29 Oct 13
1 edit
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.
29 Oct 13
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.
29 Oct 13
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.
The Instructor
29 Oct 13
7 edits
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
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....
....
The evolution usually starts from a population of randomly generated individuals, and is an iterative process, with the population in each iteration called a generation. In each generation, the fitness of every individual in the population is evaluated; the fitness is usually the value of the objective function in the optimization problem being solved...."
http://www.obitko.com/tutorials/genetic-algorithms/ga-basic-description.php
"...Genetic algorithms are inspired by Darwin's theory about evolution...."
Being a semi-AI expert myself complete with some real ACTUAL AI credentials from university, I know vastly more about this than you do. I have even made some genetic algorithms to solve some problems. The way they work is actually fundamentally simple because, with just a few rare exceptions, most use the very simple concept of evolution -which is why you will never understand them because you choose to be confused about that -you choose ignorance.
29 Oct 13
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.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Idiot[/b]
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.
30 Oct 13
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.
The Instructor
30 Oct 13
2 edits
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
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?
30 Oct 13
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?
The Instructor
30 Oct 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Moron[/b]
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 (indirectly) in modern cell metabolism for the two don't equate. If you deny this, explain to us this contradiction....
Exactly HOW does what happens in cell metabolism in the modern day, which obviously doesn't involve millions of years because it all happens within the lifetime of the cell, equate with how that cell metabolism could have evolved, with DOES involve millions of years because that requires many generations? Spot the difference now? 😛 Or are you just too thick to see how they differ? yes? OK, let me help you out -one way they differ is one involves millions of years and the other doesn't.
30 Oct 13
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.
The Instructor
30 Oct 13
1 edit
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
30 Oct 13
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.
The Instructor