The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Algorithm for TSP  (Read 12607 times)

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #25 on: 08/10/2007 15:46:16 »
Can we please state clearly what is meant by Natural selection? A moth is able to change its color to hide from predators and the insect falls from trees like bird excreta !! And the chickens even after living for ages with humans fail to find a gene which would have resulted into Human diseases so that Chicken could have survive in the wild? Why ?
We are assuming that Human breeding has some kind of control of Nautural Mutations.
How do you explain evolution of Dogs? and other pets ?
Didnt they mutate to sustain themselves in the Human environment?
In my opinion as all chickens get eaten up there should have been greater selection pressure on the
chickens to fight against the mass slaughter.
Hence the explanation is absurd and contradictory.
=============================================
Quote
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.
It is a norm to discuss in terms of benefits of cooperation towards survival but we cant ask why?
There are several cases in which cooperation could have led to greater security. But we dont find such extar ordinary cases frequently.

From logical point of view :If why gets excluded then what can we discuss about?
Can I say that cooperation leads towards favourable gene ? No . Hence such a argument is merely an observation based on opportunistic survival of species and it is not an explanation grounded in the mechanics of evolution using genetic replication.
======================
Quote
This strategy has nothing to do with pleasure, it's a result of natural selection.
It is strategy towards sustainable pleasure.. as you said one provides extra protection and other food.
I would still consider it a weak argument.
There can be many more aspects to it.


I comment to educate the people about logic.So many mathematicians went mad doing logic and it should not be taken lightly.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #26 on: 09/10/2007 09:04:19 »
Wikipedia gives you a perfectly good definition of natural selection:
Quote
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.

With regards Moths, are you referring to the peppered moth?  If so, you are wrong, an individual moth doesn't change colour, but the population tends towards the best colour for survival.  This is because the most visible moths are more likely to be eaten by predators, and so less likely to pass on their genes.  The ones which are better camouflaged are more likely to survive to breed, and so these genes become more prevalent in the population.

With regards chickens, they have been selectively bred by humans, so the genes which make them best for us survive at the expense of other genes.  There's no 'desire' for chicken genes to escape into the wild, and they are bred (by us) in huge numbers for our sake, so there's no pressure to evolve to better cope in the wild.

Dogs are also the result of hundreds of years of artificial selection.  We chose the animals with the best traits for us, and bred them together.  Over many generations this has resulted in the dogs we see as pets today.

Artificial selection does not exercise control over random mutations, it selects which ones of these mutations will die out, and which will thrive.  The mutations happen anyway, and if they make a better dog/cat/hamster/chicken we are more likely to try to keep these mutations in the gene pool.

Quote
Hence the explanation is absurd and contradictory.
No it's not.  As I asked before, please do some more research before making comments like this.  It's not nice to accuse someone of being absurd, especially when you don't understand what you're commenting on.

Quote
It is a norm to discuss in terms of benefits of cooperation towards survival but we cant ask why?
Of course you can ask why.  But is your question "why does cooperation benefit these species?", because I've already answered that one.

Quote
Can I say that cooperation leads towards favourable gene ? No . Hence such a argument is merely an observation based on opportunistic survival of species and it is not an explanation grounded in the mechanics of evolution using genetic replication.
Yes, you can say that cooperation could lead to the selection of a favourable gene.  Where a cooperative situation is mutually beneficial, the genes which encourage this cooperation will be selected for.  Genes controlling hormones can affect how aggressive a species is, and if being less aggressive to another species will benefit the organism, then genes that reduce aggression will be more likely to be passed on to the next generation.  That is "an explanation grounded in the mechanics of evolution using genetic replication."

Quote
It is strategy towards sustainable pleasure.. as you said one provides extra protection and other food.
Nonsense. Pleasure has nothing to do with it.  It's a strategy selected for by the selection pressure of the environment because it is mutually beneficial to the organisms in that environment.  You can consider it a weak argument if you like, but that is a result of your lack of understanding about evolution and natural selection.

