Imitating biology

[shunyadragon]

I need a reference for this claim! A sparse fitness landscape does not mean the population will be unfit, it only means the population will tend to stay on a local optimum. Thus the surprising discovery of exquisite designs in nature.

Blessings,
Lee

First there is absolutely no falsifiable hypothesis that 'nature is exquisitly designed' in any other way than naturally by natural processes.

Sparse populations do not evolve, but diverse populations do.

You need to take a good college course on 'Population genetics.' Based on good science. The following is a course outline. You can probably take it on line. Pay up and get educated.

[Stoic]

I need a reference for this claim! A sparse fitness landscape does not mean the population will be unfit, it only means the population will tend to stay on a local optimum. Thus the surprising discovery of exquisite designs in nature.

Exquisite designs in nature are not that surprising to those with knowledge of evolution. What would be surprising (and need to be explained) is if we could come up with an improvement on the design that nature could have done with small changes that each lead to an improvement in fitness.

Of course, one would expect that explanation to be that the fitness landscape has changed recently, or that one or more of the small steps leads to less fitness (i.e. the design is at a local maximum).

[shunyadragon]

I need a reference for this claim! A sparse fitness landscape does not mean the population will be unfit, it only means the population will tend to stay on a local optimum. Thus the surprising discovery of exquisite designs in nature.

Blessings,
Lee

The exquisite nature is not surprizing. It follows Natural Laws, Natural geometry, and the predctable natural processes.

[Seeker]

Exquisite designs in nature are not that surprising to those with knowledge of evolution. What would be surprising (and need to be explained) is if we could come up with an improvement on the design that nature could have done with small changes that each lead to an improvement in fitness.

Of course, one would expect that explanation to be that the fitness landscape has changed recently, or that one or more of the small steps leads to less fitness (i.e. the design is at a local maximum).

How does the second paragraph justify the first? Why ''we could come up with an improvement on the design that nature could have done with small changes that each lead to an improvement in fitness'' is solved by ''the fitness landscape has changed recently, or that one or more of the small steps leads to less fitness (i.e. the design is at a local maximum)''?

[Stoic]

How does the second paragraph justify the first? Why ''we could come up with an improvement on the design that nature could have done with small changes that each lead to an improvement in fitness'' is solved by ''the fitness landscape has changed recently, or that one or more of the small steps leads to less fitness (i.e. the design is at a local maximum)''?

If the fitness landscape has changed recently, then the design might not be optimal because nature hasn't had time to get there yet.

If one or more of the small steps leads to less fitness, then we were mistaken in thinking that "we could come up with an improvement on the design that nature could have done with small changes that each lead to an improvement in fitness."

[rossum]

How does the second paragraph justify the first? Why ''we could come up with an improvement on the design that nature could have done with small changes that each lead to an improvement in fitness'' is solved by ''the fitness landscape has changed recently, or that one or more of the small steps leads to less fitness (i.e. the design is at a local maximum)''?

If the fitness landscape has changed, then what was formerly a maximum may no longer be a maximum, the maximum might be just a small change away. The human fitness landscape has changed recently with the introduction of Covid-19. A small change that increases resistance to Covid-19 is now beneficial, where it would not have been beneficial a year ago.

If the local peak is separated from the next peak by too deep a valley then evolution will not be able to cross that valley. If gaining resistance to Covid-19 meant a 15% death rate from the common cold in order to make the transition to Covid-19 resistance, then that change will not happen.

[Seeker]

Ok, I think I understand now.

[TheLurch]

I need a reference for this claim! A sparse fitness landscape does not mean the population will be unfit, it only means the population will tend to stay on a local optimum.

Sorry, big research problem kept me away from distractions like this for a while. Not surprised to come back to see Lee making false statements.

The tendency of a system to get stuck in a local maximum depends on a large variety of factors: the temporal stability of the landscape, the ease of motion along the landscape, the size of the jumps that are made by changes, the size of the optima, etc. Unless you have quantifiable values for all of these, you have absolutely no idea of whether the behavior of any system should surprise you.

In other words, if you're surprised, it's not for scientific reasons.

[shunyadragon]

Source: Evolution News

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Lots of designs!

Source: Evolution News

... these are great

© Copyright Original Source

Designs we try an imitate are not what you would expect if nature is cobbled together with an algorithm that seeks local optimums.

Blessings,
Lee

I wanted to add none of the above in reality imitates biology nor nature. Both nature and biology are subject to natural laws. Any designs by humans are subject to natural laws. We make literally thousands of eyes, including cameras. We even make artifical organs and body parts. So what?!?!?!!

In the future we will literally be able to clone exact copies of everything nature.

Fortunately nothing is designed in nature because that would really screw things up!

[lee_merrill]

The tendency of a system to get stuck in a local maximum depends on a large variety of factors: the temporal stability of the landscape, the ease of motion along the landscape, the size of the jumps that are made by changes, the size of the optima, etc. Unless you have quantifiable values for all of these, you have absolutely no idea of whether the behavior of any system should surprise you.

Yet a sparse landscape will make it likely that evolution will get stuck on a local optimum, regardless of the temporal stability, the ease of motion, etc.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

In the future we will literally be able to clone exact copies of everything nature.

But the point is that human designs fall far behind what we see in nature.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Yet a sparse landscape will make it likely that evolution will get stuck on a local optimum, regardless of the temporal stability, the ease of motion, etc.

Blessings,
Lee

The most ridiculous claim considering the vaste fossil and genetic evidence for th history of life. Local optimums? lead to limited genetic diversity and extinction, which is what is observed today in the world. The evidence is clear, evolution takes place in related populations over regions of the earth, such as observed in rain forests today

[TheLurch]

Yet a sparse landscape will make it likely that evolution will get stuck on a local optimum, regardless of the temporal stability, the ease of motion, etc.

No, it doesn't, and the fact that you think it does means you know so little about what you're talking about that you should be embarrassed to be talking about it.

A nearly flat landscape, where there's almost no cost to wandering, is much easier for a system to shift around in than a densely packed system with deeply negative troughs near all the optima. A system where changes make for large shifts in distance make the relative height of the optima irrelevant, since any change is likely to move them off the peak entirely. Etc. Every single factor i mentioned will change the probability of being stuck at a local optimum otherwise i wouldn't have mentioned it.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that i know this stuff and you don't? Do you not believe i have a PhD in the biosciences? Or do you think that somehow reading a bunch of people who aren't scientists ranting about science gives you some knowledge that i don't have?

[shunyadragon]

But the point is that human designs fall far behind what we see in nature.

Blessings,
Lee

Not a meaningful point. By the objective verifiable evidence life and the nature of our physiccal existence shows absolutely no falsifiable evidence of being designed.

[TheLurch]

A nearly flat landscape, where there's almost no cost to wandering, is much easier for a system to shift around in than a densely packed system with deeply negative troughs near all the optima. A system where changes make for large shifts in distance make the relative height of the optima irrelevant, since any change is likely to move them off the peak entirely. Etc.

I'm going to make sure i clarify this so that even Lee gets it:

A nearly flat landscape, where there's no cost to moving out of an optimum, makes the density of optima irrelevant, since most things navigating this landscape will spread out across the surface, rather than remaining in an optimum.

A landscape where changes move the system a large distance means that the rare optima in a sparse landscape still get reached.

The Etc. still applies.