Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 8:08 AM
22 online now:
Pressie, RAZD, vimesey (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,247 Year: 5,284/19,786 Month: 1,406/873 Week: 302/460 Day: 2/52 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do computer simulations support cumulative selection?
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 12 (16049)
08-25-2002 1:56 AM


Weasel, a flexible program for investigating deterministic
computer ‘demonstrations’ of evolution

The program can be downloaded in the above link.

There are four different models-

quote:
Dawkins model (default)
In the Dawkins model (Fig. 1, Below right), the target sequence and parameters are set as per Dawkins’ original exercise. Running the model will show convergence on the target usually in 30 to 60 generations (iterations). Since this is a probabilistic exercise involving a random starting sequence and random mutations, the result will vary with each run.

Error Catastrophe model
Error catastrophe occurs when genetic information is destroyed by mutations at such a rate that all progeny are less fit than the parent/s so that selection cannot maintain the integrity of the genome and, in a Dawkinsian-type model, a target sequence cannot be achieved.

Adjusted mutation rate model
In effect, the mutation rate cannot be much greater than one per genome per generation. This then severely limits the rate of progress from a chimp-like species to human, if this were possible, even with perfect selection and all the other assumptions.

DNA Model
Any standard biochemistry text would describe how proteins are made from the information contained in the base sequences on DNA. We have provided a brief tutorial provided with the program (under ). An important difference between the DNA model and Dawkins’ Model, or any alphabet model, is that the DNA of an organism is not compared directly with the target as it is in alphabetical model. Another important factor is redundancy, some of the amino acids can be coded by different codons. With some codons, only the first two base pairs are needed to determine which amino acid is produced. This gives the genetic code some resistance to change. In some cases you would require more than one mutation to convert the code of one expressed amino acid into the code for another.


--Note: for faster simulations switch on the calc mutations by gaps which is effective when guarantee mutation = No. It is under the edit -> options menu, which instead uses an exponential probability distribution.

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-25-2002]

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-25-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2002 4:37 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 2 of 12 (16051)
08-25-2002 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by blitz77
08-25-2002 1:56 AM


It is just a game of guess the word, it's function is to make Darwinists more stupid. That Darwinists take this example seriously or as interesting, proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that the standards of evidence and formulating of theory in Darwinist science still suck. For shame.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by blitz77, posted 08-25-2002 1:56 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

    
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 12 (16065)
08-26-2002 1:53 AM


syamsu, the fact that you think darwinists think this is a serious simulation of natural selection makes YOU look stupid
  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 12 (16069)
08-26-2002 6:58 AM


Does anyone know where more serious simulations can be found?
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-27-2002 10:00 PM blitz77 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 8:46 AM blitz77 has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 12 (16131)
08-27-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by blitz77
08-26-2002 6:58 AM


I'm interested too. What about the program used by Nilson & Pelger to simulate eye evolution? Is it available?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by blitz77, posted 08-26-2002 6:58 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Me
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 12 (16405)
09-02-2002 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by blitz77
08-26-2002 6:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Does anyone know where more serious simulations can be found?

I don't think you need to look for demonstration programs - you can go straight to the real thing. Evolution techniques are pretty effective, and seem to be starting to be used for real work, though a downside is the lack of design documentation and explanation of the reason for each part of the finished object. I believe that some computer algorithms have been developed this way, and here is a link to an electronics circuit story:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992732

Whatever these techniques show, they are not just toys. Would the creationists refuse to use systems developed this way because they disprove their assertion that nothing new can be developed by evolutionary techniques?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by blitz77, posted 08-26-2002 6:58 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by blitz77, posted 09-02-2002 9:16 AM Me has responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 12 (16408)
09-02-2002 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Me
09-02-2002 8:46 AM


Hmmm? That circuit did not actually produce what was required-
quote:
In essence, the evolving circuit had cheated, relaying oscillations generated elsewhere, rather than generating its own.

I'm sure you can call this nitpicking, but using 10 transistors and switches to make an oscillator is not that hard. And after "several thousand generations" the best they could come up with was a radio, producing oscillations from radio waves using a long track in the circuit as a receiver rather than producing them from from the transistors. But it is quite interesting anyway

I've played around with electronic circuits long enough to know that often, if a speaker is involved, you can hear AM radio on it. An appliance nearby, you hear noise.

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 8:46 AM Me has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 9:48 AM blitz77 has responded

  
Me
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 12 (16414)
09-02-2002 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by blitz77
09-02-2002 9:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Hmmm? That circuit did not actually produce what was required-
quote:
In essence, the evolving circuit had cheated, relaying oscillations generated elsewhere, rather than generating its own.

I'm sure you can call this nitpicking, but using 10 transistors and switches to make an oscillator is not that hard.


Well - nitpicking and cheating, true - but I read the story as indicating a principle, for which simplicity is a benefit. OK, you can make a multivibrator with two transistors, but my first point was that something 'new' had emerged. Creationists argue strongly that micro-evolution - 'improving' a species - is possible, but that a new 'vital' organ cannot be generated, so a 'new' animal cannot be evolved. Here we have a radio receiver where before we had a signal generator.

