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

  1. olegt: What’s the point of including amino acids on this list? They are fixed building blocks. Mutations don’t change amino acids themselves.

    They are part of the population used to make the new proteins

  2. Geoxus:
    Quotations from Joe.

    2- I explained the population confusion

    You rather exposed your confusion.

    3- The point is to find a solution to get to the goal- that is pretty well accepted in real-world GA land. Again see wikipedia

    The point was in the last sentence. Read that again.

    4- I have ALWAYS said the mutations are random but are cumulatively selected towards a goal- again see “weasel” and “Evolving Inventions”- and again if you could step up and demonstrate NS is up to the task I wouldn’t be having this discussion

    Then you explain yourself very poorly.

    5- What?

    “What?” indeed.

    6- You are wrong as the population in the cell consists of DNA, RNAs (many different types) proteins and amino acids- at the least

    GAs sort entire genomes. If JAs can use a single genome as a population, they’d have to choose between x alleles, where x is the number of homologous chromosomes, and then use some mechanism to produce homozygosity with the right allele (within a single cell cycle? we’re still not clear about that). You could select RNAs and then use reverse transcription, but all this time you’ve been talking about mutations and RNA variability is produced by transcriptional errors and post-transcriptional modifications, not mutations. The variability in proteins comes from transcriptional and translational errors, and post-translational modifications (again, not mutations), but more importantly, as Oleg rightly said, you’d need reverse translation, which has not been shown to exist, in order to make that work.

    7- Provided- also just look at the way the internet works- your email doesn’t always travel the same exact path when you use the internet to send it- the signal doesn’t care what path it takes as long as it gets to the proper destination- it is an ever changing environment with the non-random selection making sure everything gets to the right place.

    I can’t get anything from that. Where can we take a look at the genetic algorithm of email? In order to have something resembling a testable model, you need to make explicit your biological analogy.

    Look up TCP/IP and then take a course in Cisco routers- testable model?

    Strange that your position doesn’t have anything that is testable

  3. damitall: Joe’s usual riposte to this sort of thing is words to the effect of “What about the ribosomes! Ya can’t have proteins without ribosomes! ID!”

    But when yo try to engage in a little discussion o nthe evolution of ribosomes, he slinks away with a curse or two and a couple of “obviously’s” and “your position has nothing”‘s

    Try the blind watchmaker evolution of the ribosome- but please first post a testable hypothesis based on blind and undirected chemical processes constructing a ribosome.

  4. Geoxus:
    Quotations from Joe.

    2- I explained the population confusion

    You rather exposed your confusion.

    3- The point is to find a solution to get to the goal- that is pretty well accepted in real-world GA land. Again see wikipedia

    The point was in the last sentence. Read that again.

    4- I have ALWAYS said the mutations are random but are cumulatively selected towards a goal- again see “weasel” and “Evolving Inventions”- and again if you could step up and demonstrate NS is up to the task I wouldn’t be having this discussion

    Then you explain yourself very poorly.

    5- What?

    “What?” indeed.

    6- You are wrong as the population in the cell consists of DNA, RNAs (many different types) proteins and amino acids- at the least

    GAs sort entire genomes. If JAs can use a single genome as a population, they’d have to choose between x alleles, where x is the number of homologous chromosomes, and then use some mechanism to produce homozygosity with the right allele (within a single cell cycle? we’re still not clear about that). You could select RNAs and then use reverse transcription, but all this time you’ve been talking about mutations and RNA variability is produced by transcriptional errors and post-transcriptional modifications, not mutations. The variability in proteins comes from transcriptional and translational errors, and post-translational modifications (again, not mutations), but more importantly, as Oleg rightly said, you’d need reverse translation, which has not been shown to exist, in order to make that work.

    7- Provided- also just look at the way the internet works- your email doesn’t always travel the same exact path when you use the internet to send it- the signal doesn’t care what path it takes as long as it gets to the proper destination- it is an ever changing environment with the non-random selection making sure everything gets to the right place.

