I know that CS folks use "evolution" to describe a way to develop algorithms, as opposed to Darwinian evolution. What I hate about articles like this is that there's never enough information to make real judgement.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Darren Addy <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting article. However I think that even the most objective > proponent of evolution would have to say that this thought experiment > does nothing to advance the argument. (Perhaps if the code that > created the algorithms that created the virtual monkeys had been > produced by monkeys?) > > Quote: "Each sequence is nine characters long and each is checked to > see if that string of characters appears anywhere in the works of > Shakespeare. If not, it is discarded. If it does match then progress > has been made towards re-creating the works of the Bard. " > > Had these been real monkeys, someone would have needed to be there to > tear the sheet out of the typewriter each time 9 characters were > reached (and to do the comparison with the blueprint: the original > work of Shakespeare) > > In the above experiment, someone decided to make the sequence 9 > characters (instead of 8, or 10, or 64) each of which changes the > probability of "success" of the individual operation. > > Also the result is compared to a known endpoint (goal) of known > complexity. Apples and oranges, to say the least, in comparing with > what occurs in nature. > > Darren Addy > Kearney, Nebraska > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
