Will you make up your mind, first you agree with the grandparent poster that one particular example doesn't prove the general case, and then you make the claim that the SCA example does suggest the general case is zero sum.
I have made up my mind. The parent of my post made a statement that was factually correct: SCA does not "prove" that positive mutations can't happen. I then go on to show that everything from SCA to genetic manipulation has so far shown us that genetics is a zero sum game. It's perfectly possible that it's not, but we haven't yet proved it either way. All we have is a mountain of data that suggests genetics is a zero-sum game.
Come on man, make up your mind! which side of the fence are you on?
How is that scientific? If you always approach a problem from the angle that "X must be right", then you'll never make any new discoveries. If something can be observed then proven to be true, then we must adjust our world-view and move on.
It is worth noting that there is a natural bias towards observing negative mutations, not only are they probably far more common but also they stand out against the background, i.e. when people start dieing, or are born with gills, or no legs then people are going to notice pretty damn quick and start saying "ohhhh, mutation==bad!"
This is quite true.
however a beneficial mutation (for example a resistance to the common cold) is much more likely to go unnoticed at first,
The difficulty here is that until we can isolate and identify "positive" mutations, they are nothing but speculation. It's possible that it's just a matter of time before such mutations are discovered, but we can't say they exist until we can demonstrate them. It's a bit like Tachyons in physics. Theory said they should exist, therefore they existed, right? (If it's on Star Trek, it must be true!) Turns out that Tachyons are now considered to have been a "glitch" in string theory that has now been worked out. No time-traveling phantom particle, sorry.
as it is a lot harder to notice or prove that something hasn't happened during a persons lifetime.
It's very difficult to prove a lot of things in science. That's what we have laboratories for. By direct manipulation of creatures with short life spans, scientists can observe how genetics work and test theories on how a positive mutation might be induced. With more and more computing power at their disposal, it should only be a short time before we're able to begin very fast computer modeling of entire genomes.
The first surprise has already come in the form of shorter gene sequences than predicted. It wouldn't surprise me if biologists find themselves completely rewriting the books on genetics in the near future. If there's anything that physics has taught me, it's that the Universe is not one to easily give up its secrets.
I apologise if you took offence at being called a troll earlier, I meant it in the original sense of someone who deliberately posts inflammatory content in the hopes of sparking a debate. (anti-evolution posts certainly qualify on Slashdot)
Apology accepted, but with one caveat. I never claimed that evolution was false. It's not very nice to stomp all over the theories of others just because you don't like it. My specific complaint was the outright confusion caused by the "micro-evolution" renaming of environmental adaption. I don't like it, because no link has been demonstrated. This gives people the mistaken impression that they can write software using genetic adaption type algorithms, and actually produce software that "evolves" in the macro-evolutionary sense. The truth is that the software doesn't go anywhere. It merely "adapts" to the situation at hand until the most powerful solution can be found.
As for calling you a creationist.... well are you are aren't you, you claim to not believe in evolution, so how do you think we got here?
Hardly. The IMPS RFC is just my favorite. Every time someone starts talking about the "infinite moneys with typewriters" problem, I whip out the RFC and say "Make sure it's RFC compliant!!!":-)
The typical UTS terminal connected to Unisys 1100 and 2200 mainframes in the 80's and 90's did all text and screen editing (line/character insertions and deletions) locally and could protect, justify, and even selectively enforce input in defined character fields on the screen without communicating with the host box at all.
The T27's were definitely awesome. They even had a feature to where you could dump ONLY the data back from the mainframe, and the terminal would put it all in the right place. The entire screen only needed to update when the user changed program screens.
Of course, this little feature wreaked havoc with the various terminal emulators. Most of them completely failed to understand how to handle the data returned by the mainframe. (You hear me Core?! We don't want your overpriced stuff, or your 30 phone calls a year!) I eventually had to write my own emulator via telnet, that was able to understand how the data was received from the mainframe. I then had to pass special terminal codes (which I can't remember for the life of me; I think it was ESC-W) to then send the data back without the screen. Fun little hack that was. And put all those $50,000+ emulators to shame.
I don't believe you understand the word "evolution". Evolution is not a huge jump that rapidly redefines something, it's an almost unnoticable change over time.
No, the current theories state that it is a unnoticable change over a long period of time. On a higher level, evolution simply states that major changes occurred over a long period of time. It also states that those changes occurred in an "organic vacuum". e.g. Lungs developed where no lungs had ever existed before.
Evolution can be understood as a search through a problem space. The caching algorithm sets up a problem space of "all possible caching algorithms". A P2P server would be completely outside of the problem space and thus irrelavent.
If that was really the case, then higher organisms should never have developed. The problem space for the "simple" organism was to survive in its wet environment. I believe you named colonies of amebas as an example of "vestigal organisms" at one point. Without arguing that point, what forced these successful organisms to then develop different cell types? How did different cell types improve their success rate? From there, how did developing complex DNA improve their success rate? From there, how did specialized macro-organs improve their success rate?
In evolutionary theory, the "simple" life form was striving to become a better adapted life form. It obviously exceeded its problem space by a wide margin, or you and I would not be having this discussion today. Thus if GAs are really indicitive of "real" evolution, then why can't they eventually evolve into "higher algorithms"? A P2P network could very well improve the GA's success rate for its problem domain. It can start by accidentally reusing its network connections, then accidentally making contact with other cache hosts with the same mutation, then it can evolve a protocol by accidentally learning each communication packet through a torrent of random spam packets, etc.
While that sounds somewhat silly, that's not my point. My point is that evolution states exactly that sort of behavior over a long enough period of time. If a GA is a good emulation of micro-evolution, and macro-evolution is based on micro-evolution, then shouldn't we be able to compute a set of mutations that take the program out of its pre-programmed algorithms? Shouldn't it be able to leverage parameters that we didn't program it to leverage?
Why? Just because you give an example of where this is true (Sickle-cell anaemia), doesn't mean it is generally true.
Correct.
Why can't a random mutation be beneficial without bad side-effects?
