Computer Simulation Finally Proves Evolution

_{April 10, 2007

Biology, Evolution, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

I was just thinking... evolution should work both ways in computer simulations. If we can take two input traits and derive two output traits, we should be able to go backwards as well. As a result, we should be able to take two sets of traits, one for an ape, one for a man, and then work backwards using the backwards model to reach the common ancestor. And, we should be able to do so in about 800K generations. Given today's high-end parallel compute abilities of the ATI & NVIDIA graphics cards, we should be able to construct algorithms which run this simulation through repeated attempts to arrive at provable, reproducible solutions for evolution moving either forward or backward. Any takers?RickH_{August 3, 2007
August
08
Aug
3
03
2007
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

One additional follow-up. Through the process of evolutionary flux whereby the jitter of traits yields new looking offspring with new abilities, the branches should go out in all directions. We need a model which identifies which of those new traits are mroe desirable to then allow the thinning out of the herd over time. I'm telling you truthfully. It cannot be done because it does not correlate to reality. Evolution is a contrived idea. One invented by man to explain away the things which are so much more easily explained and understood from a creationist point of view. If there is a better way to exist, more desirable traits than others, then what laws are in placing making that true? Where did those laws come from? A creator. If there is an order to our universe and mankind is evolving into the best creature possible over time, what makes it best? And why the order? Just natural happenstance? And if so, what's the point in living? What's the point in doing anything? We exist for one purpose, and that is to serve and honor God. He created the universe. He said to the galaxies "work this way" and they obeyed. He said to the stars "work this way" and they did. He said to the planets "work this way" and they did. He said to the land "work this way" and it did. He said to the seas "come up on shore this far only, no more" and they obeyed. He said to the life he created "behold" and they were formed. He said to the plants and the animals and the birds and the fish "behold" and they were. And he said to man, made is his own image, in his own likeness, "behold" and man was made. In the image of God. And God said to man "I love you, my child. Come to me." And man said "NO!" while giving God the finger. Everything has been handed to us. Everything. All we have to do is let go of ourselves. Let go of our ideas. Embrace the truth that God is the creator of the universe, the creator of everything, including us. If we can do that, then he has promised us everything. And if we cannot, then we stand opposed to God and he cannot have little gods running around fighting him. God is just. God is honorable. God is truth. And God is light. God cannot be hidden. God is proclaimed in everything around us. Not one thing in existence, even us, denies God in any way. Everything we are and do confirms God's existence. And his written word, given to us by God over many centuries, through many scores of men, is the absolute truth. God is real. God is life. And every mental exercise man goes down to try to prove otherwise is ultimately only a testimony to how righteous God is. We stand opposed to him at all turns, and yet he still loves us. We fight against him all our lives, and yet he still loves us. And when we try to use simple computer models, computer models written by children poking away at a machine made from the very elements God laid own in the first place, and then using that toy in an attempt to prove that God doesn't exist... we only show how truthful, righteous and wonderful God is. We are pathetic. And all of us need to humble ourselves and turn to God and say "Please forgive me. I am in open rebellion against you. But I know you are real. I want to know you. I want to love you. And I want to trust in you and your word." We are here right now on this planet in this flesh because of a bad choice. We ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That means we think we know what's right and wrong, and we think we can decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. We have that "knowledge of good and evil." But, we can't wield it. We don't see with big enough eyes, nor think with big enough minds, to understand what it is that's truly taking place in this vast universe. God does. God has shown us what we need to do to have life. And all we have to do is accept his word on faith. Evolution? A human argument. One designed only to distract us long enough for us to die and then wind up facing the truth (the true truth) when no longer encumbered by this flesh. The enemy is using our own "intelligence" against us. We are the instruments of our own undoing. But God has already stacked the deck. If we fight that tendency, God is faithful and he will save us. All we have to do is ask. Turn to him and ask and believe that he can save us and he will. We have everything. We have God. All we have to do is embrace that truth. God is truth. God is light. God is love. A true light cannot be hidden, and one that is entirely of love has no call except a warm, friendly, drawing one in connection. And since God made us, we know this to be true. We only deny it because we are selfish and stubborn. The meek shall inherit the Earth.RickH_{August 3, 2007
August
08
Aug
3
03
2007
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Quite silly. A population base of so few yielding significantly varying characteristics over time is not surprising in the slightest. At no time did we see a fish evolve into a person. Nor did we see even a monkey evolve into a person. Only odd looking round blobs changing over time into other roundish-looking blobs. Show me a computer simulation using a population constently in flux (one which eventually approaches 10s of thousands), simulate multiple 100s of variables in the model, and then show me the process taking anything resembling a monkey and producing anything resembling a man, with all of those 100s of variables (muscle mass, strenght, weight, connective tissues, brain size, eye size, location, hearing range, sense of smell, ability to see color, hair thickness, hair coverage, skin thickness, skin color, length of feet, hands, arms, legs, everything and anything you can think of which would uniquely identify us from monkeys) and show me how over 4 million years (assume an average 5 years per generation, meaning in only 800,000 generations) that a human is produced. It cannot be done. The number of variables alone means that we should be seeing dozens of new traits in every generational offspring in existence, including our own (as this trend would not just suddenly cease). Our children should be more than we are. Not just in abilities learned through technology and teaching, but they should be stronger, smarter, taller, faster, slower, thicker, or whatever other trait that will lead to the newly evolved creature in 100s of more generations. We should all be a stepping stones on that path toward the eventual new thing. We have never seen any proof that is happening. No new significant traits in thousands of years, thousands of offspring. We are today what we were 1000s of years ago. And yet, with the rate of evolutionary change, we should be quite different. We have not evolved. There is absolutely no proof of anything apart from micro-evolution, which is to say minor variations within a base. A dog has never given birth to anything but a dog. I defy anyone to provide any computer simulated evidence showing a monkey becoming a man in 800K generations. I'll even help write the software. I'll open-source it so anyone else can check my work, add improvements, remove flaws, etc. Any takers?RickH_{August 3, 2007
August
08
Aug
3
03
2007
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Thanks GilDodgen & DaveScot. I understand that a vast majority of the 50 billion organisms in question, if they indeed ever existed, would be recycled, so to speak. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. But if we look at just a few of the natural disasters from history that gave us a significant number of well-preserved human remains (Pompeii comes to mind), how is it that we cannot find such a large cache of pre-human remains? If NDE was so great at predicting where to find Tiktaalik, why can't it predict where a nice valley full of monkey-men who choked to death during a volcanic eruption a million years ago would be?angryoldfatman_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

