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

  1. Joe G:
    I am still waiting for any evidence that I do not understand GAs- any at all, will do.

    The fact that you think a GA can run internally to an individual organism doing the evolving instead of externally affecting the selection pressure on the whole population is one easy example of your incompetence.

  3. Joe G: So just because YOU don’t have a clue that means I am incompotent?

    No, the fact that you’ve demonstrated total incompetence in the subject means you’re incompetent.

    How can the GA help the organism change its DNA if it isn’t internal to the organism?

    There isn’t any GA internal to the organism helping to change its DNA.

    Thanks for proving that I am a moron- as if anyone needed more evidence…

    You’re welcome.

  4. Thorton: No, the fact that you’ve demonstrated total incompetence in the subject means you’re incompetent.

    There isn’t any GA internal to the organism helping to change its DNA.

    You’re welcome.

    Well there is one way you can support your claim- however you won’t because you are a fucking coward.

  5. Joe G: Is that supposed to mean something?

    Yes. WP kindly swallowed the greater than / less than symbols. DNA and genes are not, of themselves GAs, Joe.

  6. Joe G: How can the GA help the organism change its DNA if it isn’t internal to the organism?

    Joe, if you use the standard definition, the GA is not “internal to the organism.” It’s the other way around.

  7. olegt: Joe, if you use the standard definition, the GA is not “internal to the organism.” It’s the other way around.

    Agreed.

  8. Joe G: The definition of a GA is it is a search heuristic

    So is GBF, Simulated annealing etc, but they aren’t GAs. Very imprecise, you really have no clue, do you?

  9. Joe G: Look you assholes wanted to know how the designer controlled/ directed mutations- A GA/ GP would do it nicely.

    So where resides the selction part of the GA?

  10. oleg- in the real world- not an artificial world- where the fuck could a designer put the GA. besides inside of organisms, in order for it to direct mutations?

  12. The definition of a GA is it is a search heuristic- you don’t get to tell designers what type of GA they have to design-

    That is not a definition of a GA Joe. That is a description of the function of a GA.

    There are lots of different search heuristics. GAs are one specific type with specific attributes.

    That’s another example of your incompetence.

  13. Joe G: You are retarded- this is not like the GAs we use- we don’t know how to program an organism.

    The definition of a GA is it is a search heuristic- you don’t get to tell designers what type of GA they have to design-

    Joe, you don’t seem to understand even the rough outlines of a genetic algorithm. An algorithm does not live inside an organism. It is a program that creates an initial population of organisms (by specifying their genomes) and then proceeds with this cycle: evaluate the organisms’ fitness, keep the best of them, introduce random changes in genomes. Repeat.

    If you can parse the above, you should be able to see that a GA is not internal to an organism in any sense. It’s external to it. Like nature is to real biological organisms. It does the same thing to them called Darwinian evolution. Nature is not internal to Joe G. It’s external. Same with a GA and organisms it creates.

  14. Joe G: oleg- in the real world- not an artificial world- where the fuck could a designer put the GA. besides inside of organisms, in order for it to direct mutations?

    Once again, Joe. In the real world, the GA is nature herself. It’s a process, not a thing. It encompasses mutations occurring during the copying of a DNA and differential reproduction. These two processes comprise the GA in nature. A process is an abstraction, Joe. It is not hidden inside an organism.

  15. I repeat myself, but Joe has obviously misread Shapiro, and due to wishful thinking, interpreted “natural genetic engineering” to mean there is a little demiurge inside the cell that cranks out useful mutations at the right time.

    He has obviously read this as the existence of a genetic engineer, and flopped this into genetic algorithm.

  16. Petrushka:
    I repeat myself, but Joe has obviously misread Shapiro, and due to wishful thinking, interpreted “natural genetic engineering” to mean there is a little demiurge inside the cell that cranks out useful mutations at the right time.

    He has obviously read this as the existence of a genetic engineer, and flopped this into genetic algorithm.

    No- this is MY own- MINE and has nothing to do with Shappy- I have had this for years now.

    And again to refute me just step up and demonstrate that a living organism can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.

  17. Joe G: No- this is MY own- MINE and has nothing to do with Shappy- I have had this for years now.

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!! ‘Shappy’ must be relieved. Can’t type fast enough, eh Joe? Its the adrenalin.

  18. olegt: Joe, you don’t seem to understand even the rough outlines of a genetic algorithm. An algorithm does not live inside an organism. It is a program that creates an initial population of organisms (by specifying their genomes) and then proceeds with this cycle: evaluate the organisms’ fitness, keep the best of them, introduce random changes in genomes. Repeat.

    If you can parse the above, you should be able to see that a GA is not internal to an organism in any sense. It’s external to it. Like nature is to real biological organisms. It does the same thing to them called Darwinian evolution. Nature is not internal to Joe G. It’s external. Same with a GA and organisms it creates.

    oleg- I get it- you are too stupid to think outside of your simple-minded box

    Look at it this way- Star Trek: Next generation- Lt Data was able to rewire his neuro networks due to the algorithms INSIDE OF HIM

    If today’s programmers could figure out a way to get the GA inside of their organisms, they would- now they are doing the best they can-

  19. olegt: Once again, Joe. In the real world, the GA is nature herself. It’s a process, not a thing. It encompasses mutations occurring during the copying of a DNA and differential reproduction. These two processes comprise the GA in nature. A process is an abstraction, Joe. It is not hidden inside an organism.