Quote
I comment to educate the people about logic.So many mathematicians went mad doing logic and it should not be taken lightly.
You're right, logic shouldn't be taken lightly.  But you do not educate people about logic, you do quite the opposite by ignoring evidence and logical thought in favour of your sustainable pleasure humbug.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #27 on: 09/10/2007 11:06:15 »
Chicken Moth argument is insane.
Moth doesnt evolve for the predators... Whereas Chicken evolves for us....
Do I need to say more?

The definition of Natural selection is incomplete.
===========================================
Quote
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.
How these changes take place ? How the favourable gene manifests? Let me add something more to this.
Those which reproduce more become favourable.
Those which reproduce less become less favourable.
====================================
Quote
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.
Emergence of new species is a highly differentiated reality .. we cant explain the discontinuity unless  we state that unfavourable triats vanishes (example most mammals have four limbs and those with phenotype genes which would have led none,one ,two or three or five limbs failed to reproduce.).
But there is an another glitch... Only those favourable genes which survive for sufficient time define the future of the species.

How and who defines the sufficient time ?
No one.
It is random phenomenon which provides no inherent explanation but only benefits.
And if randomness is fundamental to the evolution then where are the mammals with 0,1,2,3,5, limbs ?
And where are the Lilliputians?

And I know what answers you will give !
You use will excuses ... like emotion is an invention , there is an inherent meaning to the behaviours of species with respect to evolution .... You will provide why and make it look like a process which carries any inherent meaning.
Such statements misleads science and people in general.
Atleast you can avoid using the species or individual centric
statements in your scientific papers.... 
There is no purpose at any level from evolutionary point of view.
The explanation of animal behaviour is opporunistic and provides only obeservation ...
It does not provide reason. Because it can not.

Where as TSP makes whole life congruent to itself.
I fail what is so difficult to understand ... even the genetic manifestations can explained as strategy to sustain pleasure.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #28 on: 09/10/2007 13:25:21 »
DNA's self-repair .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171027.htm

If a gene jumps out of DNA then the previous DNA repairs itself.
This is predicted by Self-Consistent Algorithm of Pleasure.
Given a change the life entities tries to change itself  in a way such that similar conditions prevails.
From gene replication point of view this research futher complicates the asexual to sexual imgration of behaviour and species. A change is not favoured by DNA. This is the first bio-molecular evidence in support of TSP.


 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #29 on: 09/10/2007 13:48:00 »
To be honest, I dont really understand what you're getting at.

Quote
Chicken Moth argument is insane.
Who mentioned chicken moths?

Quote
Moth doesnt evolve for the predators... Whereas Chicken evolves for us....
Do I need to say more?

Yes, you do.  You need to explain why you dont understand the very simple premise that the selection pressures operating on the moth are completely different to those operating on the chicken.  I will try to explain again, but it seems that you aren't paying any attention, or are just refusing to understand.

Well camouflaged moths are more likely to survive to breeding age than poorly camouflaged moths, so more of the next generation will have 'well camouflaged' genes. The selection pressure therefore means that the proportion of the 'dark' gene in the population will increase.

In chickens, the selection pressure is artificial.  Chicken breeders choose which traits they want to continue into the next generation.  the selection pressure is towards fat chickens & high egg production, not towards the traits that would assist a chicken to live in the wild.  Given these artificially selective pressures, the proportion of the  'good farming' genes will increase.

You are wrong, and seem unwilling to admit it.  I do not appreciate the fact that I took my time to explain to you the mechanics of artificial selection and natural selection, only for you to call it insane.

Quote
Such statements misleads science and people in general.

I do hope you're not referring to anything I have said here, as that would practically be slander.

I hope you will behave like a reasonable human being, do some research with an open mind prior to commenting on anything I have said.  Evolution by natural selection of heritable traits is the best theory we have to fit the data we have collected, and can make accurate predictions.  The TSP idea of yours is ridiculous, and is of no scientific merit.

This forum will open it's arms to you and you can enjoy discussing science with the great many people here, but you need to open your mind to ideas other than your own, and maybe eventually people will start listening to what you have to say.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #30 on: 09/10/2007 14:38:19 »
To be honest, I dont really understand what you're getting at.
I am getting at the fact on Evolution. Evolution claims that there is no inherent purpose or goal of life in all its forms.Whereas I claim all behaviours and changes taking taking place in the Life Universe if towards sustainable pleasure.
Quote
Quote
Chicken Moth argument is insane.
Who mentioned chicken moths?
Chicken Moth argument which we were having made distiction between Human Environment and Natural Environment. Laws of Nature is equally applicable everywhere.And any distinction is superficial.
Quote
Quote
Moth doesnt evolve for the predators... Whereas Chicken evolves for us....
Do I need to say more?

