OK, here you go...
1. The author claims that GAs are "inefficient awkward process", when in fact they are the MOST efficient means of solving and optimizing open-solution-set multi-variable solution space problems. Fundamentally the author discounts the entire reason that GAs are used for the problems they address, because he doesn't accept the well proven benefit they provide.
2. The author states "All too many evolutionary computationists fail to realize the purely formal nature of GA procedures. GAs are not dealing with physicodynamic cause-and-effect chains." and that shows his ignorance of how GAs work! GAs, in fact, model the same "physicodynamic" (usually called physiodyanmic) realm as genes in that genes consist of chromosomes you get from either your parents or a mutation. Where else do your chromosomes come from? Biology tells us there's only two sources, and that's what GAs use. So here the author tells us he doesn't understand how GAs even work.
3. The author states that the "overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal" both of which are false. The theory of evolution claims that evolutionary forces have a goal of higher survivability of the entity (rates higher in its fitness function, in the GA world). That the goal of evolution is to minimize your mortality (maximize your fitness score). Clearly the author doesn't understand how GAs are rated and scored after each generation, and how natural selection - the fittest tend to (but not always) survive better than the weakest - does in fact mimic the theory of evolution.
Would you like me to go on? Yes, it is nonsensical because the author shows - in a few paragraphs - he does not understand why GAs are used, where they are best used, how they operate, and how a computer scientist determines when to stop a run.
If someone claimed to be a Biblical expert who did not understand Judeo-Christian philosophy, did not read the Bible, and is ignorant of the Resurrection, would you call that person a Biblical expert, and call their ramblings on the Bible non-sensical?
Same thing here.
Teee heee heee- look everybody- Puget thinks he’s a smartie because he can ‘insult’ right alongside hte kiddies in the higher classes
Yeah, you're right, that was a cheap shot. I apologize, brother.
Sorry I can't let this pass. "Evolution" has no goal. It is inanimate. "Evolution" may have an outcome, a thunderstorm has that. If the goal of "evolution" was longevity, why the mayfly? Reproduction would be a better "goal", but it is not. And number of progeny would be an even better goal, but it is not.
That said, I posted a picture from the original paper under discussion in post 23. Do you notice anything peculiar about it?
[[1. The author claims that GAs are “inefficient awkward process”, when in fact they are the MOST efficient means of solving and optimizing open-solution-set multi-variable solution space problems.]]
Non relevent as to whether they represent nature or not- Next objection?
[[Where else do your chromosomes come from? Biology tells us there’s only two sources, and that’s what GAs use. So here the author tells us he doesn’t understand how GAs even work.]]
You’ve misinterpreted what the author was speakign about- He’s speakign about ‘cause and effect’ not where an intelligently designed computer program ‘gets it’s chromosomes from
[[3. The author states that the “overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal” both of which are false.]]
Really? Mutations have goals? Hmmm- first I’ve ever heard of htis
[[The theory of evolution claims that evolutionary forces have a goal of higher survivability of the entity (rates higher in its fitness function, in the GA world).]]
Do you not see that htis woudl REQUIRE prior metainformaiton IF this were true? Evolution has no goal- it coudl care less if a species dies or survives-
[[Clearly the author doesn’t understand how GAs are rated and scored after each generation, and how natural selection - the fittest tend to (but not always) survive better than the weakest - does in fact mimic the theory of evolution.]]
Oh they do understand it just fine- you’re just stubbornly denying it
[[and that shows his ignorance of how GAs work! GAs, in fact, model the same “physicodynamic” (usually called physiodyanmic) realm as genes in that genes consist of chromosomes you get from either your parents or a mutation.]]
To clear up your misconception of what the author was stating (which resulted in an innappropriate xriticism of the author)- He is stating that you can NOT have Natural process GA’s- As hte author points out, and as I have pointed out previously, Metyainformation is just taken for granted- as htough it poofed out of thin air- This results in ‘formal GA’s’ GA’s that work on an existing set of blueprints (Which I will point out are invovled in the ability of metainformaiton to be forward looking and anticipating problems down the road). This is why Computer Algorithms can not model physiodynamic ‘cause and effect’ from a purely natural standpoint- The authors of such programs are Johnny-come-lately’ inventors that take hte info already present, and figure out hte problems IN ADVANCE, and INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN (anticipate for) for these problems- Negating the actual supposed ‘natural process’ of the hypothetical Macroevolutionary process. As the auhor points out, meaning and function are already precoded into GA’s and do NOT represent nature as chemicals and simpel cells would not have the ability to form their own meaning and function from scratch
“But no meaning or function results without deliberate and purposeful selection of letters out of that random phase space.”
I’m afraid you’ve either misunderstood what the author was talking about, or you’ve misrepresented what he was saying- either way, your objections are not relevent to the issues he discussed I’m afraid. GA’s are an innefficient and awkward process when trying to replicate actual nature for hte reasons the author pointed out in the following paragraphs- the author was not saying they are innefficent and awkward in other applications, and infact stated so further down