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

  1. Joe G: it searches them trying to get one of the right solutions. Its start with MET

    How does it know to stop? If there is more then one solution does it stop at the first one or carry on looking for a better solution?

  2. OM: Yes. And it’s using something that is not a GA, by your own admission.

    You don’t need a GA if you already have a predefined set of solutions to choose from.

    No, it is using a GA or maybe a GP- no predefined anything- what are you talking about?

  3. Joe G: No, it is using a GA or maybe a GP- no predefined anything- what are you talking about?

    you said

    Different DNA sequences – it searches them trying to get one of the right solutions.

    GAs don’t look up solutions. They create them.

    And anyway “maybe”? You mean you don’t *know*? What a shock.

  4. Joe G: Why do you think you infantile actions are meaningful?

    No, the meaningful part is your response. It illustrates the vacuity of your position.

  5. So, Joe, perhaps you could make a bullet point list of how your GA operates. Or GP. Or whatever it is.

    And then perhaps you could actually answer the question of if it’s generating new CSI when it discovers a new protein!

  6. OM: you said

    GAs don’t look up solutions. They create them.

    And anyway “maybe”? You mean you don’t *know*? What a shock.

    Nothing in what I said means there are pre-defined solutions, just solutions. Just as “evolving inventions” has solutions. Meaning it can create more than one solution

    Are you telling me that you write GAs without a solution? WTF?

  7. OM:
    So, Joe, perhaps you could make a bullet point list of how your GA operates. Or GP. Or whatever it is.

    And then perhaps you could actually answer the question of if it’s generating new CSI when it discovers a new protein!

    I posted it in this thread- and you have no idea what CSI is.

    However I do understand that you can’t support your position.

  8. And anyway “maybe”? You mean you don’t *know*? What a shock.

    Dumbass- a GP is just a specialized GA- subset of a superset.

  9. Joe G: I posted it in this thread- and you have no idea what CSI is.

    Does CSI increase, decrease or stay the same when your GA implements a new protein?

  11. Joe G,

    Nothing in what I said means there are pre-defined solutions, just solutions. Just as “evolving inventions” has solutions. Meaning it can create more than one solution


    Joe G    : My scenario means new proteins came about by design- ie as per the GA.

    Information hasn’t been “smuggled” in- it was put there intentionally.

    So there are no predefined solutions, but at the same time the solution was put there intentionally?

    How can both of these things be true Joe?

  13. Different DNA sequences – it searches them trying to get one of the right solutions.

    GAs don’t look up solutions.

    GAs are a SEARCH heuristic- YOU are ignorant

  14. OM: My position is that you are making it up as you go along. And it’s well supported.

    It’s well supported by your ignorance?

  15. Joe G: BTW a GA is a SEARCH HEURISTIC to it does search for solutions.

    YOU get a double-dumbass for that bit of wankery…

    For someone so concerned with the exact meaning of words it’s amazing that you refuse to clarify your own when asked.

  16. Joe G: Different DNA sequences – it searches them trying to get one of the right solutions.

    Where do these DNA sequences come from? Are they stored in the genome? Does your GA create them then discard them? How are subsequent generations created from the current generation? What % typically survives in each generation?

  17. Joe G: They are not both true. You are just a moron.

    You said both of them. So you are admitting you were in fact incorrect? links to both comments were provided.

  18. Joe G: But the evidence says that you are an obtuse, petulant, intellectual child- I will stick with the evidence, thanks anyway.

    Does the CSI increase when your GA finds a new protein?

  20. Joe,

    Why are you going after the messenger instead of the message?

    What does that say about the strength of your message?

    Do you think children should be brought up to talk to others the way you do?

  21. OM: You said both of them. So you are admitting you were in fact incorrect? links to both comments were provided.

    I never said the solution was put there intentionally- just the ability to FIND the solution- that is the information required- I posted all of that- what is required

  22. Toronto:
    Joe,

    Why are you going after the messenger instead of the message?

    What does that say about the strength of your message?

    Do you think children should be brought up to talk to others the way you do?

    The “message” is ignorant spewage because the messengers are clueless.

    My message is lost on this ilk- now its just fun.

  23. Joe G: But the evidence says that you are an obtuse, petulant, intellectual child- I will stick with the evidence, thanks anyway.

    No Joe, as always, you’re confusing evidence with your agenda driven opinion.

  24. Hey OM- That search heuristic that doesn’t look for anything- what do you call it- the stevie wonder?

  25. Joe G,

    Joe G: “My message is lost on this ilk- now its just fun.”

    So children should behave like you do when they lose an argument?

  26. Joe G: For someone trying to use semantic bullshit to trip me, you get your panties in a twist when I expose your ignorance.

    Not really, no. In fact you are doing me a favour. If I am ignorant about something but don’t know it I thank you for pointing that out to me.