Yes, you do. You need to explain why you dont understand the very simple premise that the selection pressures operating on the moth are completely different to those operating on the chicken. I will try to explain again, but it seems that you aren't paying any attention, or are just refusing to understand.

Well camouflaged moths are more likely to survive to breeding age than poorly camouflaged moths, so more of the next generation will have 'well camouflaged' genes. The selection pressure therefore means that the proportion of the 'dark' gene in the population will increase.

In chickens, the selection pressure is artificial. Chicken breeders choose which traits they want to continue into the next generation. the selection pressure is towards fat chickens & high egg production, not towards the traits that would assist a chicken to live in the wild. Given these artificially selective pressures, the proportion of the 'good farming' genes will increase.
The claim that Selection Pressure can be artificial is artificial. There is not a single evidence in towards a scientific validity.If Human environment is artificial then the reason is also artifical. Reasons are natural and the propagator of reason in also natural. What explains animals explains humans.
I very well understand when you say "dark" gene propagates because it leads to survival. Those who were not carrying dark colors fell prey to the predators.
For chickens apparently there is no choice. Since ages we have been eating them and chicken gene pool didnt realize this fact ... Lets say a generation of chicken finds the same impulse as those found in Moths towards the predator . A valid assumption I guess. Lets call this natural impulse Predator impulse.
Now chicken gene pool under the influence of Predator impulse doesnt produce any statistically noticeable movement towards a desire to survive.
If humans get involved neither the environment  become superficial nor the inherent dynamics of gene.
A variety of chickens known as broilers is generally used to cook. In some countries , before the broiler came into practice , native species were cooked.
The point is we do not look into chromosome or DNA to select the gene . We are simply eating a favorite species. If quality standards are high then fat and healthy chicken gets cooked otherwise the market decides.Anyways they get eaten.
Such trait selection do not inhibit the gene play under the Predator impulse.
What is so difficult to understand about the comparison between Moth's growth and Chickens Growth? Infact the comaprison exposes the absurdity.

===================================
Quote
You are wrong, and seem unwilling to admit it. I do not appreciate the fact that I took my time to explain to you the mechanics of artificial selection and natural selection, only for you to call it insane.
A tiger chooses its prey.A weak prey.Isnt this a selection?Is it artificail or natural? Tiger eats the weak ones and breeds the healthy naturally.
We are eating the healthy ones and breeding none.
The breeding of crops was unintentional and it was artificial.  Again the crops did not react to the predator impulse. Moth evolution was also unintentional but managed to become smart.
My point is the seperation between artificial selection and natural selection is superficial... because even a tiger or the giraffe or the elephants selects what breed to eat and what not to eat.
This kind of selection pressure is alawys present whether in the natural environment or the so called artificial environment.
Quote
Quote
Such statements misleads science and people in general.

I do hope you're not referring to anything I have said here, as that would practically be slander.

I hope you will behave like a reasonable human being, do some research with an open mind prior to commenting on anything I have said. Evolution by natural selection of heritable traits is the best theory we have to fit the data we have collected, and can make accurate predictions. The TSP idea of yours is ridiculous, and is of no scientific merit.

This forum will open it's arms to you and you can enjoy discussing science with the great many people here, but you need to open your mind to ideas other than your own, and maybe eventually people will start listening to what you have to say.
My mind is open :-))
But the unified reasoning behind the natural selection and replication driven evoltuion is as good as no reason at all or multiple reasons without incorporating a concept called Pleasure or TSP. If TSP gets included then everything gets explained including the gene fitness and gene replciation but with a different algorithm.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2007 16:23:29 by dkv »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #31 on: 09/10/2007 18:02:46 »
Oh, I see, you think that to call a selection pressure put in place by people 'artificial' is to anthropomorphise.  Fair enough.  But it remains that the selective pressures on chickens have shaped their evolution to become what we think of today as farm chickens.
Quote
We are eating the healthy ones and breeding none.
Nonsense.  We chose the best ones to breed, so that we will have the best next generation of chickens for us to farm.  This again points out that you do not have the faintest clue what you are talking about.

