Is it reasonable to talk like this, if talking about an implicit optimization algorithm? Especially if fitness is determined by environment and is evaluated immediately ( as in if a negative threshhold is passed, which is the complete absence of all instacnes of a gene, then the gene is out, until/if it remerges ), is my reasoning wrong?
Is there a reason that people often use sex or sexual selection as an example, I have seeen this quite some times now? Why is that important here? I am asking because it is used in “newcomer posts”/entry posts too, as in is it about mesa-optimization or crossover? Or is that rhetorical to achieve more exposure? I am asking because it is somewhat hard to interpret this pattern in a meaningful way, maybe there is no meaningful way.
I like the differentiation when explaining why evolution could be viewed as either efficient or inefficient.
Is it reasonable to talk like this, if talking about an implicit optimization algorithm? Especially if fitness is determined by environment and is evaluated immediately ( as in if a negative threshhold is passed, which is the complete absence of all instacnes of a gene, then the gene is out, until/if it remerges ), is my reasoning wrong?
Is there a reason that people often use sex or sexual selection as an example, I have seeen this quite some times now? Why is that important here? I am asking because it is used in “newcomer posts”/entry posts too, as in is it about mesa-optimization or crossover? Or is that rhetorical to achieve more exposure? I am asking because it is somewhat hard to interpret this pattern in a meaningful way, maybe there is no meaningful way.
I like the differentiation when explaining why evolution could be viewed as either efficient or inefficient.