[[I gave an answer; the article that GGG referenced was nonsensical, as is the Schneider paper you reference. Both articles clearly show a fundamental LACK of understanding of what a Genetic Algorithm is.]]
LOL- Yep- nonsensicle- just make hte statement, and that’s the end of it- BOTH those articles broke down EXACTLT what was goign on- obviously you didn’t bother to even give htem a read- Your only point was about ‘stop executing’- but BOTH those articles addressed everyhtign you brought up-
[[Of course, since the Bible makes no mention of computers and programming, perhaps anything to do with either is witchcraft? Are you allowed to even use computers and programs?]]
Teee heee heee- look everybody- Puget thinks he’s a smartie because he can ‘insult’ right alongside hte kiddies in the higher classes
You addressed NONE of the points in EITHER article- the points brought up were entirely valid and representative of what GA’s consist of- and htey expose the silly notion that GA’s are representative of anythign even resembling macroevolution- IF your textbooks tell you differently, they are lyign to you and I’ll take a pass on them thank you very much- Stick to your theological GA’s if you like- but as for us- We’ll look at hte ACTUAL DATA and determine that they are unsound from a scientific standpoint-
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.