Because no positive mutation has ever been shown. Every mutation ever observed results in a delterous effect on the organism. SCA is the best example anyone has ever given of a "positive" mutation.
In fact, SCA makes the perfect point that genetics is a zero-sum game. To gain certain advantages, some must be given up. This always confused me when I was working in the livestock genetics field. All the charts of the cows' features always appeared to sum to the exact center. i.e. The perfect cow was a perfectly average cow. Well, I spoke with my colleagues and learned I was correct. All we were doing was breeding for some "desirable" features (often fads) at the expense of other features of the cow.
Granted, I am not an evolutionary geneticist, but all evidence I've seen tends to suggest that genetics *is* a zero-sum game. You simply can't give to Peter without taking from Paul.
Sure, the kind of mutation that is solely beneficial may be exceedingly rare, but that isn't proof that it can't happen.
Proving the negative in this case is uselss as the only way to prove the negative is to prove the positive. No mutation has ever been shown to be helpful to an organism without introducing serious negative effects. If you know of a mutation that is only positive, then I would make a most captive audience to your presentation.
So long as the good outweighs the bad, the mutation will be selected for. This is exactly what happens with SCA. The carriers are resistant to malaria. If this helps them (or siblings with only one copy of the gene) to survive to child-rearing age, then it will be selected for.
Creating a 1 in 4 chance of a very early death is not a "good" result. It can help in the short term, but only if a sufficient genetic pool is maintained to later breed out the negative condition. In this example, the African population is huge, but 1 in 13 African Americans still carry this mutation. And how useful is the mutation if it must later be bred out of the genetic stock?
Not to worry! Someone decided that some of the most useful (and dry) knowledge on the 'net needed some (also dry) humor. Thus I give you: RFC2795, The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)!!!
Wrong movie there, bub. Looker predated Tron by over a year, and it actually FEATURED the trash robots running around. Just watch out for the bad guys with their "invisio-flashy-thingy" guns.
Believe it or not, the popularity of DVDs is probably contributing to movies improving. It used to be that they could release a stinky movie with a "catch" (e.g. Jennifer Lopez, The Hulk, etc.), and they could be guaranteed an amazing opening week. The fact that no one really wanted to see the movie again was small potatoes. The cost of improving the movie would be more expensive than it was worth.
Cue DVDs in 2004. Suddenly, the studio execs realize that 52% of their profits are now coming from people who've seen the movie, but want a permanent or "collector's" copy. Studios thus decide that they need to create really good movies so they can sell you the DVDs 3 times over. (Original, Special Edition, and Collector's Edition. Of course, I'm still waiting for the collectors edition of Nemesis with the extra hour of footage. Hello?! Are B&B listening?! Wait, what am I saying...)
BTW, when did we confuse the MPAA with the RIAA? Last I knew, the MPAA's biggest crime was the whole DeCSS thing. They actually took a halfway decent approach to piracy with their (admittedly lame) commercials. They've actually been claiming that more blame belongs to the "cell-phone users" who IM their friends that a movie sucks.
That is one of the facts that it explains, not the definition. You're doing the equivalent of saying that a ball falling is the definition of gravity. Evolution is the collection of mechanisms by which these occur, which under the modern synthesis is by various alleles changing over time in a population.
My argument is that "micro-evolution" has not been shown to be the mechanism by which "macro-evolution" can occur. The results of environmental adaption and genetic mutations are well known, but no one has yet shown how a new biological process can derive from one that currently does not exist inside the genome. For example, if humans lack the genome for an exoskeleton, and exoskeletons are "nature's selection" for space survivability, then the "micro-evolutionary theory" says that humans who live in space should eventually experience genetic mutations from which exoskeleton code will appear. The only mechanism that has been provably demonstrated is that existing codes can be reorganized to produce oddities such as legs growing from eye sockets, or extra thoraxes. (Source) Thus evolution is still described as a process, but the mechanism is still a topic of debate.
And oddly, stages between single cell and multicell still exist. The Volvox are single cell creatures that only function in colonies. A colony is a sphere that can grow a daughter colony inside it, then give birth to a new colony. Yet all of the cells involved are generic, not specialized into tissues. Sponge and jellyfish are on the other end of the gap. They both show tissue level specialization without organs. [snip]
Such as a mud skippers and lung fish? They both occupy niches and use mechanism similar to the first air-breathers using modified gills and air bladders, respectively.
I'm not arguing the concept of evolution. I'm merely arguing that "micro-evolution" is not a proven method for such macro change. Until evidence exists to show that these sorts of biological changes can occur via genetic adaption and mutations, the name "micro-evolution" will continue to confuse things. In terms of "Genetic Algorithms", things have become particularly confused. The system will never develop a "new" algorithm, it will simply decided which combinations best meet the current environment. Nothing "evolves" through the process, merely "adapts".
But that would be pointless since only theorems that existed in the orginal data and algorithms "will rise to the top".
I hardly stated that GA's were "pointless". The idea is fine. However, it doesn't produce "evolution". A GA "caching" algorithm, for example, will never be able to "evolve" a P2P network to leverage existing caches like itself. It can't do that because the code doesn't exist.
Similarly, no code existed in nature for "micro-evolution" to "mutate" lungs, electrical impulse handling, circulatory systems, etc. Either there are properties to "micro-evolution" that have not yet been revealed, or some other (possibly related) mechanism must be responsible.
The two processes you are describing are the same thing. One simply takes a lot longer.
No, they are theorized to be related. Macro level changes require a mechanism more sophisticated than that of "micro-evolution". "Micro-evolution" requires an existing genome from which to pull, and only allows for a small degree of genetic mutation. As I replied to another poster, Sickle-cell anemia is a perfect example of a mutation that "helps" by resisting malaria, but it has the side effect of an early death for the organism.
In fact, SCA makes the perfect point that genetics is a zero-sum game. To gain certain advantages, some must be given up. This always confused me when I was working in the livestock genetics field. All the charts of the cows' features always appeared to sum to the exact center. i.e. The perfect cow was a perfectly average cow. Well, I spoke with my colleagues and learned I was correct. All we were doing was breeding for some "desirable" features (often fads) at the expense of other features of the cow.
