5 ms·
No it's not. Evolution itself does not have the objective of creating something. Regarding evolution, having read both Kenneth's book and "The Blind Watchmaker
by mirceal 9y ago
No it's not. Evolution itself does not have the objective of creating something.
Regarding evolution, having read both Kenneth's book and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins I can tell you that Kenneth rediscovers what Dawkins explained in his book in 1986.
The experiment Dawkins describes in his book resembles the picbreeder experiment a lot.
- MyObjective4 9y agoWouldn't humans creating recognizable images by choosing a particular aberration that looks like something familiar be more akin to intelligent design? Without this intelligence and creativity to see something in each new breed and branch, coupled with the ability on the site to rank images and label images. The final images would have ever existed. According to Dawkins, Evolution has two objectives. Optimizing survival and procreation. We saw how the randomness toward an objective failed to produce anything meaningful in this example so how is this similar to natural evolution? I see no similarities.
- mirceal 9y agothe point is that you cannot design it. you're exploring the space looking at what is interesting. So if you're given a start image and an end image (an objective) you cannot reach the end image. In the case of pic-breeder you are playing the role of a fitness function not that of an intelligent designer.