# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Algorithm for TSP  (Read 12413 times)

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« on: 02/10/2007 15:40:04 »
Some defintions:
Pleasure : As defined earlier in the discussions.
Life entity: Anything which is understood as Life by biology.(exhibiting life cycle)

Pleasure is said to be sustainable if similar conditions prevail.
In other words greater similarity results in greater the sustainbility of pleasure.

Fundamental rules:
1.The laws are self-referential.
2.All life entities move towards sustainable pleasure.
3.Changes occur due to the environment which are fairly random.
4.Pleasure is said to be sustainable if similar environment prevails.
5.Given a change similar things attract to sustain pleasure.
6.If cooperation between two dissimalar things results in greater pleasure then cooperation manifests.
7.If competition between two dissimalr things results in greater
pleasure then competition manifests.

Algortihm(note this algorithm is far far complicated):
1.Create an Object Environment.This object simulates the real environment found on the Earth.
2.Define Life Object.This Object has physical attributes and behaviours with respect to the environment.
3.Define Associated Pleasure Behaviour(APB) Object. This defines what leads to pleasure and what leads to pain.
3.Assign Pleasure Object to  each life Object.Allow random searches for greater pleasure.
(we exlcude the strategy part to keep it simple.. it is equivalent to creating intelligence)
4.As similar life Objects come together and are found in sufficient number create another life Object and associate all the similar life objects.
(Similar things produce greater pleasure)
5.Give the new Life Object an ID set its properties such that it behaves like usual Life Object...
Note :Now we have Life Object contianing another life object.It is recursive.. Normal computers will crash.
Each life object still holds on to the basic life principle.
5.Induce random  but gradual changes in the environment with largely speparated sudden changes.

The result will close to what we find as life.
To improve accuracy introduce an Abstract Object.
The purpose of this Abstract Object is to create Startegies for sustainable pleasure.
Observe the following :
1.How the distance between Life Objects vary?
2.How the environment affect the behaviour?

#### another_someone

• Guest
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #1 on: 04/10/2007 17:53:42 »
I am not sure if you are simply trying to extent Jeremy Bentham's 'felicific calculus', but Bentham was only trying to argue from a moral perspective rather than to create laws that apply throughout nature (whether his utopic moral arguments hold weight is itself another matter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_happiness_principle
Quote
The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. Thus, the felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the "'Utility calculus", the "Hedonistic calculus" and the "Hedonic calculus."

Variables, or vectors of the pleasures and pains included in this calculation—which Bentham called "elements" or "dimensions"—were:[clarify]

1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability it will be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.

To these six, which consider the pleasures and pains within the life of a person, Bentham added a seventh element:

7. Extent: How many people will be affected?

Bentham's Instructions

• Begin with any one person of those whose interests seem most immediately to be affected by it: and take an account,
• Of the value of each distinguishable pleasure which appears to be produced by it in the first instance.
• Of the value of each pain which appears to be produced by it in the first instance.
• Of the value of each pleasure which appears to be produced by it after the first. This constitutes the fecundity of the first pleasure and the impurity of the first pain.
• Of the value of each pain which appears to be produced by it after the first. This constitutes the fecundity of the first pain, and the impurity of the first pleasure.

• Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on the one side, and those of all the pains on the other. The balance, if it be on the side of pleasure, will give the good tendency of the act upon the whole, with respect to the interests of that individual person; if on the side of pain, the bad tendency of it upon the whole.
• Take an account of the number of persons whose interests appear to be concerned; and repeat the above process with respect to each. Sum up the numbers expressive of the degrees of good tendency, which the act has, with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is good upon the whole. Do this again with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is bad upon the whole. Take the balance which if on the side of pleasure, will give the general good tendency of the act, with respect to the total number or community of individuals concerned; if on the side of pain, the general evil tendency, with respect to the same community.

To make his proposal easier to remember, Bentham devised what he called a "mnemonic doggerel" (also referred to as "memoriter verses"), which synthesized "the whole fabric of morals and legislation":

Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure—
Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure.
Such pleasures seek if private be thy end:
If it be public, wide let them extend
Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view:
If pains must come, let them extend to few.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2007 17:56:43 by another_someone »

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #2 on: 04/10/2007 20:03:59 »
quite close to what I am discussing but I am talking about the entire life.From cells to species of different kinds.
And we can expect morals as consequnce to TSP.
I am not sure how much this algorithm will be of use.
But glad to know that there is someone who believes in the possibility of Pleasure as the root cause.
Quote
1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability it will be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.

