I see you have a low self-esteem. Don't be so hard on yourself.
First, I deal with what you write, not with what you wish you had written. Which was --->
In this case, it made a cubic function generator circuit which outperforms the best that all electronic engineers were capable of producing in all the history of electronics.
The circuit at the top was patented in 2000, and is the current state of the art. The circuit at the bottom was produced by pure unaided evolution, and outperforms the human version.
Clearly, you now admit there is still no evidence for your claim.
True, it's not the same circuit.
Second, you have no problems jumping to conclusions
The researchers appear to have topped their prior "personal best" and produced an even better circuit, which they presented in their later paper.
But fail to see the facts.-->Circuits are simulated using SPICE (Quarles, Pederson, Newton, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli 1994).
Third, simulations are not the real thing. We lost several Mars probes, all of which were run through simulations.
Fourth, you use hyperbole erroneously again.
If transistors et all were as unpredictable as you imply, they couldn't even be used to make reliable circuits at all.
I did not imply anything about transistors. I did imply that simulations are not real.
Fifth, the circuit designers and I know that a junction transistor can be used as a diode. They did not choose to do so. The circuit was changed.
Sixth, unterminated runs act as antennae and at high frequencies provide signal loss. I have no doubt that you would select a just-so story over the real thing, but that does not qualify as evidence for the embodiment of the just-so story to perform the required tasks.
For any real application I'd choose the evolved circuit over the patented one any day.
At this point, your assertions are still hanging.
I see you have a low self-esteem. Don't be so hard on yourself.
That was lame even for you.
Clearly, you now admit there is still no evidence for your claim.
Clearly, you're delusional. I stand by my statement and evidence has already been given. Your hand-waving doesn't make it go away.
Second, you have no problems jumping to conclusions The researchers appear to have topped their prior "personal best" and produced an even better circuit, which they presented in their later paper.
What part of "appear" was unclear to you? I clearly labeled it as speculation, not a "conclusion", you goof.
But fail to see the facts.-->Circuits are simulated using SPICE (Quarles, Pederson, Newton, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli 1994).
During the evolutionary process, yes. This hardly precludes them from doing a quick breadboard of their final designs, does it? In any case, that's an attempt on your part to hairsplit the results, for the several reasons I gave, which you have not even attempted to deal with. Evade much?
Third, simulations are not the real thing. We lost several Mars probes, all of which were run through simulations.
Lame. I made a specific point about the known ability of circuit simulations to accurately analyze the real results of circuit topologies, which is not invalidated by your red herring about the failure of experimental craft performing never-before-attempted maneuvers millions of miles from assistance.
[If transistors et all were as unpredictable as you imply, they couldn't even be used to make reliable circuits at all.]
I did not imply anything about transistors. I did imply that simulations are not real.
Of course they aren't "real", but that wasn't your point at all. Your point was the implication that simulated performance may not match real performance. I quite logically pointed out that, yes it does (for these types of analyses), and it did so precisely because the behavior of transistors is well known and highly predictable, unlike your implication that they are somehow likely to exhibit surprising behavior in variance to their models.
In short, your point was invalid, and you have done nothing to salvage it by blathering about simulations not being "real".
Fifth, the circuit designers and I know that a junction transistor can be used as a diode.
No, you didn't. Don't even try to lie about it. You wrote:
I found the patent and examined the circuit and it involves 5 transistors and 4 diodes. The circuit used in the "runoff" has 9 transistors. Somebody changed something.No, they didn't, because a transistor wired that way *is* a diode. QED. If you understood that you wouldn't have blathered on about "someone changed something", because you'd know that that "change" was no "change" at all.
They did not choose to do so. The circuit was changed.
Ok, fine, Mr. Wizard, please explain to us how a transistor wired in such a manner *differs* in behavior from a diode. We'll wait.
Sixth, unterminated runs act as antennae and at high frequencies provide signal loss.
Wow, what a really random sentence. And this has *what* to do with the circuits in question, please? Be specific, this ought to be really amusing.
I have no doubt that you would select a just-so story over the real thing, but that does not qualify as evidence for the embodiment of the just-so story to perform the required tasks.
Yet again, you cluelessly imply that circuit simulation software is in some manner grossly defective in a way that has managed to elude electronic engineers for the past few decades. Perhaps you would like to tell them exactly *why* a computer-analyzed result of a circuit design allegedly would differ significantly from actual performance? We await your blinding revelations.
At this point, your assertions are still hanging.
At this point, I'm ready to hang myself before I bother with any more of your red herrings and cheap excuses again.
I made several other points that I note you didn't even attempt to address.
I declare this game of cat-and-mouse over, and you lost it through dishonesty and troll-like behavior. You clearly don't want to deal with the actual issues raised by experiments of this kind, and so I won't push you on the matter. You may continue to fail to learn from the evidence as you wish. Goodbye.
The researchers appear to have topped their prior "personal best" and produced an even better circuit, which they presented in their later paper.As I've already pointed out, I didn't "jump" to what I thought was a "conclusion", I specifically labeled it as a speculation (thus the word "appear", as most children would have noticed).
However, contrary to Andrew's snideness, it turns out that my speculation was a good one after all. I emailed the authors of the articles in question (gee, why didn't anyone else think of that?), and asked them about the differing circuits in the two articles. Although he's in the midst of traveling at the current time, Matt Streeter was still kind enough to email me back. On that question, he responded:
We definitely ran the cubic problem twice and got different results, and some of the earlier publications have the earlier result. [...] The SciAm article I believe has the latest one, which is better (I believe about twice the accuracy of the patented circuit on our fitness cases, vs. comparable accuracy for the earlier result).So there you have it.
As for your unsupported implication that they had only used 2N3904 transistors in the high-frequency cubic function generator circuit, his reply is as follows:
We ran the cubic problem both with 2N3904/2N3906 and with higher-frequency transistors. I believe we got similar accuracy in both cases.Gosh, Andrew, the researchers were way ahead of you. Who'da thunk it? And it's not surprising that they got similar accuracy in both cases, since while the 2N3904 family of transisters is not recommended for amplifier use over 100MhZ, the same stat sheet you referred to earlier showed a chart of its frequency response, and it was shown as still pretty linear up into the gigahertz range.