Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve
NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

Posted on 05/08/2003 10:11:06 AM PDT by Nebullis

Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

Arlington, Va.—If the evolution of complex organisms were a road trip, then the simple country drives are what get you there. And sometimes even potholes along the way are important.

An interdisciplinary team of scientists at Michigan State University and the California Institute of Technology, with the help of powerful computers, has used a kind of artificial life, or ALife, to create a road map detailing the evolution of complex organisms, an old problem in biology.

In an article in the May 8 issue of the international journal Nature, Richard Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert Pennock, and Christoph Adami report that the path to complex organisms is paved with a long series of simple functions, each unremarkable if viewed in isolation. "This project addresses a fundamental criticism of the theory of evolution, how complex functions arise from mutation and natural selection," said Sam Scheiner, program director in the division of environmental biology at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which funded the research through its Biocomplexity in the Environment initiative. "These simulations will help direct research on living systems and will provide understanding of the origins of biocomplexity."

Some mutations that cause damage in the short term ultimately become a positive force in the genetic pedigree of a complex organism. "The little things, they definitely count," said Lenski of Michigan State, the paper's lead author. "Our work allowed us to see how the most complex functions are built up from simpler and simpler functions. We also saw that some mutations looked like bad events when they happened, but turned out to be really important for the evolution of the population over a long period of time."

In the key phrase, "a long period of time," lies the magic of ALife. Lenski teamed up with Adami, a scientist at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Ofria, a Michigan State computer scientist, to further explore ALife.

Pennock, a Michigan State philosopher, joined the team to study an artificial world inside a computer, a world in which computer programs take the place of living organisms. These computer programs go forth and multiply, they mutate and they adapt by natural selection.

The program, called Avida, is an artificial petri dish in which organisms not only reproduce, but also perform mathematical calculations to obtain rewards. Their reward is more computer time that they can use for making copies of themselves. Avida randomly adds mutations to the copies, thus spurring natural selection and evolution. The research team watched how these "bugs" adapted and evolved in different environments inside their artificial world.

Avida is the biologist's race car - a really souped up one. To watch the evolution of most living organisms would require thousands of years – without blinking. The digital bugs evolve at lightening speed, and they leave tracks for scientists to study.

"The cool thing is that we can trace the line of descent," Lenski said. "Out of a big population of organisms you can work back to see the pivotal mutations that really mattered during the evolutionary history of the population. The human mind can't sort through so much data, but we developed a tool to find these pivotal events."

There are no missing links with this technology.

Evolutionary theory sometimes struggles to explain the most complex features of organisms. Lenski uses the human eye as an example. It's obviously used for seeing, and it has all sorts of parts - like a lens that can be focused at different distances - that make it well suited for that use. But how did something so complicated as the eye come to be?

Since Charles Darwin, biologists have concluded that such features must have arisen through lots of intermediates and, moreover, that these intermediate structures may once have served different functions from what we see today. The crystalline proteins that make up the lens of the eye, for example, are related to those that serve enzymatic functions unrelated to vision. So, the theory goes, evolution borrowed an existing protein and used it for a new function.

"Over time," Lenski said, "an old structure could be tweaked here and there to improve it for its new function, and that's a lot easier than inventing something entirely new."

That's where ALife sheds light.

"Darwinian evolution is a process that doesn't specify exactly how the evolving information is coded," says Adami, who leads the Digital Life Laboratory at Caltech. "It affects DNA and computer code in much the same way, which allows us to study evolution in this electronic medium."

Many computer scientists and engineers are now using processes based on principles of genetics and evolution to solve complex problems, design working robots, and more. Ofria says that "we can then apply these concepts when trying to decide how best to solve computational problems."

"Evolutionary design," says Pennock, "can often solve problems better than we can using our own intelligence."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ai; crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,1401,141-1,1601,161-1,180 ... 1,961-1,975 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
Doesn't it mean he might or might not have a dead cat on his hands?

Well, strictly speaking, I believe it means that Prof Schrödinger's cat is BOTH dead AND alive, until something collapses the wavefunction.

1,141 posted on 05/10/2003 8:34:06 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1140 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Seems to me that one could as easily say that his cat is neither dead nor alive until the wave function collapses. Of course, that's just my mostly worthless, completely inexpert musing ;)
1,142 posted on 05/10/2003 8:42:19 PM PDT by general_re (Ask me about my vow of silence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1141 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
You mean like Vesuvius collapsing Pompeii's wave function? (The town, Cæsar collapsed the general's wave function.) To be fair, Cæsar flourished around 709AUC.
1,143 posted on 05/10/2003 8:43:41 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1141 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
(What about your vow of silence?)

Ah, but did you hear that, or just read it? ;)

1,144 posted on 05/10/2003 8:45:31 PM PDT by general_re (No problem is so big that you can't run away from it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1134 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Or as Frau Schroedinger is said to have said: "What have you done to the cat, Erwin. He looks half dead."
1,145 posted on 05/10/2003 8:45:38 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1142 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
You mean like Vesuvius collapsing Pompeii's wave function?

Well, something tells me Vesuvius pretty much collapsed great deal more than just Pompeii's wave function -- and probably killed all the cats, too.

1,146 posted on 05/10/2003 8:48:06 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Don't know why some have extended Schroedinger's mathematical result to things outside the original application. They did the same to Einstein. Seems pointless.
1,147 posted on 05/10/2003 8:51:11 PM PDT by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Seems to me that one could as easily say that his cat is neither dead nor alive until the wave function collapses.

Two things:

1) cats are restricted to two known states of existence: dead, or alive. There is no known state that can be described as "neither dead nor alive"

2) Don't try selling your interpretation in Copenhagen!

