\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
\pagestyle{empty}
\oddsidemargin 2.1mm
\textwidth     155mm
\topmargin     -15mm
\textheight    240mm

\begin{document}

%-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\noindent
{\bf Evolutionary Algorithms} \hfill Winter 2017/2018 \\
PD~Dr.-Ing.~habil.~Christian~Borgelt \hfill from 2017.11.02

%-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\vskip3ex
\centerline{\bf Organisational Rules for Exam Admission}

\medskip\noindent
The lecture is accompanied by exercise sheets.
At the beginning of each exercise lesson, the exercises are
{\em voted for}. By voting for an exercise, one expresses one's
willingness to present something about it. (Suggestions for a
solution will be discussed, they need not be correct right away.)
To the exam will be admitted who
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep0pt\parskip2pt
\item voted for {\em at least\/} half of the exercises {\em and}
\item presented something for {\em at least\/} two exercises.
\end{enumerate}

%-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\vskip3ex
\centerline{\bf Exercise Sheet 1}

%-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\subsubsection*{Exercise 1 \quad\rm Theory of Evolution}

The biological theory of evolution is heavily criticized, for example,
by the so-called {\em Creationists\/} (who believe that the creation
report as it is given in the Bible is {\em literally\/} correct).
Among others, they put forward the following argument: ``The theory
of evolution cannot explain the complexity of life forms, because it
is based on random trial and error. In analogy, it claims that it is
possible to build a Volkswagen Beetle by filling a large box with a
lot of scrap metal, and then shaking the box long enough. However, it
is pretty obvious that this is no way of building cars. The existence
of things as complex as cars, let alone living organisms, can be
explained only by assuming that there is a(n intelligent) creator.''

\medskip\noindent
Which parts of this argument are correct, which are false? What would
you reply to a Creationist who states this argument? Why do evolutionary
algorithms work (even though an analogous argument can be put forward
against them)?

%-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\subsubsection*{Exercise 2 \quad\rm Theory of Evolution}

Another argument of the Creationists: Many living creatures --- mainly
animals, but also several plants --- reproduce in a sexual fashion.
This has clear disadvantages w.r.t.\ the number of children / the
amount of offspring: in one reproductive cycle, two parents create only
one child (or only one set of children), while asexually reproducing
living creatues produce two (or two sets of) children. Since in the
theory of evolution progeny and reproductive ability are decisive
factors (maximizing the number of children / the amount of offspring),
sexual reproduction could never have developed. However, it clearly
exists, and therefore the theory of evolution must be false.

\medskip\noindent
Which parts of this argument are correct, which are false? What would
you reply to a Creationist who states this argument? Can you think of
evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction?

%-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\newpage

\subsubsection*{Exercise 3 \quad\rm Theory of Evolution}

Yet another argument of the Creationists: ``The theory of evolution
cannot be correct, because it cannot explain the complexity of living
organisms. Merely look at the eye of mammals, e.g., the human eye: it
consists of many different parts (retina, vitreous body, lense, pupil,
muscles, with which it can be moved etc.), all of which have to fit
and work together. This fit an working together can easily be explained
by a(n intelligent) creator, not, however, by the random operation of
evolution, since the individual parts of an eye do not provide an
advantage without the corresponding others. Therefore the eye cannot
have developed slowly, step by step, as the theory of evolution
claims.''

\medskip\noindent
Which parts of this argument are correct, which are false? What would
you reply to a Creationist who states this argument? What follows from
this argument for evolutionary algorithms?

%-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\subsubsection*{Exercise 4 \quad\rm Mendel's Laws}

Collect some information (e.g., by searching the WWW/Internet) about
Mendel's Laws of heredity. What do these laws state? How are these laws
explained by genetics? Do Mendel's Laws also hold for /apply to
evolutionary algorithms?

%-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\end{document}
