+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 176 to 181 of 181

Thread: Who else hates evangelical atheists?

  1. #176

    Default Re: Who else hates evangelical atheists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    Not to beat a dead horse, but just because you are not aware of it doesn't mean it is hidden. Here is the talk.org archive that address genetic algorithms;

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html


    This site talks about all the applications of GA programming. They seek to emulate how it is done in nature BECAUSE it is so efficient. I think this shows that you were wrong on this point. Evolution is very good at filling niches, is it really a surprise that it filled the niche of algorithm optimization?
    I don't suppose it occured to you that I've written a bunch of enterprise class algorithms and that's why the way it works in nature seems like it wouldn't work without some additional discovery? Genetic algorithms seek to improve their function through incremental refinements (not random, ranges) and integrated fitness testing, it works decently on some problems, but isn't reflective of nature at all, just the idea of evolution.
    "Go to work, send your kids to school, follow fashion, act normal, walk on the pavement, watch TV, save for old age, obey the law. Repeat after me: I am free."

  2. Default Re: Who else hates evangelical atheists?

    Genetic algorithms seek to improve their function through incremental refinements (not random, ranges) and integrated fitness testing, it works decently on some problems, but isn't reflective of nature at all, just the idea of evolution.

    Sounds like you have experience working on generic algorithms, not genetic algorithms. But I get it, no amount of new information is going to change your pre-existing conception, especially comming from an Internet loud mouth like me.

    Some of the cited papers explictly stated they were modeling genetic evolution (with random variation), but since you work in computer programming I suppose you know better than they.
    Last edited by Random Havoc; 08-18-2012 at 08:28 PM.
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  3. #178
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,206

    Default Re: Who else hates evangelical atheists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    Sounds like you have experience working on generic algorithms, not genetic algorithms. But I get it, no amount of new information is going to change your pre-existing conception, especially comming from an Internet loud mouth like me.

    Some of the cited papers explictly stated they were modeling genetic evolution (with random variation), but since you work in computer programming I suppose you know better than they.
    It's probably the fact that you idiots have gotten so desperate to hold on to a busted theory that you're trying to inject some kind of innate artificial INTELLIGENT DESIGN into genetics.

    I think these kind of dumb fuck EXCUSES (to go right along with punctual equilibrium)for how something so completely preposterous could have occurred is EMPIRICAL evidence that you people are clinging desperately to your religion like a Christian crying and hugging a Bible the day they pull Jesus' bones out of the ground.

    All you're doing is looking for "artificial" intelligence because exactly what most creationist, looney or not have been saying has been found to be true, random accidental mutations is a fucking stupid principle to build the evolutionary theory on. Now the would be atheist version of the medi-evil Catholic church is doing everything it it's IMAGINATIVE powers to hang on to it's influence lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    Some of the cited papers explictly stated they were modeling genetic evolution (with random variation), but since you work in computer programming I suppose you know better than they.
    Apparently the odds are in his favor since it was the "laymen" that primarily rejected the gorilla version of neanderthal and the idea of acquired inheritable traits when scientist were touting it as infallible scripture.

    Oh and it's your prophets that brought evolution and genetics over into the world of algorithms and mathematics, don't be hating on the MATH professor when the BIOLOGY professors math doesn't compute.
    Last edited by Sillywilly; 08-19-2012 at 01:13 AM.
    "Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the World"...

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin


  4. Default Re: Who else hates evangelical atheists?

    It's probably the fact that you idiots have gotten so desperate to hold on to a busted theory that you're trying to inject some kind of innate artificial INTELLIGENT DESIGN into genetics.

    There has always been illusion of design...genius




    Oh and it's your prophets that brought evolution and genetics over into the world of algorithms and mathematics

    You do realize this 'science is no different than religion' line of attack boils down to basically saying 'You know how stupid you are, you're RELIGIOUS stupid...you're so stupid your name might as well be Sillywilly'...BRILLIANT!!!
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,206

    Default Re: Who else hates evangelical atheists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    There has always been illusion of design...genius










    You do realize this 'science is no different than religion' line of attack boils down to basically saying 'You know how stupid you are, you're RELIGIOUS stupid...you're so stupid your name might as well be Sillywilly'...BRILLIANT!!!
    "Illusion". Subjective term in this usage to downplay the fact that your stupid ideas of "randomness" are exactly that, STUPID. People like you have always tried to argue that intelligence was not a requirement for the theory of evolution and as usual you people were wrong and are now trying to create your own forms of intelligent design to validate your theory that TRUE scientific advancement continues to destroy.

    You do realize this "science is no different than religion" line of attack is a perfect demonstration of not only how hypocritical your line of thinking is, but also how dishonest you are having not even read On the Origin of Species and quoting it like the science inside is the reason you believe what you do?

    Give it up girly, science has NOTHING to do with your religion lol. You idiots have demonstrated that time and time again on these boards. You just think throwing out words like science, empirical, Darwin, etc lend more validity to your incompetent position.

    Oh and my math professor comment was directed at your comment to Marou:

    Some of the cited papers explictly stated they were modeling genetic evolution (with random variation), but since you work in computer programming I suppose you know better than they.
    Actually yeah. Because we're talking about biology "experts" moving over into the realm of "math" and coding experts. All you're doing is saying that biologist know more about math/coding/algorithms than Marou simply because they don't like what the expert says about their math lol.

    Maybe if your proctologist's evaluation of your heart condition is more like what you wanted to hear you can go back and tell your cardiologist he doesn't know what he's talking about?
    Last edited by Sillywilly; 08-19-2012 at 03:10 AM.
    "Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the World"...

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin


  6. #181

    Default Re: Who else hates evangelical atheists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    Sounds like you have experience working on generic algorithms, not genetic algorithms. But I get it, no amount of new information is going to change your pre-existing conception, especially comming from an Internet loud mouth like me.

    Some of the cited papers explictly stated they were modeling genetic evolution (with random variation), but since you work in computer programming I suppose you know better than they.
    The only two genetic algorithm attempts I've seen or had the misfortune to work on were; A clueless company attempting to optimize an i/o message queue problem on a command and control server for a large data warehouse (it was a stupid approach). A more intelligent company that seemed like they knew what they were doing, trying to optimize their manufacturing/production pipeline. Ultimately however the amount of programmer effort required to define all the problems took the complexity too high and the output was unfeasible. These algorithms have nothing in common with biological evolution other than than the idea of trying to produce a solution by tweaking variations in quasi-random biology inspired ways and evaluating the fitness of the suggested solutions with carefully written stupidly huge fitness functions.

    I haven't seen a success story there yet, but it could be it's only a useful approach in situations I've not seen, and/or that the leads on those projects were *touched*. I think it was a bit of both. At the end of the day if you know enough about what's needed to solve a problem that you can evaluate fitness reliably you don't need a genetic algorithm, so the attempts I've seen have come from the same types of assburger engineers that use convoluted design patterns to write something simple like a file system monitoring service, or somehow bloat a web page that needs to display data from 1 table into 5000 lines of code. The wiki article is decent if you want to know what they might be used for in the real world.
    "Go to work, send your kids to school, follow fashion, act normal, walk on the pavement, watch TV, save for old age, obey the law. Repeat after me: I am free."

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts