midwifetoad
Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
|
My little program seeks to build words through cumulative selection. The scoring algorithm is based on the frequency of letter pairs and triplets occurring in actual words. I've built frequency tables for a number of languages.
Selecting just on the relative frequency of pairs and triplets, it builds 7, 8, 9 and ten letter words in very few generations, involving just a few thousands mutations.
More interesting to me is the fact that it builds long word-like strings that look like words and are perfectly pronounceable, but aren't in the dictionary. Also interesting (to me) is the fact that it often ignores dictionary words in selecting the most fit. But despite being word blind, it builds words.
I don't want to read too much biology into this, but I think it blows away Behe's claim that long strings can't be the result of a selection algorithm that is unaware of a goal or target.
My program doesn't have a target or halting condition and continues to produce unique strings for hundreds of generations. I prevent getting stuck on a high scoring mother by periodically killing off the most fit child. Literally, every fourth generation, the most fit bites it.
I don't know if this simulates anything in nature, but to me it indicates that a rather mindless algorithm can do things beyond the ken of rocket scientists.
--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.
|
