On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:02:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >Both are examples of evolutionary design than revolutionary design, as
> >it were. Another example is the design of x86_64 processors by
> >Intel. It is debatable whether anything _really_ complex could be
> >designed by means other than evolution.
> 
> Sure they evolved.  But they weren't designed by *random* variation.
> Engineers could see what improvements they needed and they did
> sometimes backtrack and stop supporting old features in order to
> make new ones work better.  I think there's a crucial difference
> between "a design evolved" and "it was designed by (Darwinian)
> evolution."
> 

If it is crucially different, then that difference ought to be
measurable. Got any ideas? One possibility might be modularity,
although modularity can be favoured in Darwinian evolution too, so as
to increase evolvability.

See eg Pepper (2000), "The evolution of modularity in genome architecture",

http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqcln/al7ev/pepper.ps

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to