Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, July 05, 2012

Genetic Algorithms Have a Goal, Natural Evolution Does Not

-
Richie the evoTARD Hughes still thinks that just because someone can call a search heuristic a "genetic" algorithm that there is really genetics involved. He also thinks that just because wikipedia can say GAs mimic natural evolution, that they do.

Well GAs only mimic natural evolution if and only if natural evolution is Intelligent Design evolution. Ya see GAs have goals and according to the theory of evolution there aren't any goals, meaning mutations are not searching for some solution for the organism. With GAs the whole point is searching for a solution (or solutions). Specified solutions such that you know when the algorithm is finished.

genetic algorithms have a goal

posted by Joe G @ 3:07 PM  

24 Comments:

  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    First, the sheer joy and hilarity of you posting on GAs is great. GAs *do* mimic evolution - that's how they came to be. That's not to say they ARE evolution (Sorry Joe, there's not really tiny creatures running around in the computer), they are an abstraction, but use many of the same concepts and terminology (which Joe is ignorant of).

    Unfortunately for linguistically impoverished Joe, "mimic" only requires you to be like in some regards, not to be like in totality.

    With regard to GAs being finished I could tell Joe that they're often not an exhaustive search and so solution or solutions may be 'good enough' local minima or 'old enough' generations, but that's specifics, and he doesn't do that.

    Yet more fuzzy thinking from the fat bloater-bluffer.

     

  • At 3:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    And OgreMkV would like ot remind you:

    "Rich, you need to remind Joey about the checkers playing program on talk.origins archive.

    The programmers did not give the program a goal, or the rules of checkers, or even what it took to win. They didn't even tell it when it won or lost a game.

    They only told the program whether the last 5 trials were good or poor.

    Oops... Joey fails. Again. It's not even funny any more. "

     

  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Great, Richie the coward chimes in and doesn't even deal with the reason why GAs do not mimic natural/ biological evolution.

    They only "mimic" evolution in the delusional minds of evoTARDs.

    With regard to GAs being finished, yes it is whatever the programmer wants. So what?

     

  • At 4:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No one claimed GAs were life or where alive. But they are modeled on life's ability to find solutions to problems.

    Your constant misunderstanding of GAs, along with proclaiming yourself and expert and yet not knowing the basics is worth laughing at. So we are.

     

  • At 4:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for Kevin, aka Ogre MK V - he is another fucking moron who doesn't have a clue.

    If I ever care I will look at that program but it is a given that kevin is lying and/ or hiding something.

    Is the program even a GA? And in what way is it a GA? (besides someone just saying it is. people have said AVIDA is a GA but it isn't, ask Wes Elsberry)

     

  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No one claimed GAs were life or where alive.

    That is what I have been saying and you get all tardgasmy.

    But they are modeled on life's ability to find solutions to problems.

    If life has that ability it is because it was designed into it. As I said GAs mimic Intelligent Design evolution.

    Your constant misunderstanding of GAs

    Just because you can continue your fucking delusions and false accusations doesn't make them so.

     

  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "If life has that ability it is because it was designed into it"

    You've whipped that one out of your butt with no support.

    Still no code, Joe? *shocker*

    Why even continue this charade? You're lying. I know you're lying. You know I know you're lying, etc etc.

     

  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie,

    Your entire position is out of your asshole with no support. Complete hershey-squirts.

    All you are is one big charade- a total house of cards, a facade.

    As for Kevin, I was right, he is an idiot. They programmed quite a bit into it and the selection coefficient is the driving information.

     

  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW, the goal of the checkers EA- to play checkers.

    morons

     

  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "BTW, the goal of the checkers EA- to play checkers."

    But the algorithm didn't know that. Moron.;-)

     

  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Poor Joe. Doesn't know how GAs work. Doesn't know the vocabulary. Talks about 'Lt. Data from star trek' instead.

    I bet you know all 52 flavours, though.

     

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! What a dumbass. The algorithm doesn't know anything.

    The goal was to have a computer program play checkers without explicitly programming it to do so.

     

  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Poor Richie. Learns about GAs from reading wikipedia and still doesn't understand it. Too stupid to understand concepts and ideas. And still too much of a coward to support anything...

     

  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh dear Joe. You'll remember that I've offered to share my work with GAs once you've shared yours. I don't purport to be an 'expert', though.

     

  • At 6:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA

    Richie, go share your ignorance of GAs with with stoking evoTARD butties. I have had more than enough of your ignorance.

    And it is obvious that you are not an expert on anything except how to be a deluded lying asshole loser.

     

  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I would like to hear more about how the checker playing GA that has a goal of playing checkers, doesn't have a goal.

    Amazing that not one evoTARD stepped forward to correct Kevin- that tells me they didn't have a clue...

     

  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Sorry Joe, I couldn't leave this one alone. You are wrong (as usual). And perhaps others aren't correcting me because I'm correct.

    From the paper "Only the position of the pieces on the board, the spatial characteristics of the
    checkerboard, and the piece differential are made available as explicit data to be
    processed."

