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

  1. Joe G: BTW yours is a GENERIC selection procedure, which means any real one does not have to be the same as that.

    Do you understand what generic means, Joe? It means characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things. All GAs use this selection procedure. If an algorithm uses something else, it’s not a GA in the standard sense.

  2. What part of the following don’t evotards understand:

    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 direct 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…

    Proud of it too

  3. olegt: Do you understand what generic means, Joe? It means characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things. All GAs use this selection procedure. If an algorithm uses something else, it’s not a GA in the standard sense.

    Yes I understand generic- it means NOT SPECIFIC- and being characteristic of does not mean exactly alike- you are a moron.

  4. Joe G: Of course it matters and selection would act on the DNA sequences or proteins.

    It would, of course. But the presence of selection would not affect mutations. They would remain undirected, whether selection pressure is present or not.

  6. olegt: It would, of course. But the presence of selection would not affect mutations. They would remain undirected, whether selection pressure is present or not.

    Shut the fuck up- you are obviously too much of a coward to actually address what I say in its entirety.

    The mutations are random and they are then directed towards the target

  7. Joe G: Yes I understand generic- it means NOT SPECIFIC- and being characteristic of does not mean exactly alike

    So if an algorithm is not generic then it has some features that it does not share with the group. Your algorithm (what is it, exactly?) would differ from GAs in that it does not use the selection procedure characteristic of GAs.

  8. My point relates to the GA, not just the mutations.

    The GA is goal oriented, whether or not you admit it oleg.

  9. olegt: So if an algorithm is not generic then it has some features that it does not share with the group. Your algorithm (what is it, exactly?) would differ from GAs in that it does not use the selection procedure characteristic of GAs.

    Nope, in my scenario the GA uses a selection procedure characteristic of all GAs.

    Again YOUR ignorance is not a refutation.

  10. Joe G: The mutations are random and they organisms are then directed towards the target increased fitness

    Fixed that.

  12. olegt: The GA selection procedure does not mention anything about mutations. It is entirely separate from the mutation part.

    Shut the fuck up- the mutations are part of the GA. The selection part is separate from the mutation part- dumbass. Mutations forst-> then selection

  13. Joe G: GAs have a target- a goal

    Of course they do. That does not mean, however, that mutations in a GA are directed.

  14. oleg the coward:

    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 direct 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…

    Proud of it too

  15. Joe G: Shut the fuck up- the mutations are part of the GA. The selection part is separate from the mutation part- dumbass. Mutations forst-> then selection

    So far so good. I missed the part where selection affects mutations, rather than organisms. Try again?

  16. olegt: Of course they do. That does not mean, however, that mutations in a GA are directed.

    They are directed towards the goal by the selection coefficient, just as I said.

    GAs are goal oriented which means they are a design mechanism.

  17. olegt: So far so good. I missed the part where selection affects mutations, rather than organisms. Try again?

    You missed everything- selection directs the muatations towards the goal.

    How else does the goal get reached?

  18. Joe G: They are directed towards the goal by the selection coefficient, just as I said.

    No. Mutations are unaffected by selection. Show me a description of GAs that says otherwise.

  19. Let;s see if I program a GA to find a specific antenna- an antenna with specific properties, will I expect an antenna for an output or a piece of candy?

  20. Joe G: You missed everything- selection directs the muatations [sic] the population of organisms towards the goal increased fitness.

    Fixed it again.

  21. olegt: No. Mutations are unaffected by selection. Show me a description of GAs that says otherwise.

    The mutations are part of a cumulative selection process towards the goal, ie they are directed towards the goal.

  22. olegt: Fixed it again.

    you broke it aagin- the mutations are what we are talking about dumbass and GAs havea GOAL- and the goal isn’t just increased fitness

  23. Joe G: The mutations are part of a cumulative selection process

    No, they are not. Mutations and selection as separate parts of a GA cycle.

  24. coward oleg:

    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 direct 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…

    Proud of it too

  25. olegt: No, they are not. Mutations and selection as separate parts of a GA cycle.

    They are all part of the GA, which is telling the mutations to ovccur and then cumulatively selecting the mutations which best fit the target.

    As I said you are ignorant of GAs, and it shows.

