704 thoughts on “Holding tank for general chatter about GAs”

  1. This is Joe’s understanding of what a GA is:
    post 1:

    It still solves the problem it was designed to solve. And how it did it is the whole point of GAs-> the exploit things we miss.

    post 2:

    Elizabeth- a GA can be written to solve any problem- YOU don’t get to tell people what their GAs must be like.

    2- You miss the point- ID says there is MORE than just physics and chemsitry at work- there is also information

    3- Yeah making water means we can make a living organism by mixing chemicals together

    4- The internal GA/ GP is how the organisms evolve by design/ are designed to evolve.

    5- So just demonstrate your claims- that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry and ID would be falsified and my internal GA/ GP will be neatly done away with

    I eagerly await the arrival of your paper.

    post 3:

    Elizabeth- obviously you are not following along- you don’t need to know the mutations, just what you need- what the protein needed is. The GA solves the problem of the missing protein by directing its manufacture via, guess what, mutations to the DNA to produce the required mRNA- whatever those mutations are.

  2. OM: The GA solves the problem of the missing protein by directing its manufacture via, guess what, mutations to the DNA to produce the required mRNA- whatever those mutations are.

    And my question to you is in Venter’s cells he used DNA that the cell had never encountered before. Yet your “GA” in that same cell knew how to work with that DNA without any problems. How?

  3. OM:
    This is Joe’s understanding of what a GA is:
    post 1:

    post 2:

    post 3:

    No that was my correcting Lizzies misconceptions.

  4. OM: And my question to you is in Venter’s cells he used DNA that the cell had never encountered before. Yet your “GA” in that same cell knew how to work with that DNA without any problems. How?

    I told you how- the DNA A) was similar and B) was proof-read

  5. Joe G: Strange that evotards think I need all the answers when they can’t answer anything

    Well, what *do* you know about this GA? On what basis do you claim it even exists at all then?

    Does it simply exist because you need something that can do the job of evolution, so you can say evolution does not work?

    Is it *anything* but evolution Joe, this “GA” of yours?

  6. Joe G: No that was my correcting Lizzies misconceptions.

    So where is a summary of your understanding of genetic algorithms? Citation please? 🙂

  7. Joe G: I told you how- the DNA A) was similar and B) was proof-read

    So you GA loads up this new DNA (how exactly?) and says “oh, it’s similar to what I was expecting but not identical. I’d better proof-read it”.

    Joe, how exactly does proof reading allow your GA to understand how to interface with novel DNA?

  8. Joe G: You are just wrong- no one has done a complete side-by-side genome comparison between humans and chimps

    Genome-wide comparisons between humans and chimpanzees:

    – A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications

    – A genome-wide survey of structural variation between human and chimpanzee

    – The genome-wide determinants of human and chimpanzee microsatellite evolution

    – A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome

    Joe G: no one even knows if any amount of change to the genome can account for all the morphological changes required.

    It is possible to study the potential phenotypic effects of many of the changes. And the evidence for common ancestry makes the conclusionvery reasonable. Of course, I’m not making claims of complete knowledge. What I am doing is a comparison between an actual, working, research programme and all your “GA” hand-waving.

  9. OM: So you GA loads up this new DNA (how exactly?) and says “oh, it’s similar to what I was expecting but not identical. I’d better proof-read it”.

    Joe, how exactly does proof reading allow your GA to understand how to interface with novel DNA?

    Hey- you can refute all that I have said just by demonstrating a living organism can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.

    I have nothing else to say to you…

  10. Joe G: Where is yours?

    You said you had already provided it on this thread. I found it and pasted it in. And now you are claiming it’s not that. So link to it instead, why don’t ya?

    IOW if ya don’t it’s like you were pretending all along!

  11. Geoxus: Genome-wide comparisons between humans and chimpanzees:

    – A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications

    – A genome-wide survey of structural variation between human and chimpanzee

    – The genome-wide determinants of human and chimpanzee microsatellite evolution

    – A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome

    It is possible to study the potential phenotypic effects of many of the changes. And the evidence for common ancestry makes the conclusionvery reasonable. Of course, I’m not making claims of complete knowledge. What I am doing is a comparison between an actual, working, research programme and all your “GA” hand-waving.

