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

  1. JoeG: “dilithium crystals are expensive…”
    So, where do you you usually buy yours?

  2. madbat089:
    “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.

    The two scenarios aren’t even close to being the same…

  3. madbat089:
    JoeG: “dilithium crystals are expensive…”
    So, where do you you usually buy yours?

    Too expensive- cannot even afford the search heuristic to locate

  4. Unfortunately for oleg Elizabeth is not an expert in GAs- I would take the word of an IT person with a computer science background over anything she sez.

  5. Really, when someone says that “fitness is a nonsensical term” and later claims that he “go[es] by the standard and accepted definitions of GPs and GAs and EAs” he is not being consistent. For genetic algorithms definitely rely on a fitness function.

  6. JoeG: “The two scenarios aren’t even close to being the same…”

    Really? So, tell me: what IS the meaning is of a mathematical expression or procedure being inside or outside an organism?

  7. “Too expensive- cannot even afford the search heuristic to locate”
    Sorry about that – I guess that fiction has not arrived in science yet – but don’t give up hope!

  8. Oops, let me correct that typo (edit function doesn’t work for me for some reason):

    JoeG: “The two scenarios aren’t even close to being the same…”

    Really? So, tell me: what IS the meaning of a mathematical expression or procedure concerning a group of organisms being located inside or outside these organisms?

  9. madbat089:
    “Too expensive- cannot even afford the search heuristic to locate”
    Sorry about that – I guess that fiction has not arrived in science yet – but don’t give up hope!

    Jules Verne wrote some science-fiction- and we eventually did some of it, anyway.

  10. madbat089:
    Oops, let me correct that typo (edit function doesn’t work for me for some reason):

    JoeG: “The two scenarios aren’t even close to being the same…”

    Really? So, tell me: what IS the meaning of a mathematical expression or procedure concerning a group of organisms being located inside or outside these organisms?

    How would you locate a GA outside an organism that has to control the inside of an organism?

  11. Fitness function = artificial selection and as I said is part of the GA- if the solution is a specific protein function, then that is what the GA is trying to match.

  12. And this,

    GAs have a goal Elizabeth- a target, so the mutations would be directed towards that.

    also makes no sense in the light of a standard GA. Mutations in GAs are random.

  13. Joe G: Dumbass- fitness wrt biology = reproductive success and doesn’t have to relate to physical fitness- that was my point. You can’t tell until after.

    That was beside the point. You were responding to Geoxus who was referring to the fitness of a genetic algorithm. It wasn’t in a biological context.

  14. olegt: That was beside the point. You were responding to Geoxus who was referring to fitness of a genetic algorithm. It wasn’t in a biological context.

    So you mean GAs use a different definition of fitness than the thing they are supposed to be simulating?

    I never liked the term “fitness function” and have always preferred selection coefficient.

  15. Joe G: Double-dumbass- they are DIRECTED TOWARDS THE SOLUTION- goal oriented, that is all that is required-

    No. Mutations in a GA are random.

    The classic example of a mutation operator involves a probability that an arbitrary bit in a genetic sequence will be changed from its original state. A common method of implementing the mutation operator involves generating a random variable for each bit in a sequence. This random variable tells whether or not a particular bit will be modified.

  16. Joe G: I never liked the term “fitness function” and have always preferred selection coefficient.

    Whether you like it or not, it’s the standard terminology.

  17. olegt: No. Mutations in a GA are random.

    oleg- they may be random, in that any one can occur, but they are all directed towards the goal/ solution- that is the whole freaking purpose of the GA-> to find solutions and all mutations are directed toward that end.

    Obvioulsy you know absolutely nothing about GAs.

  18. olegt: Whether you like it or not, it’s the standard terminology.

    Not in my industry- in evotard confusion-land, where they actually believe they are simulating biology, maybe it is.

  20. Joe G: oleg- they may be random, in that any one can occur, but they are all directed towards the goal/ solution- that is the whole freaking purpose of the GA-> to find solutions and all mutations are directed toward that end.

    No, Joe. Mutations in a GA are random. The resulting organisms are not. And no, this is not a contradiction.

  22. olegt: No, Joe. Mutations in a GA are random. The resulting organisms are not. And no, this is not a contradiction.

    You are not even understanding what I post- I know that because you aren’t addressing any of it.

    Goal oriented = ID, period, end of story.

    Blind watchmaker evolution = no goals, just survival

    Random mutations directed towards a goal = ID. Random mutations accumualting any way they can = BWE

  23. olegt: No, Joe. Mutations in a GA are random. The resulting organisms are not. And no, this is not a contradiction.

    No, it’s not a contradiction. But it is Intelligent Design.

  24. oleg-

    You are not even understanding what I post- I know that because you aren’t addressing any of it.

    Goal oriented = ID, period, end of story.

    Blind watchmaker evolution = no goals, just survival

    Random mutations directed towards a goal = ID. Random mutations accumualting any way they can = BWE

  25. Joe G: Random mutations directed towards a goal = ID.

    This sentence is shear nonsense.

    Mutations in a GA are undirected. Programmers do not know in advance which organisms will be the best for the task at hand. So they try completely random mutations. Selection takes care of selecting the more fit organisms.

  26. olegt: This sentence is shear nonsense.

    Mutations in a GA are undirected. Programmers do not know in advance which organisms will be the best for the task at hand. So they try completely random mutations. Selection takes care of selecting the more fit organisms.

    They are directed towards the goal- why else do they even occur?

    I have been over the rest already- page 1- read my responses to Elizabeth- AGAIN- dipshit

  29. Joe G: They are directed towards the goal- why else do they even occur?

    Mutations. in. GAs. are. random. Here, some required reading.

  31. Joe G: No moron- I offered it as an example of GAs INSIDE of the thing they are controlling- it is an EXAMPLE and seeing your position doesn’t have any, I can see where you would be confused.

    It’s SCIENCE FICTION you nimrod. That means it’s NOT REAL.

    Also science-fiction, well if you mock that then you ain’t interested in science- the science fiction of yesterday is today’s science.

    I’ll remember this example of yours Joe, the next time you start pushing that stupid IDiot book “Privileged Planet”. I’ll just remind you in Star Trek there are *lots* of privileged planets that gave us the Vulcans, the Romulans, the Klingons, the Ferengi, etc.

  32. Joe G:
    GAs are goal oriented. Goal oriented = ID

    Non sequitur. You have not established that there are GAs or “goals” inside of living cells.

  33. Joe G,

    When a person or an animal is born with two heads, or no limbs, or blind, or with terminal cancer, is it because the “goal” of the “designer” is to make those people and animals suffer and/or die?

  34. Joe G: My industry uses them.

    I have explained myself- that you have to be a fucking asshole about it proves that you have lost this argument

    What “industry” is that, joe?

  35. Joe G: They are directed towards the goal- why else do they even occur?

    I have been over the rest already- page 1- read my responses to Elizabeth- AGAIN- dipshit

    Why do volcanoes, rocks, rain drops, snowflakes, human toe hair, fossils, ear wax, tooth decay, asteroid impacts, super novae, birth defects, insanity, death, albinism, floods, tornadoes, balding, pimples, and freckles occur, and do they have a goal and are they directed toward it?

  37. olegt: Mutations. in. GAs. are. random. Here, some required reading.

    oleg if a GA is DESIGNED to solve a problem and it solves it, it does so BY DESIGN, not willy-nilly.

    The mutations can be randdom but they are directed towards the goal by the fitness function selection coefficient

  38. Thorton: Good job Joe.You just spent the last 500 posts arguing that the mutations AREN’T random but are being actively caused by the GA.

    I doubt you could make yourself look any more clueless if you tried, but do keep on.

    They ARE actvely caused by the GA- that is what GAs do.

    They are random wrt probability of their occurence, not that the occur by chance.

  39. Joe G: They ARE actvely caused by the GA- that is what GAs do.

    This is completely irrelevant, Joe. You were previously arguing that mutations in GA were directed. Well, they are not. Mutations are generated randomly as you can find from any source describing GAs. Neither the algorithm nor the designer of the algorithm knows in advance in which direction the genomes should be pushed to achieve greater fitness. They try all directions in an unbiased way.

  40. olegt: This is completely irrelevant, Joe. You were previously arguing that mutations in GA were directed. Well, they are not. Mutations are generated randomly as you can find from any source describing GAs. Neither the algorithm nor the designer of the algorithm knows in advance in which direction the genomes should be pushed to achieve greater fitness. They try all directions in an unbiased way.

    oleg, shut the fuck up as it has already been proven that you are ignorant wrt GAs.

    Mutations are generated randomly, just as I have been saying for years, however the selection coeffificient makes sure that they accumulate towards the goal.

    IOW you are fucking dense…

  41. oleg if a GA is DESIGNED to solve a problem and it solves it, it does so BY DESIGN, not willy-nilly.

