19 Oct 06
2 edits
A fast comment...
The key was in Scott's post:
...is it possible to create small sections of intelligible and coherent information by random
chance? If so, and that can be conserved, then an evolutionary type process could easily
[yield the diversity on earth we observe].
The key is the conservation of traits. Natural pressures are what lead to the conservation of tiny
mutations; if it is better to be bigger, or have a beak that is long and pointy to dig out worms, or
to have better eyesight, then the creatures that have those desirable traits will be more likely to
survive and consequently more likely to pass on those traits.
In Freaky's initial example, the generator offered a purely random series of letters, where each
subsequent iteration took nothing from the preceding one. If, he was trying to arrive at a particular
result (such as, 'In the beginning...'😉, then, when a capital 'I' finally manifested in the first slot,
the generator would have to make it more likely for it to stay than leave in order to have a simulation
that resembled the evolutionary model.
Nemesio
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by NemesioThat's exactly correct.
A fast comment...
The key was in Scott's post:
...is it possible to create small sections of intelligible and coherent information by random
chance? If so, and [b]that can be conserved, then an evolutionary type process could easily
[yield the diversity on earth we observe].
The key is the conservation of traits. Natural pressures ar ...[text shortened]... han leave in order to have a simulation
that resembled the evolutionary model.
Nemesio[/b]
Here is a real example: http://www.generation5.org/content/2003/gahelloworld.asp
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI am not so sure, actually.
That's exactly correct.
Here is a real example: http://www.generation5.org/content/2003/gahelloworld.asp
In this model, it appears that whenever the correct letter appears, it stays. That isn't quite the
evolutionary model, either. It's merely more likely to stay, not guaranteed.
Nemesio
19 Oct 06
26 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNo, that's not so. Only a portion of the model's implementation -- that portion responsible for evaluating the fitness of each member of the population -- is shown. These fitness values are but one factor in a stochastic process implemented by other components of the model that carry out selection and reproduction.
In this model, it appears that whenever the correct letter appears, it stays.
Visit this page on the same site for a more complete but very abstract overview of the algorithm:
http://www.generation5.org/content/2000/ga.asp
The bit of code found at the original link corresponds only to the "Evaluate Fitness" step of the general algorithm described in the overview.
Your concern is addressed specifically under the subsequent Reproduce step: "Those chromosomes with a higher fitness value are more likely to reproduce offspring" and "can mutate after reproduction;" in the application at hand, no particular letter is ever permanently fixed.
Note that the output at the original link depicts only the best individual in a population of 2048 at each generation. This is why you don't see any correct letters reverting to incorrect ones - such reverting surely happens in many of the other 2047 members of the population not shown at each generation. That's also a bit of luck -- in general, it could very well be the case, depending on the algorithm's implementation, that the best individual in some current generation will be more fit than all individuals of the following generation if the population gets very unlucky. The more difficult the problem, the more likely you are to observe that. If instead of "Hello World!" the test string was some post from the Great Debate of '06, you would almost surely see correct letters appear and disappear from each generation's best solution.
Dr. S
P.S. Actually, you do see an instance of a correct letter disappear even in the toy example. Consider the fifth position "o" that appears in the solution marked with a fitness value of 11. It disappears for an "n" and then reappears. I see at least two other examples as well - you can find them if you look hard. (I wish I had seen this on edit 1 instead of edit 25. Then I'd just correct the main body of my post. But after polishing it so well, I'm leaving it as is, with this addendum.)
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWe have had this discussion before. Please define species before making such claims as last time we had the discussion you slowly changed your claim to only cover 'kinds' which you refused to define.
The small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify. The lines between say, dog and cat have never been crossed; can never be crossed. Characteristics within genes cannot be shown to leap (even ever so slowly) from one species to another.
If you use a scientific definition of the term species then your statement is false and proovably so keeping in mind that due to the enormously large possible number of life forms it is highly unlikely for one species to evolve into another species that has evolved in the past so a dog evolving into a cat is highly improbable. But a dog evolving into two distinct species is possible.
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat receiver and what meaning?
[b]Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants.
I see. So de Vries found a plant that became... a plant. Congratulations. Nobel, anyone?
