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 ... 1,841-1,8601,861-1,8801,881-1,900 ... 1,961-1,975 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
Your paradigm of "The Sims" is just a game.

It is not a paradigm, it is an example. It shows that one can do whatever one pleases with a computer program and prove 'anything' one likes. I have already shown the fault in this program in modeling reality which of course you are trying with verbiage to forget. In addition, a model for the entire set of facts which affect life is far too complex (and indeed unknown in its entirety). So any model of such a reality is perforce not a true one.

In addition, see the post above. If evolution is true, why does it need models as proof? Why cannot it prove itself from real life? Science is about real observable things so by saying that evolution requires a simulation to give proof of itself you (and all evolutionists) are admitting that evolution is not science.

1,861 posted on 05/22/2003 8:19:35 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1838 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
So far, you are the only person that has considered "The Sims" as other than a game.

Just because one cannot simulate all of reality does not imply that one cannot simulate some of reality. You better hope that people can simulate things such as nuclear reactor and weapons safety. Your life does depend on these simulations. Do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

No one needs models of evolution as proof. Creationists seem to be unable to grasp the idea that scientific theories do not require proof nor can any theory be proven.
1,862 posted on 05/22/2003 8:35:47 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1861 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Creationists seem to be unable to grasp the idea that scientific theories do not require proof nor can any theory be proven.

It's just one of his moronically-recycled word games, where he equivocates the meaning of "proof." He'll use it as though it meant "demonstration of metaphysical certitude," but when challenged, he'll claim he only meant "evidence." He's used this bait'n'switch tactic dating back two years, and was called on it back then.

Yet he's back yet again to make a raving fool of himself, using the same tired, fallacious argument......

But what can one expect from a person who thinks that nuclear fission is a "chemical reaction," that "a circle is not an ellipse," that "1720" is a really big number, that the planets whiz around in "wildly elliptical" orbits, and that infrared radiation causes sunburn?

1,863 posted on 05/22/2003 8:54:29 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1862 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
No, I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

You're Popeye the sailor man? toot! toot!

1,864 posted on 05/22/2003 10:05:20 PM PDT by null and void (shiver me timbers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1860 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
PLACEMARKER Hee hee!
1,865 posted on 05/23/2003 4:00:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1863 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Of course they [prokaryotes] were. [designed by the Christian god.]

I will disregard your millionth allusion to abiogenesis, which, of course, has nothing to do with evolution.

Ok, now that that's settled, I should be more specific. You said yes, bacteria was specially created. Bacteria are only a part of Kingdom Monera or Kingdom Archaea, depending on your taxonomy preference. What about Archaebacteria? What about Mycoplasmas? What about Crenarchaeota? Some of these things may not even be considered "life" by creationists, I'd suppose.

And, dear creation "scientist," where do viruses figure in? These are important questions, since you still have to come up with a competing theory to evolution, before you displace it. There has been much study into these things by actual scientists, while the creationists have conveniently disregarded this entire Kingdom. Why is that? Too difficult? ICR can't spring for the necessary equipment?

Methinks it's because a freaking .5 micron filament crenarchaeota that lives in boiling sulphurous water doesn't exactly fit the description of Noah's floating zoo, nor does it fit in with "ID" or "creation."

Very convenient, Gore.
1,866 posted on 05/23/2003 7:08:14 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1858 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
And, dear creation "scientist," where do viruses figure in?

You are into asking questions. How about answering one? Where do prions fit in your scheme of things?

1,867 posted on 05/23/2003 8:36:57 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1866 | View Replies]

To: gore3000; PatrickHenry
Yes Patrick, I have asked you and your minions several times on this thread to show a single post where you discuss the subject at hand. All your posts are either nasty placemarkers or insults. Therefore, since neither you nor your fellow thugs can show a single post where you act like people are supposed to act on a thread, which is discuss the subject, my statement is absolutely true. Now I know the truth hurts, but nevertheless my statement is the truth and not an insult.

Patrick answered this charge yesterday, in post # 1830 of this thread, in which he referred you to his posts # 1045, 1120, 1123 and 1127, all of which are substantive discussions of the topic, and none of which are either insults or placemarkers. Yet you repeat your slanderous attack on Patrick today. So who is the "thug," you or Patrick?

1,868 posted on 05/23/2003 9:34:14 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1859 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Prions are indeed mysterious. In fact, you can go "bigger" and ask about viruses too, since the jury is still somewhat out on them as well.

See, I won't answer a question I, nor anyone, nor science, has a definitive answer on... yet.

