Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
> Hmm... How does starting with - 'a few thousand lines of c', - a well-defined 'parameter space', - 'filtering the bad missteps' compare with the real world, where we started with absolutely nothing?
> In the real world, where did the c code come from? What about the filtering rules?
In the real world, the "c code" is called "chemistry", and it comes from the basic laws of nature. The "well defined parameter space" is called "the universe". The "filtering rules" are the simple fact that with the given "c code" and "parameter space", some organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce than others.
Now as to where chemistry, the universe, and everything came from... biology doesn't pretend to address those answers.
> The reason evolutionists have to keep coming up with new proofs of their theory is that the old ones keep getting disproved! Wait until one has lasted a few decades, and then we'll talk.
I'm curious whether you even know what the current theory that explains evolution is, let alone know how long it has been around.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
> Really? I thought abiogenesis was the R&D of Sony's robotic dog. Oh, no - that would be AIBOgenesis.
AIBOgenesis is the robodogs' myth about where they came from.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
> > Yes, they shouldn't say "Darwin Proved Right" (for several reasons).
> Well said, and I assume you would put "irreducible complexity" cheif among them.
No, "irreducible complexity" is utter bunkum made up by Behe to give a pseudo-scientific veneer to his underlying "I don't see how it could happen" argument.
If you want to know how many times the IC argument against biological evolution has been refuted, ask about it on talk.origins. The only interesting research question that IC gives rise to is whether Behe continues to promote it out of idiocy or dishonesty. (Given the number of time it has been debunked, I suspect the latter. But I'm not a mindreader, so maybe I'm wrong about that.)
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
> Here's what this and all genetic algrorithms do NOT address: Getting the genetic code initially from a bunch of extremely unstable chemicals that do NOT want to combine naturally.
a) That's called abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about it.
b) To the extent that chemicals "want" to do anything, the chemicals used in life are in fact very eager to combine. Or do you suggest a miracle for every chemical reaction that happens in your body over the course of your life?
> Louis Pasteur demonstrated a couple of centuries ago that spontaneous generation was junk science. Maybe someday evolutionists will finally take a look at his work.
Actually, Pasteur merely demolished folk notions of flies arising spontaneously in meat and mice arising spontaneously in grain. He did not refute chemistry. And all a planet needs for chemical life to get started is for some sort of chemical self-replicator to form. If the self-replication is imperfect and the environment is rich, evolution can bootstrap the wonders of biology from there.
What the computer simulations show is that Darwin not only thought up one of the best ideas in the history of biology, but that he actually thought up a "law of imperfect replicators" that transcends biological history.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
> The first thought I had when I saw the article (presented on Space.com as "Darwin Proved Right...") was that simulating something in a computer does not necessarily prove anything about the physical world. We can synthesize all sorts of things that have no analogy in nature. EA, AI, are fascinating fields inspired by evolutionary theory, but I fail to see how executing a computer program that assumes evolution in its infrastructure proves anything but that modelling evolution in software works.
Yes, they shouldn't say "Darwin Proved Right" (for several reasons).
However, a simple genetic algorithm instantly refutes many of the most popular claims current in evolution-denial circles, and thus this kind of thing should serve well for informing the public on those claims. (And also inform the public about how uninformed the people making those claims are.)
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
> I think the minor problem of the small number of noisy anti-evolutionists would become even more minor. I mean, it's kind of hard to say that an algorithm doesn't work when you can compile a few thousand lines of c and then watch it work.
Yeah, as soon as I saw the article I thought, "How many evolution deniers will we dredge up this time?".
It would be nice if someone had an on-line hub linking to all the GAs that are free and source-available, so that people could download one and try it themselves, look at the code if they suspected the answer was cheated in, and maybe tweak some parameters to see that both mutation and selection are actually needed for such systems to work. (The evolution deniers on talk.origins are fond of attacking mutation and selection independently, as if one or the other should be sufficient according to the theory of evolution.)
Of course, some puppies would deny peeing on the floor even as you rubbed their nose in it, but we might as well inform those who are informable on matters of science.
> The phrase "free software", especially when used on Slashdot in the context of "free software community" or "free software subculture" as in sinergy's comment [slashdot.org], typically refers to any program licensed to the public under terms that meet these four criteria [gnu.org], some of which require access to the program's source code.
Sorry; I interpreted him in the context of the post he was replying to, which was contrasting "free software" to "the software industry".
In fact I thought about including a mention of Napster, since although it wasn't free (AFAIK), it was invented outside "the software industry".
ISTM that "the software industry" is rarely on the cutting edge anymore. Yes, lots of "free" and "Free" stuff is clonish, but so is most commercial stuff too. Some of the most revolutionary software if the internet age has been spawed outside "the software industry". (I take Napster as the paradigm for that, without regard to freeness.)
> Rogue is not free software. Many direct clones have been released as free software, but the source code to Rogue has never been released.
Not Open Source, but free.
> SSH is a commercial product, released by SSH Communications Security
Originally a free GPL'd product. The company was formed when somebody's hobby product became a hit.
> Mosaic is NOT FREE SOFTWARE. The source is free to the US government and University level educational institutions only.