To these six, which consider the pleasures and pains within the life of a person, Bentham added a seventh element:

7. Extent: How many people will be affected?
These variables doesnt make sense when considered for whole life... there are many other variables. There are possibilities of sterile workforce as well.
Strategy is part of TSP evolution but I dont think there is any attempt by individual to judge action on the basis of above mentioned variables.
It turns out that the dynamics of system will allow only those strategies which lead to greater pleasure.There is very little or no intention involved.

You can understand it this way :
There is only one law : Towards Greater Sustainable Pleasure
(All other laws as defined for the algorithm can be derived..I use information theory to prove similar things attract)
What consitutes greater pleasure is defined by the dynamics of the game...
For example:
Sometimes how we compute the pleasure of individual depends on the Group leadership.
And sometimes it quite possible that one discovers the alogorithm for greater pleasure. (which was the purpose calculus I suppose )

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #3 on: 04/10/2007 20:20:09 »
Pleasure can be derived from asexual sources as well.
There are condoms and homosexuality.
Buddism infact claims a state of continuos happiness and we dont know how.
BUT because we dont how doesnt mean that only sexual manifestation of pleasure is possible.
As I said  pleasure is also chemical state and in due course of time some one who is evolved enough can discover it as well.
Therefore the alogrithm doesnt apply.
THERE ARE INHERENT LIMITATIONS IN SIMULATING LIFE.
==================================
At the end of algorithm I mention the Abstract Object which is nothing but the Observer... Someone who observes and discovers startegies ...
How and which computer can simulate that I dont know.
For example:
Let there be n possible states of which only one leads to happiness then the chances of finding that strategy randomly is 1/n! .... which is close to zero therefore
we say that the idea of pleasure incremental.
As the blocks  produce pleasure we combine them and as they reduce pleasure we disassocite them.
Simple to understand.And the most important thing is that it converges to sustainable life forms ...which are resilient to changes.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #4 on: 05/10/2007 04:58:57 »
One strategy will be interesting :
We know pleasure is chemcial state.
If a species discovers a process to sustainable pleasure without going through Sex then it will
give up Sex.
Mastrubation and Condom clearly communicates the message.
====================
I think the Sex carrier can enjoy greater pleasure.

But is there is any other process other than sex which can  create greater pleasure ?

Understanding Buddism:
They remain unmarried  and live a life of  monks.
I wonder whether they have discovered a process to pleasure independent of sex?

There are plants and animals which live and reproduce asexually.
===================================
Do you know that there is nothing called as favourable gene?
The sterile bee workers are not receding.They are making the favourable gene dependent on "unfavourable" ones. Leading to  indispensibility of sterile workforce.In other words the sterile behaviour (or latent behaviour of genotype gene)is equally important.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #5 on: 05/10/2007 07:20:32 »
Explaining Jealousy:
There are times when a Group or individual becomes more happy than others .The Group behaviour is such that it tries to reach to that level of Happiness
The expereince is expressed as Jealousy.
Thus averaging out the chemical state stability
Explaining Pain:
When a group or individual expereinces pain in excess then the Group act to average out the experience ...

Excess of pain or pleasure within a Group is averaged to move towards greater sustainibility of pleasure.
That explains Human Rights Commision and Altruism and
Inteventionism.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #6 on: 05/10/2007 07:48:20 »
More strategies :
Any inter-species cooperation should result in greater pleasure for both.
1.That explains finding the chicken Pox virus at the sensory locations.
2.It also explains cooperation and interpedence between insects and plants.
Plants give insects something to be happy about and insects give something to the plants to be happy about.
3.The light and other sources might produce pleasure .. therefore it predicts possible migration from Sexual to asexual if the process is known.
4.The night flies attract towards light because it triggers a chemical of happiness.
5.Sterile Bees derive Happiness from other sources (may be source is behavioural..Buddism source is also behavioural)
6.those who choose subjects or work which induces greater happiness  have greater chances of survival.
7.The  physiology manifests is to maximize Happiness for a Group in a given environment.
8.The behaviour manifest the maximize the Happiness in a Group  given an environment.
9.The gentials  are highly senistive and guraded to maximize pleasure.
10.Domestic dogs are an exmaple of cooperation towards greater happiness.
11.Animals in cage will be expected to have lower life expectancy.
12.Any sudden deviation from natural habitat of species will lead to unstability within Group.
Reducing the overall happiness.
13.Organism tend to adjust to environment and survive at the levels of Happiness defined by change in environment.
14.Some do species do not adjust and die quickly.
15.Most of species in wild are happy ... inspite of all the dangers.
Whereas Humans who live under constant threat suffer from depression.
Exmaple :Deer and Zebra are happy even if the Lion and other predators are constantly lurking behind.
This is because they do not have adapted to that life style but Humans tend to behave like thoughtful species who can avoid such dangers by creating strategies. This creates stree if they fail.
17.Bilogical Diseases spread for mutual benefit of greater happiness.
18.Birds have greatest degree of freedom and thats why they are expected to fickle partners. And therefore very frequently the offspring do not belong to same male.
19.Fishes also have greater degree of freedom therefore I predict that they are also fickle and therefore do not make lasting couple.
20.In USA there is 65% divorce rate this is because they have greater degree of freedom
My prediction is this greater the freedom more unstable the relationship will be.