Quote
For chickens apparently there is no choice.
There is no choice for moths.  They are born a certain colour, and will either survive to breed or won't.  There is no 'predator impulse' - in a predated population, the genes which offer an advantage are more likely to survive to breed. That's it.

Evolution by natural selection does not have an ultimate aim, thats no aim at all.  It's a reactive mechanism.  to suggest it has an aim towards anything is simply wrong.  To argue vehemently that evolution is aiming toward pleasure is to show that you do not understand the topic.

 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #32 on: 09/10/2007 20:01:49 »
Oh, I see, you think that to call a selection pressure put in place by people 'artificial' is to anthropomorphise. Fair enough. But it remains that the selective pressures on chickens have shaped their evolution to become what we think of today as farm chickens.
Interesting .:-))
Quote
Quote
We are eating the healthy ones and breeding none.
Nonsense. We chose the best ones to breed, so that we will have the best next generation of chickens for us to farm. This again points out that you do not have the faintest clue what you are talking about.

Quote
For chickens apparently there is no choice.
There is no choice for moths. They are born a certain colour, and will either survive to breed or won't. There is no 'predator impulse' - in a predated population, the genes which offer an advantage are more likely to survive to breed. That's it.

"Natural habitat" of primitive Moths were also littered with possibilities of predators. Genes were replicating and mutating. Luckily a gene by chance mutated towards a skin color which matched with the environment.Since skin color offered an advantage to survive there genes were passed from one generation to next with greater likelihood.Therefore there was no choice but  a random chance.

Whereas in the case of chickens :
You are saying that generations of chicken couldnt find a certain death trap questionable because there was no impulse or intention involved.
The genes of chicken were mutating and by chance it happened that no gene could find a way to greater survivalbility.The phenotype changes couldnt produce cancerious cells or bacteria or virus or some other typical of arsenal to defend the mass slaugter.

What is the difference between Chicken evolution and the Moth evolution ? Chance.

If this is the case then  no meaning can be attached to Natural selection. It is a purely random process. There is no selection involved.

So we explain our own eating habits by saying that those birds or animals which happened to develop diseases in Human happen to live in the wild and were not confined.

Is this what you are saying?

If yes then it is merely an observation. Because Natural selection doesnt involve any intention or actors(genetic or otherwise).
And the process is purely random with no explanatory power.It is like painting with closed eyes. Expecting to find some rationality or understandibility in the processes of life.
Given a logic there is a chance of finding it but given a logic there is also a chance of finding its opposite. If we dont invlove the actors or intention in natural selection then the discovery of logic(to "explain") is a matter of chance.
And the associated logic is locally valid or opportunistic.
===================================
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #33 on: 10/10/2007 02:37:36 »
"Life is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators" -Richard Dawkins.

I don't see how you can refuse to understand this.

You simply have no idea about what you are talking about.

Your issue with Darwinian evolution is that there is no purpose and no guarantee of survival. This is such a childish, petty objection. It is not necessary for anything at all to have purpose. As it happens, some things do have a purpose, while the majority of other things in the universe have no purpose. Evolution has no purpose, no goal. You need to be incredibly stupid, ignorant or conniving to reject the arguments and information put forth to you by myself and others. My suggestion to you once again is that you go and read heavily about Darwinian evolution, and the multitude of theories and evidences that fall under its umbrella, and don't come back until you have understood it fully and have realized that TSP is glaringly, obviously, wrong.

Regards.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #34 on: 10/10/2007 09:11:53 »
DKV, I'm going to have one last try at explaining this to you, and if you continue to refuse to listen then I will give up and, like  Stefan, ask you to read up about the subject before posting again.

Maybe moths and chickens are too close to your heart, so I will use an extra set of examples.

