29 Oct '13 08:32>
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-genetic-algorithms-nanostructured-materials.html
Genetic algorithms help find new structures useful to science.
Genetic algorithms help find new structures useful to science.
Originally posted by humyBootstrapping themselves up the scale, eh. Skynet here we come🙂
genetic algorithms have already been proven to work and have already often been put to practical use in science and technology and I am certain will be used far into the future. Don't be too surprised if the next generation of computer chips are designed with a little help from genetic algorithms.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is funny how they have to make statements like "the Darwinian model of evolution" even when it has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution. This way they can deny the true source without proof.
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-genetic-algorithms-nanostructured-materials.html
Genetic algorithms help find new structures useful to science.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo, according to you, genetic algorithms have nothing to do with the Darwinian model of evolution? Well, that certainly exposes your total ignorance.
It is funny how they have to make statements like "the Darwinian model of evolution" even when it has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution. This way they can deny the true source without proof.
The Idiot
Originally posted by humyAll I was pointing out was that genetic algorithms have nothing to do with the Darwinian evolution or evilution. So there was no need to mention Darwin or evolution or evilution.
So, according to you, genetic algorithms have nothing to do with the Darwinian model of evolution? Well, that certainly exposes your total ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
"...In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection....
... ...[text shortened]... u will never understand them because you choose to be confused about that -you choose ignorance.
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Idiot[/b]
All I was pointing out was that genetic algorithms have nothing to do with the Darwinian evolution
Originally posted by humyDarwinian philosophy is not needed in science for making algorithms in genetics any more than for making algorithms in chess, etc. In fact, the use of the Darwinian philosophy is likely to produce erroneous results.All I was pointing out was that genetic algorithms have nothing to do with the Darwinian evolution
Right, and I just pointed out that this is clearly false for genetic algorithms have everything to do with the Darwinian evolution.
See the links I provided for proof for this which you obviously just chose to ignore.
I am speaking as a qualified expert on this -you are not but are just talking out of your ignorant ass as always.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd of course, it is your vast programming experience that says that, right?
Darwinian philosophy is not needed in science for making algorithms in genetics any more than for making algorithms in chess, etc. In fact, the use of the Darwinian philosophy is likely to produce erroneous results.
The Instructor
Originally posted by sonhouseThe discovery of DNA showa that the process is top down instead of bottom up. So the term devolution is a little more accurate.
And of course, it is your vast programming experience that says that, right?
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with your hatred for Darwin, could it? Or the use of the term Evolution, like they should instead use the term inverse devolution, that would be ok?
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Moron[/b]
The discovery of DNA showa that the process is top down instead of bottom up.
Originally posted by humyScience that can be observed show that it does not take millions of years. Oil, coal, and fossils are a few of the other things that do not take millions of years to form. The laying down of sediment and carving out of canyons have been shown not to take millions of years too. These millions and billions of years of history appears to be only part of a fairy tale associated with Darwins Theory of Evilution and not a part of real science.The discovery of DNA showa that the process is top down instead of bottom up.
-in the cell metabolism that occurs in modern living cells which has nothing to do with whether DNA evolved before RNA or visa versa -that is what you are too thick to get!
There is no logical contradiction in RNA evolving before DNA and RNA coming from DNA (in ...[text shortened]... et me help you out -one way they differ is one involves millions of years and the other doesn't.
Originally posted by RJHindsnot only is that all false, it doesn't relate to my debunk. Perhaps then, this is your way of admitting you really are that thick.
Science that can be observed show that it does not take millions of years. Oil, coal, and fossils are a few of the other things that do not take millions of years to form. The laying down of sediment and carving out of canyons have been shown not to take millions of years too. These millions and billions of years of history appears to be only part of a fa le associated with Darwins Theory of Evilution and not a part of real science.
The moron
Originally posted by humyThe fact is that you did not debunk anything I have presented. Not only that, you would not even look at the evidence of the facts I presented. So it appears that you are the thick one.
not only is that all false, it doesn't relate to my debunk. Perhaps then, this is your way of admitting you really are that thick.