🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jlmb2INNjp4@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> choup@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Ping Chou) writes:

>        Or the development of genetic algorithms has
>completed?

I doubt anyone would argue this.  For example, genetic
programming just came on the scene within the past
couple of years and it has the potential to churn up
the field significantly.

>        Don't you think you may be able to discover new algorithms from
>studying genetics?

Of course.  But geneticists calling us stupid and
telling us to go back to school doesn't help, does it?
In particular, I happen to be intrigued by the fact
that genes not only produce physical structure and
regulate cellular events, they effectively regulate
their own expression.  This sort of feedback should be
very interesting to investigate!

>        Do you really believe the complete genome of HIV is just a 4-state
>bits encoded string?

Well, in a sense, sure.  Why?  What do you know that we
don't?  How about educate us rather than chastise us!

>        Then please, give youself a chance, take a look at any modern
>genetics text book, and be a cross-discipline expert.

It is pretty arrogant to assume that people who work
with genetic algorithms have no knowledge of genetics!
Furthermore, different people have different interests,
and you can't be sure what each person ought to study.
For example, there is relatively little need for
someone interested in modelling the evolution of
populations to have a thorough understanding of, say,
molecular biology even though it relates to genetics.

>        BTW, I would appreciate any reasonable arguments because I'm trying
>to learn ai-genetic from the genetics side.

Well, I suggest you go back to school and take a course
in each of the following: programming, data structures,
algorithms, parallel algorithms, automata theory, etc.
etc. etc.  It's a joke, get it?

For those non-biologists interested in getting some
background on cell physiology and/or genetics, I highly
recommend "The Living Cell", by Christian de Duve from
the Scientific American library series.  It is getting
a bit "old" (1985?) but I assume the basic top-level
picture it presents is still mostly "correct".  More
importantly it is scientific without being pedantic and
boring and yet it is not too "popular".

And I would have to second Ping's suggestion to study
cross-disciplinarily.  It can be surprisingly useful.


--james, "Don't know much about biology 'cept what I
need to"

-- 
 james kittock :: stanford cs grad student :: duke '92 :: go blue devils!!
 "Adaptation is a recursive process in living systems." -- Alex. M. Andrew