Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[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."

[Lurking Libertarian]

Not that the proof or disproof of God has anything to do with evolution; many of us believe in both.

[js1138]

I think the computer geeks are getting carried away with superfluous technicalities here. What's important in genetic programming is not whether the randomization algorithm meets NSA specs, but whether the output is novel. The actual source of mutation is irrelevant. What is important is that the "growth" cannot be anticipated by any algorithm other than one equivalent to rerunning the program.

[f.Christian]

Evolution does work for the insane (( reality deprived ))...

they go to the head of the class --- most successful !

[AmericanAge]

I'm looking at it. And it looks exactly like the same world that was described in the Bible. And, again, you didn't present any evidence.

[stanz]

Listen...conservatism, has nothing whatever to do with a person's religious or lack of religious beliefs.
This is not the Christian Science Reading Room. Stop preaching.

[jwalsh07]

I never asked you nor anyone else to disprove God. I asked for a means by which God could, if this God does not exist, be falsified.

You can do it right now. Good luck.

[Aric2000]

My goodness, did I just see you equate the bible with conservatism, and then say that if you don't believe in the bible that you shouldn't be a conservative?

Woo, a little arrogant there aren't we?

I see, so if I am not a Christian, I am not welcome into your conservative club. Fascinating, very interesting.

Did you say you were a christian? Because with that attitude, I'm not sure you should.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's easy. One does things like add, (or subtract) or other wise modify one number by a randomly generated number. (One can even chose which operation to do at random.) This allows mutations of all types to be generated.

There's lots of literature on the subject. Starting with the stem posting of this thread.

[Dimensio]

Not that the proof or disproof of God has anything to do with evolution; many of us believe in both.

That's true but "AmericanAge" brought it up out of nowhere. I had just asked for a falsification test (among other things) for whatever alternative scenario the creationists have to offer. That AmericanAge turned it into a request for a disproof of the existence of God lends more support to the "troll" theory, but it is possible that the poster is just very, very stupid.

[AmericanAge]

"Listen... conservatism, has nothing whatever to do with a person's religious or lack of religious beliefs."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/907415/posts

[whattajoke]

it must really be pissing you off that most here are not taking your bait.

What's truly sad, and a comment on the usual gang of YEC's around here, is that your over-the-top comments have all been seen here before by people who actually believe what you are posting.

as PatrickHenry (of FR) said, we refuse to allow YEC's or Creationists to become the face of the Republican party. And that's why we do what we do.

Your trolling is done here. Move along.

[Dimensio]

You can do it right now. Good luck.

Um, how?

[longshadow]

So I'm wondering why this stuff is posted and debated here.

Because many of us share a deep interest in being scientifically knowledgeable, and concurrently have a passion for diabusing the notion that conservative political views are equateable to being ill-educated, anti-scientific, Flat-Earth-believing, snake handling rubes.

[webstersII]

"Given time, materials, and gravity, you can form a sun and planet systems out of Hydrogen."

That's true -- given the right environment.

[Aric2000]

And your point is what?

[PatrickHenry]

A lot of evoltuionists are atheists, most are leaning in that direction, and, notably, most ARE leftists. Very, very few creationists are flat-earthers.

Ah. Gotcha! All flat-earthers are creationists. You can't name one evolutionist with that viewpoint. Aren't any. So you and your flat-earth buddies have a great time bashing evolution. Together.

[f.Christian]

To: whattajoke

waj ...

It is my strong contention that science, and all its tenets, is an important part of conservatism. We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are) and this is all part of that. The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left.


ph ...


Well stated. That is also my position.


112 posted on 04/29/2003 3:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)


fC ...


Overlordism ...

I'm only surprised that you publicly admit it (( you 're not joshing // tricking me ? ? )) !

"We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are)" ---


fC ...


Is that only what your worried about ... what leftist think ---

"The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left."

What's the difference between your village and hillary clinton's ?





wj ...

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc.


fC ...

classic ... elitisim !


To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule (( constitutional // law ))** for the assurance technocracy and expert rule (( dictatorship // tyranny ))**.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

** .. .. .. my additions !

Boshevik monopoly (( experts )) ... social // mind engineers ---

Brainwashing (( God // Truth )) -- Indoctrination (( lies // evolution // atheism )) !

Main Entry: tech·no·crat
Pronunciation: 'tek-n&-"krat
Function: noun
Date: 1932
1 : an adherent of technocracy
2 : a technical expert; especially : one exercising managerial authority

Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts

[Grando Calrissian]

!REIKCAHW --- rebmud gnitteg era

--- uoy ekli noitulove ot sknaht elpoep

...detaerc saw -- detsixe ti ecnis degnahc t'sah ecneicS

Science has't changed since it existed -- was created ...

people thanks to evolution like you ---

are getting dumber --- WHACKIER !

PALINDROME IS TRUTH!! EAT MY HELICOPTER IS FALSE SCIENCE. ONLY IN VANADIUM OXIDE CAN WE DISCOVER THE REAL PERSPECTIVE. LONG LIVE FRANCIS LLEWELLYN PONCHERELLO, B600.

[Doctor Stochastic]

AA gives the impression of being specially created to caricature the conservative character.

[webstersII]

"It was my understanding that it was back in fashion, again. More equine fossils were found since the Chicago museum."

It's been a few years since I have read about this. The original progression had dogs to horses, which is totally absurd.