Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[Heartlander]

So I just got my new “computer evolution” kit. It’s basically a 4-bit instruction processor with program counter, address decoder and sufficient RAM to store a set of microinstructions and do something worth doing. You get 8-10 discrete integrated circuits plus assorted resistors, capacitors and LEDs.

Note: If you would like to make your own, all the supplies are available at a nearby Radio Shack store or from mail order dealers like Digi-Key.

I thought the computer was going to be designed randomly and over a period of time but when I read the instructions – well, I was surprised:

“For best results, follow meticulously the precise design and careful assembly… Placing the components in a container and shaking them randomly for an extended time will only damage them.”

It goes on to say:

“Once the computer is fully developed (meaning you have bought all the other accessories and incorporated them per the intended design), all new evolutionary changes take place according with the preinstalled program and plug and play components… mutations are known as bugs that should be removed immediately… beneficial changes exist in the software and hardware provided…”

Oh well, I guess we can’t design things as well as nature… (/sarcasm)

[Nebullis]

I suggested some time ago (in analogy with the Metropolis algorithm) that one might acquire several neutral or even slightly disadvantageous mutations before the combination gave a great leap forward.

This is behind the idea of cooption.

I have some unforseen obligations to attend to but I'll try to comment more, later. I appreciate your comments!

[whattajoke]

True... My man James Randi makes it a personal mission of his to ferret out the bogus patents that are granted (free energy type stuff usually). I believe he secured a patent on the pb&j sandwich as a way of showing the absurdities of the US Patent office. May be Urban Legend, I'm not sure and don't feel like checking right now!

[js1138]

I used to marvel at the seemingly endless list of patents printed on each and every pack of Polaroid film. Seemed like overkill. But you don't see many Kodak instant cameras on store shelves. At least not anymore...

[Dimensio]

Don't pretend the naturalistic origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is a theory of biology. It has nothing to do with universe origins. That evolution is an attempt to remove God from every aspect of human life is a creationist strawman. It is a lie, not a true reflection of the theory. Demanding that evolution explain aspects outside of its scope just because you cannot comprehend that evolutionary biologists really aren't trying to destroy religion from people's minds doesn't count as a legitimate criticism of the theory.

[Dimensio]

So to be clear, your view is that moral absolutes such as murder are not absolutes at all but murder, like a choice between the Mets and Yankees, is relative to who murders whom?

I've seen no reason to assume any attributes to murder other than it just 'is' (though I'd hardly call it similar to a choice between the Mets and the Yankees...I don't really understand the comparison). It isn't 'wrong' in any universal sense, just a relative sense when someone with some intelligence defines it as much. As such, I don't see reason to believe that there is an inherent 'law' coded in the universe regarding murder.

If that is correct your views are antithetical to theism which necessarilly makes you an anti-theist.

Well, if all theists believe otherwise, then yes, but I'd hardly claim that as evidence that I have 'disdain' for all theism.

[balrog666]

True... My man James Randi makes it a personal mission of his to ferret out the bogus patents that are granted (free energy type stuff usually). I believe he secured a patent on the pb&j sandwich as a way of showing the absurdities of the US Patent office. May be Urban Legend, I'm not sure and don't feel like checking right now!

Long live The Amazing Randi!

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution is a theory of biology. It has nothing to do with universe origins.

How many times will we have to repeat this? Forever, I suppose.

[Dimensio]

So, if these things evolve, though, why didn't this one?

I just explained it. No selective pressure. No selective pressure means no natural selection which means that the population remains relatively unchanged.

Again, evolution rests on the concepts that if it doesn't evolve, it perishes.

No, evolution rests on the concept that alelle frequencies change over time. Natural selection rests on the concept that if a genetic subset of a population is at a survival advantage over other members of the population that they will eventually thrive and overtake and become the rule rather than the exception and that environmental changes can trigger a sudden shift in the balance of natural selection. If the environment never lends itself to such changes, then the populations won't change.

So, if they put it in an environment where it was competeing with the bacteria that infect us, it would die off, would it not?

Quite likely. Fortunatley for the mold, it manages to survive without any complications despite the fact that some strains of bacteria are resistent to it. Apparently this mold can feed from plenty of other sources and the fact that some strains of bacteria are now no longer an option hasn't affected its chances to survive.

[unspun]

Artifical Life
artist's conception

[jwalsh07]

It isn't 'wrong' in any universal sense, just a relative sense when someone with some intelligence defines it as much.

Interesting. The power to define right and wrong is relegated to the intelligent with the power to enforce same.

I take it unalienable rights are also antithetical to your world view?

[Dimensio]

A = without.
Theism = belief in a god or gods.
Atheism = without belief in a god or gods.

If someone expresses a belief in any gods of any kind, then they are not an atheist. There is no specific "God" for which lack of belief defines an atheist, so someone whom you beleive acknowledges the "wrong" god is still not an atheist.

[Dimensio]

A vacuum is something.

Uh, no, a vacuum is the absence of 'something'. Specifically it is the abscence of matter, which would allow for it to contain light, but it does not contain light by definition, so a vacuum could very well be 'nothing'.

...unless you are speaking of a vacuum cleaner, which isn't quite the same thing.

[f.Christian]

I'd rather know God personally than all the bs$$$$ in the world ... too ! !

[Ten Megaton Solution]

We don't need atheists like you here.

Of course you do. Somone has to do the thinking, don't we?

[Dimensio]

Interesting. The power to define right and wrong is relegated to the intelligent with the power to enforce same.

'Power' implies some kind of privledge or empowerment. I think of it more as ability. It's just what happens, people define things as 'right' and 'wrong'.

I take it unalienable rights are also antithetical to your world view?

From where would these 'unalienable' rights originate? If you can identify a source from which to derive them, I'm willing to explore the possibility.

[donh]

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

Absurd! Even leaving out the often does not make the statement much more believable.

Artificial evolution, in the form of genetic programming, is employed quite regularly now to solve problems better than humans have been able to. I worked on one to do optimal cuts in lumber mills a few years back. Human brains have pretty tightly constrained upper limits in regard to problem-solving capacity. Humans can handle linear problems with up to about 7 variables, with practice. Ie, toy problems in artificially simplified domains.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I'm waiting for the day -- and I don't think it's too far away -- that one of these cellular automatas or other simulations of life get complex enough to ask, "What created me?"

We were created in God's image. We replicate the creative aspect of God by creating our own universes of life.

[null and void]

Actually I think I'm happy to be on his ignore list.

Willful ignorance bores me. I don't think he misunderstands what I'm saying, but simply refuses to "get it"...

[f.Christian]

Agnostic = without belief in a god or gods.

Atheism = with hate belief against God // Truth // science !