|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do computer simulations support cumulative selection? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
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: --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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
syamsu, the fact that you think darwinists think this is a serious simulation of natural selection makes YOU look stupid
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Does anyone know where more serious simulations can be found?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
I'm interested too. What about the program used by Nilson & Pelger to simulate eye evolution? Is it available?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Me Inactive Member |
quote: 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: News articles and features | New Scientist 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Hmmm? That circuit did not actually produce what was required-
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Me Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Me Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
You seem to be confusing abiogenesis with evolution...see the Origin of Life thread.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024