    I can’t get anything from that. Where can we take a look at the genetic algorithm of email? In order to have something resembling a testable model, you need to make explicit your biological analogy.

    GAs sort the entire genome? Evidence please- that is evidence that is a requirement.

  5. Geoxus:
    Joe G,

    I note there was no reply to point 10, which was the critical part of your design argument.

    I note that all of your points are bullshit because you fucked up in point 1

  6. But anyway none of this matters as Elizabeth, if she is smart, will delete this entire thread and start again

  7. another new page:

    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

  9. On this page too:

    And again evoTARDs- if you could just step up and actually support the claims of your position, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    However you are too coward lyto do something like that.

    as predicted…

  11. This is still a keeper too:

    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.

  13. Mike Elzinga: Q.E.D.

    All the threads you show up on are far longer and fact-free than all other threads; and most of this is your insults, taunts and swearing name-calling. You have more of your crap sent to Guano.

    This is not an idol “accusation,” it is pure, objectively observable fact.Count the comments.

    You simply cannot prove that wrong.

    And the evotards had nothing to do with it- that is in your small mind anyway.

    You are a pathetic evotard Mike. Unable to see reality because your head is too far up your ass.

  14. Joe G: GAs sort the entire genome? Evidence please- that is evidence that is a requirement.

    Read the manual, Joe. Geoxus is using the standard terminology of GAs. No proof is required as it is trivially true. Someone who has written a GA or two would know that.

    In genetic algorithms, a chromosome (also sometimes called a genome) is a set of parameters which define a proposed solution to the problem that the genetic algorithm is trying to solve. The chromosome is often represented as a simple string, although a wide variety of other data structures are also used.

  15. olegt: Read the manual, Joe. Geoxus is using the standard terminology of GAs. No proof is required as it is trivially true. Someone who has written a GA or two would know that.

    A living organism can have more than 1 chromosome. And using their “terminology” any DNA sequence could be called a chromosome or a genome.

  16. olegt: Read the manual, Joe. Geoxus is using the standard terminology of GAs. No proof is required as it is trivially true. Someone who has written a GA or two would know that.

    Anything in that which states the entire genome has to be sorted? No? Then what was it supposed to refute?

  18. Joe G: A living organism can have more than 1 chromosome. And using their “terminology” any DNA sequence could be called a chromosome or a genome.

    Joe, we are talking about GAs, not cells. The word chromosome has a specific meaning in that context. Do you understand what it means?

  19. Joe G: Anything in that which states the entire genome has to be sorted?

    What’s the point of generating it if you are not going to do anything with it?

    You simply don’t understand how a GA works even at the simplest level, do you?

    What problems are your “Cellular GAs” solving Joe?

  20. OM:
    Why do you put “terminology” in scare quotes Joe?

    Why do you keep your head up your ass?

    Their “terminology” does not match actual biological terminology.

  23. OM: What’s the point of generating it if you are not going to do anything with it?

    You simply don’t understand how a GA works even at the simplest level, do you?

    What problems are your “Cellular GAs” solving Joe?

    Great, more false accusations from an obvious retarded wanker.

    I told what problems the GA is trying to solve- man you are a fucking pussy

  24. OM: How?

    If you knew anything about GAs you wouldn’t be asking that question.

    So thanks for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant wanker

  25. Joe G: Do you REALLY think your links has anything to do with blind and undirected processes?

    What is the testable hypothesis for such a thing?

    Joe,
    How would you go about designing an experiment that would test if any given process is blind and undirected?

  27. Joe G: If you knew anything about GAs you wouldn’t be asking that question.

    If mutations are random, as you agree they are, then how does the GA “direct” them towards a specific target?

  28. Joe G: Their “terminology” does not match actual biological terminology.

    Right. And the term color in particle physics does not match the notion of color you are familiar with. These are technical terms. Learn what they mean. Don’t complain.

  29. OM: Joe,
    How would you go about designing an experiment that would test if any given process is blind and undirected?

    Umm that is YOUR problem- YOUR position is making the claim- support ot or fuck off

  30. Joe G: Their “terminology” does not match actual biological terminology.

    So give an example of each usage, and why one is wrong.

  31. olegt: Right. And the term color in particle physics does not match the notion of color you are familiar with. These are technical terms. Learn what they mean. Don’t complain.

    Fuck you- if they want to simulate biological evolution and biology, they need to use the SAME terminology

  32. oooooleg–

    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.

  33. Joe G: Umm that is YOUR problem- YOUR position is making the claim

    No, my position is not making any such claim.

    The behaviour of, for example, the ribosome is anything but blind and undirected.

  34. yes indeed-

    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

  35. Joe G: It doesn’t direct which mutation to occur

    Then how does it “direct the mutations towards the goal”?

  37. OM: No, my position is not making any such claim.

    The behaviour of, for example, the ribosome is anything but blind and undirected.

    Yes, it is- I will go with what the alleged evolutionary experts say over the “word” of a known liar, such as your self.

    And why would the behaviour of the ribosome be anything but blind and undirected?

  38. Joe G: where the GA to control the inside of an organism would have to be inside of the organism.

    Inside each cell or inside the organism itself?

    How many GAs in, say, a peacock? One per cell or one per peacock?

  39. OM: Then how does it “direct the mutations towards the goal”?

    If you weren’t so ignorant of GAs you would know that

  40. Rich:
    I hope no-one is using the GA / JA Joe wrote.

    Well you can’t write one so no one has to worry about using one of yours.

  41. Joe G: And why would the behaviour of the ribosome be anything but blind and undirected?

    It’s tightly constrained in it’s actions. Given a certain input a certain output is expected.
    If it behaved in a blind (i.e. inputs are irrelevant) way the output would not have any relation to the input.

  42. Joe G: if they want to simulate biological evolution and biology, they need to use the SAME terminology

    They don’t. The purpose of a GA is not to simulate biology but to find solutions to certain problems. The solution process resembles Darwinian evolution, hence a similar terminology. Similar, but not identical.

  43. Joe G: If you weren’t so ignorant of GAs you would know that

    What, it discards the less fit members of the population in favour of those closer to the target goal?

    Is that what you mean by “direct”?

  44. OM: It’s tightly constrained in it’s actions. Given a certain input a certain output is expected.
    If it behaved in a blind (i.e. inputs are irrelevant) way the output would not have any relation to the input.

    It behaves that way because it was designed to behave that way.

    Your position cannot explain why it does what it does.

  45. Joe G: But anyway none of this matters as Elizabeth, if she is smart, will delete this entire thread and start again

    Oh, I don’t think so. I think it will remain a monument to your inability to learn and understand, which you will be pointed at when you opine on other fora.

  46. Joe,
    In your cellular GA does each cell contain it’s own GA or is there only one per organism?

  47. olegt: They don’t. The purpose of a GA is not to simulate biology but to find solutions to certain problems. The solution process resembles Darwinian evolution, hence a similar terminology. Similar, but not identical.

    Again look up the wikipedia thing on GAs- the whole point is to try to mimic natural selection using “inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.”

  48. Joe G: It behaves that way because it was designed to behave that way.

    Stating the obvious much Joe?

    Joe G: Your position cannot explain why it does what it does.

    And your answer to that question seems to be ” It behaves that way because it was designed to behave that way”. Very useful, you should let some biologists know about this remarkable insight.

  50. Joe G:
    Hey dumbass- the GA does the controlling/ directeing FOR the designer.

    Joe G:
    I have ALWAYS said the mutations are random

    So which is it Joe? Are the mutations random or are they controlled by the GA?

    You’ve flip-flopped between those two contradictory views at least twice so far.

    Did “Jim” or “frisbeekid” get into your shared account again?

Leave a Reply