FEA and Darwinian Computer Simulations

_{Gil Dodgen

June 11, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

In my work as a software engineer in aerospace R&D I use what is arguably the most sophisticated, universally applicable, finite-element analysis program ever devised by the most brilliant people in field, refined and tested for 35 years since its inception in the mid-1970s for the development of variable-yield nuclear weapons at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is called LS-DYNA (LS for Livermore Software, and DYNA for the evaluation of dynamic, nonlinear, transient systems).

A finite element is an attempt to descretize on a macro level what occurs at a molecular level in a physical system, so that a result is amenable to a practical computational solution. The learning curve for the use of this sophisticated technology is extremely steep, and the most important thing one learns is that empirical verification of the simulation results is absolutely required to validate the predictions of any FEA model.

In an LS-DYNA simulation, all the laws of physics and the mathematics that describe them are precisely known. In addition, all of the material properties associated with the physical objects are precisely quantified with empirical verification (density, modulus of elasticity, and much more).

The FEA solver computes a physical result by solving millions of differential equations with a minimal integration time step based on the time required for a disturbance traveling at the speed of sound to traverse the smallest finite element with the greatest mass density.

Even with all of this, and countless man-years of experience by sophisticated and experienced users (LS-DYNA has been used for many years in the auto industry for simulating car crashes) empirical verification is always required, by actually crashing a car to validate the FEA results.

In light of all this, consider the typical Darwinian computer simulation and the trust that could be put in one.

Darwinian computer simulations are simply a pathetic joke as they relate to biological reality. This should be obvious to anyone with experience in the field of legitimate computer simulation.

Comments

GilDodgen: Thanks for the clarification. I guess my response is that you are comparing apples with origins. The point of the kind of simulations you work with is indeed, to simulate the real world realistically enough that, for example, it is a valid environment for pilots to train in, or makes accurate enough predictions to guide a real-life trajectory. Similarly with weather models, although weather, obviously is notoriously unpredictable in any more than the relatively short term because of the critical dependence of any model on starting conditions, weather being a chaotic system. But the kinds of models you seem to be referring to wrt to Darwinian evolution are not those kinds of models at all. At least none are that I know of. Life, for a start, is orders of magnitude more complex than weather, even, and just as non-linear. This is why I keep recommending Denis Noble's book "The Music of Life" (an essay, really), the content of which is also delivered here: http://videolectures.net/eccs07_noble_psb/ His original interest was in the heart, and indeed, has produced extraordinarily good models that allow us greater understanding of what contingencies can result in fibrillation. But his point is that even with something as "simple" as the heart, building the model from the bottom up, is hugely computationally intensive, and in the end, what we need are not the specific equations that govern a specific phenomenon, but a mathematical abstraction that allows us to generalise across broad classes of phenomena. So I don't think anyone expects a "Darwinian simulation" to resemble anything like a real-life scenario. No scenario could. Nonetheless, simulations are a hugely important tool in biological investigation, and, indeed, helpful for establishing broad principles, especially when these involve non-linear relationships, as living things must. And so we can, using simulations, demonstrate that facets of Darwin's theory (the core, in fact) work: that if a population breeds with variance, and if that variance results in phenotypic differences in reproductive success within a given environment, the population will evolve and adapt. We can also test this in the field and in the lab, with rigour. No life-science experiment will be as conclusive as a physics or an engineering experiment, because there are far more variables, most of which are unknown, and whose pdfs have to be estimated, or even guessed at. That doesn't make life-sciences junk science - it makes them difficult science! And I simply dispute that the standards of evidence are low. The evidence may be far noisier (and must be, and is) but that means that our conclusions must be much more provisional, and hedged with far more caveats, not that they must not be made.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

ba77, I am not a physicist, and have no expertise in quantum mechanics! I'm not disputing the existence of God anyway (one way or the other).Elizabeth Liddle_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

