EvC Forum: Evolutionary Simulators: How accurate are they?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Evolutionary Simulators: How accurate are they?

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 1 of 31 (430993)
10-28-2007 7:05 PM

In the Random rants thread, Taz and I got on the topic of how random or non-random evolutionary processes are.

Taz mentioned something about evolutionary simulators presumably as evidence supporting his assertion. I responded as thus:

Since I don't want to drag his topic off of course, I thought perhaps this topic would be of great interest. I have yet to see any threads on the subject, which is somewhat surprising to me.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Do the famed simulators actually mimic biological systems or is the system designed to produce exactly what the programmer wants?

Here is one such model as a reference for those not yet acquainted with it.

Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Added evolution simulator website for clarification

Edited by Admin, : Add missing "are" to title.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Replies to this message:
	Message 2 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 10-28-2007 9:05 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2007 11:14 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 5 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2007 2:17 AM	Hyroglyphx has replied
	Message 6 by Rrhain, posted 10-29-2007 3:01 AM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 7 by Percy, posted 10-29-2007 9:32 AM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 10 by Jazzns, posted 10-29-2007 12:13 PM	Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 8 of 31 (431110)
10-29-2007 10:48 AM

Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
10-29-2007 2:17 AM

Artificial selection

As far as I know most evolutionary simulators do not make a major attempt to represent the complexities of biology, preferring to simplify and abstract those, in favour of focussing on the evolutionary process directly. However I see no reason to believe that they are "designed to produce exactly what the programmer wants" in terms of evolutionary success.

Insomuch that because its so simplistic with very defined parameters, its bound to produce exactly what the designers want-- artificial evidence of evolution, which is supposed to translate in to biology. I think its far to oversimplified to be taken seriously. But it is fun watching my squigglies evolve.

I've had my simulator on about 24 hours now. They've evolved considerably.

However, the description given simply ignores whatever is going on beneath the surface. It ignores, for instance, the role played by food and reproduction in even the simple example given in the link.

That is no more realistic to biological systems than a video game is to training actual football players.

And that example is almost certainly not the sort of thing Taz meant - Taz more likely meant Avida or the older Tierra.

I was going to post a link to Avida, but then they reminded me that you have to download it first. I wanted all posters and lurkers to be able to immediately understand what these programs entail.

It seems that once again we have a creationist inventing his own "facts".

Since I'm not a creationist, you must be talking about someone else.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
	Message 5 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2007 2:17 AM		PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 9 by Percy, posted 10-29-2007 12:00 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2007 12:38 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2007 7:06 AM	Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 16 of 31 (431170)
10-29-2007 5:25 PM

A reply to Rrhain from another thread

What makes you think that the Monte Carlo method is only applicable to evolution?

When did I say it was? That was the pretense of Taz's rant, all of which brought up by TAZ, not me. He brought up the supposed misrepresentation of evolution, and it was he that used the MC method as a basis for providing some evidentiary support.

So why are you restricting it to evolution?

I'm not. Go back and follow the dialogue. First tell me how this conversation began, then tell me where I restricted the MC method solely to evolution.

Haven't you done any research into the subject before you dismissed it? The GOLEM project evolved walking, for example.

Rrhain, my whole point is that these simulations are specious by doling out the functions in an almost perfect state by introducing constants. All the digititalized organism has to do is haphazardly run in to another object, and, eureka, evolution before our very eyes. I mean, come on... How lame is that? That hardly resembles actual biological systems. That's like placing you in front of a tennis ball machine and then predicting that you will be hit by one of those tennis balls.

As I mentioned in your other thread, you are insinuating that evolutionary biologists are trying to pull a fast one: That their evolutionary models already have the answers pre-programmed into the system and they're only doing all this computer work to lend an air of legitimacy to their work.

I don't think they are trying to pull a fast one, or that the answers (I assume you mean the end product) are pre-programmed. 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. Secondly, its a statistical destiny that they will evolve, not an anomaly. In that way, it isn't actually making a case for natural evolution at all, only masquerading as if it is.

As mentioned there: The Boeing 777 was not designed by humans but rather was evolved by computers. By your logic, the programmers put the design into the computer. But if they did that, why on earth bother writing a program whose sole function is to spit out an answer we already know?

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. What I do know is that these simulators are not sufficient in providing a basis for the evolution of organisms. 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.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Replies to this message:
	Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2007 5:31 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2007 5:39 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 20 by Percy, posted 10-29-2007 9:28 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 21 by Taz, posted 10-29-2007 9:52 PM	Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 23 of 31 (431380)
10-30-2007 8:02 PM

Reply to: Message 10 by Jazzns
10-29-2007 12:13 PM

Re: Genetic Algorithms

What genetic algorithms DO refute is the notion that biological life cannot evolve IC or specified complexity. There are examples of using gentics algorithms where the selected pressured walk of random changes have done just that in direct opposition to any enterprising IDers that claim forcefully that such processes cannot.

I'm not seeing how genetic algorithms refute IC, since all the necessary information is already extant, which is the whole point of IC. But maybe I'm not understanding your statement, in which case, can I ask you to elaborate?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
	Message 10 by Jazzns, posted 10-29-2007 12:13 PM		Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 24 by Percy, posted 10-30-2007 9:54 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 25 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2007 2:32 AM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2007 7:02 AM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 28 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2007 11:44 AM	Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 29 of 31 (431521)
10-31-2007 8:19 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
10-29-2007 9:52 PM

Re: A reply to Rrhain from another thread

I clearly stated in the other thrad that the reason I was pissing and moaning about the video was that the narrator kept referring to evolution as a totally and completely random process.

We're all clear on that part.

YOU then said that natural selection is a non-random process inside a sea of random processes, implying that it was justified for the narrator to refer to the whole thing as random and ignoring the non-random parts.

Right. So far so good.

I pointed out that there are lots of processes that make pretty patterns even though the bulk of them are completely random. The example I provided (monte carlo) was just that. The bulk of a monte carlo program is nothing but calling up random numbers after random numbers and producing random results after random results.

Right, which is obviously in lieu of the conversation, which was about how random or non-random evolution is.

Nem, there are a lot more to programming than just evolution simulators. And there are a lot more we can do with the concept of random mutation and natural selection than just applying it as a mechanism for biological evolution. You should really learn a thing or two about software programming and what mathematicians, physicists, and engineers do with it before you make blanket statements again.

Software programs have nothing to offer biological systems Taz, which, if I haven't made it abundantly clear by now, is the angle that I've been coming from.

The main thing is it was YOU who brought up the evolution simulator, not I.

Taz, you used the Monte Carlo method as a way to typify your argument, did you not? And were we not talking about random processes within evolution? Clearly there was no other avenue or reason for you to bring up the MC method. So please tell me how I'm wrong.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
	Message 21 by Taz, posted 10-29-2007 9:52 PM		Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 30 by Taz, posted 10-31-2007 8:45 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied
	Message 31 by Percy, posted 10-31-2007 9:29 PM	Hyroglyphx has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	PaulK, Phat
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2