Do computer simulations support cumulative selection?

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:News articles and features | New ScientistWhatever 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?

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.

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.