  26. Joe, how about you describe the GAs you have allegedly written? 🙂 I dare you.

  27. olegt:
    Joe, how about you describe the GAs you have allegedly written? I dare you.

    They were for programming FPGAs.

    But anyway now I see you need to try to change the subject because you are completely ignorant of GAs.

    Tell you what oleg- go find a GA expert, bring him or her here, have them present teir cedatials and then let’s see if tehy say I am wrong wrt GAs.

  28. olegt: Jesus Christ, the guy is unable to learn.

    YOU are unable to learn you stupid fucking jerk.

    YOU have never written or used a GA in your sad, pathetic life, and it shows,

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

    GAs direct 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…

  30. Joe G: YOU have never written or used a GA

    I have not, but that’s beside the point. I am not the one who claims to have written them. If you have indeed written an debugged GAs, you should have no trouble describing them even to a non-specialist audience. Go ahead and do that. I am betting that you won’t.

  31. olegt: I have not, but that’s beside the point. I am not the one who claims to have written them. If you have indeed written an debugged GAs, you should have no trouble describing them even to a non-specialist audience. Go ahead and do that. I am betting that you won’t.

    oleg- you have proven to be an ignorant son of a bitch who is incapable of learning.

    Why should I waste more of my time seeing you cannot even understand the basics?

  32. oleg continues to ignore:

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

    GAs direct 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…

  33. Joe G: Why should I waste more of my time seeing you cannot even understand the basics?

    I am sure there are brighter individuals on this blog. Not as bright as you are, Joe, but certainly knowledgeable about GAs. Or do it for the onlookers. (Hi Gil!) 🙂

  34. once again:

    An article on Talk Origins states:

    In a broadly general sense, GAs do have a goal: namely, to find an acceptable solution to a given problem. In this same sense, evolution also has a goal: to produce organisms that are better adapted to their environment and thus experience greater reproductive success. But just as evolution is a process without specific goals, GAs do not specify at the outset how a given problem should be solved. The fitness function is merely set up to evaluate how well a candidate solution performs, without specifying any particular way it should work and without passing judgment on whatever way it does invent. The solution itself then emerges through a process of mutation and selection.

    Forget that evolution does not have the goal stated- the point is that GAs are an example of front-loading- that is they start with everything they need to solve some problem. Front-loading does NOT require that the solution be known nor that the specific process to finding the solution be known.

    What is required is the specification of what you need- what are you trying to solve.

    For example a GA was used to design an antenna. The engineers did not know what the antenna would look like. But what they had were the specifications the antenna needed to meet- again from Talk Origins:

    Altshuler and Linden 1997 used a genetic algorithm to evolve wire antennas with pre-specified properties. The authors note that the design of such antennas is an imprecise process, starting with the desired properties and then determining the antenna’s shape through “guesses…. intuition, experience, approximate equations or empirical studies” (p.50). This technique is time-consuming, often does not produce optimal results, and tends to work well only for relatively simple, symmetric designs. By contrast, in the genetic algorithm approach, the engineer specifies the antenna’s electromagnetic properties, and the GA automatically synthesizes a matching configuration.

    THAT is front-loaded evolution.

    So with my idea of front-loaded evolution we would have the initial conditions, the required resources, the specified result (ie what you are trying to accomplish) and then the algorithms to make it all happen.

    Sadly evotards will never grasp any of that.

  35. olegt: I am sure there are brighter individuals on this blog. Not as bright as you are, Joe, but certainly knowledgeable about GAs. Or do it for the onlookers. (Hi Gil!)

    Let them present themselves and prove that I am wrong, then.

    Or are they as cowardly as you?

  36. and:

    In Genetic/ Evolutionary Algorithms and My Front-Loaded Evolution I stated the case for front-loaded evolution via genetic/ evolutionary algorithms.

    Today I will expand on that by telling you what gets front-loaded- well I will be telling those who are not up to the task of putting that together from what I had posted in that blog:

    So with my idea of front-loaded evolution we would have the initial conditions, the required resources, the specified result (ie what you are trying to accomplish) and then the algorithms to make it all happen.

    So what gets front-loaded?