One of the problems with creationists is that they have a hard time conceiving of the incredibly vast amount of time that has passed which makes macroevolution possible.
No, I have no problem with the amount of time. I have a problem that "micro-evolution" is not a sufficient process for "macro-evolution". Theorists divide the two because they are not provably related. From Wikipedia:
There are two proposed mechanisms for macroevolution. The first way is through the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes. Tiny microevolutions, over sufficient time, add up and accumulate in isolated populations and eventually result in new species. The second way in which "macroevolution" is believed to occur is through sudden and rapid changes. This theory, punctuated equilibrium, put forth by Stephen Jay Gould, is based on the fact that there are critical genes (such as the homeobox) in all living organisms, and a small change in them could cause drastic changes in the organism, resulting in a new species quite rapidly.
[snip]
The additional information needed for these structures did not arise from the mutation, of course, but existed elsewhere in the animal's DNA and was replicated at the novel location.
No provable link yet exists between micro and macro evolution. Until such a link is proven, the term "micro-evolution" continues to be misleading.
What idea? That creationists are the only people I have heard use the terms? From the fact that they are the only ones I have heard use the terms. Read it carefully. No where did I say that they aren't scientific terms. I am well aware that they are. Creationists have latched onto them and gotten it into their heads that they are two different things.
Then I believe, sir, you are trolling. If they are scientific concepts, then claiming that creationists are the only ones who vocalize them is an underhanded way of insulting anyone who discusses the topic.
Sir, I requested intelligent discussion, but you yourself have taken to trolling. First you make an accusation ("creationist troll") which neither has any bearing on the subject, nor is in any way true. You will note that I never suggested that evolution is a "made up" process. That is outside the realm of this discussion. All I claimed is that the "Macro/Micro" division is an as-of-yet-unsupportable position that causes a great deal of confusion. The algorithm described in the article will not "evolve" in the "macro-evolutionary" sense, but will instead adapt in the "micro-evolutionary" sense.
1. Survival of the fittest (what you call environmental adaptation) starts with a population with a mixture of genes and states that those best able to reproduce in the current environment will probably make up a larger percentage of the next generation.
Exactly. It allows the organism to best meet its current environment. However, it cannot be the vehicle for the creation of new, nonexistent biological processes. The mechanism for that must be much different as organisms must have evolved from a "simple" organism, to a "complex" one.
2. Genetic crossover during reproduction and random mutation, happens to keep the gene pool mixed and introduces new adaptations. This provides the "raw material" for survival of the fittest to work on.
Random mutations only gain you so much, and in all cases are also harmful in the same way they are helpful. Sickle-cell anemia is an example of a mutation that is used to adapt to the environment (resistance to malaria), but has negative side effects on the gene pool (causes early death in nearly all who contract it). The process that took a "simple" organism to a "complex" organism must therefore be far more sophisticated.
ARRGGHHHHH why did I bother writing all this, I know you are a troll.
Insult number 2. Why can't people discuss this topic without throwing around insults? I'm not sitting here trying to convince people that evolution is an incorrect theory. I'm merely complaining about the confusion caused by mixing the ability of an organism to adapt using its existing genome as opposed to the concept of a more complex organism forming from a simpler one. I suppose I knew what I was getting into when I posted.
I wish the mods had given you a +5. My peeve is exactly what you describe: that "evolution" is being used as an analogy rather than a realistic description of what it does. "Genetic Algorithms" is a fine name, and "breeding" is an accurate concept. But "evolving" is misleading to a very extreme degree. There's no need to describe the process as "evolution", yet CS researchers persist in doing so.
That being said, it can be a great tool for auto-adjusting software to its environment. If it works out, it may even be applicable to robotics where the concept can help the robots act more "intelligently". (e.g. Stop trying to drive over rocks and "learn" to drive around them.)
Breeding is fundamental to evolution, whether it be sexual reproduction or asexual splitting.
Breeding is fundamental to life. Life is fundamental to evolution. Evolution tries to describe how organic soup could form simple organisms that become progressively more complex.
You seem to assume that the genes are unitary, descrete entities - that evolution occurs when, (to use your example) a giraffe suddenly gets the correct genes to develop gills. Genetics is much more complex than this.
Genetics is certainly more complex than that. But as for a sudden change of no gills->gills, it depends on who you talk to. Some theorists have suggested that changes did indeed happen rapidly. This would explain how the fossil record shows changes happening at a rapid pace, with very little in the way of "in-between" states. Other theorists suggest that things were more gradual, but at a level that is more difficult to notice. Either way, they agree on one point: a "simple" organism went through large degrees of change to develop biological processes that didn't exist when the the organism was first formed. Thus in some way, shape, or form, the organism was able to "create" new concepts.
The genetic algorithm we're discussing doesn't do that. It simply creates a new "mix" of algos that work best for the current environment. While there's nothing wrong with that, the algo isn't going to cause the computer to eventually develop an intelligent neural net. (Unless a human added neural net code, that is.)
The article and my own words stated the same thing. Information on the previous "generation" is used to adapt to the current environment. No "new" algorithm is "evolved", merely a new combination of existing algorithms.
As I understand it - from my reading of Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins - you've just described evolution. Perhaps you're using a different, far more strict definition of the word?
My statement is that "macro-evolution" is the basic concept of evolution. i.e. A single celled organism can become multi-celled, develop DNA, separate into different cell types, etc., etc., etc. "Micro-evolution" is really just a shoe-horning of environmental adaption into evolutionary theory. While it adds the concept of "genetic mutations" to the DNA, it fails to consider the fact that DNA is a trait that had to "evolve" itself. A "simple" one celled organism would have lacked the concepts necessary to process and create complex DNA.
ANY environmental adaptation of genetic code over multiple generations is evolution.