Perhaps I was not explicit enough about the theme of my essay. I thought that the conclusion would be obvious. The theme is that in the world of legitimate computer simulation technology the standards are very high for acceptance of the relevance of the simulation to the real world. In the fantasy world of Darwinism there is no standard of accountability or empirical verification. Make up a story, or design a "simulation" program that "proves" a conclusion that was reached in advance, and you can get a paper published in Nature, with no challenges allowed, no matter how logical or evidential. The absence of standards of accountability and empirical verification is the hallmark of a pseudoscience. This is why I claim that Darwinism is junk science of the highest order. In no other legitimate scientific discipline would such low standards of evidence be acceptable.GilDodgen_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Well Elizabeth, you seem to have it all figured out, but to calm my reservations as to your expertise in this matter, perhaps you would care to provide a 'non-local' cause for quantum entanglement within DNA, etc.., which does not involve God as to its origination of cause???bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Well, I don't think any of that is evidence for (or against) God. As I said, I think it is completely irrelevant to the question. OK, going offline for a bit now, nice to talk to you :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, you state: 'If God exists then we aren’t going to find evidence within the universe' Actually we find evidence in life that demands a 'non-local' (i.e. not limited by time or space) cause! Here is the falsification of local realism (materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of 'local realism', or the failure of materialism, to explain reality: The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for 'spooky' forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (materialism) as the true description of reality, is now found in molecular biology! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Untangling the Quantum Entanglement Behind Photosynthesis – May 11 2010 Excerpt: “This is the first study to show that entanglement, perhaps the most distinctive property of quantum mechanical systems, is present across an entire light harvesting complex,” says Mohan Sarovar, a post-doctoral researcher under UC Berkeley chemistry professor Birgitta Whaley at the Berkeley Center for Quantum Information and Computation. “While there have been prior investigations of entanglement in toy systems that were motivated by biology, this is the first instance in which entanglement has been examined and quantified in a real biological system.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510151356.htm i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement 'effect' in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) 'cause' when the quantum entanglement 'effect' falsified material particles as its own 'causation' in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various 'special' configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must show local realism to be sufficient to explain the quantum non-locality we find within molecular biology! ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology, or anything else for that matter, destroys the very possibility of doing science rationally; Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

oops, make that est.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

No, I didn't say that either - but the premise you ascribed to me is certainly not my "primary premise". As far as God is concerned, I don't think that the demonstration that an ID was, or was not, the best inference for the origins of life on earth would settle the question one way or the other. I think it's a completely irrelevant question, tbh. If I was to be persuaded that the first genome had been intelligently designed, or that evolution was regularly tweaked by an invisible intelligent agency, I would not infer that God existed, simply that some intelligent denizen of the universe, hitherto unknown to science, must exist, and that we should probably get a grant to find out more about it. That's because I don't think God is a denizen of the universe. If God exists then we aren't going to find evidence within the universe, because the whole evidence-finding project depends on comparing things with one cause with things with another. If God causes everything, then we aren't going to find God's handiwork on some things but not others. If the universe is the work of God then the mark of God's work is going to be on everything. In other words, I don't think ID makes for very sound theology :) So I absolutely don't have an atheistic (or theistic) agenda when it comes to studying life and its origins and mechanisms. I don't think God is to be found by science. Or rather, any god found by science, wouldn't be God. IMO. God, I would contend, is found by love. At least the one I worship is :) Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi es. If I have premise, I guess that's it :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle; 'Not even in the ballpark' Glad to see you think God did create life on earth then!!!bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Not even in the ballpark ba77 :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth you state: 'Well, I’m not even sure what you think my “primary premise” is' Let's see if I can narrow it down "However life got here, God did NOT do it!!!" Is that close enough Elizabeth???bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Well, I'm not even sure what you think my "primary premise" is :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

i.e. all you are doing Elizabeth, with your 'supplementary evidence', with no actual foundation in science in which to base your postulations in the first place, is 'whistling in the dark, trying to placate your 'chosen' atheistic philosophy!!!bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle, 'I do try to provide support (evidence and/or argument)' I hate to inform you, but unless you can produce actual observational evidence for neo-Darwinian processes producing a gain in functional complexity/information above that which is already present in life, then all your other 'supplementary evidence' is completely meaningless for you have not proved the validity of your primary premise in the first place!!!bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Mung just asked whether anyone was aware of population genetics computer simulations, and I was, so I posted the link.
Thank you.Mung_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Well, I didn't, and I do try to provide support (evidence and/or argument) for my positions. However, I welcome any challenge to do so whenever I fail to :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, as long as you don't claim that your referenced computer simulation supports your position, then i have no beef. But if you do claim that it does then I rightly demand that you provide ACTUAL observational evidence to back up your claim. Preferable a violation of the fitness test~!bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

ba77, we seem to have got our wires crossed. I posted a reference for Mung, in a post where I didn't make any conjecture whatsoever. In fact I see no conjectures by me in this thread at all, "atheistic" or otherwise. What post of mine were you referring to?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

So Elizabeth, 'No, I didn’t say anything of the kind' I do so wish that you would clarify when you have no evidence to support your atheistic conjectures. Perhaps you could put a disclaimer on every post your write??? :)bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

No, I didn't say anything of the kind, ba77. Mung just asked whether anyone was aware of population genetics computer simulations, and I was, so I posted the link.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

So Elizabeth you say your referenced computer simulation proves your point, whereas I say my referenced computer simulation proves my pint. What to do??? What to do??? Hey Elizabeth, let's look at what the ACTUAL observational evidence says and let it decide!!! What do you say????bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Is anyone aware of any computer simulations of population genetics models? ,,, Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdf Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.html =============== Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies etc.. etc..bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Yes: http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/3/301.shortElizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

