What I am suggesting is that these programs are oversimplified because it does not have nearly the same amount of variables you would find in nature.
Random mutation and natural selection are both incredibly simple principles. How complicated do you think a simulation has to
be in order to accurately model these two forces?
I don't know anything about the development of the Boeing 777, not that it would provide any basis for the current discussion even if I did since an aircraft is not a living being capable of procreation.
That was the point of the simulation, NJ - to have 777's that
could reproduce and procreate under the influences of natural selection and random mutation.
How did you miss that?
What I do know is that these simulators are not sufficient in providing a basis for the evolution of organisms.
Observations of organisms evolving is what provides ample basis for conclusions on the evolution of organisms.
What these simulations do is illuminate the ability of the
very simple forces of random mutation and natural selection to give rise to complicated structures and behaviors - structures and behaviors complicated enough to give the appearance of design, even - and since they're modeling fairly simple forces, why would they have to be all that complicated?
It would do more to advance the theory if they attempted a series of controlled experiments to mimic what it might look like in actuality.
Done. Directed evolution studies on actual organisms are legion.
™ Version 4.2