No, it's been shoe-horned into the theory. Evolution is a concept that a new, higher level trait will develop when no prior concept exists. For example, a single celled organism will become multi-celled, multi-celled with develop "cell types", and "cell types" will organize to produce higher systems (circulatory, digestion, nervous, brain, etc.). That's the theory. It's a fine that it's being worked on, and I have no issue with that. But adaption to environment is a different concept. They can theorize that it's related in some way, shape, or form, but until someone can show that new genetics suddenly "appear" through the same process, you can't force the two concepts together.
If fact, creationists are the only ones that I have ever heard use the terms.
I don't know where you ever got that idea. I'd never heard of the terms until evolutionary texts started using them. As usual, Wikipedia has the info.
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Pure and simple, that's all it is. Check any evolutionary biology book.
No, it's not that simple. Evolution has been defined as changes adding up enough so that a single celled organism becomes a multi-celled organism, which develops RNA and DNA, which then grows in complexity to develop various "macro" level systems such as a cardio-pulminary system, a digestive tract, a nervous system, and a central control "brain" system. Each of these changes requires a macro change of which no predecessor exists in the current chain of organics.
The notion of giraffes sprouting gills is absurd and not even remotely what evolution is except in the creationist strawmen.
Actually, my first example was the very real issue of a single celled ameba becoming multi-celled. A giraffe sprouting gills would be an evolutionary change, but is highly unlikely. A more realistic example is a fish developing lungs. According to the current theories, most life originated in the ocean. I don't remember if the current thought is that lungs and gills developed simultaneously or if they developed in unison. Either way, the effect is much the same. A low order life form developed features not currently in its genetic makeup.
It's like saying that water can move grains of sand, but there's no proof that a lot of water will eventually erode a beach.
That's a perfectly valid assumption. How do you know that grains of sand don't get carried down to replace the ones that are eroded? Without proof that the grains are carried away without being replaced, you only have a supposition. You must have evidence to make it a workable theory, and absolute proof to call it a fact.
The evolutionary algorithm will have a range of all possible algorithms that can be developed, so in a sense it is limited to "test various algorithms", though it would be testing all possible algorithms.
Which is exactly my point. No new algorithm will be generated through the "genetic breeding". Only existing algorithms will rise to the top.
I'm actually a bit surprised that neural nets haven't yet entered common usage. In theory, such a net would be far more "intelligent" (sort of) in making decisions.
e.g. This page looks a lot like a truly dynamic page, so let's not cache it. Over here, this is dynamic, but only slightly so. Let's cache it and index the most likely path the user will take.
Have CS researchers given up on the neural net approach, or are the nets still far too unstable for real world use?
I know I'm going to get myself into trouble for saying this, but "breeding" is NOT evolution! It's environmental adaption! Evolution implies that a major change occurs in the organism for which no preceding genetic code existed. e.g. An ameba suddenly mutates into a multi-celled configuration. Or a giraffe suddenly develops gills. Breeding, OTOH, merely pushes various existing genetic codes to become dominate. e.g. A wolf might develop a thicker coat of fur in a colder climate, while his southern cousin continuously sheds. In both cases the code already exists, the most useful one for the environment merely bubbles to the surface.
This whole damn thing got so confused when some yahoo renamed "environmental adaption" to "micro-evolution". To distinguish "actual" evolution, they then referred to it as "Macro-evolution". Then they tied the whole thing together by claiming that "minor changes add up, and eventually produce a macro change". As much as I'd love to believe this, there's no evidence to support such a supposition. We can't yet treat it as fact, so the name change is very confusing.
Back on topic, this means that this "evolved" cache won't do anything it wasn't programmed to do. All it will do is automatically "test" various algorithm codes until it finds the one that works best for its current situation.
PS: Troll responses will be ignored. If you don't have something intelligent to say (and I do love intelligent conversation), don't say anything at all. Thank you.:-)
Personally, I'm waiting for Galaxy Rangers to hit DVD. I have vague memories of it as a kid, but as an adult I realize that it actually had a (*gasp*) story line written by a SciFi author hired from DelRay. Add in some rocking music ("No guts, No glory..."), some cool space battles, and robotic horses, and you've got something that just might be worth watching.:-)
I'm thinking that a Linux boot disk + 'dd' + a CDRW drive would do wonders for their tech support problems. Of course, it only helps if they have one or two types of computers. If all the computers are different, then I'd suggest they start looking at some of Microsoft's (yuck) Zero Install tools.
Actually, as a kid I thought it was great stuff too. It wasn't until I managed to watch some episodes later in life that I realized just how painful the show was to watch. The fact that they had a "science" segment at the end of the show only added insult to injury.
Amazing how childhood memories alter things to make them "good", eh?;-)
Go watch the 80's cartoon "SilverHawks". Between people "falling" through space (and needing saving!), hair being "whipped" in the wind, the SilverHawks "flying" around, and that damn theme song "Partly metal, partly real", you'll be screaming for just a LITTLE bit of realism.
No, I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that the idea is so *complex* that it defies the ability to present it, rather that the details of implementation are left out of a business proposal. For example, I could propose the idea "Selling books online". Depending on how it's pitched from a business perspective, it could sound great to an investor. Yet the investor lacks the detailed knowledge to actually create Amazon.com. If he attempted to steal my idea before an implementation existed, he'd end up with "Marge's Book Emporium". To effectively steal the idea, he'd need a partner with a vision of an Online Book Store. Now he could run and take the idea to Borders, or he could just stick with me and invest.
Remember, it's not just the idea, it's the vision behind the idea. If the idea is original, then no one will exist to copy from. If no one exists to copy from, then how will it get done correctly? You've got to have that vision to get it done.
I considered this issue as well. Then I realized that anyone who attempted to implement my ideas would be missing many of the key ingredients necessary to make it work. i.e. I can give a presentation to venture capitalists that they might like, but the details that make the idea work technology wise are still stuck in my head. Anyone who attempts to steal the idea will either be winging it and come up with a useless implementation, or will already understand what I'm trying to do and have the concept already in their head.
Slashdot Mirror
Will you make up your mind, first you agree with the grandparent poster that one particular example doesn't prove the general case, and then you make the claim that the SCA example does suggest the general case is zero sum.