Again, you're confusing "free" and "Open Source".
> TeX? Yeah... That appears to actually be free software, but i don't know how revolutionary or innovative it ever was, though.
What else do people use in that niche?
And do you have any idea how many textbooks and research papers are set with it in the natural sciences?
> Do some fucking research before you spout drivel and make yourself look like a complete fucking fool.
Dude, it ain't me who's making himself look like a drooling fool.
Oh, BTW. Next time you can save yourself a lot of typing by just posting "No True Scotsman", and we'll be able to derive the gist of your argument from that.
> I move around a lot, and use SSH to log into my machine at home to continue working where I left off. The apps I use:... centericq... mp3blaster... dcd... cdrecord... abcde...
> I use a PII 333 as my server and desktop, and I have very little incentive to upgrade. If you want to give an example of a bitty box you can't run X on, pick something lower down in the pecking order.
We used to run it on 200MHz Pentium Pro boxen at work, with our number crunching jobs running nice in the background.
I can't say I'm unhappy to use faster machines now, but that's what we had at the time and it worked.
> I guarantee you, if you follow these directions to the letter and use halfway decent ingredients and equipment, these will be the BEST steaks you've ever eaten. Period.
* What public policy and management issues or challenges are most amenable to computer-based gaming techniques?
Global Thermonuclear War.
* What existing and emerging game technologies (such as multi-user, virtual environments) might be particularly useful when applied to policy or management issues?
Global Thermonuclear War.
* How can we quickly expand the application of computer-based games to a much wider range of key challenges facing our government and other public or private organizations?
Global Thermonuclear War.
* How do we identify and proactively deal with any social, ethical, and/or legal issues that might arise through the application of game-based tools to public policy and management issues?
Slashdot Mirror
> Hmm... How does starting with
- 'a few thousand lines of c',
- a well-defined 'parameter space',
- 'filtering the bad missteps'
compare with the real world, where we started with absolutely nothing?
> In the real world, where did the c code come from? What about the filtering rules?
In the real world, the "c code" is called "chemistry", and it comes from the basic laws of nature. The "well defined parameter space" is called "the universe". The "filtering rules" are the simple fact that with the given "c code" and "parameter space", some organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce than others.
Now as to where chemistry, the universe, and everything came from... biology doesn't pretend to address those answers.
> The reason evolutionists have to keep coming up with new proofs of their theory is that the old ones keep getting disproved! Wait until one has lasted a few decades, and then we'll talk.
I'm curious whether you even know what the current theory that explains evolution is, let alone know how long it has been around.
> Really? I thought abiogenesis was the R&D of Sony's robotic dog. Oh, no - that would be AIBOgenesis.
AIBOgenesis is the robodogs' myth about where they came from.
> > Yes, they shouldn't say "Darwin Proved Right" (for several reasons).
> Well said, and I assume you would put "irreducible complexity" cheif among them.
No, "irreducible complexity" is utter bunkum made up by Behe to give a pseudo-scientific veneer to his underlying "I don't see how it could happen" argument.
If you want to know how many times the IC argument against biological evolution has been refuted, ask about it on talk.origins. The only interesting research question that IC gives rise to is whether Behe continues to promote it out of idiocy or dishonesty. (Given the number of time it has been debunked, I suspect the latter. But I'm not a mindreader, so maybe I'm wrong about that.)
> Here's what this and all genetic algrorithms do NOT address: Getting the genetic code initially from a bunch of extremely unstable chemicals that do NOT want to combine naturally.
a) That's called abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about it.
b) To the extent that chemicals "want" to do anything, the chemicals used in life are in fact very eager to combine. Or do you suggest a miracle for every chemical reaction that happens in your body over the course of your life?
> Louis Pasteur demonstrated a couple of centuries ago that spontaneous generation was junk science. Maybe someday evolutionists will finally take a look at his work.
Actually, Pasteur merely demolished folk notions of flies arising spontaneously in meat and mice arising spontaneously in grain. He did not refute chemistry. And all a planet needs for chemical life to get started is for some sort of chemical self-replicator to form. If the self-replication is imperfect and the environment is rich, evolution can bootstrap the wonders of biology from there.
What the computer simulations show is that Darwin not only thought up one of the best ideas in the history of biology, but that he actually thought up a "law of imperfect replicators" that transcends biological history.
> The first thought I had when I saw the article (presented on Space.com as "Darwin Proved Right
Yes, they shouldn't say "Darwin Proved Right" (for several reasons).
However, a simple genetic algorithm instantly refutes many of the most popular claims current in evolution-denial circles, and thus this kind of thing should serve well for informing the public on those claims. (And also inform the public about how uninformed the people making those claims are.)
> I think the minor problem of the small number of noisy anti-evolutionists would become even more minor. I mean, it's kind of hard to say that an algorithm doesn't work when you can compile a few thousand lines of c and then watch it work.
Yeah, as soon as I saw the article I thought, "How many evolution deniers will we dredge up this time?".
It would be nice if someone had an on-line hub linking to all the GAs that are free and source-available, so that people could download one and try it themselves, look at the code if they suspected the answer was cheated in, and maybe tweak some parameters to see that both mutation and selection are actually needed for such systems to work. (The evolution deniers on talk.origins are fond of attacking mutation and selection independently, as if one or the other should be sufficient according to the theory of evolution.)
