Comments on: How Seashells Can Teach Us About Neural Networks http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/20/how-seashells-can-teach-us-about-neural-networks/ The Neat Side of the Web Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:47:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nic M. http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/20/how-seashells-can-teach-us-about-neural-networks/comment-page-1/#comment-1742294 Nic M. Wed, 20 May 2009 15:43:04 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/20/how-seashells-can-teach-us-about-neural-networks/#comment-1742294 Didn't we discover these patterns 30 years ago? Haven't these folks heard of Wolfram or cellular automata? Didn’t we discover these patterns 30 years ago? Haven’t these folks heard of Wolfram or cellular automata?

]]> By: avraamov http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/20/how-seashells-can-teach-us-about-neural-networks/comment-page-1/#comment-1742203 avraamov Wed, 20 May 2009 14:52:19 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/20/how-seashells-can-teach-us-about-neural-networks/#comment-1742203 'the meticulous design of a seashell...' tut tut. ‘the meticulous design of a seashell…’

tut tut.

]]> By: Skipweasel http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/20/how-seashells-can-teach-us-about-neural-networks/comment-page-1/#comment-1741869 Skipweasel Wed, 20 May 2009 06:44:02 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/20/how-seashells-can-teach-us-about-neural-networks/#comment-1741869 This has a bearing on the evolution/creation argument. Creationists often point to examples of great complexity, claiming that it couldn't have evolved at random. The reduction of these complex patterns is a good example of how there is often a fairly simple underlying driver. Oh, and the other thing that annoys me is that creationists claim evolution is random. It isn't. Mutations are random /within the pool of available starting points/. That pool has been selected by other pressures for billions of years. The starting point isn't random at any point, it's based on something that previously worked - non-functioning examples having been discarded along the way. This has a bearing on the evolution/creation argument.

Creationists often point to examples of great complexity, claiming that it couldn’t have evolved at random.

The reduction of these complex patterns is a good example of how there is often a fairly simple underlying driver.

Oh, and the other thing that annoys me is that creationists claim evolution is random. It isn’t. Mutations are random /within the pool of available starting points/. That pool has been selected by other pressures for billions of years. The starting point isn’t random at any point, it’s based on something that previously worked – non-functioning examples having been discarded along the way.

]]>