to try and prove it all happened by chance.
Posted on 02/14/2005 1:50:46 AM PST by mc6809e
After more than a decade of development, Avida's digital organisms are now getting close to fulfilling the definition of biological life. “More and more of the features that biologists have said were necessary for life we can check off,” says Robert Pennock, a philosopher at Michigan State and a member of the Avida team. “Does this, does that, does this. Metabolism? Maybe not quite yet, but getting pretty close.”
[snip]
The researchers set up an experiment to document how one particularly complex operation evolved. The operation, known as equals, consists of comparing pairs of binary numbers, bit by bit, and recording whether each pair of digits is the same. It's a standard operation found in software, but it's not a simple one. The shortest equals program Ofria could write is 19 lines long. The chances that random mutations alone could produce it are about one in a thousand trillion trillion.
To test Darwin's idea that complex systems evolve from simpler precursors, the Avida team set up rewards for simpler operations and bigger rewards for more complex ones. The researchers set up an experiment in which organisms replicate for 16,000generations. They then repeated the experiment 50 times.
Avida beat the odds. In 23 of the 50 trials, evolution produced organisms that could carry out the equals operation. And when the researchers took away rewards for simpler operations, the organisms never evolved an equals program. “When we looked at the 23 tests, they were all done in completely different ways,” adds Ofria. He was reminded of how Darwin pointed out that many evolutionary paths can produce the same complex organ.
(Excerpt) Read more at carlzimmer.com ...
If they can recognize a threat and adapt a responce to it, one would think they can recognize an attempt to communicate and adapt a responce.. Like communication..
This could be an incredible advance in the Artificial Intelligence field..
Evolving AI rather than writing a program to "emulate" intelligence..
More proof that, given an energy source, simple rules can lead to complex organization. This is ultimately the revolutionary thought that Darwin put forward, and what "creationists" seek to discredit, even though it says nothing about the origin of the conditions necessary for the energy flow.
Ofria is getting awfully romantic about the fact that his progam isn't working the way he thought it would. If that's the definition of AI, then Microsoft gave birth years ago.
Ping.
very interesting. bump for later reading.
|
Nope.. That's the definition of adaptation..
I merely suggested it could be applied to AI..
This project seems more like an elaborate computer game than anything else.
I think the experiment also suggests a response to the irreducible complexity argument.
In these simulated organisms, non functioning (by some standard) "genes" continue to propagate with the organism even though they don't serve a purpose (or even hinder the organism to some degree). Then at some point a random mutation adds the last piece of the puzzle and the collection of genes now collectively serves to help the organism.
Implicit in the irreducible complexity argument is that these nonfunctional genes prevent the organism from surviving all together so that later generations cannot build on them. But that of course is not true. Our DNA is full of genetic garbage. Well, it may be garbage now, but maybe a mutation in the future will make those genes useful to us.
Even genes that tend to harmful to our progress may stick around long enough to become useful later.
There are plenty of genetic diseases that sustain themselves through families for example. It's possible that one day favorable mutations will turn these genes into something favorable later on.
Consider the mouse trap example. It's claimed that the mouse trap is irreducibly complex. It may be. That's fine. It doesn't hurt the argument for evolution.
The answer is that organisms already contain the equivalent of incomplete mouse traps in their DNA. Right now these incomplete devices are waiting for the last mutation to make them complete.
Then you don't understand t.
For anyone interested, here's link to Avida program download page..and the "Sourceforge" download link..
Sourceforge/Avida download link
You can run the program yourself, on your own computer..
Here's link to page describing background of the Avida program.. Longer than the article in this posting, and maybe more informative..
http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/software/avida/background.php
I learned to be skeptical of computer 'evidence' for Darwin ever since the 'methinksitsaweazel' program offered by Dawkins some years ago.
If that is evidence for The Theory, then global warming is real.
Omar.
As I understand it, game theory can be applied to everything.
to try and prove it all happened by chance.
The point of this experiment was not to disprove the existence of God, as you seem to feel.
It was designed to investigate genetic inheritance, and evolutionary pressures; to see if some of the micro-evolution we see in nature (like butterflys changing color after several generations to camoflage themselves in a new environment) could be replicated using computers. This allows millions of "generations" to be studied in a short period of time.
The results of such experiments are not pre-ordained: In the end, it is scientific experimentation that will either disprove Darwin's theory (which I happen to believe), or support its validity.
Remember how the Church forced Galileo to recant on his knees his sun-centered universe under pain of death, because scripture was crystal clear to them:Psalm 19: 4-6 says "the sun comes forth like a groom from his bridal chamber and ... joyfully runs its course; or Ecclesiastes 1:5: "the sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises [again]"; or Joshua 10:12-13: "Joshua declared, 'Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and, Moon, you also, over the Vale of Aijalon.' And the sun stood still, and the moon halted till the people had vengeance on their enemies." Or Psalm 104:5: "You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakeable for ever and ever."
The priests cited these verses in their condemnation of Galileo. See, they said, the earth does not move, it says so in scripture. But they were wrong.
And Galileo had no hidden, God-hating agenda. He was simply using his God-given intellect and curiosity to make discoveries about the world.
I believe most scientists today, like Galileo, work because they are curious and want to understand the functioning of the universe. They have no malicious motives, and should not be looked at with such utter distrust by creationists.
And they burned Bruno, who presumed to assert that the stars might be suns like our own, and have planets round them. They used scriptural authority to justify that, too. They thought that the Bible was quite clear on the earth being the stationary centre of the universe, just as modern protestant fundamentalists think the Bible is quite clear that the universe is 6000 years old and evolution didn't happen.
The Bible never said those thigns, so, Dont blame The Bible on the errors of unbelievers in what the Bible says
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.