I have made up my mind. The parent of my post made a statement that was factually correct: SCA does not "prove" that positive mutations can't happen. I then go on to show that everything from SCA to genetic manipulation has so far shown us that genetics is a zero sum game. It's perfectly possible that it's not, but we haven't yet proved it either way. All we have is a mountain of data that suggests genetics is a zero-sum game.
Come on man, make up your mind! which side of the fence are you on?
How is that scientific? If you always approach a problem from the angle that "X must be right", then you'll never make any new discoveries. If something can be observed then proven to be true, then we must adjust our world-view and move on.
It is worth noting that there is a natural bias towards observing negative mutations, not only are they probably far more common but also they stand out against the background, i.e. when people start dieing, or are born with gills, or no legs then people are going to notice pretty damn quick and start saying "ohhhh, mutation==bad!"
This is quite true.
however a beneficial mutation (for example a resistance to the common cold) is much more likely to go unnoticed at first,
The difficulty here is that until we can isolate and identify "positive" mutations, they are nothing but speculation. It's possible that it's just a matter of time before such mutations are discovered, but we can't say they exist until we can demonstrate them. It's a bit like Tachyons in physics. Theory said they should exist, therefore they existed, right? (If it's on Star Trek, it must be true!) Turns out that Tachyons are now considered to have been a "glitch" in string theory that has now been worked out. No time-traveling phantom particle, sorry.
as it is a lot harder to notice or prove that something hasn't happened during a persons lifetime.
It's very difficult to prove a lot of things in science. That's what we have laboratories for. By direct manipulation of creatures with short life spans, scientists can observe how genetics work and test theories on how a positive mutation might be induced. With more and more computing power at their disposal, it should only be a short time before we're able to begin very fast computer modeling of entire genomes.
The first surprise has already come in the form of shorter gene sequences than predicted. It wouldn't surprise me if biologists find themselves completely rewriting the books on genetics in the near future. If there's anything that physics has taught me, it's that the Universe is not one to easily give up its secrets.
I apologise if you took offence at being called a troll earlier, I meant it in the original sense of someone who deliberately posts inflammatory content in the hopes of sparking a debate. (anti-evolution posts certainly qualify on Slashdot)
Apology accepted, but with one caveat. I never claimed that evolution was false. It's not very nice to stomp all over the theories of others just because you don't like it. My specific complaint was the outright confusion caused by the "micro-evolution" renaming of environmental adaption. I don't like it, because no link has been demonstrated. This gives people the mistaken impression that they can write software using genetic adaption type algorithms, and actually produce software that "evolves" in the macro-evolutionary sense. The truth is that the software doesn't go anywhere. It merely "adapts" to the situation at hand until the most powerful solution can be found.
As for calling you a creationist.... well are you are aren't you, you claim to not believe in evolution, so how do you think we got here?
Ac
You only just noticed the humourous RFCs?
:-)
Hardly. The IMPS RFC is just my favorite. Every time someone starts talking about the "infinite moneys with typewriters" problem, I whip out the RFC and say "Make sure it's RFC compliant!!!"
The typical UTS terminal connected to Unisys 1100 and 2200 mainframes in the 80's and 90's did all text and screen editing (line/character insertions and deletions) locally and could protect, justify, and even selectively enforce input in defined character fields on the screen without communicating with the host box at all.
The T27's were definitely awesome. They even had a feature to where you could dump ONLY the data back from the mainframe, and the terminal would put it all in the right place. The entire screen only needed to update when the user changed program screens.
Of course, this little feature wreaked havoc with the various terminal emulators. Most of them completely failed to understand how to handle the data returned by the mainframe. (You hear me Core?! We don't want your overpriced stuff, or your 30 phone calls a year!) I eventually had to write my own emulator via telnet, that was able to understand how the data was received from the mainframe. I then had to pass special terminal codes (which I can't remember for the life of me; I think it was ESC-W) to then send the data back without the screen. Fun little hack that was. And put all those $50,000+ emulators to shame.
I don't believe you understand the word "evolution". Evolution is not a huge jump that rapidly redefines something, it's an almost unnoticable change over time.
No, the current theories state that it is a unnoticable change over a long period of time. On a higher level, evolution simply states that major changes occurred over a long period of time. It also states that those changes occurred in an "organic vacuum". e.g. Lungs developed where no lungs had ever existed before.
Evolution can be understood as a search through a problem space. The caching algorithm sets up a problem space of "all possible caching algorithms". A P2P server would be completely outside of the problem space and thus irrelavent.
If that was really the case, then higher organisms should never have developed. The problem space for the "simple" organism was to survive in its wet environment. I believe you named colonies of amebas as an example of "vestigal organisms" at one point. Without arguing that point, what forced these successful organisms to then develop different cell types? How did different cell types improve their success rate? From there, how did developing complex DNA improve their success rate? From there, how did specialized macro-organs improve their success rate?
In evolutionary theory, the "simple" life form was striving to become a better adapted life form. It obviously exceeded its problem space by a wide margin, or you and I would not be having this discussion today. Thus if GAs are really indicitive of "real" evolution, then why can't they eventually evolve into "higher algorithms"? A P2P network could very well improve the GA's success rate for its problem domain. It can start by accidentally reusing its network connections, then accidentally making contact with other cache hosts with the same mutation, then it can evolve a protocol by accidentally learning each communication packet through a torrent of random spam packets, etc.
While that sounds somewhat silly, that's not my point. My point is that evolution states exactly that sort of behavior over a long enough period of time. If a GA is a good emulation of micro-evolution, and macro-evolution is based on micro-evolution, then shouldn't we be able to compute a set of mutations that take the program out of its pre-programmed algorithms? Shouldn't it be able to leverage parameters that we didn't program it to leverage?
Why? Just because you give an example of where this is true (Sickle-cell anaemia), doesn't mean it is generally true.
Correct.
Why can't a random mutation be beneficial without bad side-effects?
Because no positive mutation has ever been shown. Every mutation ever observed results in a delterous effect on the organism. SCA is the best example anyone has ever given of a "positive" mutation.
