Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!bcc.ac.uk!link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk!zcaccha
From: charris@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Christopher Harris)
Subject: Re: Evolution Maker
Message-ID: <1994Nov25.121045.15938@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: zcaccha@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk (Christopher Harris)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 12:10:45 GMT
References: <1994Nov2.104653.26949@leeds.ac.uk> <39oc58$gla@news.duke.edu> <1994Nov14.140813.21400@ucl.ac.uk> <3aofme$t38@deadmin.ucsd.edu>
Organization: University College London
Lines: 26

|> >
|> >Absolutely! Mutation is a very small factor in the variability of a population, and
|> >is often over-estimated in its power. Crossover and other operators are far more useful,
|> >given a long enough genome and sufficient population.
|> >
|> >Chris
|> 
|> Dear Chris,
|> 
|> It's not clear whether you are addressing mutation in biota or mutation
|> in evolutionary computation.  It would be helpful if you could clarify
|> this point for me.
|> 
|> Regards,
|> 
|> David
|> 

I meant in evolutionary computation - but I guess it could apply to biota as well. That kind
of thing is very hard to observe in the real world, due to the enormous times and
populations, but in simulation it's a lot easier to see. Of course if you have any hard
evidence to the contrary I'm willing to be proved wrong - but I don't mean to discount
mutation altogether, I was making the point so that the other operators would get their
"share of the limelight", so to speak.

Chris Harris