Did you learn anything ?

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #7 on: 05/10/2007 08:18:53 »
The theory of replication is incorrect on follwoing accounts:
1.It defines no purpose at any level and such system if left on their own may or may not converge to cooperative or competetive algorithms.

2.Because the gene carries no purpose and origins are fairly random we should have expected greater diversity... More variety in every species...there are no less than infinite number of possibilities.

3.Because there is no purpose one should expect asexual and sexual species in equal numbers.

4.The gene pools have been known to commit suicides.

5.The natural selection defines a prupose of survival of the fittest but this is not true..
There are suicides as well.Sometimes the secually fittest commits suicide.

6.If no one is making any decision towards anything then why are we discussing this natural selection??!!

7.Natural selection is assigned a life upto which it must survive in order to become favourable.But this strategy doesnt explain anything... different genes can become favourable over a period of time...
Example Birds :
Gene1 is Favourable Now.
Because the Birds have greater freedom
Gene2 becomes favourable
Again becuase birds have greater freedom
Gene 3 becomes favourable...
Therefore Birds can not converge towards any cooperation... But this is not the case.
Birds cooperate.

Share your criticism and we can create history.

#### _Stefan_

• Hero Member
• Posts: 814
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #8 on: 05/10/2007 09:05:33 »
So the facts are wrong simply because you can not accept that evolution is undirected and purposeless?

#### _Stefan_

• Hero Member
• Posts: 814
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #9 on: 05/10/2007 09:07:15 »
No, you have taught me nothing about the subject being discussed.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #10 on: 05/10/2007 09:49:48 »
4.The gene pools have been known to commit suicides.

forgot to gave the examples:
Mass suicide of whales and fishes.They were found on sea shore for no reason!?
Do you think such behaviour demontrate any selection taking place in favour of genes?
whales could have migrated if there was were environmental issues.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #11 on: 06/10/2007 16:36:46 »
One more evidence:
In psychological circles it is well known that
even mothers breastfeeding have resulted into  sexual thrill.
Breastfeeding for what ?
Pleasure.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #12 on: 07/10/2007 07:43:06 »
More evidence :
1.There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.
1,365,730 abortions in 1998 alone.
For what ?
2.Female circumcision - For what ?
A strategy towards sustainable pleasure.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #13 on: 07/10/2007 09:03:50 »
Another evidence :
Why is there a difference between wild fish and hathcery fish? Both live in water.
Is this an attempted suicide?
==================================
Fish Hatcheries Cause Stunning Loss Of Reproductive Fitness

Trout raised in hatcheries suffer a dramatic and unexpectedly fast drop in their ability to reproduce in the wild, a study from Oregon State University (OSU) has found. The researchers say that important questions now need to be asked about the wisdom of historic hatchery practices.

Published in Science, the study demonstrates for the first time that the reproductive success of steelhead trout, an important salmonid species, can drop by close to 40 percent per captive-reared generation. "For fish to so quickly lose their ability to reproduce is stunning, it's just remarkable," said OSU's Michael Blouin. "We were not surprised at the type of effect but at the speed. We thought it would be more gradual. If it weren't our own data I would have difficulty believing the results."

The fish reared in a hatchery for two generations had around half the reproductive fitness of fish reared for a single generation. The effects appear to be genetic, Blouin said, and probably result from evolutionary pressures that quickly select for characteristics that are favored in the safe, placid world of the hatchery, but not in the comparatively hostile natural environment.