    LoL_ Not one complete genome comparison. But nice false accusation at the end…

  12. Joe G: Hey- you can refute all that I have said just by demonstrating a living organism can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.

    So, prove the origin of life and somehow that refutes your idea of a GA?

    Sorry, not sure what the connection is there. Perhaps you can clarify?

  13. Joe G: Where is yours?

    Who the fuck are you, anyway?

    Doesn’t matter who I am. Liz provided a summary of what a GA is, with which I fully agree, and which is universally accepted. Hence no need for me to repeat the same.

    You, on the other hand, clearly have a different understanding of a GA. Exactly what, we don’t know. It would be nice if you could explain what you mean by a GA. Pretty please?

  14. Joe G: But nice false accusation at the end…

    If it’s not hand-waving why can’t you actually tell us anything about your GA other then the fact you *know* it exists?

  15. OM: You said you had already provided it on this thread. I found it and pasted it in. And now you are claiming it’s not that. So link to it instead, why don’t ya?

    IOW if ya don’t it’s like you were pretending all along!

    Fuck you- I never claimed that wasn’t it.

  16. olegt: Doesn’t matter who I am. Liz provided a summary of what a GA is, with which I fully agree, and which is universally accepted. Hence no need for me to repeat the same.

    You, on the other hand, clearly have a different understanding of a GA. Exactly what, we don’t know. It would be nice if you could explain what you mean by a GA. Pretty please?

    I responded to Lizzie and she is not an expert, nor any authority on the subject.

    My understanding is exactly the understanding in my examples, which are said to be genetic programs, which are specialized GAs

  17. Joe G: No that was my correcting Lizzies misconceptions.

    That’s what you said it was. Make up your mind!

  18. Joe G: My understanding is exactly the understanding in my examples, which are said to be genetic programs, which are specialized GAs

    And in your examples they detail what the environment is, where the GA is running etc.

    Why can’t you do the same for your GA? Where does your GA run?

  19. OM: So, prove the origin of life and somehow that refutes your idea of a GA?

    Sorry, not sure what the connection is there. Perhaps you can clarify?

    Yes it does for the many reasons I have alreay presented to you over the years.

  20. Joe G: Yes it does for the many reasons I have alreay presented to you over the years.

    “It just does”. OK, sure. Just like your GA exists.

  21. OM: If it’s not hand-waving why can’t you actually tell us anything about your GA other then the fact you *know* it exists?

    Your entire position is nothing but hand-waving…

  22. Joe G: My understanding is exactly the understanding in my examples, which are said to be genetic programs, which are specialized GAs

    Joe, before you discuss examples, you need to give a definition of what you understand to be a GA. Could you define for us what you understand as a GA like Elizabeth did? We can then go over the examples.

  23. OM: “It just does”. OK, sure. Just like your GA exists.

    Wrong again I have already provided the reasoning- Just as i said.

    That you are an ignorant wanker does not reflect on me.

  24. Joe G: Your entire position is nothing but hand-waving…

    Well, then that makes two of us then. Yet I’m on the winning side by default unless you can come up with some actual positive evidence other then baseless claims.

  25. olegt: Joe, before you discuss examples, you need to give a definition of what you understand to be a GA. Could you define for us what you understand as a GA like Elizabeth did? We can then go over the examples.

    I provided links and I abide by that. And the examples also provided a definition.

    Make your case against me oleg- I dare you to try.

  26. Joe,
    You provided some good links to existing GAs.

    Now is it possible you can expand the comparison between those and your GA?

    For example, in your example the GA was running on a computer with a population of virtual organisms (in effect).

    In your cellular GA, what does “population” relate to? How is fitness measured?

  27. Joe G: I provided links and I abide by that. And the examples also provided a definition.

    The three links you provided did not contain any definitions. In your own words, you were “correcting Lizzies misconceptions.” Could you provide a link to your comment that contains your definition of a GA?

  28. Joe G: I dare you to try.

    In your cellular GA what is the analogue of the population? How is fitness tested? Against what?

  29. So just demonstrate your claims- that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry and ID would be falsified and my internal GA/ GP will be neatly done away with

    I eagerly await the arrival of your paper

  31. OM: Joe, those are the exact same comments I just posted which you then said were not what you’ve just now said they are. .

    Well any intelligent person should be able to read them- the entire thing including with Lizzie said, and determine I understand GAs.

  32. Again all one has to do-

    So just demonstrate your claims- that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry and ID would be falsified and my internal GA/ GP will be neatly done away with

    I eagerly await the arrival of your paper

  33. Joe G:
    So just demonstrate your claims- that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry and ID would be falsified and my internal GA/ GP will be neatly done away with
    I eagerly await the arrival of your paper

    I don’t see how they are related. So, your GA is in fact immaterial? Is that what you are (finally) admitting to? Is that why materialist science has found no trace of it? It’s not actually material? that’s what you seem to be implying.

  34. Joe G: Well any intelligent person should be able to read them- the entire thing including with Lizzie said, and determine I understand GAs.

    Then what is the “population” analogue in your cellular GA? can’t have a GA without a population can ya?

  35. Joe G: No- it doesn’t have to have anything to with genetics. Evolving inventions didn’t have anything to do with genetics.

    You’re claiming that your GAs direct mutations. How does that have nothing to do with genetics? Moreover, why are you calling them “genetic algorithms” if they don’t have anything to do with genetics?

    Joe G: And perhaps if someone wants to grant me say millions of dollars I will work on that GA thing for you.

    So you’re trying to sell us something without being able to present a even a dummy prototype yet, just your bald assertions. It’s all marketing bluff. You can only dream of being Bill Gates, Joe, but even Bill had a working BASIC interpreter before selling anything.

  36. Joe G: Well any intelligent person should be able to read them- the entire thing including with Lizzie said, and determine I understand GAs.

    Joe, this is a 6-page thread and no intelligent person has time to wade through hundreds of comments looking for your definition (which, dare I say, is not there). If you have a basic idea of what a GA is, please write it down in a few sentences. This is a very reasonable request and I have no idea why you are refusing it.

  39. Geoxus: You’re claiming that your GAs direct mutations. How does that have nothing to do with genetics? Moreover, why are you calling them “genetic algorithms” if they don’t have anything to do with genetics?

    So you’re trying to sell us something without being able to present a even a dummy prototype yet, just your bald assertions. It’s all marketing bluff. You can only dream of being Bill Gates, Joe, but even Bill had a working BASIC interpreter before selling anything.

    I said not all GAs deal with genetics- and they don’t. Evolving inventions sure as hell didn’t.

  40. OM:
    If you can’t explain it in your own words, you don’t understand it.

    By that “logic” you don’t understand anything.

    Nice goind ace…

  41. Joe G: Not one complete genome comparison.

    For what end? That would be a mess. Huge amounts of data like that need to be assessed in a stepwise manner. And I said I’m not making claims of complete knowledge. Is it all just everything or nothing for you? Guess how that would apply to your “hypotheses”.

    Joe G: But nice false accusation at the end…

    OK, then prove me wrong. Show what have been the genomic changes in the human linage and an attempt to explain them with an explicit model of your “GAs”.

  42. My words:

    GAs are used to solve problems. In my scenario, in in the SciAm article “Evolving Inventions” tat is exactly what is taking place.

    My scenario has a GA directing mutations to solve a problem, for example a new protein or protein complex.

    Elizabeth- obviously you are not following along- you don’t need to know the mutations, just what you need- what the protein needed is. The GA solves the problem of the missing protein by directing its manufacture via, guess what, mutations to the DNA to produce the required mRNA- whatever those mutations are.

  43. Joe G: YOU are NOT a reasonable person oleg.

    Make your case against me or fuck off.

    Joe, I can’t make a case against you if if I wanted. We still don’t know what you understand by a genetic algorithm. You have never so much as summarized what it is in your opinion.

    Joe G: I explained it in my own words, I provided links and oleg I linked to my responses.

    No. By your own admission, those links did not contain your definition of a GA. You “corrected Lizzies misconception.”

    So, how do you define a GA, Joe?

  44. My words:

    It still solves the problem it was designed to solve. And how it did it is the whole point of GAs-> the exploit things we miss.

    Now I know why you guys don’t understand what i am saying…

  45. Again all one has to do-

    So just demonstrate your claims- that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry and ID would be falsified and my internal GA/ GP will be neatly done away with

    I eagerly await the arrival of your paper

    STILL waiting…

  46. Joe G: It still solves the problem it was designed to solve. And how it did it is the whole point of GAs-> the exploit things we miss.

