Replies

am i reading this right ? you are starting with an already defined answer. ("If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me.") and a preselected universe of elements.. and that's proof the evolutionary process is "intelligent" ? Nice Try.

Start with the letter "A" then throw all known letters\numbers\characters etc..into your applet and see if you can come up with that sentence.

Why didn't the "evolution process" find a less perfect match and accept it? like:

"If you can say, which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me and look into the seeds of time."

am i reading this right ? you are starting with an already defined answer.

Uh, WE are the already defined answer ...

am i reading this right ? you are starting with an already defined answer. ("If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me.") and a preselected universe of elements.. and that's proof the evolutionary process is "intelligent" ?

No, you're not reading it right.

Nice Try.

"Nice Try" yourself. Care to try again?

Start with the letter "A" then throw all known letters\numbers\characters etc..into your applet and see if you can come up with that sentence.

What?

You're being quite incoherent here, but nonetheless that *is* rather how the applet works -- by "throwing" random characters into the population of character strings.

Why didn't the "evolution process" find a less perfect match and accept it? like: "If you can say, which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me and look into the seeds of time."

Because we're not modeling semantics, we're modeling the manner in which evolution rapidly maximizes a fitness function even when that local maximum is an immensely tiny needle in a haystack, via nothing more than replication with undirected variation, shaped by a selective process.