But, just like people back in the day may have asked, "is the world flat," you will have a definitive answer to your question some day. Whether or not you choose to accept that answer, will speak volumes of your integrity.

At any rate, is it acceptable to deflect questions with more questions?

By the way, are you upset Gore has co-opted your trademark red font every so often now?
1,869 posted on 05/23/2003 9:46:14 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1867 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Prions are indeed mysterious. In fact, you can go "bigger" and ask about viruses too, since the jury is still somewhat out on them as well.

No need to go "bigger" to the virus since you already asked the question.

At any rate, is it acceptable to deflect questions with more questions?

No, the question remains for the intended person to answer. Is your question of that type?

By the way, are you upset Gore has co-opted your trademark red font every so often now?

No, I don't own black or white either.

1,870 posted on 05/23/2003 9:59:38 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1869 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; gore3000
But what can one expect from a person who thinks that nuclear fission is a "chemical reaction," that "a circle is not an ellipse," that "1720" is a really big number, that the planets whiz around in "wildly elliptical" orbits, and that infrared radiation causes sunburn?

Don't forget that "there are no plant phyla."

1,871 posted on 05/23/2003 10:05:45 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1863 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
The present one, as I have already shown, conveniently fails to punish for useless and non-working functions which should normally be destroyed in real life by 'natural selection'.

Spare the rod, spoil the evolution?

1,872 posted on 05/23/2003 10:08:50 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1860 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Yet you repeat your slanderous attack on Patrick today.

It's okay. No one cares. No one even reads his stuff, except for the amusement value of finding bloopers.

1,873 posted on 05/23/2003 11:31:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1868 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
No, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Computer programs cannot approximate reality.

Well, then, little bubblehead, my attempt to save you from appearing the total idiot has failed. Any simulation program, and there are hundreds of them, is designed explicitly as an approximation of reality.

If evolution is science, how come evolutionists cannot prove their theory from real life?

If astronomy is a science, how come astronomers cannot prove their their theories from real life?

1,874 posted on 05/23/2003 12:03:53 PM PDT by donh (/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1860 | View Replies]

To: donh
Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
1,875 posted on 05/23/2003 12:08:41 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1874 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
This allows the programmer to use the code to promote whatever agenda they wish to promote.

In exactly the same manner that the experimental processes of science allows scientists to promote whatever agendas they wish. The tendency toward accuracy in science arises from human moral constraints manifested in journalistic rigor and self-critical analysis, not from the nature of scientific experiments.

The present one, as I have already shown, conveniently fails to punish for useless and non-working functions which should normally be destroyed in real life by 'natural selection'.

Since you keep saying this, I decided to go back and figure out why. I can't see it. Only keeping the winners (which is what they did) and punishing the losers are just two sides of the same coin. It still means the losers have no issue in the next generation, and the winners do.

It is therefore just more evolutionist garbaaaage.

It is therefore just another Gore3000-pseudo-factoid exploding abiogenically from the Gore3000 void.

1,876 posted on 05/23/2003 12:37:21 PM PDT by donh (/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1860 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Lurking Libertarian
No one even reads his stuff

I read it religeously--it's the best entertainment in town. It appears that I read his stuff a great deal more carefully than he reads his stuff, in fact.

Fess up, y'all can't wait to see what new theory of science he will evolve next. Yer just to shy to admit it.

1,877 posted on 05/23/2003 12:42:27 PM PDT by donh (/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1873 | View Replies]

To: donh
Fess up, y'all can't wait to see what new theory of science he will evolve next. Yer just to shy to admit it.

Well, I confess I'm stunned to learn that the whole field of computer aided design is bogus, that computer testing aircraft designs is bogus, ditto for lots of other industrial applications. A google search on CAD will amaze you. Well, it won't. But it might amaze some people around here.

1,878 posted on 05/23/2003 1:04:51 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1877 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Don't forget that "there are no plant phyla."

He makes so many bloopers, and there is so little time to catalog them all..... I fear no matter how assiduously I work at keeping an up-to-date list of his scientific blunders, he will always be a step or two ahead of me.

1,879 posted on 05/23/2003 1:06:27 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1871 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
whistles -- bells -- sirens ...

black hole thread collapse alert (( captainless cockpit going down -- crash )) ---

universe (( evosuction )) melt down too !
1,880 posted on 05/23/2003 1:52:48 PM PDT by f.Christian (( apocalypsis, from Gr. apokalypsis, from apokalyptein to uncover, from apo- + kalyptein to cover))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1879 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,841-1,8601,861-1,8801,881-1,900 ... 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