1. gnxp
  2. Evolutionary landscapes

Evolutionary landscapes

By razib on December 20, 2008.

Mark Chu-Carroll has a "must read" post, Fitness Landscapes, Evolution, and Smuggling Information:

If you look at the evolutionary process, it's most like the iterative search process described towards the beginning of this post. The "search function" isn't really static over time; it's constantly changing. At any point in time, you can loosely think of the search function for a given species as exploring some set of mutations, and selecting the ones that allow them to survive. After a step, you've got a new population, which is going to have new mutations to explore. So the search function itself is changing. And how is it changing? Modelled mathematically, it's changing by incorporating information about the landscape.

Read the whole thing for context. If you are interested in the topic from a biological perspective, Sergey Gavrilets' has published a fair number of papers on this topic....

Tags
evolution

More like this

Fitness Landscapes, Evolution, and Smuggling Information
Since my post a couple of weeks ago about NASA and the antenna evolution experiment, I've been meaning to write a followup. In both comments and private emails, I've gotten a number of interesting questions about the idea of fitness landscapes, and some of the things I mentioned in brief throwaway…
Using Bad Math to Create Bad Models to Produce Bad Results
An astute reader pointed me towards a monstrosity of pompous bogus math. It's an oldie, but I hadn't seen it before, and it was just referenced by my old buddy Sal Cordova in a thread on one of the DI blogs. It's a "debate" posted online by Lee Spetner, in which he rehashes the typical bogus…
The Problem with NFL: Breadth or Depth?
Despite having written about it before, I still get a lot of questions about William Dembski's "No Free Lunch" (NFL) theorems. One message recently contained the question in a particularly interesting form, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to answer it with a post. Here's the question I…
Is Evolution Good Enough? It Beats Us.
One of the bad arguments that I've frequently seen from creationists is the argument that some biological system is *too good* to be a possible result of an evolutionary process. On its face, this seems like it's not a mathematical argument. But it actually is, and math is key to showing what the…