This should get some good discussion / denial!
652 thoughts on “Evolving Wind Turbine Blades”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
The weasel algo has a target because the fitness function is defined in the same terms of the candidate solution, namely the sequence of letters.
In the wind mill, the fitness function (OpenFoam) has no idea of what solution it’s testing (the length of the spines) hence it can’t target a particular shape, just keep trying to find a better one over and over again, but there’s never a point at which one solution upon evaluation through the fitness function is known to have peaked.
Can you see the difference?
And yet here we are arguing that a search can have multiple targets against those arguing that it’s not a search unless it has only one target and the program halts without manual intervention.
Psssst. Mung.
Can you provide a link to an OP where you’ve made that argument in the past? I’d be happy to read it and see if I agree.
I’ll restate here as it’s quite simple. Given sufficient time and computational resources, a GA could solve a problem where the solution is bigger than the code used to solve it. In this case it would have created information.
GA’s do not model Darwinian evolution.
The field of natural computing has been the focus of a substantial research effort in recent decades. One particular strand of this research concerns the development of computational algorithms using metaphorical inspiration from systems and phenomena that occur in the natural world. These naturally inspired computing algorithms have proven to be successful problem-solvers across domains as diverse as management science, bioinformatics, finance, marketing, engineering, architecture and design.
Natural Computing Algorithms
The claim by Joe F. that GA’s use natural selection is laughably misguided.
Shit GAs work! That means that they must not model evolution, which doesn’t!
The neat thing about circles is that they never end.
I like this.
It’s a great illustration of how evolutionary processes work. There’s the random (or should I say stochastic) element of generating variation and the non-random element of testing variants for performance in some environment then repeat as necessary.
You can kick and moan all you want buddy, but they do. In a variety of ways, and level of detail, they simulate RV + NS. It’s laughable that you’re still arguing against this when we’ve already shown that GA’s are by definition, about random variation plus natural selection.
Does leaving more offspring mean better adapted, and what does that have to do with adaptations?
It’s reproductive success full stop. Whatever compromise solution is better able to reproduce is the measure of success, regardless of how that is actually physiologically achieved.
Now we all know GA’s don’t actually work this way, don’t we?
If you set some performance test and measure performance of a set of candidate products that are produced with varying parameters, why is choosing the best performer and using that to further test small variations not selection? I’d agree that “natural” adds little if anything and can be omitted.
You don’t, which is sort of pathetic at this point, sorry to say
Reproductive success is likely to result in the genotype that produces those advantageous adaptations predominating in the breeding population unless the environment changes or other variations arise which result in better-adapted individuals.
I wouldn’t be flying what you know up the flagpole if If were you, Mung.
1. New organism (with some difference in it genome)
2. Fitness test
3. # of offspring and mate contingent on results of 2.
Richardthughes,
I’ve been thinking about this comment from Lizzie upthread:
I’m coming to agree with her. These kinds of systems aren’t models of evolution, they are demonstrations of evolution in action. The process itself is taking place in software rather than chemistry and the software version is far less complex than the organic versions we observe, but it is the same process. This system isn’t modeling evolution, it’s implementing evolution.
Thoughts?
Patrick,
I’d agree. Look at the definitions of evolution and strip out references to biology.
It’s evolution, but not chemistry or biology. The limitations of GAs cannot be extrapolated to imply limitations in biology.
Tell a creationist GA’s model evolution:
*denial*
Tell a creationist they model Darwininan evolution
*outrage*, *toys flying out the pram*, *seizures*
Tell them evolution is not darwinian
*wut?*
Tell them there’s also this genetic drift that makes it even more random
*FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU*
But unless you put the computer in a high wind… 😉
I just love being on the side of scientific empiricism, unbound by presuppostions, preconceptions and the need to bend reality to fit them.
A quick look at UD (ID’s premier science blog) shows discussion on what God may or may not do.
petrushka,
What kind of person would make such an irrational extrapolation?
dazz,
Holy cow- I said it models evolution, directed evolution.
And evolutionism posits evolution via natural selection, drift and neutral accumulations. There isn’t any difference between that and Darwinism. They are both evolution via blind and mindless processes.
Patrick,
Directed evolution, ie evolution by design. They are not demonstrations of undirected evolution, the evolution posited by evolutionary biologists
Unless you consider natural selection a director, no it’s not directed.
And just because the models are designed, that doesn’t mean what they model (evolution) was designed. You’ve been told already by someone else here that you’re confusing the map with the terrain. We have weather simulations too, but that doesn’t mean that storms are designed
Frankie,
“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”
dazz,
GAs don’t have anything to do with natural selection. And just because someone says I am confusing the map with the terrain doesn’t make it so.
GAs are search heuristics that are guided towards a solution. That is just a fact. Natural selection is not a search heuristic and isn’t guided at all.
And please stop using analogies that have nothing to do with anything. Your position can’t even explain weather.
Frankie,
“But yes the GAs that run us are inside of us. What is the alternative that all our functions “just happen” once we get the right chemicals together? Good luck testing that… “
And dazz, I am OK with the fact that you guys would get eviscerated in this debate on an honest and open forum, moderated by honest and open people.
No, you got that wrong again. Darwinian evolution is just RV + natural selection. But evolution is not darwinian in reality, because drift plays a roll (a bigger roll in smaller populations, while NS dominates in larger ones). Therefore, even if one deems NS a director, evolution is never fully directed.
Actually, according to Prof. Larry Moran, molecular clock calculations suggest that genetic drift may be the null hypothesis for the evolution in the primate lineage, and most of the differences between humans and chimps or gorillas can be accounted by drift alone.
Most evolution is neutral evolution. What’s directing that?
Wouldn’t it be more sensible for the Designer simply to cut to the chase and twiddle the bits that need twiddling?
And what’s with all the invisible variation, genetic diversity?
Simulation. Model. Metaphor. Look them up.
You have reading comprehension issues. Also NS includes RV. And NS is still the only process said to be a designer mimic. Drift just changes allele frequency and nothing more. The only other hope is neutral construction but that is nothing more than sheer dumb luck.
Darwin could have left the natural off of natural selection too. But he didn’t.
petrushka,
Just find a way to test your position
Pssst, Mung?
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. They are in fact fine-tuned to work.
Say it isn’t so.
Poor Mung.
Mung,
Yes, intelligent agents make them as close to evolution as they can. Designers be praised!
I know, he wants the intellectual and moral low ground, but FrankenJoe is blocking his path!
Elizabeth also likes to say the map is not the territory.
Evolution is not the whole of biology, Mung. I don’t think you Grok the expression.
Grokking Algorithms
An algorithm is nothing more than a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem.
They are, by nature, teleological. Purposeful. Goal-directed. Don’t choke now.
You’re the one who’s choked time and again every time we’ve asked you what’s the goal of any GA, where is it coded and how do you know you’ve reached it.
Care to address that or should we expect more hand-waiving on your part?
I’m sorry Mung, where is “algorithm” in the expression “the map is not the territory.”? Point to it. Don’t choke.
Are you regressing?
Now we could do this all day long. Or you all could just say this is what you meant all along.
Who sets the goals for biology, Mung?
Are you going to show how you implement “reproductive success”?
How about we assign a fitness to each candidate solution that is then used to determine the likelihood that the “genotype” will be represented in the next generation? IOW, when fitness determines reproductive success.
As opposed to the following:
Because we all know GA’s don’t actually work this way.
Maybe you could come up with ta GA where the reproductive success determines the fitness function.