  27. Joe G:
    Hey OM- That search heuristic that doesn’t look for anything- what do you call it- the stevie wonder?

    Citation please.

  28. Joe,
    Perhaps you can give an example where your GA explains something better then current explanations?

    Perhaps you could explain the results Lenski observed, in the context of your GA?

  29. Joe G: In this case the word “population” is ambiguous.

    No, it’s not. It has the same meaning as in all genetic algorithms. 🙂

  30. OM:
    Joe,
    Perhaps you can give an example where your GA explains something better then current explanations?

    Perhaps you could explain the results Lenski observed, in the context of your GA?

    Oh, I don’t think Lenski’s bacteria could have had GAs, could they? Bacteria don’t have egg membranes for them to stick to.

    Or have I missed a few hundred posts?

  31. olegt: No, it’s not. It has the same meaning as in all genetic algorithms.

    Really? A population of electronic circuits is the same as a population of letters is the same as a population of elk is the same as a population of goats is the same a the population of lice that is crawling all over you?

    THAT same?

  32. Population has the same meaning in all evolutionary contexts. Biological evolution, GAs.

  33. OM:
    Joe,
    Perhaps you can give an example where your GA explains something better then current explanations?

    Perhaps you could explain the results Lenski observed, in the context of your GA?

    What current explanations?

    There aren’t any explanations in a blind watchmaker context. That is the whole point.

  34. damitall: Oh, I don’t think Lenski’s bacteria could have had GAs, could they? Bacteria don’t have egg membranes for them to stick to.

    Or have I missed a few hundred posts?

    No but they have more than DNA

  36. Toronto:
    Joe G,

    You indicated you lost when you changed tactics from addressing the message to addressing the messenger.

    Good lawyers have a strong case with a cool delivery.

    You however, have lost your cool.

    What are you talking about?

    Please make your case.

    Or shut up.

    Thanks

  37. petrushka:
    Population has the same meaning in all evolutionary contexts. Biological evolution, GAs.

    I would think a population of living organisms has a different meaning than some population of failed trials, ie candidates for the solution finder

  38. Joe G: Why would it be?Make your case

    Because telling people to shut up is not calm, rational discourse. Clam rational discourse invites and considers other opinions.

  39. Joe G: No but they have more than DNA

    Doubtless. But you never did say what. Just started banging on about GAs as if they were material things.

  40. damitall: Doubtless. But you never did say what. Just started banging on about GAs as if they were material things.

    I don’t know- that is what research is for to help me- so if you would grant me millions of dollars i will get to it.

  41. Joe G,

    Don’t stop now Joe.

    You’re demonstrating the behaviour of someone with a weak message and that’s what’s needed to stop the inroads of ID/creationism.

    We have to show that the ID/creationist side has an argument that doesn’t stand up and there’s no better way to display that than showing one of its supporters sweating under pressure.

  42. Joe G: But only a moron would say I told somene to shut up.

    Joe: “What are you talking about?

    Please make your case.

    Or shut up.

    Thanks

    “

  43. Joe G,

    I still think you have a ways to go Joe before you hit the basement and Dembski has to go into face palm mode.

    Whatever good Dembski and Behe have done for your side, is balanced out by those like you, who come ill-prepared to the debate.

    Just two of you in front of a board of education’s trustees, will negate the work of 10 ID supporters that have actually applied themselves.

  44. Toronto:
    Joe G,

    I still think you have a ways to go Joe before you hit the basement and Dembski has to go into face palm mode.

    Whatever good Dembski and Behe have done for your side, is balanced out by those like you, who come ill-prepared to the debate.

    Just two of you in front of a board of education’s trustees, will negate the work of 10 ID supporters that have actually applied themselves.

    Coming from you I can be assured the opposite is true.

  45. The best thing it’s all here and he can’t delete it. Next time someone wants to know about IDists, I’ll poin them here.

  46. Thorton:
    Wow.I go away for a bit and Joe has a non-stop massive tardgasm for the better part of the whole day.

    All those insults and evasions and he didn’t answer a single question about his magical “cell internal” GAs.

    Joe’s a real beauty, ain’t he?

    Evotards think I need to have all the answers yet they cannot provide any answers to my questions.

    Strange, that…

  48. Rich:
    The best thing it’s all here and he can’t delete it. Next time someone wants to know about IDists, I’ll poin them here.

    I don’t want it deleted- it demonstrates evotards are clueless liars, who falsely accuse people and can’t support anything but their despeartion.

  49. Joe G: This thread is supposed to be about GAs- however that is a subject that obvioulsy you are ignorant of.

    Joe, working practitioners in the GA / optimization space have found your understanding of GAs here to be wrong. So I don’t think you should be commenting on other’s understanding until you fix your own.

Leave a Reply