Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!av574
From: av574@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Tim Sallans)
Subject: Re: Evolution Maker
Message-ID: <CzuCLK.F5x@freenet.carleton.ca>
Sender: av574@freenet3.carleton.ca (Tim Sallans)
Reply-To: av574@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Tim Sallans)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
References: <1994Nov25.121045.15938@ucl.ac.uk> <1994Nov2.104653.26949@leeds.ac.uk> <39oc58$gla@news.duke.edu> <1994Nov14.140813.21400@ucl.ac.uk> <3aofme$t38@deadmin.ucsd.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 20:51:20 GMT
Lines: 55


In a previous article, charris@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Christopher Harris) says:

>|> >
>|> >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
>

It seems to me that normal random mutation may not provide enough
randomness in genome modification...wouldn't random transcription
errors contribute more in a biological system?

And, as a corollary, could the probability of events like transcription 
errors, crossovers, inversions, base pair duplication, etc., be coded 
in the genome as well, as opposed to externally as a system variable?  
That way, the genetic search would optimize the search process 
as well as evolving to score high on the fitness function.  Would this
accelerate the search over the course of the generations?

Insightful pondering or examples would be appreciated. :)


					--Tim



--
Tim Sallans                        "I've a plan so cunning, you
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada             could stick a tail on it and  
av574@freenet.carleton.ca           call it a weasel." -- Black Adder
