Computer Simulations and Darwinism

_{Gil Dodgen

October 1, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Okay dudes, no more talk about my abandonment of atheism. Here’s some science and engineering talk.

I know something about computer simulations. In fact, I know a lot about them, and their limitations.

Search algorithms (and especially AI-related search algorithms) are a specialty of mine, as is combinatorial mathematics.

The branching factor (the average number of moves per side) in chess yields approximately 10^120 possible outcomes, but the number of legally achievable positions is approximately 10^80 — the estimated number of elementary particles (protons and neutrons) in the entire known universe. Compare this to the branching factor of nucleotide sequences in the DNA molecule. Do the math.

Finite element analysis (FEA) of nonlinear, transient, dynamic systems, with the use of the most sophisticated, powerful computer program ever devised for such purposes (LS-DYNA, originally conceived at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the mid-1970s for the development of variable-yield nuclear weapons) is another of my computer-simulation specialties.

Dyna has been used heavily in the automotive industry for simulating car crashes, so that cars can be designed to produce the least damage to occupants.

In these simulations everything is precisely known and empirically quantified (the material properties of the components — modulus of elasticity, mass density, shear modulus, precisely calibrated failure modes, etc.).

In addition, the explicit FEA time step (the minimal integration time step determined by the software based on the speed on sound in the smallest finite element and its mass density, which is required to avoid numerical instability) is critical. In my simulations the time step is approximately a ten-millionth of second, during which partial differential equations, based on the laws of physics (F=ma in particular) are solved to compute the physical distortion of the system and the propagation of the forces throughout the system in question.

One learns very quickly with FEA simulations that even with all of this knowledge and sophistication one must empirically justify the results of the simulation incrementally by comparing the results with the reality it attempts to simulate.

One false assumption about a material property or any of the other aspects of a simulation can completely invalidate it. Worse yet, it can produce results that seem reasonable, but are completely wrong.

So, the next time someone tries to convince you that a computer simulation has validated the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection in biology, you should tell them to go back to school and learn something about legitimate computer simulations, and how difficult it is to produce reliable results, even when the details are well known.

Comments

The theory of evolution is nothing like the teaching of Marxism. geez. One of the most interesting thing I've found here is just how little most ID proponents actually know about the theory of evolution. Yes, I know, the same goes for me about ID. But the fact that on each "side" we see ignorance about "our" theory from the "other side" speaks volumes about why we so vehemently disagree with each other.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Scott, That would be a nice thing to try! It's been a long time since Darwinism became a monopoly in science. I have no doubt all this nonsense will be over eventually. I was born in the USSR and I remember the times of Scientific Communism (it used to be taught at universities, with elements taught at schools). I remember studying Lenin's works at school. Luckily by the time I became a university student it had been thrown away. What amazes me is how terribly similar TOE is to it. "The teaching of Marx is omniponent because it is true", said Lenin. Any objection, and the next evening a black van would come after you. How similar is that to evolutionary story telling! You dare doubt in chance/necessity?! It needs no proof, it is self-evident, it is how science works! Little wonder, due to its atheistic roots Scientific Communism relied on Darwinism to claim its own legitimacy. Nonetheless they both are of equal zero scientific worth.Eugene S_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Do I sense some desperation in the above posts, Eric and Joseph? It seems to me you are both trying to find a loophole. What Joyce did was huge. He demonstrated (as I said in my original comment) that Darwinian processes work spontaneously at the chemical level, given a set of designed molecules that could replicate to produce slightly varying copies of the original individuals, and that recombinant variants that replicated better came to dominate the population, to the extent that they hugely outnumbered the originals. The fact that it the original molecules were designed, that the cross-replicated rather than cloned themselves, that they needed to be supplied with special "food" in the form of matching molecules means that, as Joyce says, this is not the spontaneous evolution of life. But it is a powerful demonstration that given the Darwinian essentials, even with nothing more than (fairly) simple chemistry, a population of replicators evolves into a population of better-replicators.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

According to ID organisms DO decide- and also according to Dr Spetner. What selection criteria? Natural selection is non-exietent in populations over 1000. SIPS? SIPS do not represent biological reality. EQU does not represent reality as no organism is so reqarded by surviving. But anyway all GAs are directed towards the goal.Joseph_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

