I can continue to answer your questions if you like, but I honestly don't think it's worth my time. First, I gave you an explanation on NE, because I thought that you had sincere enquiries about NE and you wanted to learn more about it. But you don't; you're just one angry kid, aren't you?

Did you even read my answers to your questions? Why do you even ask if you don't want to be answered? Do you honestly believe that there are NO answers to your questions and everyone will instantly 'see' it after reading your post and convert to God? Is that what you're trying to do? Because if it is, I don't think I should bother trying to explain you anything anymore..


Now, about genetic algorithms.. You have many misconceptions there as well (you can't just visit wikipedia once and think you've covered the subject). Although, sadly, I think that the only reason you studied the wiki page on GA is to find a weak point in my 'theories' to strike me, which I find really sad. Why do you need to turn your thread into some kind of 'war'?

So, anyhow. I'm answering your questions about GAs and I'm out of here. There's about 5 people right now all trying to inform you about the NE theory, and I think that's 5 too many.




Absolutely not. Genetic Algorithms is an alternative method for conventional programming that helps solve Hard problems which are too complex to be solved differently. GAs are inspired by biology in the sense that they do not solve a problem using logic, but instead search the whole field of all existing possibilities(similar to brute force), but don't visit every single solution candidate for optimization reasons and time constraints. GAs are a best-effort algorithm, which means that they do not guarantee an optimal solution to a problem.

In all my previous posts, I've only mentioned GAs ONCE. I wanted to show you that even today we don't know everything and we certainly can't explain all phenomenons in nature, and that even organizations like NASA rely on 'chance' for creating some of their equipment instead of human logic. Apparently, my point didn't get through..




Humans created Genetic algorithms, inspired by the rules of nature.




Genetic Algorithms were conceived in the early '60s, not billions of years ago. I think what you're trying to ask is, how did those golden rules about survival of the fittest, replication and mating came to existence? These rules were the product of the laws of physics.

You keep asking about how life came to earth, but first you'll have to define what 'life' is. If there's certain activity in a few billions and billions of cells, then according to the random structure of each cell, some billions will not do any meaningful activity, while maybe one of them will divide itself into two cells. Now, it's the laws of physics and probabilities that dictate that there are more chances that the cell will the division ability will survive through the years than the ones that don't divide. So your question should not be: "who created the laws of evolution" but "who created the laws of physics", to which I do not have an answer. Take this to a physicists forum if you're genuinely interested on the subject. But even if you do, keep in mind that no one really knows how the universe is created, so refrain your questions there to how and why physics work as they do.

About your example about the human baby on Mars... That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.. You're asking me, if a HUMAN BABY spontaneously appears out of no where to Mars, would it survive? Well no, the baby will die. What does that have to do with evolution? If however, the same reaction of events that sprouted 'life' in earth was to happen in Mars, the creatures that would evolve from that planet would be a lot different than earthlings in order to survive under Mars conditions.




Yes, this is how genetic algorithms work. Are you trying to disprove Natural Evolution by looking at GAs, is that what you're trying to do? This is like trying to disprove birds by looking at airplanes.




'Mating' is referred to GAs as a crossover algorithm and is optional. Random mutation how ever is always applied to every generation.




Yes. That's how we indicate to a GA what problem we want the GA to solve. We don't tell it how to solve it, it's just a way to reward genotypes which are closer to our objective and dismiss the ones which are not. It's a way to emulate how the surrounding environment of an organism lets the organism survive or not. For example, if a genotype is assimilated by a group of eight ones and zeros (e.g. 00110110) and my objective is to evolve a genotype which is all '1's and no '0's, then I would make my simulated environment very hostile towards '0's and friendly towards '1's. So as far as my environemnt is concerned, 'fit' is a genotype with as many 1's as possible. In Natural Evolution, 'fit' is an organism which is as compatible to its surrounding environment as possible. Does this makes any sense to you or am I just talking to the wind?




No, the programmer writes the fitness functions using a programming language. In nature, organisms that are weak to their environment die due to laws of physics.




Genetic Algorithms were conceived by human beings, such as H.J. Bremermann and G.J. Friedman. The first living organism did not have any intelligence, if by intelligence you mean the way the human mind works. I explained you how Natural Evolution works many times in this post and others.




Yes, it's a mathematical formula. We're not applying Genetic Algorithms to evolution, its a programming algorithm inspired by nature that is capable of solving Hard problems. In nature, the problem: "What organism could survive best on a given environment on a given time" is also Hard, because the candidate solutions to be examined are infinite.




Because the sun doesn't have a brain.




Again, give me your definition of 'alive'. Nevertheless, the conditions in the sun makes it a bit hard for any organism to evolve, unless they are extremely resistant to all that heat. But regardless of something being alive or not, everything is changing throughout the time (and the sun is too), due to their interaction with their surrounding environment. Anything (alive or dead) that does not manage to sustain itself perishes, while everything else survives. This is again due to the laws of physics, and the only difference between something that can be considered 'alive', is that a life form may grow, adapt and reproduce, which gives it more possibilities for continuous transformation throughout its 'generations'.




I think I've touched this topic a lot of times higher in the post. This is the last question I'll ever be answering you. You have an attitude and that doesn't go well with discussions like this. So, so long and see you in another thread..