Evolution question.

[MAS]

Even if it wasnt, without Darwin's initial ideas its unlikely that mutation would have been developed as an idea. If mutation is seen outside of the context of natural selection, its significance diminishes. Everything has to start somewhere, even if Darwin's ideas might seem simplistic in the light of today's knowledge

Rave's example of Newton and the apple was a good one. What practical use was it back then? None, really. And 100 years later? Still none, really. But without the initial discovery we wouldnt have been able to develop that line of science so that, for example, we could launch satellites into space or send a man to the moon. You have to bear in mind that, in relative terms, Darwin's ideas aren't that old.

[Aaron]

Maybe Aaron could confirm this but Imagine it would be possible to produce a genetic algorithy that has only one copy of each 'gene' (code fragments? functions? I'm not sure how they work), apply some variation, possibly millions of times, test the next generation for fitness, and continue from your new, better code. Mendel not included.

At it's most basic level, genetic algorithms only include one copy of each gene. When individuals are bred, characteristics of the offspring are chosen at random from the two parents.

For a good basic example, check out this cool Java applet.

[Spud1]

NB this is kind of off topic but its in reply to a previous post in this thread so I rkeon its allowed

We now know that, unless we can find a way of generating wormholes, Human travel beyond the reaches of our own solar system is in practical terms impossible.
Rich :¬)

why do you say this?

Tis blatently wrong Traveling that far would be perfectly possible without wormholes, folding space etc etc. What about generational ships, the possibility of suspended animation/cryogenics..both practicle solutions.

Also, the basis of you saying we cant get that far is probably due to the fact that we theoretically cant go fast enough. But that is just a crazy austrian/german/whever scientists theory. Einstiens theory of relativity cannot be proven at this current time - even though such things as the doppler effect do point towards him being correct I am pretty sure that traveling faster than light would be possible if it were possible to navigate at those speeds [would need very very very very fast computers] and a way to insulate the passengers from being squished. Ok so its not possible now but in the future...who knows. Who would have thought that teleportation would ever be possible but scientists are making progress there - ok so its only a few quarks and technically they are copied but still its progress

don't dismiss long range space travel just yet

[Galant]

Even if it wasnt, without Darwin's initial ideas its unlikely that mutation would have been developed as an idea.

Erm, don't think that's really quite true is it?

If mutation is seen outside of the context of natural selection, its significance diminishes.

I'm curious, from what to what? Especially since the idea originated outside of that context.

But without the initial discovery we wouldnt have been able to develop that line of science so that, for example, we could launch satellites into space or send a man to the moon. You have to bear in mind that, in relative terms, Darwin's ideas aren't that old.

Perhaps this then - when looking at evolution, all of the usefulness is found in the idea that species are able to adapt some what to better meet needs and surroundings. The notion that this leads to the creation of new species however holds very little that is useful.

??

Or, what is it's use?

[Proplus]

Darwin popularised the phrase "survival of the fittest", observed that there is variation within species and observed variations can be inhertited. Whilst it could be considered that a lot of genetic algorithm theory is based on Mednel's work, Darwin certainly laid the foundations.

Darwin never used that phrase in ANY of his work at all. It was coined in 1864 Herbert Spencer in Principles of Biology.


Galant: take a look at this:

http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/createv.htm

"Evolution is not science and it does not produce any of the scientific benefits that the scientific method has done over the recent centuries."

[Alex]

There is NO evidence of 1) present evolution 2) past evolution 3) possible evolution

Not so sure about that one...

[Galant]

Perhaps change 'evidence' to 'proof' - but that's a bit off topic, looking at its benefits and results.