1,148 posted on 05/10/2003 8:52:28 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1142 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Don't try selling your interpretation in Copenhagen!

Yeah, his interpretation isn't up to snuff.

1,149 posted on 05/10/2003 8:59:02 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1148 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
cats are restricted to two known states of existence: dead, or alive. There is no known state that can be described as "neither dead nor alive"

How do you know that without opening the box? ;)

1,150 posted on 05/10/2003 9:01:17 PM PDT by general_re (No problem is so big that you can't run away from it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1148 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Don't know why some have extended Schroedinger's mathematical result to things outside the original application. They did the same to Einstein. Seems pointless.

I think PH hit the nail on the head in post #1111

1,151 posted on 05/10/2003 9:08:28 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1147 | View Replies]

To: general_re
How do you know that without opening the box? ;)

Experience hath shown that all cats are either alive or not alive (dead). In the absence of any compelling evidence, I see point to gratuitously assert another state of existence.

Of course, the cat being dead or alive is supposed to duplicate the QM states of the radioactive particle: decayed, or not decayed.

Besides, we don't want to let the cat out of the box ... we want to let the cat out of the bag!

1,152 posted on 05/10/2003 9:11:40 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
I think PH hit the nail on the head in post #1111

A "magic mantra," chanted to keep the "evil evolutionists" at bay?

1,153 posted on 05/10/2003 9:15:11 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1151 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
I took my car to a quantum mechanic the other day.

Now whenever I look at the odometer I get lost.....

ba dum bum!

1,154 posted on 05/10/2003 9:15:54 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1152 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Experience hath shown....

Damn you and your inferences anyway ;)

1,155 posted on 05/10/2003 9:28:49 PM PDT by general_re (No problem is so big that you can't run away from it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1152 | View Replies]

To: general_re; Doctor Stochastic
For yet another Interpretation of QM in general, and the Cat in particular see:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_40.html#4.3

It also explains various other interpretations of what's going on with the cat.
1,156 posted on 05/10/2003 9:29:49 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Do you mean spectral green or perceived green? ;^)
1,157 posted on 05/10/2003 9:32:57 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1115 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Have you tried looking for it? Or are you one of those people who stand in the middle of the room and shout when they can't find things?

Yes, but thanks for the concern about assertions your side makes. You can now expect the same response from me---> "Go find it yourself."

  1. I have looked at the original Sci Am article--no one provided me a link. I searched for it and found it without help from anyone here.
  2. I read the article searching for evidence supporting the statement. Nothing apparent in the article.
  3. I searched the two links given in the article, www.genetic-programming.com and www.genetic-programming.org,(though not exhaustively) for such evidence. None apparent.
  4. I searched the home page of Koza and other of pages for such evidence. None apparent.
  5. I searched the patent database for Koza, PID, and cubic function. Found lots of Koza, lots of PID and lots of cubic function, but no evidence for either a granted patent for an evolved PID as someone else asserted nor evidence of any evolved cubic function.

Now just how much have you or anyone else here pursued the topic?

1,158 posted on 05/10/2003 9:52:02 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1105 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
It refers to all events.

If 10 different people see a car accident there ARE 10 different accounts. Ask an investigator. It is their job to look at the evidence and take into account the witnesses and figure out what happened. Sometimes they get it wrong.
So to does science.

If not then why do we get different answers to the same evidence? A T-Rex was a scavenger, no it was a hunter. They argue about it now. They have the same evidence but OBSERVE it differently.

Science tried to disprove the miracles in the Bible. it was pathetic. It aired on NBC a fews years ago. They said the accounts of the existence of Armageddon were wrong. They were proven wrong. A city was built upon the ruins of another. Once they dug at the location 5 cities later they found Armageddon.

As you have stated but yet not answered. It is up to you to prove the absence of GOD. If there is a God then we did not evolve. I await your proof. You must prove to me there is not a diety. We cannot have both. I am the opponent to your science. You are the opponent of my Faith.
1,159 posted on 05/10/2003 10:22:52 PM PDT by Michael121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1137 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
I take it you aren't a fan of Ray Kurtzweil (sp?) In "Age of Spiritual Machines" he thinks this (and much more) should happen by the end of the 21st century. I know very little regarding AI, but I would be curious what you think about his predictions.

I'm not familiar with the book, but I'm a big fan of the Kurtzweil engine, which I ran into while working on internal fax modems. His was the first really useful attempt I'm aware of to make an engine that would figure out what alphanumeric symbols might be imbedded in a digitized picture. Pretty useful for faxes received by a computer, if you think about it.

What interests me about this set of predictions about how coding will work, is how substantial the change in technical culture is going to be, to go from code we can debug, to code that mostly doesn't care if it's buggy. That's kind the fundamental crux of any of these genetic approaches: try everything--keep what seems to have worked, having accomodated yourself somehow to potential bleeding from errors. That means, for example, that, where programmers write code to execute functions, whatever replaces programmers perhaps invent fields of discourses with goals and constraints, and a certain tolerance for massive resources thrown away in dead-end probes for good solutions. It's sort of like we all get to be meta-mathematicians, because we all can no longer keep up with the math.

To me, code is a treacherous beast that can put your factory on idle from just a moment's carelessness. From my perch on the underbelly of the beast, not tending it assiduously looks like a world gone mad. But I know modern stochastically-oriented kids, including some related to me, that already have no trouble digesting this kind of approach.

1,160 posted on 05/10/2003 10:28:26 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1126 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,1401,141-1,1601,161-1,180 ... 1,961-1,975 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson