dvunkannon
Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008
|
| Quote (midwifetoad @ July 06 2009,14:07) | | Quote | | This table of affinities would be salted with entries that guarantee A-Z have some entry with high affinity. |
I'd be curious to know if your concept of affinities has any similarity to my use of letter pairs.
In my limited experience, the output of a GA is limited only by the fitness scoring algorithm. I tried to build the simplest and stupidest scoring algorithm that could still produce interesting results.
My highest priority was to produce a fitness scorer that couldn't be construed as a target. |
The affinities are my way to model the situation that tRNA molecules could evolve from molecules that accepted any of several amino acids before getting more specific. Right now there is still one tRNA that will accept two different AAs, but instead of evolving a more specific acceptor, the system fixes up errors after they occur.
We're aiming to do different things, so I don't see a conceptual overlap between your bigram and trigram tables and what I was conjecturing. I think what you are doing is using a Hidden Markov Model to evolve phoneme level utterances. I think Chomsky showed that human language is more than an HMM, but as you said, Behe doesn't think evolution can even do that much!
ETA - I take your point on the scoring. I thought of taking the data portion out of the genome, and just testing it against various strings, but I think going against a fixed target might be a simple first test of the idea.
--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|