    Yes I understand your bald assertion- if you could support it we wouldn’t be having this chat

  20. answer the question oleg:

    oleg- in the real world- not an artificial world- where the fuck could a designer put the GA. besides inside of organisms, in order for it to direct mutations?

  21. Yes this thread must be saved- it is a classic case of evotards being unable to support their claims and unable to think outside of their simple-minded boxes.

    Too funny…

  22. There isn’t anything in the definition of a genetic algorithm that prevents it from being inside of the organism, ie that mandates the GA be outside.

    IOW evotard inability does not = my incompotence

  24. Joe G: There isn’t anything in the definition of a genetic algorithm that prevents it from being inside of the organism, ie that mandates the GA be outside.

    Joe, the organism is part of the GA. The GA isn’t part of the organism. And you claim to have worked with GAs!

  25. Rich: Joe, the organism is part of the GA. The GA isn’t part of the organism. And you claim to have worked with GAs!

    In my scenario- just as on Star Trek, it would be inside.

    Again just because you are incapable of thinking outside of your simple-minded box that does not refute anything I have said.

    If today’s programmers could put their GAs in their organisms, they would.

  27. JoeG said: “There isn’t anything in the definition of a genetic algorithm that prevents it from being inside of the organism, ie that mandates the GA be outside.”

    This is funny. It’s like someone trying to figure out whether the *two* in *two geese* is inside or outside the geese.

  28. There isn’t anything in the definition of a genetic algorithm that prevents it from being inside of the organism, ie that mandates the GA be outside.

    IOW evotard inability does not = my incompotence

    Nice they avoid the real issue- THEM

  30. Did this idiot really offer an example from Star Trek as evidence of his claimed intra-cell GAs???

    How can you top that? 🙂

    Joe, you’re the best!

  31. JoeG: “It is a given that your head is up your ass”

    Is it? So my head would be inside the organism then. What about my ass? Is *my* inside or outside of the ass? or the organism? or the head?

  33. Rich: Joe, what part of the steering wheel is the car?

    Rich, but obviously the definition of a car does not prevent it from being inside a steering wheel!

  34. There still isn’t anything in the definition of a genetic algorithm that prevents it from being inside of the organism, ie that mandates the GA be outside.

    IOW evotard inability does not = my incompotence

  35. And again evoTARDs- if you could just step up and actually support the claims of your position, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    However you are too much of a coward to do something like that.

    as predicted…

  36. Obviously, the definition of *two* does not prevent it from being inside – or outside – an organism! It just doesn’t have any discernible meaning whether or not it is.

  38. madbat089:
    Obviously, the definition of *two* does not prevent it from being inside – or outside – an organism! It just doesn’t have any discernible meaning whether or not it is.

    So you are OK with a GA being inside of an organism.

  40. Joe said: “Also science-fiction, well if you mock that then you ain’t interested in science- the science fiction of yesterday is today’s science.”

    Unfortunately those Warp-drives are soooo expensive, otherwise I’d be driving one!

  41. Tell me oleg- what prevents a designer from designing and putting it GA inside of its designed organism?

  42. madbat089:
    Joe said: “Also science-fiction, well if you mock that then you ain’t interested in science- the science fiction of yesterday is today’s science.”

    Unfortunately those Warp-drives are soooo expensive, otherwise I’d be driving one!

    dililithium crystals…

  44. JoeG: “So you are OK with a GA being inside of an organism.”

    I have no objections against GAs inside of organisms. Just like I have no objections against the number *two* inside of organisms.
    Of course, both propositions are meaningless.

  45. madbat089:
    JoeG: “So you are OK with a GA being inside of an organism.”

    I have no objections against GAs inside of organisms. Just like I have no objections against the number *two* inside of organisms.
    Of course, both propositions are meaningless.

    Why is having a GA inside of an organism, meaningless?

    It would mean we are intelligently designed and that means we would be looking at a totally different kind of biology.

  46. “Why is having a GA inside of an organism, meaningless?”

    Think about why having the *two* from *two geese* inside the geese (or outside the geese) is a meaningless proposition.

  47. I’ll give you a hint: what does a number have in common with an algorithm?

  48. Guys, as much fun as this has been, experience shows that trying to teach Joe anything is a waste of time. Elizabeth tried to explain to him this very topic yesterday, we are doing it now, but there is really no point in doing so: he won’t get it.

    Yes, I think Joe has misunderstood how GAs work. Certainly his understanding seems different to the account given in the link he provided, which was a nice description of conventional GAs in which the whole thing – virtual organisms, virtual environment, is the GA, and nothing “runs inside” the organisms apart from reproduction with variance, as in biology.

    Give it up.

  49. olegt:
    Guys, as much fun as this has been, experience shows that trying to teach Joe anything is a waste of time. Elizabeth tried to explain to him this very topic yesterday, we are doing it now, but there is really no point in doing so: he won’t get it.

    Give it up.

    As I said- oleg is too simple-minded to think outside of his little simple-minded box.

    IOW you prove that trying to teach you something new is impossible- and thank you for avoiding my questions- the questions that prove you are trapped.

  50. Tell me oleg- what prevents a designer from designing and putting a GA inside of its designed organism?

Leave a Reply