It isn't a zero-sum game.
Funny you should mention that. I made that exact point earlier:
In fact, SCA makes the perfect point that genetics is a zero-sum game. To gain certain advantages, some must be given up. This always confused me when I was working in the livestock genetics field. All the charts of the cows' features always appeared to sum to the exact center. i.e. The perfect cow was a perfectly average cow. Well, I spoke with my colleagues and learned I was correct. All we were doing was breeding for some "desirable" features (often fads) at the expense of other features of the cow.
Granted, I am not an evolutionary geneticist, but all evidence I've seen tends to suggest that genetics *is* a zero-sum game. You simply can't give to Peter without taking from Paul.
Sure, the kind of mutation that is solely beneficial may be exceedingly rare, but that isn't proof that it can't happen.
Proving the negative in this case is uselss as the only way to prove the negative is to prove the positive. No mutation has ever been shown to be helpful to an organism without introducing serious negative effects. If you know of a mutation that is only positive, then I would make a most captive audience to your presentation.
So long as the good outweighs the bad, the mutation will be selected for. This is exactly what happens with SCA. The carriers are resistant to malaria. If this helps them (or siblings with only one copy of the gene) to survive to child-rearing age, then it will be selected for.
Creating a 1 in 4 chance of a very early death is not a "good" result. It can help in the short term, but only if a sufficient genetic pool is maintained to later breed out the negative condition. In this example, the African population is huge, but 1 in 13 African Americans still carry this mutation. And how useful is the mutation if it must later be bred out of the genetic stock?
Not to worry! Someone decided that some of the most useful (and dry) knowledge on the 'net needed some (also dry) humor. Thus I give you: RFC2795, The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)!!!
Thanks. No really. I'll be here all week.
So basically, nothing has changed since Tron?
Wrong movie there, bub. Looker predated Tron by over a year, and it actually FEATURED the trash robots running around. Just watch out for the bad guys with their "invisio-flashy-thingy" guns.
Believe it or not, the popularity of DVDs is probably contributing to movies improving. It used to be that they could release a stinky movie with a "catch" (e.g. Jennifer Lopez, The Hulk, etc.), and they could be guaranteed an amazing opening week. The fact that no one really wanted to see the movie again was small potatoes. The cost of improving the movie would be more expensive than it was worth.
Cue DVDs in 2004. Suddenly, the studio execs realize that 52% of their profits are now coming from people who've seen the movie, but want a permanent or "collector's" copy. Studios thus decide that they need to create really good movies so they can sell you the DVDs 3 times over. (Original, Special Edition, and Collector's Edition. Of course, I'm still waiting for the collectors edition of Nemesis with the extra hour of footage. Hello?! Are B&B listening?! Wait, what am I saying...)
BTW, when did we confuse the MPAA with the RIAA? Last I knew, the MPAA's biggest crime was the whole DeCSS thing. They actually took a halfway decent approach to piracy with their (admittedly lame) commercials. They've actually been claiming that more blame belongs to the "cell-phone users" who IM their friends that a movie sucks.
That is one of the facts that it explains, not the definition. You're doing the equivalent of saying that a ball falling is the definition of gravity. Evolution is the collection of mechanisms by which these occur, which under the modern synthesis is by various alleles changing over time in a population.
My argument is that "micro-evolution" has not been shown to be the mechanism by which "macro-evolution" can occur. The results of environmental adaption and genetic mutations are well known, but no one has yet shown how a new biological process can derive from one that currently does not exist inside the genome. For example, if humans lack the genome for an exoskeleton, and exoskeletons are "nature's selection" for space survivability, then the "micro-evolutionary theory" says that humans who live in space should eventually experience genetic mutations from which exoskeleton code will appear. The only mechanism that has been provably demonstrated is that existing codes can be reorganized to produce oddities such as legs growing from eye sockets, or extra thoraxes. (Source) Thus evolution is still described as a process, but the mechanism is still a topic of debate.
And oddly, stages between single cell and multicell still exist. The Volvox are single cell creatures that only function in colonies. A colony is a sphere that can grow a daughter colony inside it, then give birth to a new colony. Yet all of the cells involved are generic, not specialized into tissues. Sponge and jellyfish are on the other end of the gap. They both show tissue level specialization without organs.
[snip]
Such as a mud skippers and lung fish? They both occupy niches and use mechanism similar to the first air-breathers using modified gills and air bladders, respectively.
I'm not arguing the concept of evolution. I'm merely arguing that "micro-evolution" is not a proven method for such macro change. Until evidence exists to show that these sorts of biological changes can occur via genetic adaption and mutations, the name "micro-evolution" will continue to confuse things. In terms of "Genetic Algorithms", things have become particularly confused. The system will never develop a "new" algorithm, it will simply decided which combinations best meet the current environment. Nothing "evolves" through the process, merely "adapts".
But that would be pointless since only theorems that existed in the orginal data and algorithms "will rise to the top".
I hardly stated that GA's were "pointless". The idea is fine. However, it doesn't produce "evolution". A GA "caching" algorithm, for example, will never be able to "evolve" a P2P network to leverage existing caches like itself. It can't do that because the code doesn't exist.
Similarly, no code existed in nature for "micro-evolution" to "mutate" lungs, electrical impulse handling, circulatory systems, etc. Either there are properties to "micro-evolution" that have not yet been revealed, or some other (possibly related) mechanism must be responsible.
The two processes you are describing are the same thing. One simply takes a lot longer.
No, they are theorized to be related. Macro level changes require a mechanism more sophisticated than that of "micro-evolution". "Micro-evolution" requires an existing genome from which to pull, and only allows for a small degree of genetic mutation. As I replied to another poster, Sickle-cell anemia is a perfect example of a mutation that "helps" by resisting malaria, but it has the side effect of an early death for the organism.
In fact, SCA makes the perfect point that genetics is a zero-sum game. To gain certain advantages, some must be given up. This always confused me when I was working in the livestock genetics field. All the charts of the cows' features always appeared to sum to the exact center. i.e. The perfect cow was a perfectly average cow. Well, I spoke with my colleagues and learned I was correct. All we were doing was breeding for some "desirable" features (often fads) at the expense of other features of the cow.