"Among other things, this study proves with no doubt that wild fish and hatchery fish are not the same, despite their appearances," said Blouin. "Some have suggested that hatchery and wild fish are equivalent, but these data really put the final nail in the coffin of that argument." Even a few generations of domestication may have significant negative effects, and repeated use of captive-reared parents to supplement wild populations "should be carefully reconsidered," the study noted.

"The problem is in the second and subsequent generations," Blouin said. "There is now no question that using fish of hatchery ancestry to produce more hatchery fish quickly results in stocks that perform poorly in nature."

Blouin noted that evolution can rapidly select for fish of certain types. About 10,000 eggs can eventually turn into fewer than 100 adults and these are genetically selected for whatever characteristics favored their survival. Offspring that inherit traits favored in hatchery fish can be at a serious disadvantage in the wild where they face risks such as an uncertain food supply and many predators eager to eat them.

Blouin cautioned that these data should not be used as an indictment of all hatchery programs. "Hatcheries can have a place in fisheries management," he said. "The key issue is how to minimize their impacts on wild populations."
============================
I had predicted this long ago. If the animals are removed from natural habitat they will not be sustain their pelasure .
The rate of reproduction will decrease.
Pleasure is a unstable unstable state.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2007 09:07:08 by dkv »

#### paul.fr

• Guest
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #14 on: 07/10/2007 10:22:15 »
More evidence :
1.There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.
1,365,730 abortions in 1998 alone.
For what ?
2.Female circumcision - For what ?
A strategy towards sustainable pleasure.

Hold your horses there cowboy, are you saying that women have abortions and are circumsised for their pleasure? If this is the case then i reserve the right to respond with ridicule...oh and facts.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #15 on: 07/10/2007 10:36:59 »
No for men's pleasure belonging to the Group.

When we find dissimilar Groups competition or cooperation manifests for greater pleasure.
One might loose and other might win
Or both might win.
Or both may kill each other.

Read atleast few first lines of algorithm.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #16 on: 07/10/2007 10:57:19 »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027254.stm
The url desribes an ancient isolated tribe found in amazon jungle.
The validates the fact Group do not like to change
even by error.
Pleasure prevails if similar situation prevails.(read algorithm)

#### paul.fr

• Guest
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #17 on: 07/10/2007 11:24:22 »
for man's pleasure! can you produce one man who asked or even forced his wife / girlfriend to have an abortion or circumsision for his pleasure?

What pleasure did this or thesee men get out of it?

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #18 on: 07/10/2007 11:46:50 »
Quote
for man's pleasure! can you produce one man who asked or even forced his wife / girlfriend to have an abortion or circumsision for his pleasure?

What pleasure did this or thesee men get out of it?
The pleasure is defined with respect to a Group..
The assumption that all men as equivalent is incorrect.
They have affiliations to different Groups.
The modern society by and large doesnt believe in old strategies  towards pleasure.
But nevertheless the tradition lives and is part of TSP process.

Do you intend to change the tradition?
If so why?
What pleasure will you get out of it? (you can use joy or happy instead of pleasure)

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #19 on: 07/10/2007 15:25:57 »
Another missing evidence which would have supported gene replication theory:

From gene replication point of view :During the natural selection, the rate of gene replication has been the part of opportunistic strategy towards fittest.
(The rate of gene replication can be controlled but only for opportunisitc goals.How this happens is a matter of debate.)
Let us ask why we dont see the diversity in terms of gene replication goals.i.e given a species why we dont the difference s in terms reproductive age????
If the rate of gene replication is a variable then we should have expected the diversity in this reproductive  behaviour as well.
But we dont see. There is no evidence to support it.
Therefore the rate of gene replication doesnt change.
If the rate of gene replication is constant then how do we explain the variable rate of evolution.Some species evolved fast some slow.
==========================
From TSP point of view : Every species needs its offspring to developed a neural network to define and identify self-referral pleasure before it can be into launched Group.
This procduces the necessary latency to grow and identify behaviours and sources which are relevant to the neural network
which the life entity is carrying.
Only after the network devlops to expereince learned pleasure the adulthood is reached.