    The mutations can be randdom but they are directed towards the goal by the fitness function selection coefficient

  42. Joe G: Mutations are generated randomly, just as I have been saying for years, however the selection coeffificient makes sure that they accumulate towards the goal.

    Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick! Joe finally ekes out a correct statement! Good job, Joe! Yes, indeed, mutations are undirected, and it’s selection that takes care of moving the population toward increase fitness.

  43. Joe G:

    Thank you for continuing to prove that you are igniorant of GAs- the selection coefficient is what allows the mutations to accumulate towards the goal.

    More incompetence from Joe G. The selection coefficient is an after the fact determination of the relative fitness. It doesn’t “allow” anything.

    I’ll ask again: In your “cell internal GA” scenario, how does the GA know its individual fitness relative to the rest of the population?

    And in my scenario the selection coefficient matches to the protein function required, just as I have said.

    Since the “protein function required” for maximal fitness is dependent on the current external environment, and the internal GA has no knowledge or control of the external environment OR the relative fitness of its fellow members of the population, just how is that suppose to work Joe?

    BTW Joe, if your magic designer knew ahead of time what proteins he wanted, why didn’t he just build the damn things directly instead of the convoluted “let them evolve by GA” route?

  44. Joe G: The mutations can be randdom but they are directed towards the goal by the fitness function selection coefficient

    Oh no, you had to spoil everything, Joe. How could you?

    Selection improves the fitness of the population, that’s correct. However, it has no influence on mutations. Mutations remain the same even as the organisms get fitter. Mutations stay undirected.

  45. Joe G:

    Mutations are generated randomly, just as I have been saying for years, however the selection coeffificient makes sure that they accumulate towards the goal.

    Joe, the changes that get selected are dependent on the EXTERNAL selection pressures of the environment.

    How do your INTERNAL GAs control the EXTERNAL selection pressures of the environment?

    You can keep running from the question Joe, but the problem for you won’t go away.

  46. olegt: Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick! Joe finally ekes out a correct statement! Good job, Joe! Yes, indeed, mutations are undirected, and it’s selection that takes care of moving the population toward increase fitness.

    That is what I have been saying for years, asshole.

    oleg if a GA is DESIGNED to solve a problem and it solves it, it does so BY DESIGN, not willy-nilly.

    The mutations can be randdom but they are directed towards the goal by the fitness function selection coefficient

  47. Ignorant evotards cannot grasp the obvious:

    oleg if a GA is DESIGNED to solve a problem and it solves it, it does so BY DESIGN, not willy-nilly.

    The mutations can be randdom but they are directed towards the goal by the fitness function selection coefficient

  48. Oleg Tchernyshyov- Ignorant of GAs :

    Thank you olegt- thank you for proving beyond any doubt that you are totally ignorant of GAs.

    First he tells me that GAs have to be outside of the organisms because that is how it is in a VIRTUAL world. However when reminded that it is a VIRTUAL world and they can do that in a VIRTUAL world, but nit in the real world, where the GA to control the inside of an organism would have to be inside of the organism.

    It took a whole for that to sink in, if it ever did.

    So what does dumbass olegt do next? Say the obvious- that the mutations in a GA are randomly produced- so what oleg- they are produced in response to the GA to help the GA solve the problem it was designed to solve.

    IOW olegt, there is more to any given GA besides the ability to generate random mutations.

    GAs directe those mutations via cumulative selection in order to reach the goal- ie solve the problem.

    GAs = goal oriented and goal oriented = ID.

    IOW if a GA solves the problem it was designed to solve, then it solved it by design, not willy-nilly.

    Unfortunately evotards seem to be ignorant of that…

  49. Joe G: The mutations can be randdom but they are directed towards the goal by the fitness function selection coefficient

    Joe, you are halfway on to being right. Just one more little effort from you (two plus or minus one days).

    Mutations are not directed. They are randomly chosen. What is directed are organisms. They are evaluated for fitness. Mutations stay random and undirected even in the fittest organisms. Read the manual.

  50. Joe G: How do your INTERNAL GAs control the EXTERNAL selection pressures of the environment?

    You can keep running from the question Joe, but the problem for you won’t go away.

    They don’t- they don’t have to- you are a fucking jerk

    Then what does the GA do when the external selection pressures drives the organism AWAY from the goal?

    Same problem for you Joe. In a computer run GA the GA has control over the external selection pressures. That’s how it steers the population towards the goal. Your internal GAs have NO way to control the direction of the external selection pressures, therefore NO way to steer towards the goal.

    Your idiot idea is good and busted Joe. Stick to ticks and watermelons.

Leave a Reply