Post History
The problem with the analogy is that evolution is not just that certain shapes are more fit than others. There must be iteration, so that the best of terrible fits is selected. When I begin a gen...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-19T22:13:04Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31130 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T03:48:07Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31130 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
The problem with the analogy is that evolution is not just that certain shapes are more fit than others. There must be iteration, so that the best of terrible fits is selected. When I begin a genetic algorithm (a form of search for a solution to a problem using a computer), all the organisms are randomly generated, and not one of them is anywhere NEAR close to a good solution. But they are designed so that, by the simple logic of a shot gun blast, some are marginally better than others. So I can find the best half of this completely useless lot. The magic of evolution is mating randomly chosen members of the best half, to produce unique NEW members that replace the worst half, and then evaluating these and sorting the population again. Any analogy of evolution is poor if it does not stress the crucial role of mating and mutation for improvement on some criterion (in real evolution this is success in mating, which can favor elements like offensive and defensive abilities for survival or competing for mates).
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2017-10-29T16:48:27Z (about 7 years ago)
Original score: 2