It is widely believed that GA's emulate biological evolution, though I think the point is debatable. In addition, certain programs have been written which purport to simulate some aspect of biological evolution. Such simulations will likely employ some form of GA. Is anyone aware of any computer simulations of population genetics models?Mung_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

DrBot @13: I believe GA’s have been used in optimization tasks for wing design in airliners though. Again, it is a euphemism. Wing design requires far more precision and provable, predictable outcome than does "emulation [I assume you meant simulation?] of biological evolution". The algorithm for traversing a search space to find the optimal solution is similar, conceptually, but the actual implementations to meet aerospace requirements will be far more detailed and rigourous especially to the point of adhering to known properties of materials and the "rules" of aerodynamics. "biological evolution" OTOH, has little in the way of comparably known properties and rules. Only recently have a few genomes been fully mapped, but how they "work" (and hence how to "simulate" their workings) is largely unknown. Are you sure it is not simply that you conclude a lack of rigor because you don’t like the [global warming model] result? I don't like the irreproducible methods because data and adjustments thereto have been irrecoverably discarded, nor do I like the cherry-picked exclusion of available data points, nor the statistically invalid adjustments on the included data. The results are inconclusive at best, poor science at worst. I’m not really sure what you mean. [Would you get on an airplane that had been subjected to the same rigour as has “emulation of biological evolution”?] Do you believe the accuracy, precision, thoroughness and reliability of “emulation [I again assume you really meant simulation?] of biological evolution” to be comparable to that required to build reliable aircraft? Do you believe the [simulation] of biological evolution” reflects reality to the same extent that the LS-DYNA simulations reflect reality? Do evolutionary biologists apply the same standards and criteria of accuracy, predictibility and reliability to their results as do aerospace engineers? Would you be just as willing to get on an airplane that met the standards of “[simulation] of biological evolution” as an airplane that met the standards of LS-DYNA simulations?` I think you are getting your terminology a little mixed up. I interchanged "simulation" and "emulation", yes, but since you are emphasizing that distinction, I will further point out that as per a strict definition of "emulation", your own point that "not enough is known to write a complete emulation of biological evolution" is rather moot since (as you rightfully insist) an "emulator" by strict definition is a functional replacement of some other process or mechanism, and accordingly nothing can ever be written in software that will replace living biological processes. Simulated, maybe if the state of the art improves vastly, but never emulated, as per your distinction. However, the point remains that modeling of biological evolution hardly rises to the same level of modeling as done in aerospace, weapons testing, etc. That is the point. The lack of predictable laws, material properties, mathematically rigourous formulae and results that match reality, provably and sufficiently, such that planes, bridges, buildings etc. are safe and reliable. I believe the biologist would argue that their simulations have rigour (and I would agree) Yes, the same biologists who rigourously discount most of the genome as "junk" without understanding how to simulate it or the unmapped extents, with whom you again no doubt agree. Conversely, when an aerospace engineer discounts something, such as ground effect above 100 feet, it is not arbitrary ignorance, but proven and predictable flight aerodynamics with underlying science. That is why when you get on an aircraft designed with LS-DYNA simulations, it not only flies above 100 feet but also takes off and lands through ground effect because it wasn't ignored. That is one real-world example of the difference in modeling rigour between the two disciplines.Charles_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Oddly, I use (and construct) evolutionary algorithms of various kinds to actually investigate biology, though not evolution per se. And I have two main uses: One is to develop classifiers for biological datasets (e.g. brain images) that learn (on a training set where the answer is known) to identify patterns that categorise datasets correctly (into images acquired under different conditions, for example, or from different groups of people), then are tested on a dataset where the information is not available to the classifier. They are useful because although we know the problem we want to solve (which images belong to which conditions, and what are patterns that best distinguish them), we do not know the solution, or what patterns in our vary large datasets (hundreds of thousands of brain voxels) are the important ones. The other use is for actually modelling learning itself. In other words evolutionary algorithms, are, essentially, trial-and-learning algorithms that provide good predictive models of what goes on in intelligent brains. This is, btw, the big problem I have with ID - I'd argue,and have, that evolutionary processes are "intelligent" systems, in the sense that they form a learning system, directly analogous to the learning system that goes on in our brains - so it is no surprise that the outputs have a family resemblance. Evolutionary processes don't make forward models, however, and we do, so that's big difference.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Charles, I think you are getting your terminology a little mixed up. From wikipedia
In computing, an emulator is hardware and/or software that duplicates (or emulates) the functions of a first computer system in a different second computer system, so that the behavior of the second system closely resembles the behavior of the first system. This focus on exact reproduction of external behavior is in contrast to some other forms of computer simulation, in which an abstract model of a system is being simulated. For example, a computer simulation of a hurricane or a chemical reaction is not emulation.
The types of simulation employed in biology follow similar methodologies to other sciences and are used for the same purposes - testing aspects of the theories, predictions based on the theory, to see how accurate the theory is.
Again to Gil’s point, it is the lack of rigour in testing the results of “emulation of biological evolution” however incomplete at present, whereas in aerospace emulation, the rigour is so exacting and provable, that air travel is one of the most safest forms of transportation.
I believe the biologist would argue that their simulations have rigour (and I would agree)
A rigor and candor notably lacking in the Global Warming modelling, by contrast.
Are you sure it is not simply that you conclude a lack of rigor because you don't like the result?
Would you get on an airplane that had been subjected to the same rigour as has “emulation of biological evolution”?
I'm not really sure what you mean. Aircraft are designed, we created them. We did not create life so we have to study it to know how it works. This process is ongoing. I believe GA's have been used in optimization tasks for wing design in airliners though.DrBot_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

DrBot @4: It is certainly true that not enough is known to write a complete emulation of biological evolution but of course the same is true of most things that science is studying that is why they are called simulations and why they are useful (and not a joke) because the differences between the simulation and reality help you understand reality better – they help direct the science. I would further argue, that most sciences, biological evolution notably excepted, in fact employ highly accurate and testable emulations. Nuclear weapons testing, the LHC design and chemical reaction modelling, for example, know enough to write complete emulations. While biological evolution may be more complex and lacking adequate data and "laws", the solution lies in the direction of more rigour and precision and revising the theory everywhere it fails to give correct predictions. And if it fails to make useful, testable predictions, then let's not speak of it in the same breath as "most things that science is studying".Charles_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

DrBot @4: Evolutionary algorithms are used for, amongst other things, logic circuit design. Other genetic algorithms are not attempts to model biology, they are being used for other purposes, including design. The terminology used here is very loose, arguably misleading, in the context of Gil's post. When it is said a "virus has infected my computer" we mean neither a biological virus nor an infection. We mean a software program deliberately designed and tested to exploit operating system flaws has been loaded and executed, all using standard program techniques. The "evolutionary algorithms" and "genetic algorithms" used in logic circuit design are more accurately termed "methodologies" as they are not source programs or executables lifted out of the biology labs, but rather CAD modules written entirely anew for the purposes of FPGA and ASIC design, employing trial and error search methodologies only conceptually similar to those employed in biology labs. "Evolutionary strategies" have even been applied to the travelling salesmen problem, but we don't really mean his route evolves, rather the solutions change and narrow to the one most optimal. Again it is a euphemism, insofar as it is applied to non-genetic problem solving. Just like "computer virus" is a euphemism, in the CAD context while one can find terms like "chromsome" and "gene", these terms along with "evolutionary algorithms" and "genetic algorithms" are simply euphemisms. There is little in parallel (aside from the conceptual traversing of a search space) with biologic genetic microevolution (to say nothing of macro evolution), and more to Gil's point, a rigourous comparison of computed result against actual circuit operation, which rigour is lacking in the largely theoretical and anecdotal genetic modelling. Not enough is known to write a complete emulation of the weather but weather simulations are not ‘just a joke’, they are very useful. Indeed they are very useful, but then again there is a tremendous amount (albeit incomplete) of demonstrated meterological science, stochastics, and detailed historical and real-time data gathering which underly weather simulations, as well as the constant rigorous checking against reality and candor in assesing failure. A rigour and candor notably lacking in the Global Warming modelling, by contrast. It is certainly true that not enough is known to write a complete emulation of biological evolution but of course the same is true of most things that science is studying that is why they are called simulations and why they are useful (and not a joke) because the differences between the simulation and reality help you understand reality better – they help direct the science. Again to Gil's point, it is the lack of rigour in testing the results of "emulation of biological evolution" however incomplete at present, whereas in aerospace emulation, the rigour is so exacting and provable, that air travel is one of the most safest forms of transportation. Would you get on an airplane that had been subjected to the same rigour as has "emulation of biological evolution"?Charles_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Let's see, neo-Darwinists can't prove evolution by observational science,,,, “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011 Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html ,,,, and yet despite the stunning lack of observational evidence that neo-Darwinism can generate ANY functional complexity/Information above what is already present in life, we got these nifty evolutionary algorithms, that were DESIGNED by brilliant programmers, that prove evolution true??? ,,, Well I guess that is all fine and well if you are willing to throw the scientific method completely out the window simply to justify your atheistic bias for neo-Darwinism.,,, Just ignore the man behind the curtain,,, Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE ,,, and just ignore the fact that materialism dissolves into absurdity,,, What Would The World Look Like If Atheism Were Actually True? http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5486757/ ===================bornagain77_{June 12, 2011
June
06
Jun
12
12
2011
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply