Posted by Phil M on July 28, 2003 at 09:49:36:
In Reply to: Re: another suggestion for v2 posted by David on July 28, 2003 at 08:29:09:
[Top-posting in deference to my earlier suggestion... :]
The beauty of the current system is that the 'substrate' upon which it sits doesn't need to know /anything/ about the data it is manipulating. It's only the selective process/environment (i.e. us) that needs to work out how it fits together (or not).
I like the idea that this is the case, as it potentially proves a lot more (if considered a success) than it would if we apply our own ideas of what consistutes a 'good' mutation.
At the level of molecular biology, DNA doesn't really care whether it's producing hair, scale, muscle, venom, venom-resistence, etc (or even, to be more accurate, the precursor molecules that eventually ause the creation of that kind of cell or enzyme or chemical product. As long as a particular bit of DNA keeps the organism alive (or at least doesn't kill it before it reproduces) it does not need to understand the world at large.
Your choice, though.
: I think the next version (or the one right after it) will include syllabic/stress/phoneme information. Your suggestion would require a database that linked words relationally. I think it's a great idea, but it will probably have to wait a while.