My second point was not that the design was hard, but that it was done without directed design, by evolution, rather than by intention. This is surely also of relevance to the evolution/creation debate. Evolutionary pressures just made use of the induced AM oscillations you mentioned would be in the environment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by blitz77, posted 09-02-2002 9:16 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by blitz77, posted 09-02-2002 10:00 AM Me has responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 12 (16416)
09-02-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Me
09-02-2002 9:48 AM


quote:
Well - nitpicking and cheating, true - but I read the story as indicating a principle, for which simplicity is a benefit. OK, you can make a multivibrator with two transistors, but my first point was that something 'new' had emerged. Creationists argue strongly that micro-evolution - 'improving' a species - is possible, but that a new 'vital' organ cannot be generated, so a 'new' animal cannot be evolved. Here we have a radio receiver where before we had a signal generator.

My second point was not that the design was hard, but that it was done without directed design, by evolution, rather than by intention. This is surely also of relevance to the evolution/creation debate. Evolutionary pressures just made use of the induced AM oscillations you mentioned would be in the environment.


Here you have all the components required-the transistors did not pop up from a morass of metal. This is the evolution of something which uses material already existent. Classifying linking up of transistors in the same class as macroevolution of new organs is quite a leap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 9:48 AM Me has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 11:23 AM blitz77 has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 09-02-2002 11:41 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Me
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 12 (16419)
09-02-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by blitz77
09-02-2002 10:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
/B]

Not at all. This is a demonstration of the principle of evolution, not an example of the origin of life (or radios!). The new object which has evolved is a radio receiver, from an environment of components. The equivalent might be a stomach, or a head, from an environment of cells.

If you want something to evolve from material which does not exist you are asking for something from nothing. If you want to talk about the development of a cell from simple chemicals you are talking about the origin of life, an associated issue, but not what is being demonstrated here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by blitz77, posted 09-02-2002 10:00 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4587 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 12 (16420)
09-02-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by blitz77
09-02-2002 10:00 AM


You seem to be confusing abiogenesis with evolution...see the Origin of Life thread.

quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
quote:
Well - nitpicking and cheating, true - but I read the story as indicating a principle, for which simplicity is a benefit. OK, you can make a multivibrator with two transistors, but my first point was that something 'new' had emerged. Creationists argue strongly that micro-evolution - 'improving' a species - is possible, but that a new 'vital' organ cannot be generated, so a 'new' animal cannot be evolved. Here we have a radio receiver where before we had a signal generator.

My second point was not that the design was hard, but that it was done without directed design, by evolution, rather than by intention. This is surely also of relevance to the evolution/creation debate. Evolutionary pressures just made use of the induced AM oscillations you mentioned would be in the environment.


Here you have all the components required-the transistors did not pop up from a morass of metal. This is the evolution of something which uses material already existent. Classifying linking up of transistors in the same class as macroevolution of new organs is quite a leap.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by blitz77, posted 09-02-2002 10:00 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 12 (16479)
09-03-2002 9:10 AM


quote:
In the Dawkins model (Fig. 1, Below right), the target sequence and parameters are set as per Dawkins’ original exercise. Running the model will show convergence on the target usually in 30 to 60 generations (iterations). Since this is a probabilistic exercise involving a random starting sequence and random mutations, the result will vary with each run.

This model is illustrative of the progressive nature of mutation and selection, but it is not a true evolutionary algorithm as its selection function selects for a predetermined pattern.

quote:
Error catastrophe occurs when genetic information is destroyed by mutations at such a rate that all progeny are less fit than the parent/s so that selection cannot maintain the integrity of the genome and, in a Dawkinsian-type model, a target sequence cannot be achieved.

This is what would happen to all of us if we were to suffer several tens of thousands of germline mutations per generation. To put it bluntly, this model is not biologically accurate.

quote:
In effect, the mutation rate cannot be much greater than one per genome per generation. This then severely limits the rate of progress from a chimp-like species to human, if this were possible, even with perfect selection and all the other assumptions.

This does not follow. The measured mutation rate is 2-4 nucleotides per generation (as high as 5 in one study). Given a reasonable population size, this means that there have been several billion mutations in the human germline since our last common ancestor.

And this is still far below the threshold for the "error catastrophe" scenario in this simulation.

quote:

DNA Model
Any standard biochemistry text would describe how proteins are made from the information contained in the base sequences on DNA. We have provided a brief tutorial provided with the program (under ). An important difference between the DNA model and Dawkins’ Model, or any alphabet model, is that the DNA of an organism is not compared directly with the target as it is in alphabetical model. Another important factor is redundancy, some of the amino acids can be coded by different codons. With some codons, only the first two base pairs are needed to determine which amino acid is produced. This gives the genetic code some resistance to change. In some cases you would require more than one mutation to convert the code of one expressed amino acid into the code for another.

Since the evolution of proteins is not a pattern matching proceedure, we do not expect every set of proteins to be a mere permutation search from a similar sized protein.

As with the error catastrophe model, this model also neglects to model the way real mutations occur in actual organisms. It ignores the process of inversion, duplication, and recombination in producing novel proteins.

In other words, you can't knowingly make an inaccurate model of protein evolution and pretend that it says anything about real protein evolution. It make work on the uneducated, but it won't work on anyone else.

I would call this piece of software the "Grand Canyon Project" of Evolutionary Algorithms. Programmed specifically to mislead.

[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 09-03-2002]


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019