One of the problems with creationists is that they have a hard time conceiving of the incredibly vast amount of time that has passed which makes macroevolution possible.
No, I have no problem with the amount of time. I have a problem that "micro-evolution" is not a sufficient process for "macro-evolution". Theorists divide the two because they are not provably related. From Wikipedia:
There are two proposed mechanisms for macroevolution. The first way is through the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes. Tiny microevolutions, over sufficient time, add up and accumulate in isolated populations and eventually result in new species. The second way in which "macroevolution" is believed to occur is through sudden and rapid changes. This theory, punctuated equilibrium, put forth by Stephen Jay Gould, is based on the fact that there are critical genes (such as the homeobox) in all living organisms, and a small change in them could cause drastic changes in the organism, resulting in a new species quite rapidly.
[snip]
The additional information needed for these structures did not arise from the mutation, of course, but existed elsewhere in the animal's DNA and was replicated at the novel location.
No provable link yet exists between micro and macro evolution. Until such a link is proven, the term "micro-evolution" continues to be misleading.
What idea? That creationists are the only people I have heard use the terms? From the fact that they are the only ones I have heard use the terms. Read it carefully. No where did I say that they aren't scientific terms. I am well aware that they are. Creationists have latched onto them and gotten it into their heads that they are two different things.
Then I believe, sir, you are trolling. If they are scientific concepts, then claiming that creationists are the only ones who vocalize them is an underhanded way of insulting anyone who discusses the topic.
Sir, I requested intelligent discussion, but you yourself have taken to trolling. First you make an accusation ("creationist troll") which neither has any bearing on the subject, nor is in any way true. You will note that I never suggested that evolution is a "made up" process. That is outside the realm of this discussion. All I claimed is that the "Macro/Micro" division is an as-of-yet-unsupportable position that causes a great deal of confusion. The algorithm described in the article will not "evolve" in the "macro-evolutionary" sense, but will instead adapt in the "micro-evolutionary" sense.
1. Survival of the fittest (what you call environmental adaptation) starts with a population with a mixture of genes and states that those best able to reproduce in the current environment will probably make up a larger percentage of the next generation.
Exactly. It allows the organism to best meet its current environment. However, it cannot be the vehicle for the creation of new, nonexistent biological processes. The mechanism for that must be much different as organisms must have evolved from a "simple" organism, to a "complex" one.
2. Genetic crossover during reproduction and random mutation, happens to keep the gene pool mixed and introduces new adaptations. This provides the "raw material" for survival of the fittest to work on.
Random mutations only gain you so much, and in all cases are also harmful in the same way they are helpful. Sickle-cell anemia is an example of a mutation that is used to adapt to the environment (resistance to malaria), but has negative side effects on the gene pool (causes early death in nearly all who contract it). The process that took a "simple" organism to a "complex" organism must therefore be far more sophisticated.
ARRGGHHHHH why did I bother writing all this, I know you are a troll.
Insult number 2. Why can't people discuss this topic without throwing around insults? I'm not sitting here trying to convince people that evolution is an incorrect theory. I'm merely complaining about the confusion caused by mixing the ability of an organism to adapt using its existing genome as opposed to the concept of a more complex organism forming from a simpler one. I suppose I knew what I was getting into when I posted.
I wish the mods had given you a +5. My peeve is exactly what you describe: that "evolution" is being used as an analogy rather than a realistic description of what it does. "Genetic Algorithms" is a fine name, and "breeding" is an accurate concept. But "evolving" is misleading to a very extreme degree. There's no need to describe the process as "evolution", yet CS researchers persist in doing so.
That being said, it can be a great tool for auto-adjusting software to its environment. If it works out, it may even be applicable to robotics where the concept can help the robots act more "intelligently". (e.g. Stop trying to drive over rocks and "learn" to drive around them.)
They create new "information", not new "algorithms". Evolution supposes that organisms create new "biological processes", analogous to "algorithms".
Breeding is fundamental to evolution, whether it be sexual reproduction or asexual splitting.
Breeding is fundamental to life. Life is fundamental to evolution. Evolution tries to describe how organic soup could form simple organisms that become progressively more complex.
You seem to assume that the genes are unitary, descrete entities - that evolution occurs when, (to use your example) a giraffe suddenly gets the correct genes to develop gills. Genetics is much more complex than this.
Genetics is certainly more complex than that. But as for a sudden change of no gills->gills, it depends on who you talk to. Some theorists have suggested that changes did indeed happen rapidly. This would explain how the fossil record shows changes happening at a rapid pace, with very little in the way of "in-between" states. Other theorists suggest that things were more gradual, but at a level that is more difficult to notice. Either way, they agree on one point: a "simple" organism went through large degrees of change to develop biological processes that didn't exist when the the organism was first formed. Thus in some way, shape, or form, the organism was able to "create" new concepts.
The genetic algorithm we're discussing doesn't do that. It simply creates a new "mix" of algos that work best for the current environment. While there's nothing wrong with that, the algo isn't going to cause the computer to eventually develop an intelligent neural net. (Unless a human added neural net code, that is.)
The article and my own words stated the same thing. Information on the previous "generation" is used to adapt to the current environment. No "new" algorithm is "evolved", merely a new combination of existing algorithms.
As I understand it - from my reading of Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins - you've just described evolution. Perhaps you're using a different, far more strict definition of the word?
My statement is that "macro-evolution" is the basic concept of evolution. i.e. A single celled organism can become multi-celled, develop DNA, separate into different cell types, etc., etc., etc. "Micro-evolution" is really just a shoe-horning of environmental adaption into evolutionary theory. While it adds the concept of "genetic mutations" to the DNA, it fails to consider the fact that DNA is a trait that had to "evolve" itself. A "simple" one celled organism would have lacked the concepts necessary to process and create complex DNA.
ANY environmental adaptation of genetic code over multiple generations is evolution.
