Posted: Apr 16, 2012 10:10 am
asyncritus wrote:The comparison of natural selection and mutations to the running of a genetic algorithm of some kind is pure nonsense.
Not at all. An algorithm is a sequence of basic operations. The nature of the operations could be anything, such as assembling proteins, duplicating strands of DNA or killing a cell that can't metabolise available energy sources.
The genetic algorithm is simply:
Add small random variation to pattern (mutate and/or mix)
Test fitness effect of pattern (does the pattern support itself?)
Duplicate/persist pattern (e.g. stay alive to reproduce)
Repeat
That is an algorithm describing evolutionary processes.
That algorithm can be 'run' with chemicals, with structures, in software, in human design, in brains, literally anywhere a pattern can persist with small variation through multiple 'fitness tests'. Passing a 'fitness test' means greater prevalence of the pattern. Failing a 'fitness test' means the pattern is less prevalent.