The clip of Homer Simpson's evolution was SO much better than this lame POS.DaveScot_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

That is so funny. What exactly is that supposed to demonstrate other than an "intelligence" creating a program "designed" to produce a specific outcome? And are we supposed to believe that eyeglasses are a natural product of evolution?UrbanMysticDee_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Angry Old Fat Man Good one! I've never heard that argument before. There's more fun to be had with it. How much do 50,000,000,000 humans weigh? If they all took a leak at once could they float the Titanic? I'm surprised nobody used the punchline I had in mind. But they're all still Mr. Potato Heads! :lol: Believe it not they posted this on Panda's Thumb and were cooing over it. What a bunch of dorks. DaveScot_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Make that a million, not a thousand.Jasini_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

A couple other things that got me thinking. What does it matter how long it takes to a thousand? Why doesn't it show us any details after about generation 8 or so? We whizz through the generations so fast that we can't see anything, and aren't given a good look at the end. Also, the video isn't nearly as much fun if you watch it without the sound on.Jasini_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Maybe I should weigh in on this, since I am closer to the target demographic (undereducated layman) than most here.
"Undereducated laymen" are often far more wise and perceptive than those with Ph.D.s (especially in Darwinian theory and its various offshoots), because they (undereducated laymen) can figure out that random events and differential death can't turn bacteria into space-shuttle designers. This discernment is really not that difficult, unless one is appropriately schooled in denying the obvious.GilDodgen_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Maybe I should weigh in on this, since I am closer to the target demographic (undereducated layman) than most here. The last part of the video stated that a mere 800 generations of 48 organisms demonstrated macroevolution. Then it asked me to imagine humans arising from chimp-like primate ancestors, if given a population of 1,000,000 and 50,000 generations. Let's assume reproduction and death simply at the rate of replacement, where the population stays fairly steady at 1,000,000. If my math is correct, that would be 50,000,000,000 organisms. Out of these 50,000,000,000 organisms, we haven't found enough fossil remains to even fill a coffin, after almost two centuries. Ow. I think I hurt my brain by thinking for myself. Maybe if I watch that video a few more times, I won't worry about it anymore.angryoldfatman_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Maybe it is an example of framing. I was assuming the graphic was tailor made, but I was wondering if it was manufactured from the ground up or if it was based on the output of an actual model. The real irony of the whole thing is the way the author is so insulting and talks down to ID proponents as if they were particularly stupid children, yet there is nothing in the example that even in theory addresses the sorts of questions ID advocates usually propose. The whole thing amounts to little more than hand waving and bluster.Jason Rennie_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Jason Rennie said:
And iÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d love to see the underlying workings of the program that generated the images. Is it actually a simulation or is it designed from the outset to get those results for effect in the video ?
It looks to me like a combination of 3D and motion graphics rendering, designed in essence (from the outset) to produce exactly what you see. It doesn't appear to be a simulation, since it doesn't actually simulate anything. This may be a good example of the framing being considered to promote a better understanding of the benefits of science.Apollos_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Let me add, while I think about it. I'm sure this video is utterly convincing to the simple minded and gullible, but anybody with even a few brain cells to rub together should be able to see that it is far less representative of reality than the producer would like us to believe. Though what that says about the producer of the film is anyones guess. Does he really think his opponents are that stupid as to fall for this sleight of hand ? What does that say about his reasoning powers ?Jason Rennie_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