If is was all about replication then as I explained even lilliputians would have existed.:-))
===============================

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #20 on: 07/10/2007 20:21:08 »
I bet most of you dont know anything about the kind of stupidity which is being taught in the evolution through gene replication. The idea that robotic gene led to invention of emotion is fallacious. No machine can invent emotions.
And a mechanical process is just a mechanical process.
It can run into a death trap and this often happens in case of so called intelligent machines.
It is the nature of human consciousness to seek happiness ... simply by rationalizing Human consciousness using a machine wont prove anything.
If there is anything worth the question it is in me, who dwells in all .... and understands what is called as expereince. Who knows what is meant by Happiness?
Machines pretend.
Will a donkey ever understand the idea of luxury?
For a donkey both will be the same.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #21 on: 08/10/2007 09:49:08 »
Quote
Evolution Transforms "Junk" DNA into Genetic Machinery
HealthNewsDigest.com) - Evolution has mastered the art of turning trash to treasure - though, for scientists, witnessing the transformation can require a bit of patience. In new genetic research, scientists have traced the 170 million-year evolution of a piece of ?junk? DNA to its modern incarnation as an important regulator of energy balance in mammals.

If the "junk" to "modern incarnation" is random or selected by a process which is opportunistic then is it not possible that "modern incarnation " becomes "junk" tomorrow..Where is the proof that DNA carries "junk"?

The discovery, they said, suggests that regions of the genome formerly presumed to be a genetic junkyard may actually be a hardware superstore, providing components that can be used to evolve new genes or new species.

Who is providing to whom?

?We thought we had found the tip of the iceberg of an evolutionary process that started around 200 million years ago, and we got really fascinated by the idea of pulling up the entire iceberg from the depths.?
Marcelo Rubinstein

The discoveries were reported by Howard Hughes Medical Institute international research scholar Marcelo Rubinstein and his colleagues October 5, 2007, in the online PLoS Genetics. Rubinstein is at the Institute for Research on Genetic Engineering and Molecular Biology of the National Council for Science and Technology in Argentina, and the University of Buenos Aires.

Researchers have long known that all genomes are prodigiously sprinkled with DNA fragments derived from mobile elements that have jumped to apparently random points in the genome. For example, the Human Genome Project revealed that about 45 percent of our genome consists of mobile element-derived sequences.

Is it a random process or there is some natural selection?
Confusing both . GENOMES are randomly sprinkled with DNA fragments???

?The classical view has considered genomic sequences derived from mobile elements as ?junk? DNA?a large accumulation of useless sequences,? said Rubinstein. ?However, more recent work, including the findings in this paper, is producing convincing evidence that these sequences provided raw material for the evolution of novel gene functions.?

How? And Who provided ?

Rubinstein and his colleagues had been studying one such piece of DNA, called nPE2, which enhances the activity of a gene called POMC (proopiomelanocortin). The POMC gene is expressed in cells in the brain and produces peptides that regulate a variety of behaviors, including food intake and stress-induced analgesia.

?Our studies showed that nPE2 is highly conserved in mammals but absent in other vertebrates, so we became interested in studying its evolutionary origins,? said Rubinstein. ?We then found nPE2 to be highly similar to sequences present in the genomes of the marsupials opossum and wallaby. So we thought we had found the tip of the iceberg of an evolutionary process that started around 200 million years ago, and we got really fascinated by the idea of pulling up the entire iceberg from the depths.? In fact, Rubinstein and his colleagues realized that all similar sequences originated from a superfamily of mobile elements called CORE-short interspersed elements (CORE-SINES). CORE-SINES are retroposons, meaning the genetic sequence has been copied before being inserted into new sites in the genome.

To reveal more of nPE2's evolutionary history, the researchers compared nPE2 sequences from 16 mammalian species, including human, dog, mouse, and rabbit. They found the nPE2 enhancer sequence to be highly conserved. By creating altered versions of the nPE2 sequence and testing their ability to enhance gene expression in transgenic mice, they showed that the regions that were critical to nPE2's function were most rigorously conserved over evolution. The findings, Rubinstein said, indicated that nPE2's function ?contributed to the fitness of all mammals,

A collection of gene contributes to the fitness and not a single gene or behaviour.

probably by better tuning the central regulation of energy balance.?

?This paper shows, for the first time, that a retroposon of this superfamily got inserted near the POMC gene sometime before 170 million years ago; and after suffering a limited number of random mutations, it acquired a novel and useful function and became fixed in the genome of an ancestor to all mammals,? said Rubinstein.
here it is clearly written that the mutations are random.For a random cause anything can happen tomorrow a gentic disease can appear for random cause?!

The findings provide clear evidence that genes use a collection of functional sequences incorporated at different times during a very long-lasting evolutionary process, said Rubinstein. ?Novel sequences that improved fitness got fixed into the genomes and continued to travel to the future together with more ancient functional sequences,? he said.

How long does it take to fix the definition of fitness? Life is not a computer program!!

The researchers found a large number of other CORE-SINE superfamily members that had changed very little over evolutionary time, suggesting that nPE2's evolution from junk to regulatory DNA was not a unique event.

contradicting random nature of mutations...how is it possible that some memebers underwent random mutations some did not...we are talking about a timescale == eternity.

In fact, Rubinstein suspects that thousands of currently functional elements are derived from ancient retroposon insertions?but their evolutionary history still needs to be untangled. ?We are starting to understand how insertional elements, instead of being useless or harmful for the genomes, may be beneficial.?

Simply try to underline the sentences which give a sense of Doer or player in the game of evolution. those are the points of contradictions.As it implies  purpose.Therefore scientifically
incorrect statements.
(my comments are in red... try this excersice with any genetic research paper and find how many unscientific statements are made)

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #22 on: 08/10/2007 13:06:05 »
An exmaple of inter-species cooperation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/columns/story?columnist=swan_james&page=g_col_swan_raptors_cooperation

It turns out that the  a hawk or piegeon or parrot or dog can cooperate with Man.
And generally they are not eaten.

Whereas the chicken gets eaten and has lived with Human population for centuries.

What benefit this behaviour brings to the genepool of Chicken relative to  other birds?
Does chicken know that it tastes good and therfore its population will remain entact?
Why didnt the chicken gene mutated like moth to avoid the
hunter?

The number of chickens have gone down drastically in the wild.
Clearly this example shows that Natural selection fails.
Why ?
The example already shows what it takes to cooperate with humans without getting eaten.

Clearly there were no random or intentional mutation in favour of the fittest gene even after living for centuries with its predator!!
Chicken have become so much dependent on its predator that it may never be able to outcompete its predator.

#### dkv

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 299
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #23 on: 08/10/2007 13:15:41 »
Another Inter-Species cooperation in two forest monkeys:
Quote
Putty-nosed monkeys, Cercopithecus nictitans stampflii, occur at various sites in West Africa, particularly in the transition zone between rainforest and savannah. The species is sometimes seen in primary rainforest, although at a curiously low density compared with that of other monkey species. We conducted a 24-month field study in the tropical rainforest of Taï National Park, Ivory Coast, and found that putty-nosed monkeys require an ecological niche almost identical to that of the Diana monkeys, Cercopithecus diana diana. Moreover, the niche breadth of putty-nosed monkeys was significantly decreased in the presence of Diana monkeys, suggesting that feeding competition with Diana monkeys kept putty-nosed monkeys from successfully colonizing a rainforest habitat. However, contrary to the interspecies competition hypothesis, groups of both species almost completely overlapped in home ranges and formed near-permanent mixed-species associations, rather than avoiding each other. We hypothesized that Diana monkeys tolerated immigrating putty-nosed monkeys and formed mixed-species groups with them, despite high levels of competition, because of their merit in predation defense. Direct observations and a series of field experiments confirmed that male putty-nosed monkeys play a vital role in defense against crowned eagles, suggesting that putty-nosed monkeys obtain access to feeding trees by offering antipredation benefits to Diana monkeys. We discuss these findings in light of biological market theory.
Which is the favourable gene carrier (the putty nosed monkey or the dianna)?
And why arent they competing?

========================
There was no more competition than those related to pleasure. In the case above both cooperate because the strategy works towards pleasure.

#### BenV

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1503
##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #24 on: 08/10/2007 15:00:06 »
The quote you have put in there explains that cooperating is of genetic benefit to both species - one gets access to food while the other gets extra protection from predators.

So neither/both are the 'favourable gene carrier'.  They aren't competing because they both gain from not doing so.

This strategy has nothing to do with pleasure, it's a result of natural selection.

Edit - Oh, and with chickens, we have selectively bred traits that make chickens easy to farm and good to eat.  Genes do not mutate in favour of the 'fittest gene', mutation is random and the beneficial ones thrive if they offer an advantage to the individual in terms of survival/breeding.  Any mutation that made a chicken more able to escape would have led to that chicken not being bred with the other, captive, animals, and so the mutation would not have been passed to the next generation.

Natural selection is irrelevant when the selection pressure is humans selectively breeding the animals.

Please research genetics, evolution, natural & artificial selection better before posting any more examples, as you clearly don't understand it well enough to comment on this branch of science.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2007 15:08:43 by BenV »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #24 on: 08/10/2007 15:00:06 »