    So, this is your definition of a GA, Joe? Just want to make sure. If you would like to expand it a little, go ahead. If not, we can discuss it.

  47. An article on Talk Origins states:

    In a broadly general sense, GAs do have a goal: namely, to find an acceptable solution to a given problem. In this same sense, evolution also has a goal: to produce organisms that are better adapted to their environment and thus experience greater reproductive success. But just as evolution is a process without specific goals, GAs do not specify at the outset how a given problem should be solved. The fitness function is merely set up to evaluate how well a candidate solution performs, without specifying any particular way it should work and without passing judgment on whatever way it does invent. The solution itself then emerges through a process of mutation and selection.

    Forget that evolution does not have the goal stated- the point is that GAs are an example of front-loading- that is they start with everything they need to solve some problem. Front-loading does NOT require that the solution be known nor that the specific process to finding the solution be known.

    What is required is the specification of what you need- what are you trying to solve.

    For example a GA was used to design an antenna. The engineers did not know what the antenna would look like. But what they had were the specifications the antenna needed to meet- again from Talk Origins:

    Altshuler and Linden 1997 used a genetic algorithm to evolve wire antennas with pre-specified properties. The authors note that the design of such antennas is an imprecise process, starting with the desired properties and then determining the antenna’s shape through “guesses…. intuition, experience, approximate equations or empirical studies” (p.50). This technique is time-consuming, often does not produce optimal results, and tends to work well only for relatively simple, symmetric designs. By contrast, in the genetic algorithm approach, the engineer specifies the antenna’s electromagnetic properties, and the GA automatically synthesizes a matching configuration.

    THAT is front-loaded evolution.

    So with my idea of front-loaded evolution we would have the initial conditions, the required resources, the specified result (ie what you are trying to accomplish) and then the algorithms to make it all happen.

    Sadly evotards will never grasp any of that.

  48. In Genetic/ Evolutionary Algorithms and My Front-Loaded Evolution I stated the case for front-loaded evolution via genetic/ evolutionary algorithms.

    Today I will expand on that by telling you what gets front-loaded- well I will be telling those who are not up to the task of putting that together from what I had posted in that blog:

    So with my idea of front-loaded evolution we would have the initial conditions, the required resources, the specified result (ie what you are trying to accomplish) and then the algorithms to make it all happen.

    So what gets front-loaded?

    1- You need a target-> the goal-> what it is you are trying to achieve. No need to write an algorithm if there isn’t a problem to solve-

    “I wrote an algorithm”

    “What does it do?”

    “It’s an algorithm, stupid.”

    “How do you know when its done?”

    So the specifications of what you are trying to achieve are front-loaded. As the algorithm chugs along it keeps checking for any match to those specs.

    2- You need to figure out a valid starting point- those initial conditions- one way is to determine what it is minimal you can do, without any algorithm, to get as close to the target.

    The initial condition(s) is(are) front-loaded

    3- You need the proper resources that the algorithm can use to get from starting point to the target.

    Those resources are front-loaded.

    4- Then there is that algorithm or algorithms that, from the initial conditions and the provided resources, some of which can be by-products of the algorthim(s), can produce the desired solution.

    The algorithm(s) is(are) front-loaded.

    That should be it- once you do all of that and hit “go” it is hand’s off for the designer(s).

    What did Dawkins do for “weasel”- He had a specified sentence in mind. He set the initial conditions as a sequence of letters. He had the resource of the alphabet to call upon and then wrote an algorithm that would make it so.

  49. olegt: Joe, I can’t make a case against you if if I wanted. We still don’t know what you understand by a genetic algorithm. You have never so much as summarized what it is in your opinion.

    No. By your own admission, those links did not contain your definition of a GA. You “corrected Lizzies misconception.”

    So, how do you define a GA, Joe?

    oleg- guess what? YOU have never demonstrated any understanding of a GA…

  50. Joe G: My words:

    It still solves the problem it was designed to solve. And how it did it is the whole point of GAs-> the exploit things we miss.

    Now I know why you guys don’t understand what i am saying…

    The point of scissors is to cut easily. That says nothing about what scissors are. Your “GAs” have “nothing to do with genetics” and the algorithmic aspect of them hasn’t become apparent so far, so not even the word is helping us to understand what they are.

    But I give up. Cling on to your buzzword.

Leave a Reply