RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolutionary Computation, Stuff that drives AEs nuts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2009,15:11   

Quote (JohnW @ June 16 2009,15:47)
Quote (sledgehammer @ June 16 2009,12:42)
I think it is even worse that that Zach, for three reasons:


I think you're right, sledgehammer.  It looks like Sanford thinks the beneficial effect of a mutation is constrained by its "size" relative to the total size of the genome - the bigger the genome, the smaller the effect of a single mutation.  

Assuming you and I are not misinterpreting, I think there are two possibilities:
(a) - he really is that dumb (perhaps he thinks giraffes have more neck genes than humans);
(b) - this is yet another silly exercise in apologetics - slosh a lot of sciency talk around, but fix it to make sure you get the answer Jesus wants you to get.

I'm strongly leaning (b).

He just said it again.

Sanford: A setting of 1.0 means that a single mutation can double fitness - creating as much biological functionality as the entire rest of the genome.

A doubling in fitness does not imply a doubling of "biological functionality". Resistance to plague doesn't imply a dramatic increase in the size of a genome. It may just mean that fleas think you smell bad.


You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

  419 replies since Mar. 17 2009,11:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]