelechy". So, current use of the word "entelechy" is an equivalent to the word "nonsense" or "idiocy".

Bottom line: my country's dictionary and public opinion are stating that:

1.- Metaphysics is a nonsense.
2.- Philosophy is a nonsense.
3.- Aristotle (Aristotle is who invented the concept entelechy) was stupid.
4.- Everybody in this country must be positivist.

Well, this is a scenario with no diversity, where truth has important difficulties to be taken into account.

In my country, creationism is such a nonsense as an entelechy. And that is funny, because it is precisely what Aristotle wanted to mean when he defined entelechy in its book "On the Soul" ("De Anima"). Aristotle metaphysics states that "the soul is the entelechy of the body". And that is what creationism claim: an aim, a goal, an intention, a purpose, an also called teleology, in the origin of life due to something called "soul".

Teaching Creationism in schools is a debate in USA, meanwhile it is an scandal in my country TV news: "Look at that Americans! Creationism in their schools! Are they out of their minds?". Shame on my totalitarian analphabetic country...