"...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for government work" but far from perfect..."
On Jul 5, 11:45 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged > mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are > considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are > plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process > of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it > is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can > easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short > of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for > government work" but far from perfect..."
> If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
Because it doesn't need to see to reach a local maximum, unlike some people we know that want to wallow in the troughs, and can't climb out by themselves.
On Jul 5, 9:45 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged > mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are > considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are > plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process > of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it > is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can > easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short > of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for > government work" but far from perfect..."
> If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
The one does not follow from the other. Take you, for example: you are stupid, but you are not blind. Q.E.D.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:45:05 -0700 (PDT), backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>"...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged >mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are >considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are >plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process >of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it >is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can >easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short >of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for >government work" but far from perfect..."
Useless word salad.
>If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
Because nothing could be as stupid as you! -- Bob.
On Jul 5, 9:45 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged > mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are > considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are > plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process > of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it > is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can > easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short > of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for > government work" but far from perfect..."
> If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
It is stupid in a way. That's the reasonable point that the passage makes.
For example, NS has little chance to evolve creatures so that their post-reproductive years are healthier, or to do a complete cleanup/ rewrite from scratch of the genome.
In message <79321111-456f-4bad-ba12-c3d7d284a...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> writes
>"...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged >mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are >considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are >plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process >of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it >is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can >easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short >of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for >government work" but far from perfect..."
>If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
Describing natural selection as blind (rather than say, deaf or anosmic) is partly conventional, but using blindness as a metaphor to describe the locally optimising properties of natural selection captures the essence of the point that it is wished to make better than using stupidity as a metaphor. Note the use of metaphorical language - in your literalistic world natural selection is neither blind nor stupid, but a locally optimising (for reproductive success) process.
There is also the saying that "evolution is cleverer than you are", which for those who understand the context, and are pragmatically competent, makes perfect sense. Using an apparently contradictory metaphor might confuse the less informed, and provide opportunities for wilful misunderstanding. -- alias Ernest Major
In article <79321111-456f-4bad-ba12-c3d7d284a...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged > mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are > considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are > plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process > of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it > is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can > easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short > of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for > government work" but far from perfect..."
> If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
* There are many people who, for one reason or another, are blind and are not stupid.
The converse is also true: There are people (like you, for example) who are not blind, but are clearly very stupid.
Maybe a better way to look at natural selection is. That natural selection is how nature or a divine inspiration, experiments to see what will work best under certain types of living conditions.
In article <79321111-456f-4bad-ba12-c3d7d284a...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote: >"...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged >mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are >considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are >plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process >of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it >is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can >easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short >of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for >government work" but far from perfect..."
A protein sequence with 100 amino acids can vary in 100 different directions. In effect it has 100 dimensions. (I have found a wonderful proof that it has more than 100 dimensions, but the margin is too small to contain it.)
In mathematics, intuition is often deceptive. You can't assume that your intuitive understanding of landscapes, based on your ordinary experience of two-dimensional terrains, leads to correct conclusions when you try to apply it to spaces of hundreds or thousands of dimensions.
-- David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
> In article <79321111-456f-4bad-ba12-c3d7d284a...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged > >mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are > >considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are > >plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process > >of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it > >is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can > >easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short > >of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for > >government work" but far from perfect..."
> A protein sequence with 100 amino acids can vary in 100 different > directions. In effect it has 100 dimensions. (I have found a > wonderful proof that it has more than 100 dimensions, but the > margin is too small to contain it.)
> In mathematics, intuition is often deceptive. You can't assume > that your intuitive understanding of landscapes, based on your > ordinary experience of two-dimensional terrains, leads to correct > conclusions when you try to apply it to spaces of hundreds or > thousands of dimensions.
> -- > David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