How could one possibly “over interpret” your words, when you make a blanket sweeping statement that “Darwin’s postulated mechanism works”?
You accused me of "spreading false information". Nothing I said was false. Darwin's postulated mechanism does indeed work as you concede below:
Sure, Darwin’s mechanism works if we are talking about simplistic, easily found, minor variations at the macroevolutionary level, like peppered moth populations and finch beaks (although we are learning that much of what goes on, even at that level, has little to do with Darwin’s variation + selection mechanism).
No, we are not "learning that much of what goes on, even at that level, has little to do with Darwin’s variation + selection mechanism" unless you are talking about the role of drift, but in the case of both peppered moth and finch beaks, there is a clearly observed environmental correlate. Moreover, it is the power of drift, previously underestimated, that allows IC features to evolve, as in AVIDA. So drift mechanisms are a major problem for ID icons - and hugely support evolutionary biological models.
Blind, undirected processes have not been demonstrated to do all that you claim, so it is simply false. For example, you linked to an article, which says in its opening paragraph “A new molecule that performs the essential function of life – self-replication – could shed light on the origin of all living things.” We’re calling BS on this, as it is not self-replication in any real-world sense of the word.
OK, I am happy to add the caveat that it was cross-replication, not self-replication. It makes no difference to the principle. Tell me, do you regard sexually reproducing species as self-replicators or cross-replicators?
Let’s set aside the materialistic cheerleading pom-poms for a moment and put on an engineer’s hat. What would actually be necessary for a self-replicating molecule? From an engineering perspective, what would be required for such a molecule (or system) to function by itself in the real world? What does the Joyce paper say? They have two enzymes that catalyze a single bond between pre-formed substrates. Sorry, but it doesn’t matter how easily impressed you are with this; it is not self-replication in any meaningful sense of the word. I stand by my assessment that you are spreading false information if you continue to assert that it is.
What would be necessary to result in self-replication? Well, the simplest system would be a double chain, with cross bonds. If the chain then splits, and re-bonds with new molecules to form new cross bonds, then you will end up with two copies of the original. But I am perfectly happy to concede that in a literal sense, the molecules did not "self-replicate". They did not clone. Nor do we. Cross-replication works just as well for evolution (actually, better).Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

You are profoundly misunderstanding the methodology of evolutionary biology.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Yikes, hit the wrong key and it posted before I could proofread. Obviously, I meant "micro"evolutionary in the second paragraph . . .Eric Anderson_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

How could one possibly "over interpret" your words, when you make a blanket sweeping statement that "Darwin's postulated mechanism works"? Sure, Darwin's mechanism works if we are talking about simplistic, easily found, minor variations at the macroevolutionary level, like peppered moth populations and finch beaks (although we are learning that much of what goes on, even at that level, has little to do with Darwin's variation + selection mechanism). Blind, undirected processes have not been demonstrated to do all that you claim, so it is simply false. For example, you linked to an article, which says in its opening paragraph "A new molecule that performs the essential function of life - self-replication - could shed light on the origin of all living things." We're calling BS on this, as it is not self-replication in any real-world sense of the word. Let's set aside the materialistic cheerleading pom-poms for a moment and put on an engineer's hat. What would actually be necessary for a self-replicating molecule? From an engineering perspective, what would be required for such a molecule (or system) to function by itself in the real world? What does the Joyce paper say? They have two enzymes that catalyze a single bond between pre-formed substrates. Sorry, but it doesn't matter how easily impressed you are with this; it is not self-replication in any meaningful sense of the word. I stand by my assessment that you are spreading false information if you continue to assert that it is.Eric Anderson_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
If selection could cause populations to adapt, there would be a lot fewer extinctions.
Does anything cause populations to adapt? Or do they do it for no reason whatsoever. Take whatever that cause is, and you've just refuted it. If [insert here] could cause populations to adapt, there were would be a lot fewer extinctions. I couldn't do it without you. :)
ScottAndrews_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Here's something you can do with your family for fun. If you're still convinced that it requires an iota of scientific education or method to make up natural selection stories then just try it yourself. Get the kids. Make some popcorn. Everyone pick an animal out of the book and imagine the reason why one of its features or behaviors was selected. Then, for extra credit, get your eight-year-old to tell some PhD genius what he just read in a book and see if he questions it. How many of you darwinists honestly think that half the biology professors out there would think twice or question a child who presented them with their own made-up natural selection narrative if the child said he read it in science book? Be honest.ScottAndrews_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

Ever since school they have heard hundreds of stories about how some environmental condition or predator or prey caused this animal or plant to evolve into its unique state. They think that maybe someone must know this somehow, or else they wouldn’t say it on the Discovery Channel.
If selection could cause populations to adapt, there would be a lot fewer extinctions.Petrushka_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
Natural selection doesn’t select- it is a result.
Everything that happens is a result of something. The current form of any population is the result of something. Is it always a result of natural selection? What other causes are there? If I asked you why leopards have spots, would you agree that no one knows and that there is not even a provisional explanation? If there is a provisional explanation, what is it? That spots were selected, and anyone's guess why is good? Or is there a door number three? In any given case the reason is, "it was selected," because according to the circular logic, selection explains everything. Then you just have to guess or make up reasons why it was selected. The conclusion comes first, and then you just use your imagination to fill in the evidence. I point this out for the sake of however many people read this stuff but never post. Some of them don't believe the nonsense they hear and maybe they wonder if something is wrong with them. Maybe they are fools because they can't see the emperor's new clothes. Ever since school they have heard hundreds of stories about how some environmental condition or predator or prey caused this animal or plant to evolve into its unique state. They think that maybe someone must know this somehow, or else they wouldn't say it on the Discovery Channel. But in every single case, natural selection was the assumption, the starting point. The rest is literally made up. Why do anteaters have long tongues? Because it's too hard to get to the ants with short tongues. And that's it. They have long tongues because they needed them, so natural selection worked its magic. It sounds nice, but that's beside the point. As nice as it sounds, somebody just made it up. You can probably make up several in one minute. It's like a factory that can manufacture thousands of pseudoscientific explanations running only on imagination.ScottAndrews_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

"What exactly do you think was “fixed”, and where are you reading this?" From the quote at 14.2.1.1.3, the quote you used to locate the paper: "Lenski has estimated that only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population." What evidence is there that 10 beneficial mutations achieving fixation in each population was more or less probable than 20. The range appears equiprobable, there is no tail. The Lenski paper does not say if it is flat or Gaussian, if he did it would not then be my hunch. The variables however, suggest flat.junkdnaforlife_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Yes, Joseph, which is why I put it in scare quotes. I usually use the phrase "self-replication with heritable variance in reproductive success in the current environment" which amounts to the same thing. But as you seemed to be missing my point, I put it in what I thought might be slightly more familiar language. And no, the organism do not "decide". Nobody "decides" as you point out. But the selection criteria are determined by the environment, not by the organism, which is what it is, and bears whatever genome it inherited, with whatever novel variants resulted from its conception. With a GA, usually the designer has her own agenda, sure. But needn't. I've written GAs where the fitness criteria were randomly selected. The GAs still evolve so as to maximise their reproductive success within the randomly chosen environment. From the PoV of the virtual organisms, all that matters is survival. The virtual critters in AVIDA don't "care" about whether they can perform logic functions or not, all they "care" about is the SIPS they receive for doing so.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

I am not "spreading false information" Eric. I simply said, in response to Joseph, that "blind, undirected processes" could do the things I claim, both in simulations and in actual chemistry. Please do not over-interpret my words and then accuse me of "spreading false information". Joyce did the equivalent, in many respects, in chemistry, that GA writers do with "virtual organisms". They designed a self-replication (or at least cross-replicating, the difference is neither here nor there) RNA molecule that replicated with variance (the variance arising from recombination, as is also often done in GAs) and the result was an increase in prevalence of those variants that happened to reproduce better in the environment provided, i.e. the evolution of a population better adapted to its environment. No, it isn't artificial life, and neither I nor Joyce have claimed that it is. GAs are not "artificial life" either. But both demonstrate that given a population of self-replicators (or cross-replicators) that replicate with variance, e.g. point mutations or recombination, the variants that happen to have some feature that enhances their reproductive chances in the current environment will become more prevalent. i.e. that Darwin's postulated mechanism works.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, stop spreading false information. The Joyce experiment *did not* demonstrate self-replication in any normal sense of the word. There was no copying of genetic information from free-standing nucleotides. The enzymes were created, the substrates were created, and then the enzymes simply catalyzed a bonding reaction between substrates. Joyce has done good work. Let's recognize it for what it is. But you lose all credibility when you make sweeping pronouncements about things that have been "demonstrated" about your beloved theory that have not in fact been demonstrated.Eric Anderson_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
either GAs and evolution are both “directed” by the environment, or neither are.
This is only true if we modify the work "direct" until it is meaningless. Whatever the outcome of a GA, that it should have some output and hopefully a useful one is at least intended. Its design and operation could be called "direction." In the sense that you apply it to evolution it becomes tautological. Birds fly because it fit the environment. The lizards they lived next to do don't fly but they change colors because it fits the environment. It is a meaningless post hoc explanation. It retroactively predicts everything. It makes the expression "was directed" equal to "happened." It's vacuous. I could say that my bowling ball was directed to fall on my toe by gravity. How do I know that it was so directed? Because it fell on my toe, silly. It's tautological.ScottAndrews_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
If the target is “a solution to the problem” then so is natural evolution “directed”, as “natural selection” “selects” variants that best “solve” the “problem” of survival presented by the environment.
Natural selection doesn't select- it is a result. But you are right, survival is all there is to solve. And again in real life behaviour is the best option for survival. waiting for the right mutation will get you nothing but dead. IOW the organisms decide, not the environment. Again you are confused over what really happens. With a GA there is a goal/ target that is trying to be achieved- something beyond mere survival. And that is how GAs are directed.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Well, do you call it “self-replication” when you have children? Or “cross replication”?
I call it sexual reproduction. And what Joyce did isn't that. And again nothing new- faster replication is not new, just something different. And obviously that wasn't good because they ran out of "food" sooner. And then nothing! Yeah that's just great.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

If there is a target/ goal then it is directed.
If the target is "a solution to the problem" then so is natural evolution "directed", as "natural selection" "selects" variants that best "solve" the "problem" of survival presented by the environment. Just as in a GA. So, Joseph: either GAs and evolution are both "directed" by the environment, or neither are. But saying that one is "directed" and the other is "undirected" is trying to have your cake and eat it. In both cases, the environment is what "decides" which variants will reproduce best. However, in neither case is the variant that reproduces best a "target", and in both cases the variant that reproduces best is totally unknown in advance, therefore not "designed".
And just how does one write the code to do a blind search? Can you post a line or two of that code?
You copy "parent" virtual organisms to produce "offspring", randomly (using a random number generator) introducing changes into the virtual genome. You can also "mate" pairs of "parents", and randomly splice bits of their genome to produce novel genomes. Then you let the resulting enlarged population "compete" on your fitness function, and cull the worst performers. I could post some code, but not till the weekend as it's on my other computer.
You really should stop with your ignorant nonsense. There ARE solutions to HOW to encrypt- I didn’t write or use tehm to break encryption and I didn’t imply that I did.
OK, I confess to ignorance about how you use GAs in encryption. That's why I asked you. Perhaps you could explain how you use them.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Petrushka (18.1.2.1): You could not have read *Nature's Destiny* with care, or you would not say that Denton's view is "indistinguishable from mainstream biology." "Mainstream biology," if by that you mean mainstream evolutionary theory, has been neo-Darwinian (occasionally spiced up with other elements, but primarily neo-Darwinian) for about 75 years. Denton's book made a frontal assault on neo-Darwinian theory by insisting that evolution was teleological. You have not read my posts carefully. I did not say that Shapiro believed in intervention. Indeed, if you were paying attention, you would see that I have not been championing "intervention" at all, and have tried to show Elizabeth that ID does not require it. As for whether Shapiro departs from "mainstream biology," again, if by that you mean "mainstream evolutionary theory," i.e., neo-Darwinism, he does depart significantly from it. He regards evolution as a fact (as does Denton), but like Denton, he thinks the standard explanation for evolution is very inadequate, and proposes some alternative notions (though not identical with the alternative notions of Denton). Keep in mind the context. In all her comments here, Elizabeth is defending a very standard, mainstream, population-genetics-centered understanding of evolution, essentially the Modern Synthesis (or neo-Darwinism, as it is popularly called). Her theoretical explanation of evolution is not much different from what people like Mayr were writing 35 years ago. It is precisely that understanding which Shapiro and other leading new theorists are challenging. And it is no coincidence that religious unbelievers like Shapiro and some of the members of the Altenberg group (and in another direction, Margulis) have some of the same criticisms of neo-Darwinism that ID does. The problem is not (as Panda's Thumb and the NCSE would tell the story) that crazed creationists under the guise of ID are trying to overthrow all of biological science. The problem is that the old guard of evolutionary biology (Coyne, Lewontin, Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, etc.) are stubbornly resistant to major theoretical change, even when it comes from secular, humanist scientists like themselves. But there is nothing that can stop the change from coming, because the weaknesses of neo-Darwinism are too glaring. In retrospect, the ID people, at least regarding the negative half of their project (the critique of Darwinism), will 50 years from now be seen as being on the right side of scientific history. T.Timaeus_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Well, do you call it "self-replication" when you have children? Or "cross replication"? I don't mind what you call it - the point is that your originals are replicated, with variance. And what was the increase in replication efficience if not "a new function"? I think I've found your quotation by the way:
Joyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm my bold. Clearly the whole process was heavily assisted, with "food" provided in the form of specific mirror rna molecules. However, the evolution of better replicators was not "directed" - they occurred through non-designed recombination with the "wrong" "food" molecule, resulting in variants that then outcompeted the originals. As I said.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Well it sure as heck is NOT self-replication. And I will take Joyce's word that nothing evolved- no new function was achieved- and that only ONE bond was created.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

