data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6c1ba/6c1ba87b782235058ea291715dbc746155f2cb0d" alt=""
Dawkins wrote a program that created a graphic image generated by sixteen variables. The user could change only one of those variables by a small amount of the possible range each "generaton," and after a period of time, the changes become very dramatic indeed. Then he wrote another program that began with a string of random text characters and in the course of fewer then 100 iterations produced a line of Shakespeare -- outdoing the proverbial monkeys by a
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db23e/db23ee215da77c748b3b2bbd436ba54bf0a96729" alt=""
Turns out, you can find both of t
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/81151/8115137aad85ab38993ce6d6d5aed3a23754d212" alt=""
And you can see the original programming Dawkins used to turn a string of random letters into the line "Methinks it is a weasel" from Hamlet here. You can see the program run itself here, using the entire ASCII character set rather than just twenty-six letters, here. It gets to the target phrase in between 600 to 750 generations most of the time.
H/T to PZ Meyers (to be honored as the Humanist of the Year, congratulations!) for the links to these toys.
3 comments:
Is Richard Dawkins unethical? (Because of the way he frames his argument?) Interesting discussion going on here.
Greg, your link goes to a post about Michelle Bachmann. It doesn't even mention Richard Dawkins or evolution. You have one post up at that blog that I could find about evolution, in which you suggest a number of books by Charles Darwin to read and get a portrait of the man, his social attitudes (which you rightly criticize) and his techniques and achievements (which IMHO, you sell a little bit short).
But nothing at all about Dawkins. Are you just link-fishing or is there a point you want to make about Dawkins and his software experiments? If it's the second, please feel free to explicitly state it here.
I should add, the political post you linked to looks like pretty good commentary. I like that it's heavy with links to back up your claims. My criticism is that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Richard Dawkins, as advertised here.
Post a Comment