Of course, some puppies would deny peeing on the floor even as you rubbed their nose in it, but we might as well inform those who are informable on matters of science.
> > It would be t00 c00l if he had a brush with James Bond in the movie.
> Uh oh, I smell another cheap action movie crossover
Starring Eddie Murphy and Jackie Chan, though I haven't figured out who gets which part.
> It's set in the 1950's.
It would be t00 c00l if he had a brush with James Bond in the movie.
> Every actor offered the superman role has turned it down. They are afraid of the curse of the superman typecast.
Isn't Ford afraid of the Jones typecast?
> navy penguin
That's the guys who weren't quite tough enough to make the Seals, right?
> So, yes, it was anti-Bush propaganda, because Bush wants the SDI.
Ah, yes. His faith-based missle defense.
> I've already got it... I can't even lauch my rocket now
Ask your doctor about Viagra.
> The phrase "free software", especially when used on Slashdot in the context of "free software community" or "free software subculture" as in sinergy's comment [slashdot.org], typically refers to any program licensed to the public under terms that meet these four criteria [gnu.org], some of which require access to the program's source code.
Sorry; I interpreted him in the context of the post he was replying to, which was contrasting "free software" to "the software industry".
In fact I thought about including a mention of Napster, since although it wasn't free (AFAIK), it was invented outside "the software industry".
ISTM that "the software industry" is rarely on the cutting edge anymore. Yes, lots of "free" and "Free" stuff is clonish, but so is most commercial stuff too. Some of the most revolutionary software if the internet age has been spawed outside "the software industry". (I take Napster as the paradigm for that, without regard to freeness.)
> Yes, except the aircraft carrier was actually only 30 miles from San Diego.
Ooops, I missed that detail.
(You can tell his campaign funds aren't going to be well spent on the likes of me.)
> Rogue is not free software. Many direct clones have been released as free software, but the source code to Rogue has never been released.
Not Open Source, but free.
> SSH is a commercial product, released by SSH Communications Security
Originally a free GPL'd product. The company was formed when somebody's hobby product became a hit.
> Mosaic is NOT FREE SOFTWARE. The source is free to the US government and University level educational institutions only.
Again, you're confusing "free" and "Open Source".
> TeX? Yeah... That appears to actually be free software, but i don't know how revolutionary or innovative it ever was, though.
What else do people use in that niche?
And do you have any idea how many textbooks and research papers are set with it in the natural sciences?
> Do some fucking research before you spout drivel and make yourself look like a complete fucking fool.
Dude, it ain't me who's making himself look like a drooling fool.
Oh, BTW. Next time you can save yourself a lot of typing by just posting "No True Scotsman", and we'll be able to derive the gist of your argument from that.
> Oh yeah? Well, in *my* day we used a 486 with 16MB of RAM to serve up file and print sharing on Novell 3.1x for 50 users! And we liked it!!
I've got a 486SX25 in the bottom of my closet w/ IIRC 4MB RAM, and I confess that I've never felt any urge to drag it out and install X on it.
> I will agree with you once the free software subculture actually comes out with something that is NOT A CLONE of a commercial product.
TeX? Mosaic? SSH? Rogue?
How frikken many commercial clones of Rogue and Mosaic have we seen?
Some of the most genuinely innovative stuff we've got had its origin in the free software subculture.
> I move around a lot, and use SSH to log into my machine at home to continue working where I left off. The apps I use:
'Work'?
> I use a PII 333 as my server and desktop, and I have very little incentive to upgrade. If you want to give an example of a bitty box you can't run X on, pick something lower down in the pecking order.
We used to run it on 200MHz Pentium Pro boxen at work, with our number crunching jobs running nice in the background.
I can't say I'm unhappy to use faster machines now, but that's what we had at the time and it worked.
> If they ever find the missing 90%...
I think it has been converted to sock puppets on the internet.
We hardly ever heard complaints about missing mass before the internet came around, you know.
> I'm actually the observer, not the operator.
"...but let the engine jump the track and see who catches hell!"
> I guarantee you, if you follow these directions to the letter and use halfway decent ingredients and equipment, these will be the BEST steaks you've ever eaten. Period.
I'd rather just swing by Krusty's for a ribwich.
> I thought Iraq kept their WMD in heaven?
Now each CIA operative is being required to frisk 72 virgins in search of the missing WMD.
> Bush advisors mentioned that he will start his reelection on ground zero this september 11
Whereas in fact he already started it on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
* What public policy and management issues or challenges are most amenable to computer-based gaming techniques?
Global Thermonuclear War.
* What existing and emerging game technologies (such as multi-user, virtual environments) might be particularly useful when applied to policy or management issues?
Global Thermonuclear War.
* How can we quickly expand the application of computer-based games to a much wider range of key challenges facing our government and other public or private organizations?
Global Thermonuclear War.
* How do we identify and proactively deal with any social, ethical, and/or legal issues that might arise through the application of game-based tools to public policy and management issues?
Global Thermonuclear War.