    1- You need a target-> the goal-> what it is you are trying to achieve. No need to write an algorithm if there isn’t a problem to solve-

    “I wrote an algorithm”

    “What does it do?”

    “It’s an algorithm, stupid.”

    “How do you know when its done?”

    So the specifications of what you are trying to achieve are front-loaded. As the algorithm chugs along it keeps checking for any match to those specs.

    2- You need to figure out a valid starting point- those initial conditions- one way is to determine what it is minimal you can do, without any algorithm, to get as close to the target.

    The initial condition(s) is(are) front-loaded

    3- You need the proper resources that the algorithm can use to get from starting point to the target.

    Those resources are front-loaded.

    4- Then there is that algorithm or algorithms that, from the initial conditions and the provided resources, some of which can be by-products of the algorthim(s), can produce the desired solution.

    The algorithm(s) is(are) front-loaded.

    That should be it- once you do all of that and hit “go” it is hand’s off for the designer(s).

    What did Dawkins do for “weasel”- He had a specified sentence in mind. He set the initial conditions as a sequence of letters. He had the resource of the alphabet to call upon and then wrote an algorithm that would make it so.

  37. Joe G: Let them present themselves and prove that I am wrong, then.

    We are not trying to prove you wrong, Joe. We are discussing GAs. That’s the state goal of this thread, remember? Everyone, except you, agrees on the basic definition of a GA. You seem to disagree with the standard definition and insist that mutations are directed. Well, we have looked at various descriptions of GAs in reasonable competent sources and found nothing that would back you up. Fine, maybe Wikipedia, Liz, and all of us is wrong and you are right. So far, however, you have not presented anything that backs up your position.

  38. Joe G: Why should I waste more of my time seeing you cannot even understand the basics?

    Oh, you shouldn’t. There is an old saying that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. In this particular case, it is better to merely assert you can program a GA and have us think you can’t, than to actually describe one and leave a record for all to see.

  39. So, how about describing those GAs that you have written, Joe? Us unwashed masses could learn a thing or two from you, Mr. Expert! 🙂

  40. ben h: Oh, you shouldn’t. There is an old saying that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. In this particular case, it is better to merely assert you can program a GA and have us think you can’t, than to actually describe one and leave a record for all to see.

    Yup and evotards have opened their ignorant mouths and have removed all doubt.

  41. Joe G: And I said the mutations are random and the selection process directed them the population of organisms towards the goal higher fitness– which it does.

    This is getting repetitive. By now you can surely correct yourself. I have to do some chores; can I ask you to be in charge? 🙂

  42. olegt:
    So, how about describing those GAs that you have written, Joe? Us unwashed masses could learn a thing or two from you, Mr. Expert!

    I did- they were for progamming FPGAs

  43. olegt: This is getting repetitive. By now you can surely correct yourself. I have to do some chores; can I ask you to be in charge?

    oleg you are fucking up my stuff- stop it- you are an ignorant fuck wrt GAs and you prove every time you try to correct me- no corrections required asshole, what i said is fine the way I said it.

  44. Joe G: oleg- you are obvioulsy too ignorant and too dishonest to learn.

    Forget me, Joe. I am clearly past my prime. Think about the young minds. Dazzle them with your brilliant snippets of code! 🙂

  46. And I said the mutations are random and the selection process directed them of organisms towards the goal which it does.

    Only a moron would think tat first sentence requires some “correction”.

  47. Joe G: no corrections required asshole, what i said is fine the way I said it.

    Except what you say runs against any description of a GA that I have seen. In standard GAs (on which you have said to rely), mutations are unaffected by selection.

  49. Joe G: And I said the mutations are random and the selection process directed them of organisms towards the goal which it does.

    Directed them of organisms? What does this word salad mean? Calm down, Joe, you are too excited for your own good.

  50. olegt: Except what you say runs against any description of a GA that I have seen. In standard GAs (on which you have said to rely), mutations are unaffected by selection.

    Wrong again, as usual- your ignorance is not a refutation oleg.

    Mutations are accumulated by selection- THAT is my claim- they accumulate towards the fgoal of the GA- and that means the GA directs the mutations towards the goal.

    It doesn’t direct which mutation to occur- which is what your little mind thinks i am saying.

Leave a Reply