“There is absolutely no reason to think that the distribution wasn’t Gaussian.” How exactly is it not flat?
I don't know "how" it was not flat, junkdnaforlife, because they didn't say what the distribution was. But there's no reason to think it was flat. Very few distributions are, as you agree below.
“The distribution is not, in fact given in the paper, and flat-topped distributions are extremely unusual.” Exactly. But a flat distribution is exactly what we find based on the fixed beneficial mutation rates of the 12 isolated populations. After 10^8 + mutations, according to Lenski, all possible mutations that could have mutated, mutated, and all 12 populations had their fixed beneficial # fall exactly within 10-20. You are right: that is extremely unusual. And flat. Where are the tail/s?
No, it is not "flat", or at least we are not told that it is. You just agreed that the distribution was not given, only the range. For all we know, 10 and 20 are tails of a Gaussian.
“And, again entirely consistent with the ToE, the rate of increase in fitness tended to decline.” I’m concerned specifically with the fixed beneficial/neutral mutation distribution rates of isolated Avida colonies after 10…50+ generations vs. Lenski
What do you mean by "fixed beneficial/neutral mutation distribution rates"? What exactly do you think was "fixed", and where are you reading this?
But I wonder, however, if the Avida program incorporated the diminishing return evidenced by Lenski?
Well, yes, by definition, because, being a model, once a virtual organism could perform all nine (?) functions, there were no further dimensions along which to gain fitness. And once an organism could perform EQU, any other functions still to be accomplished produced smaller returns. EQU produced the biggest jump in fitness.
“It does not say what you think it says, and even if it did, it would not mean what you seem to think it would mean!” I wager it does in fact “say what I think it says”. However, “what it means” is another issue entirely.
I cannot find anywhere in the paper that says that the distribution of beneficial mutations was "flat". Can you find the page number where you think it does so?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

"There is absolutely no reason to think that the distribution wasn’t Gaussian." How exactly is it not flat? "The distribution is not, in fact given in the paper, and flat-topped distributions are extremely unusual." Exactly. But a flat distribution is exactly what we find based on the fixed beneficial mutation rates of the 12 isolated populations. After 10^8 + mutations, according to Lenski, all possible mutations that could have mutated, mutated, and all 12 populations had their fixed beneficial # fall exactly within 10-20. You are right: that is extremely unusual. And flat. Where are the tail/s? "And, again entirely consistent with the ToE, the rate of increase in fitness tended to decline." I'm concerned specifically with the fixed beneficial/neutral mutation distribution rates of isolated Avida colonies after 10...50+ generations vs. Lenski. But I wonder, however, if the Avida program incorporated the diminishing return evidenced by Lenski? "It does not say what you think it says, and even if it did, it would not mean what you seem to think it would mean!" I wager it does in fact "say what I think it says". However, "what it means" is another issue entirely.junkdnaforlife_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Well, it's called "cross-replication". A bit like sexual reproduction. The result is the same - lots of slightly variant copies of the originals. And some variants reproduce better than either, and come to dominate the population. i.e. the population evolves.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, They took TWO DESIGNED RNA strands, added other designed strands and then those first two started using the others tio make more- it was always TWO and there was NEVER and SELF-replication.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the link to the actual paper. From the abstract:
Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population
My bold.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
If a person designs a program to evolve a solution to a problem by a blind and undirected process, then it does it by a blind and undirected process.
If there is a target/ goal then it is directed. And just how does one write the code to do a blind search? Can you post a line or two of that code?
I am intrigued that you use them to solve encryption problems, as encryption problems are the kind of problem not readily solvable by GAs – because there are no part-solutions.
You really should stop with your ignorant nonsense. There ARE solutions to HOW to encrypt- I didn't write or use tehm to break encryption and I didn't imply that I did.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, You are soooo confused. They did NOT self-replicate as it takes TWO strands to make ONE. One strand was the template and one was the catalyst that made ONE and ONLY ONE bond. Ya see they cheated with the other parts too as RNA starnds were used, not individual nucleotides. And they did not evolve any new functions as the new RNA did the same thing as the original. Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme I can also pull a quote from Joyce as he was interviewed by SciAm and I am sure I have the copy, I just need to find it. He said nothing new evolved...Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply