3 ms·
+1 Thanks for the explanation. I can fully understand both the legitimacy and the desire to model the specific process of genetic propagation, but was somewhat
by kirse 18y ago
+1 Thanks for the explanation. I can fully understand both the legitimacy and the desire to model the specific process of genetic propagation, but was somewhat confused how exactly that logically validates it as an accurate representation of its function in evolution as a whole.
It's pretty clear one model has a designer and the other does not, and you certainly agree that the existence of a designer is more than just a small issue when dealing with the validity of evolutionary "models". =)
- demallien 18y agoIf you mean that there is a 'designer' of the system, then sure, there is. But if you mean that there is a 'designer' of the little model cars, then no, you are absolutely wrong (except in the sense that the GA itself, a mindless mathematical process, is a designer). In other words, this is a pretty faithful model of evolution if we postulate that once the first self-replicating organism came into being (once the programmer had written the model/fitness function), no further interference is necessary - a purely mathematical process will lead to artifacts that appear 'designed'.