cyborg said:
Originally Posted by jimbob
If it requires a simple calculatrion.
There are an infinite number of "simple calculations" (per whatever definition of simple it is you're using) - is it obvious which one it should be?
Chimps have been seen to move poles and then to use them as ladders*, if they can manage that, then I would say that it is a simple matter to realise that if a short pole doesn't reach because it is too short then a longer pole would be
a solution.
If the plank is too short to span the gap, I can think of nobosy who would randomly alter features of the plank, and try again. They would note the deficiency and
might randomly alter
that, but it will still be
in an attempt to fix the problem.
"This plank dosen't reach... OK, son, lets see what happens if we paint it yellow..."
*Including during an escape from Arnhem Zoo.
Quote:
A very simple calculation was all that was needed to calculate the active area needed. There was also no form of selection of the solutions.
This calculation just magicked itself from nowhere did it?
Of course there is a lot of knowledge and theories that inform the choice, but once I understand the concept that two resistors in parallel halve the resistance, then the calculation
is obvious.
Quote:
Where is either random variation or natural selection needed to solve the following problem?
10x=10, find x
A single cable can support a 500N weight
How many cables would you need to support a 900N weight?
How many would you need if you wanted to be safe from any single cable snapping? (Assuming that they can all be anchored adequately).
"Morph the screen into something cool"
You still don't get what the point of randomness is do you?
(Note: Darwinian models don't have any requirement whatsoever that the variation in a population must have been generated by pure, unabashed, unrelenting randomness.)
Organisms tend to differ slightly from their parents, whilst tending to resemble their parents more than their grandparents (heritibility or imperfect self-replication)
Those traits that are beneficial to reproduction will tend to get reproduced, so the populations tends to be better adapted to reproduction over time. (natural selection)
Darwinan models mighten't need pure randomness for the variation, but it can explain the oigin of species without any guided variation. As soon as you have directed variation you are not describing biological evolution. I would also baulk at describing it as Darwinian, as the simple elegance of darwinian evolution is that "guidance" is not needed nor "direction" in the variation, as the only organisms to reproduce will, by definition be those that are able
to reproduce, i.e. are already sufficiently "optimised" to reproduce .
Quote:
I would say that the nature of the problem often suggests some types of solutions, and if that is the case then Darwinian evolution is a poor model of this.
jimbob - please look at the words you are spouting!
"Nature of the problem"
I believe Darwinian evolution deals with "natural selection," - the solution to natural problems.
If I used the phrase "characteristic of the problem, would you say that traits are characteristics, and so I am still describing darwinian evolution, even though "traits" and "natural" are not synonyms?