No, it's been shoe-horned into the theory. Evolution is a concept that a new, higher level trait will develop when no prior concept exists. For example, a single celled organism will become multi-celled, multi-celled with develop "cell types", and "cell types" will organize to produce higher systems (circulatory, digestion, nervous, brain, etc.). That's the theory. It's a fine that it's being worked on, and I have no issue with that. But adaption to environment is a different concept. They can theorize that it's related in some way, shape, or form, but until someone can show that new genetics suddenly "appear" through the same process, you can't force the two concepts together.
If fact, creationists are the only ones that I have ever heard use the terms.
I don't know where you ever got that idea. I'd never heard of the terms until evolutionary texts started using them. As usual, Wikipedia has the info.
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Pure and simple, that's all it is. Check any evolutionary biology book.
No, it's not that simple. Evolution has been defined as changes adding up enough so that a single celled organism becomes a multi-celled organism, which develops RNA and DNA, which then grows in complexity to develop various "macro" level systems such as a cardio-pulminary system, a digestive tract, a nervous system, and a central control "brain" system. Each of these changes requires a macro change of which no predecessor exists in the current chain of organics.
The notion of giraffes sprouting gills is absurd and not even remotely what evolution is except in the creationist strawmen.
Actually, my first example was the very real issue of a single celled ameba becoming multi-celled. A giraffe sprouting gills would be an evolutionary change, but is highly unlikely. A more realistic example is a fish developing lungs. According to the current theories, most life originated in the ocean. I don't remember if the current thought is that lungs and gills developed simultaneously or if they developed in unison. Either way, the effect is much the same. A low order life form developed features not currently in its genetic makeup.
It's like saying that water can move grains of sand, but there's no proof that a lot of water will eventually erode a beach.
That's a perfectly valid assumption. How do you know that grains of sand don't get carried down to replace the ones that are eroded? Without proof that the grains are carried away without being replaced, you only have a supposition. You must have evidence to make it a workable theory, and absolute proof to call it a fact.
The evolutionary algorithm will have a range of all possible algorithms that can be developed, so in a sense it is limited to "test various algorithms", though it would be testing all possible algorithms.
Which is exactly my point. No new algorithm will be generated through the "genetic breeding". Only existing algorithms will rise to the top.
I'm actually a bit surprised that neural nets haven't yet entered common usage. In theory, such a net would be far more "intelligent" (sort of) in making decisions.
e.g. This page looks a lot like a truly dynamic page, so let's not cache it. Over here, this is dynamic, but only slightly so. Let's cache it and index the most likely path the user will take.
Have CS researchers given up on the neural net approach, or are the nets still far too unstable for real world use?
I know I'm going to get myself into trouble for saying this, but "breeding" is NOT evolution! It's environmental adaption! Evolution implies that a major change occurs in the organism for which no preceding genetic code existed. e.g. An ameba suddenly mutates into a multi-celled configuration. Or a giraffe suddenly develops gills. Breeding, OTOH, merely pushes various existing genetic codes to become dominate. e.g. A wolf might develop a thicker coat of fur in a colder climate, while his southern cousin continuously sheds. In both cases the code already exists, the most useful one for the environment merely bubbles to the surface.
:-)
This whole damn thing got so confused when some yahoo renamed "environmental adaption" to "micro-evolution". To distinguish "actual" evolution, they then referred to it as "Macro-evolution". Then they tied the whole thing together by claiming that "minor changes add up, and eventually produce a macro change". As much as I'd love to believe this, there's no evidence to support such a supposition. We can't yet treat it as fact, so the name change is very confusing.
Back on topic, this means that this "evolved" cache won't do anything it wasn't programmed to do. All it will do is automatically "test" various algorithm codes until it finds the one that works best for its current situation.
PS: Troll responses will be ignored. If you don't have something intelligent to say (and I do love intelligent conversation), don't say anything at all. Thank you.
Personally, I'm waiting for Galaxy Rangers to hit DVD. I have vague memories of it as a kid, but as an adult I realize that it actually had a (*gasp*) story line written by a SciFi author hired from DelRay. Add in some rocking music ("No guts, No glory..."), some cool space battles, and robotic horses, and you've got something that just might be worth watching. :-)
I'm thinking that a Linux boot disk + 'dd' + a CDRW drive would do wonders for their tech support problems. Of course, it only helps if they have one or two types of computers. If all the computers are different, then I'd suggest they start looking at some of Microsoft's (yuck) Zero Install tools.
Hey, I liked that show as a kid.
;-)
Actually, as a kid I thought it was great stuff too. It wasn't until I managed to watch some episodes later in life that I realized just how painful the show was to watch. The fact that they had a "science" segment at the end of the show only added insult to injury.
Amazing how childhood memories alter things to make them "good", eh?
Go watch the 80's cartoon "SilverHawks". Between people "falling" through space (and needing saving!), hair being "whipped" in the wind, the SilverHawks "flying" around, and that damn theme song "Partly metal, partly real", you'll be screaming for just a LITTLE bit of realism.
No, I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that the idea is so *complex* that it defies the ability to present it, rather that the details of implementation are left out of a business proposal. For example, I could propose the idea "Selling books online". Depending on how it's pitched from a business perspective, it could sound great to an investor. Yet the investor lacks the detailed knowledge to actually create Amazon.com. If he attempted to steal my idea before an implementation existed, he'd end up with "Marge's Book Emporium". To effectively steal the idea, he'd need a partner with a vision of an Online Book Store. Now he could run and take the idea to Borders, or he could just stick with me and invest.
Remember, it's not just the idea, it's the vision behind the idea. If the idea is original, then no one will exist to copy from. If no one exists to copy from, then how will it get done correctly? You've got to have that vision to get it done.
I considered this issue as well. Then I realized that anyone who attempted to implement my ideas would be missing many of the key ingredients necessary to make it work. i.e. I can give a presentation to venture capitalists that they might like, but the details that make the idea work technology wise are still stuck in my head. Anyone who attempts to steal the idea will either be winging it and come up with a useless implementation, or will already understand what I'm trying to do and have the concept already in their head.