Evolution or Creation? You Decide :)
joe.potter at worldnet.att.net
Fri Mar 28 19:42:56 EST 1997
Rob Miller <rmiller at house.med.und.ac.za> wrote in article
<333A94E9.2B143A5F at house.med.und.ac.za>...
> <sigh>, The real question is why I'm getting drawn into this.
No need to be, I do not desire any long conversation.
> > [Rob:]
> > > I suggest you read up on a computational search technique called
> > > a "genetic algorithm". They are very simple and easy to program,
> > > `sexual' mixing of genes and see which way produces a healthy
> > > population for a given `fitness function' faster.
> > Why would I do this??? I did not write that Dr. Eldredge
> > meiosis was inferior to mitosis, as he did not claim this. I wrote that
> > asks why meiosis arose IF the game is for the genes to make as many
> > of themselves as possible.
> No, you asked, as quoted above, "why in the heck did the mixing of genes
> on a
> 50-50 basis arise???" I attempted to give evidence from an informatics
> perspective that mixing of genes is advantageous for survival of a
> in a given environment, and hence "for the genes to make as many copies
> themselves as possible." Indeed, perhaps this is not a completely
> characterization of "the game".
No one would question that gene mixing yields advantage to the species,
but I pointed out that under current evolutionary theory ( modern
synthesis) we see a paradox. Well, actually I pointed out that Niles
Eldredge pointed out the paradox in his book "Reinventing Darwin."
> In answer to your current question, "Why would I do this???", obviously
> so that you might learn and expose yourself to new ideas and situations.
Not obvious at all. You suggest that I view a simple computer simulation
and ignore the important question that Dr. Eldredge put forth.
Besides, these simulations are nothing more than variants of early game
theory from math that was hot in the 70s. What next? A random walk
simulation to learn stock market investing?
> > By the way, I'm sure you know this is a large controversy in
> > Ultra-Darwinist camp, why pretend it is not????
> What you are sure of is not true. I have no knowledge nor interest in
> "the Ultra-Darwinist camp" (is that run by the Parks Board ? :-), I am
> interested in computational approaches to protein structure prediction.
Well, I though anyone interested in any aspect of evolution theory would
keep current with Eldredge, Gould, Dawkins, ect.
"Ultra-Darwinist" is Dr. Eldredge's term of those like Dr. Dawkins.
Possibly you might like to expose yourself :-) to new ideas and situations.
More information about the Mol-evol