    In other words, the checkers playing program wasn't told even what the goal was or how to achieve that goal.

    More from the paper: ?You are told the rules of how the pieces move (i.e.,
    diagonally, forced jumps, kings) and that the piece differential is available as a feature.
    You are not, however, told whether or not this differential is favorable or unfavorable
    (there is a version of checkers termed “suicide checkers” where the object is to “lose” as
    fast as possible) or if it is even valuable information. Most importantly you are not told
    the object of the game. You simply make moves and at some point an external observer
    declares the game over. They do not, however, provide feedback on whether or not you
    won, lost, or drew. The only data you receive comes after a minimum of five such games,
    and is offered in the form of an overall point score. Thus you cannot know with certainly
    which games contributed to the overall result, or to what degree. Your challenge is to
    induce the appropriate moves in each game based only on this coarse level of feedback."

    Link to the paper: http://65.44.200.132/Library/2001/IEEE-TEVC.pdf

     

  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin, You are a moron.

    In other words, the checkers playing program wasn't told even what the goal was or how to achieve that goal.

    How is that even relevant?

    The goal of the program was to have the program play checkers without explicitly programming to do so. Pewriod, end of story you ignorant low-life.

    So what if the program wasn't told- no program is told what it is for you stupid fuck.

     

  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Just like the checkers playing algorithm can develop exceedingly complex systems with PROGRAMMER (i.e. designer) input, evolution can do the same thing.

    And, it's really funny how you keep moving the goal posts Joe. First it was "Kevin is lying." and "Is it really a GA".

    Now it's all about the goals. So, I guess you acknowledge that the paper exists. The research was actually done and the GA developed the ability to play checkers at a high expert level, even though the programmers didn't even tell them how a game of checkers was won.

    Yes, Joe, the algorithms were given the board, how the pieces moved (including forced moves), and that was ALL. The algorithm had to determine what a winning game was (remember suicide checkers? totally different game) and then develop strategies for getting a winning game.

    I think I understand the problem. it's actually a common problem with you Joe.

    You are using the word 'goal' in different ways, even in the same sentence.

    The programmed goal of the checkers algorithm is, indeed, to play checkers. But the goal of the experiment wasn't to play checkers, it was to WIN at checkers.

    Think of it like this. The goal of a car is to drive. But the goal of a car race is to win. Do you see the difference? Probably not.

    The algorithm had to be told the MECHANICS of playing checkers. However it was NOT told how to win. All it was told was the various stated (winning, losing, partial winning/losing) after 5 games.

    That's LIKE being in a race. You know how to drive a car Joe. That's the MECHANICS of being in a car race. But in this case, it is up to you to figure out the route and what the winning conditions are (Maybe it's not 1st place, but the highest fuel economy, or the closest to a specific time like in a rally). That's what you are not told. You just try different things and are then told your position in the race. You have to compare what you did, to the result and infer what the correct strategy is.

    Do you understand?

    Heh, what am I saying, even if you did understand, you're utterly incapable of admitting it.

     

  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just like the checkers playing algorithm can develop exceedingly complex systems with PROGRAMMER (i.e. designer) input, evolution can do the same thing.

    Intelligent Design evolution, yeah. Blind watchmaker evolution, no.

    And, it's really funny how you keep moving the goal posts Joe.

    I didn't move anything and you are lying and it is an EA.

    Now it's all about the goals.

    Always was about the goals, dumbass- look at the title of this thread.

    The research was actually done and the GA developed the ability to play checkers at a high expert level, even though the programmers didn't even tell them how a game of checkers was won.

    There was a goal and the rest of your tripe is irrelevant to that fact.

    You are using the word 'goal' in different ways, even in the same sentence.

    Fuck you, asshole.

    The programmed goal of the checkers algorithm is, indeed, to play checkers.

    There you have it.

    But the goal of the experiment wasn't to play checkers, it was to WIN at checkers.

    So it does have a goal after all.

    Just face it, Kevin- you are a moron without a clue.

    All the references say GAs/ EAs have a goal. YOU just confirmed that this EA has a goal even though yesterday you said it did not.

    And yes, dumbass, I understand how GAs and EAs work. You can't tell me anything about them that I don't already know.

    do you understand that?

     

  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Blind watchmaker evolution = darwinian evolution

     

  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the paper, quoted by Kevin:
    "You are told the rules of how the pieces move (i.e.,
    diagonally, forced jumps, kings) and that the piece differential is available as a feature."

    Kevin yesterday:
    The programmers did not give the program a goal, or the rules of checkers, or even what it took to win.

    And he has the tard to say I am confused...

     

  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The goal of a car is to drive.

    The purpose of cars is transportation. The goal being to take people and goods from one place to another.

     

  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway Richie, you stupid faggot, your tard is out of the bag for trying to get me to describe something that in your little bitty pointed head doesn't exist.

    Not only that it doesn't have anything to do with anything I have said about GAs. You are a sad dishonest tard.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home