DNA is not a means of communication between two intelligences.
Exactly. And yet, miraculously, genetic information is somehow able to transfer information (random, ...[text shortened]... rrupt information) on to a receiver who is able to get the intended meaning, despite all errors.[/b]
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA new species was detected, and no one with any knowledge of biology knows what you're talking about when you babble about "types".
I am now claiming what I was then claiming, i.e., no new speices was detected. Type within type is not a new speices, and (as pointed out previously) not a new path capable of reproduction.
O. gigas is quite fertile. Don't make stuff up. It was described as "self-fertile".
there is no indication of taxa-related speciation
What does that mean?
I recommend you look at this thread:
Thread 22541
Notice how nobody was able to provide scientifically rigorous definitions for many terms used by creationists/IDers. You guys throw these made up words around but refuse to clarify what exactly you mean by them.
19 Oct 06
Random mutation can be used to improve the quality of other RHP users' posts. Here's one by Philodor:
cD29xhePjIer8FdMmy GJnR,itSCeks0toStVx T1koid1txrocb,1EMh4Jf-20ZZQ GF5uUAtntcgVverpPe-N5MeHR xcwmFallYwWd88h1m to8esKub,iph tnAiP-evHC Kre-QdEK007HkwnGigPqsM2bx,c,uEfzQc1Bft-zYuPp3lJ yJbm3e-E
A lot better, don't you think?
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's not fair, anything would improve Philidor's posts.
Random mutation can be used to improve the quality of other RHP users' posts. Here's one by Philodor:
cD29xhePjIer8FdMmy GJnR,itSCeks0toStVx T1koid1txrocb,1EMh4Jf-20ZZQ GF5uUAtntcgVverpPe-N5MeHR xcwmFallYwWd88h1m to8esKub,iph tnAiP-evHC Kre-QdEK007HkwnGigPqsM2bx,c,uEfzQc1Bft-zYuPp3lJ yJbm3e-E
A lot better, don't you think?
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by EsotericThis thread was about mutant ninjas. No mention of turtles was made in the origional post just as no mention of evolution was made.
Damn, I thought this thread was about the heroes in a half shell. Turtle power!
Iterestingly enough the Title answers conclusively the question being asked:
"Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information? "
The random removal of one word (turtle) resulted in "coherent and intelligble information".
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadCowabunga!
This thread was about mutant ninjas. No mention of turtles was made in the origional post just as no mention of evolution was made.
Iterestingly enough the Title answers conclusively the question being asked:
"Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information? "
The random removal of one word (turtle) resulted in "coherent and intelligble information".
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by NemesioIt is just this type of assertion that (for whatever unknown reason) the die-hard evolutionist just can't seem to get his opposable thumbs around. In a trial-and-error system, only error is truly known. That which works simply works right now, and there can be no preference without a results-oriented intelligence entering the picture. This type of forward-thinking eliminates accomodating language such as 'preference,' 'selection,' or etc.
A fast comment...
The key was in Scott's post:
...is it possible to create small sections of intelligible and coherent information by random
chance? If so, and [b]that can be conserved, then an evolutionary type process could easily
[yield the diversity on earth we observe].
The key is the conservation of traits. Natural pressures ar ...[text shortened]... han leave in order to have a simulation
that resembled the evolutionary model.
Nemesio[/b]
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs the post provided previously says, defining what makes a speices a speices is vague and impercise. For instance, to this day, we see differences within man in such areas as skin tone, eye shape, and etc., and deem to delineate 'race,' when 'people groups' is more accurate--- especially when considering things at the genetic level.
We have had this discussion before. Please define species before making such claims as last time we had the discussion you slowly changed your claim to only cover 'kinds' which you refused to define.
If you use a scientific definition of the term species then your statement is false and proovably so keeping in mind that due to the enormously large possib ...[text shortened]... ing into a cat is highly improbable. But a dog evolving into two distinct species is possible.
When considering speication, I suggest that type determines orientation, regardless of microscopic dissimilarities. It is not I who split the hairs of the physical world, but rather, scientists who themselves are experiencing difficulty in making clear-cut distinctions.