The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Genetic Algorithms (e.g. Evolutionary/Darwinist) Improve upon a Given Basis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 26110
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




The formal, complete statement of the Pro goes as follows:
"Genetic Algorithms improve upon a given basis, no matter the complexity, given a reasonable time of convergence."

This is not a semantic argument; please do not treat it as such.


We define a Genetic Algorithm as follows:
A Genetic Algorithm is a sub-class of adaptive stochastic optimization algorithms involving search and optimization [1], mimicking the random-mutation and fitness-selection apparent in natural selection as posed by Darwin.

I define "...improve upon a given basis..." as follows:
A basis is an organism or other self-contained system which can be observed and measured in a manner consistent to the necessary values for a Genetic Algorithm.

To improve strictly states that, given some fitness function, we reduce or increase the value, respectively, for benefit to the basis (i.e. if we have a cost function, the basis seeks to minimize such, to achieve the best results, the converse (or maximization) is true for a fitness function).


The argument is to be structured as such:

  1. Acceptance
  2. Opening Statements/Definitions
  3. Rebuttals
  4. Rebuttals/Closing

If the argument given by any party centers or is significantly impacted by a definition, please be sure to clearly state the definition used—be sure to maintain that the definition is universally accepted.



  1. Place all arguments and sources inside of the debate.
  2. Structure the debate in a legible, coherent manner.
  3. Seeing as such is my case, the burden of proof is my own.


  1. Any and all Mathematical/Computational arguments may be used against, no matter the level or formality of such. Of course, it is also granted that one can use natural observations, et al. I will respond in a manner and language similar to what is initially presented, or explicitly stated, by the acceptance.
  2. Seeing as I am new here, I’ve structured the first argument page in a very similar fashion to that of ‘Microsuck’.





Genetic Algorithms

I accept this debate.

According to pro, although genetic algorithm is defined as a sub-class of adaptive stochastic optimization algorithms, the evidence is not limited to Mathematical/Computational theories. Therefore, as con, I will be utilizing natural observations along with mathematical theories and hearsay to argue my cases. As I have noticed that, under normal circumstance, hearsay cannot be admitted into evidence. Nevertheless, I would still like to introduce this piece of information primarily on the ground that I am a strong believer of such theories. The hearsay therefore should not be construed as evidence to advance my arguments, rather it acts solely as a personal view on the topic. I will be drawing references from the film Prometheus (2012) and the video game Mass Effect

Quotations from Mass Effect:
The Supreme beings articulated in the Video Game Mass Effect are identified as "Reapers." The following quotations are the exchange between Sovereign (Reaper) and Commander Shepard (Human). All quotations are the words of Sovereign.

Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.

There is a realm of existence, so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine. I, am beyond your comprehension, I, am Sovereign.

"Reaper?" A label created by the Protheans [an extinct race], to give voice to their destruction. In the end, what they choose to call us is irrelevant...we simply, are.

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades, you wither and die. We are eternal, and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We, are the end of everything.

Confidence born in ignorance, the cycle cannot be broken. The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Organic civilizations, evolve, advance and at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished.

Your civilization is based on the technology of the Mass Relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire.

We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

My kind transcends your very understanding, we are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence.

End of Quotations.

May both of us enjoy this debate and Let"s begin.
Debate Round No. 1


FourCaroux forfeited this round.


All right. So...
Debate Round No. 2


FourCaroux forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


FourCaroux forfeited this round.


okay okay
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
Although largely true, a species can happen to naturally select weaker members (as humans did) for benefit of an aspect outside of DNA... Just saying...
Posted by KodyHarris 4 years ago
Are you arguing that genetic algorithms "improve" independently of fitness functions?
Posted by FourCaroux 4 years ago
No, not in nature, although I present it as such, because my case should be based upon it (although con is entirely and completely welcome to use any means he wishes, examples/observational arguments, et al, not purely mathematical). Keep in mind, it is simply a restatement of whether Natural Selection does actually lead to an improvement (e.g. is Darwinism a plausible theory, given 3.5-4 billion years (a several million generations and a huge spanning tree) to arrive at human complexity?) of a certain degree?.
And, the case that I'm attempting to make (or debate) is that, no matter which basis is given (other than a 'perfect' or already-optimized basis, which obviously would not give any information about the argument itself) a genetic algorithm, given enough time, will always optimize upon it (i.e. the resulting basis has more 'fitness' than the input basis).
Posted by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
Is this a mathematical debate in nature?
By reading your explanations, it seems that you are suggesting Genetic Algorithm will converge eventually, and there always exist a basis that will speed up the process with enhanced degree of accuracy.
No votes have been placed for this debate.