I agree with the other posters. This is just so convincing ! Does the author of the video really expect it to convince anyone ? They have put forward the standard line about how the whole thing works, which I suspect even "crazy young earthers" do actually understand, after all it is a pretty simple idea (Not to disparage young earthers here), and then what ? Where is the evidence of this in action ? Showing a designed program moving in different directions to exploit the diversity inherent in it already does not demonstrate an a-telic origin to any of this stuff. And i'd love to see the underlying workings of the program that generated the images. Is it actually a simulation or is it designed from the outset to get those results for effect in the video ?Jason Rennie_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

"This name calling is great maybe we could call them Darwidiots?" I thought perhaps we should called them Dawkinsians, which can then be shorted to Dawk's.Jason Rennie_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

I believe the experiment has already been done. How many of generations of bacteria were produced in someone's lab and all they got was bacteria. The strongest argument against Darwinism is the ecology that was touted in this video. As I look out my window there is a Malthusian war going on in the ecology I am looking at. It is repeated every day in millions of parts of the world. Yet no new species or cell types or functions emerge. The squirrels climbing the trees are essentially the same as they are every place else even though they are under selection pressures everywhere. It is only in computer simulations that they can "assert" changes. I wonder why? Doesn't that embarrass the Darwinists? No need to answer, we all know the answer.jerry_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

"This name calling is great maybe we could call them Darwidiots?" Nah, I just say stuff like "flagellum" "cell machinery" "digital code" They really hate that.shaner74_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Well apparently you're an IDiot to believe we didn't. This name calling is great maybe we could call them Darwidiots? Any more ideas or should we just stick to arguing on empirical grounds?Acquiesce_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

No, that man evolved from little plastic faces. ;-)Jasini_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

So . . . They are saying Man evolved from apes?tribune7_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Like, someone actually spent hours and hours of his/her life making this thing. I bet that whoever it was is delusional enough to believe that post 8 would be the natural response to it.bFast_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Ok, that did it, I am now a darwinist through and through. How did I ever not see the light.bFast_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

So was the original population "simular, with variations, each unique"? Because they sure looked identical to me. And just spliting them into 4 groups put quite a bit of variation into them. (Group 2, for instance, has much smaller "ears" than the rest of the groups, just in generation 1.)Jasini_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

I'd like to propose a "scientific" law, let's call it Winston's Law. The actual merit of computer simulation of evoution is inversely porportional to the claim made about it.WinstonEwert_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Ahh this is great, the mind of a gradualist! Where would hypothetical reconstructions of gradualistic pathways be without the blending function in photoshop?Acquiesce_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Aren't they cute little things? And I liked the music. Though how showing something that was programmed to change proves that things change without programming is beyond meJasini_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Wow, impressive. After all those generations, the power of RM+NS turned round balls with eyes, nose, and a mouth into round balls with eyes, nose, and a mouth. Funny how the "simulation" doesn't concern itself with the origin of the eyes, the nose, or the mouth, or the round ball that serves as the body, and their unswerving faith in the power of time is a little freaky. Nothing like Darwinist simulations to strengthen your support of ID.shaner74_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Did Rudyard Kipling write that? Kinda figured the guy was probably pushing up daisies.TRoutMac_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

I suppose that you must start out with a "logical population." That comes about by magic. And an intelligently designed program once again proves evolution. Wow.Collin_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply