Is this Idea solving evolution equation stable enough for papers?

[think]

A synaptic process would require synapses, which are found in nerve cells, and those arose much much later in evolution. Cells sticking together is very common, even among bacteria, because it allows them to stick in a clump in a good spot, with the outermost cells facing most of the hazards. But that doesn't get you a multicellular organism, it gets you goo, because the cells don't differentiate in a predetermined pattern, they just clump. Their cellular machinery and DNA isn't sophisticated enough to encode dozens or hundreds of cells types and form those different types in a sophisticated sequence and layout. For that, you need homeobox genes, allowing an organism to become something like a jellyfish.

This is why I was trying to stay away from the protein manifolds unfolding of amino acid complexes since protein unfolding of the amino acid systems into collective structures in a macro vector field equation.. I just wanted to keep the equation the new evolution equation as simple as can be..

because as details they are determined by the relative details at the level above and below the actual detail in question.

I want to apologize to you gturner for the reaction to your previous post as I have been hit with that time cube too too many times and after first disproving it long long ago it now annoys me to see this,..time cube..

 

[intrinsical]

This may be what you're looking for?

A Markov Chain Analysis of Genetic Algorithms with a State Dependent Fitness Function
That is if I were the one trying to solve this problem, the paper above would be my starting point. Yes, its more of an engineer's approach to mathematical modelling, and bound to be overly simple and plain wrong in several aspects. But its a starting point.

 

[Captain_Nick]

I'm losing my edge - can't tell whether this topic is full of cranks or geniuses.

The point is in seeing connections between things you wouldn't think are related, such as space and time and fashion. For example, if you change the size of your closet space by dS, how does that affect how long it takes you to pick out an outfit (Tp)? Obviously there is some function relating dS and Tp, but this is also affected by the social environment and the size of the accessible fashion space, which can both expand or contract over time, and part of that time is consumed in picking clothes out of your closet, which is affected in turn by closet size, leading to a very complex equation for the time estimate of how long it will take to get dressed.

This research is important! Someone better get on it and develop that formula, I need to optimise my wardrobe.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm losing my edge - can't tell whether this topic is full of cranks or geniuses.

I think you know the answer already.

 

[Captain_Nick]

It was one in the morning when I posted that, I needed to be sure.

How lucky are we to be here conversing with the leading minds of our generation.

 

[publiusr]

Cells don't "think" anything. Their interactions are governed solely by physics and chemistry, not some sort of free will (or deity, for that matter.)

If anything, evolution can solve things even true intelligent design can't.

There was this TED talk about how Unilever tried to find a professional to design a perfect nozzle--which failed.

Trial and error--evolution as it turned out--worked

http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford/transcript

9:09 and 10:08

You take a nozzle and you create 10 random variations on the nozzle. You try out all 10; you keep the one that works best. You create 10 variations on that one. You try out all 10. You keep the one that works best. You try out 10 variations on that one. You see how this works, right?

And after 45 generations, you have this incredible nozzle. It looks a bit like a chess piece -- functions absolutely brilliantly.

We have no idea why it works, no idea at all. And the moment you step back from the God complex -- let's just try to have a bunch of stuff; let's have a systematic way of determining what's working and what's not -- you can solve your problem


I wonder if rocket engineers are trying this for their nozzles. Well, I suppose they are--it's the Monte Carlo method after a fashion.

 

[Australis]

Ah yes, the finest minds of our generation at work...

 

[think]

I was thinking we need a TED talks thread where we post/discuss the various ted talks? but I just moved on -you know..

 

[think]

Cells don't "think" anything. Their interactions are governed solely by physics and chemistry, not some sort of free will (or deity, for that matter.)

(looking back at my threads...)

correct Robert.. ---

different analogy = so if our brain were say a quantum computer when used completely and properly would that be a good comparison..?

say molecular processing and such.??

say like our brain would invent new "molecules for new processing methods? maybe..

And would that come close to a evolutionary "jump?" , to create a new mind via new molecules for new developments in brain chemistry or is it all just a like chemical changes..?

While this is almost circular reasoning with no way out of the circle ,, except up, it really is of no importance right now.