You seem to grasp that with the peppered moth, random mutations offered an advantage to specific individuals, who were then more likely to breed (as they were less likely to be predated) and so the proportion of these mutations was higher in the following generation.  Assuming these still offered an advantage, this process would be repeated and the next generation would also have a higher proportion of these mutations and so on

You don't, however, seem to understand that with chickens it's not those that get eaten that are important, but those that we choose to breed.  One cockerel has a mutation that makes his offspring produce more eggs - so we breed him with others.  His offspring also carry this mutation, so we breed them with others.  We are selecting the traits that we want. We do not allow free mating in the chicken population, we decide which chickens will breed - so the mutations that become more common in the future generations are not ones for survivability, as they are in the moths, but the ones for traits that we find desirable.

Quote
What is the difference between Chicken evolution and the Moth evolution ? Chance.

Do you now see that this is completely wrong?  The difference is the selection pressure - in moths a pressure applied by their predators that results in better camouflaged ones surviving to breed, in chickens a pressure applied by us hat results in fatter chickens/chickens that produce more eggs being bred.

Okay, a new example to try and help you get over the intellectual problems you are having with chickens and moths...

A wolf living in the wild - any adaptation that helps a wolf survive, (be they better able to hunt, withstand hunger, cope with a wider range of temperatures) will make that wolf more likely to survive long enough to breed.  This means that these adaptations will be better represented in the future wolf population.  So the pressures of it's environment act to select the mutations that offer an advantage to the organism.

Okay so far?

A huskie living in a community that relies on dog sleds - The sled owners will carefully chose which male dog to mate with their bitches.  They will not chose the dog with the best instincts/abilities for survival, they will pick the best runner or the one with the best endurance running skills.  This way, the mutations that improve ability to hunt are not selected, and do not increase in proportion in the future generation, but the mutations that improve speed and endurance will be selected, and will increase in proportion in the next generation.

How're you doing?

Pet Dog breeding - take, for example, a poodle.  A poodle with best adaptation to survive in the wild may not have the traits that poodle breeders want.  Nor would a poodle who could run fastest, pull the heaviest load or run for longest.  Poodle breeders are looking for the most handsome dog, the nicest, glossiest, curliest fur and the proudest eyes and face.  So, and I think you can see where I'm going with this - This way, the mutations that improve ability to hunt are not selected, and do not increase in proportion in the future generation. The mutations that improve speed and endurance will not be selected, and will not increase in proportion in the next generation. But the mutations that improve quality of coat and attractiveness in the eyes of the breeder will be selected, and will increase in proportion in the next generation.

Quote
If this is the case then  no meaning can be attached to Natural selection. It is a purely random process. There is no selection involved.

I hope now that you will see that this statement is simply wrong.

I'm sure everyone on this forum encourages original thought, but we must take into account what is already known.  Please let us know that you have decided to research evolution and natural selection further before pursuing your TSP ideas, as right now TSP can be outright rejected as it doesn't fit with known theory and observation.

I am going to assume that if you still refuse to comprehend, then you are simply unwilling or unable to understand the topic that you are discussing, and I will discontinue this conversation.  I hope this will not be the case.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #35 on: 04/11/2007 14:17:48 »
DKV, I'm going to have one last try at explaining this to you, and if you continue to refuse to listen then I will give up and, like  Stefan, ask you to read up about the subject before posting again.
Thank you and dont mention the pain of reading the books incorrectly.
Quote
Maybe moths and chickens are too close to your heart, so I will use an extra set of examples.

You seem to grasp that with the peppered moth, random mutations offered an advantage to specific individuals, who were then more likely to breed (as they were less likely to be predated) and so the proportion of these mutations was higher in the following generation.  Assuming these still offered an advantage, this process would be repeated and the next generation would also have a higher proportion of these mutations and so on

You don't, however, seem to understand that with chickens it's not those that get eaten that are important, but those that we choose to breed.  One cockerel has a mutation that makes his offspring produce more eggs - so we breed him with others.  His offspring also carry this mutation, so we breed them with others.  We are selecting the traits that we want. We do not allow free mating in the chicken population, we decide which chickens will breed - so the mutations that become more common in the future generations are not ones for survivability, as they are in the moths, but the ones for traits that we find desirable.
Amazing insight you have.Random admission is so rare to find.
However now you must admit that the theory of replication is no different than what you said previously
Quote
you think that to call a selection pressure put in place by people 'artificial' is to anthropomorphise.Fair enough.
==========================
Quote
Quote
What is the difference between Chicken evolution and the Moth evolution ? Chance.

Do you now see that this is completely wrong?  The difference is the selection pressure - in moths a pressure applied by their predators that results in better camouflaged ones surviving to breed, in chickens a pressure applied by us hat results in fatter chickens/chickens that produce more eggs being bred.
More eggs is simply a way to propagte the Chicken genes and the whole explanation is based on intentional selection.... BUT ask yourself is the intentional selection any different than the selection made by birds which eats insects or lion which eats zebra....
Field is it part of biology??Do the field work.
=======================================
Quote
Okay, a new example to try and help you get over the intellectual problems you are having with chickens and moths...

A wolf living in the wild - any adaptation that helps a wolf survive, (be they better able to hunt, withstand hunger, cope with a wider range of temperatures) will make that wolf more likely to survive long enough to breed.  This means that these adaptations will be better represented in the future wolf population.  So the pressures of it's environment act to select the mutations that offer an advantage to the organism.

Okay so far?
Amazing explanation.The so called natural Environment gives greater or better chances of survival but the environment in the lab doesnt offer any moves. Other birds were not eaten and the diversity of human diet remained limited to chickens....We do not eat everything. Name the bird which is eaten widely outnumbering any other species by a huge margin...? You will search the books I guess.
The looks of chicken provides no evidence of blood and you are talking about genes.. h
========================================
Quote
A huskie living in a community that relies on dog sleds - The sled owners will carefully chose which male dog to mate with their bitches.  They will not chose the dog with the best instincts/abilities for survival, they will pick the best runner or the one with the best endurance running skills.  This way, the mutations that improve ability to hunt are not selected, and do not increase in proportion in the future generation, but the mutations that improve speed and endurance will be selected, and will increase in proportion in the next generation.

How're you doing?
I am running. The so called Humanised species does not change the fundamentals of gene dynamics. Unless there are interests in cooperation the cooperation should not take place.... or you dispute this fundamental assumption of replication theory...We still find the cooperation between Men and Dogs... So I do not dispute this observation but same can not be applied to Chickens unless we admit a contract between Man and chicken in which chicken wishes to loose.
=============================
Quote


Quote

Pet Dog breeding - take, for example, a poodle.  A poodle with best adaptation to survive in the wild may not have the traits that poodle breeders want.  Nor would a poodle who could run fastest, pull the heaviest load or run for longest.  Poodle breeders are looking for the most handsome dog, the nicest, glossiest, curliest fur and the proudest eyes and face.  So, and I think you can see where I'm going with this - This way, the mutations that improve ability to hunt are not selected, and do not increase in proportion in the future generation. The mutations that improve speed and endurance will not be selected, and will not increase in proportion in the next generation. But the mutations that improve quality of coat and attractiveness in the eyes of the breeder will be selected, and will increase in proportion in the next generation.

Quote
If this is the case then  no meaning can be attached to Natural selection. It is a purely random process. There is no selection involved.

I hope now that you will see that this statement is simply wrong.

I'm sure everyone on this forum encourages original thought, but we must take into account what is already known.  Please let us know that you have decided to research evolution and natural selection further before pursuing your TSP ideas, as right now TSP can be outright rejected as it doesn't fit with known theory and observation.

I am going to assume that if you still refuse to comprehend, then you are simply unwilling or unable to understand the topic that you are discussing, and I will discontinue this conversation.  I hope this will not be the case.
Do you really believe that the Replication explains evolution.
Who in this world knows the root cause?
Vote for Dawkins.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #36 on: 04/11/2007 23:13:37 »
DKV, your comments are not coherent enough to properly respond to them.

In the time that you were absent from this lovely forum, did you at any time attempt to read and properly understand Darwinian Evolution? From what you have just written here, I would say NO.
Come back when you have understood the concepts correctly. Intentional ignorance of that which is being discussed is not tolerated in the world of science and reason.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Algorithm for TSP
« Reply #36 on: 04/11/2007 23:13:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums