tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1003850490486061596..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Adaptive Robots: Yet More Evidence for EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83440734660900120522010-11-10T07:14:08.455-08:002010-11-10T07:14:08.455-08:00David
I disagree. My example of magnets that are...David <br /><br />I disagree. My example of magnets that are stronger in two dimensions than the third is an example of a copy mechanism.<br /> <br />Hmm, I don't see this being easy.<br /> <br />OK if we use magnets we have to make sure their force of attraction is perfectly balanced with mechanical force of suspending liquid. Fine tuning of these forces will give us physical conditions by which we can get as many connection as disconnections. Slightly too much attracting force will clump everything into a ball. Too little will not allow connections to last long enough. That is engineering problem no.1. <br />We have to somehow isolate (with membrane ?) those desirable assemblies as soon as they are recognized. If we let them float around for too long random forces will take them apart or add something we do not need. It is very dynamic environment so recognition and isolation has to happen quickly. <br />That is problem no.2.<br />I can not even envision recognizing process that would be simple ,reliable and posses filtering abilities. It would be engineering set of problems on its own but we can just call it problem no.3.<br />I did not want to go into encapsulation system - membrane. Again that would be another set of many critical issues.<br /><br /><br />This is just a beginning and if we go into more details we'll find constraints and need for optimization and careful fine tuning at every little step. <br /><br />Simple solution which some posters prefer is to jump to step 886. I don't blame them.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38700723684243021712010-11-09T18:14:30.403-08:002010-11-09T18:14:30.403-08:00Eugen wrote:
"Any copy mechanism would not be...Eugen wrote:<br />"Any copy mechanism would not be simple at all."<br /><br />I disagree. My example of magnets that are stronger in two dimensions than the third is an example of a copy mechanism.<br /><br />I was thinking further about the experiment, and realized that you could either use piezo-electric effects to generate electricity from stresses induced by the sloshing, or you could try having the magnets move along conducting wires to induce electricity. This is an opportunity to create the electricity you'll need to get the circuits involved in the activity of the ensembles of components.<br /><br />I also realized that these little component chips will need to be able to store some small amount of charge if you want any kind of memory to evolve, so add that to the specification of the components.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21620763078742664552010-11-09T08:16:15.639-08:002010-11-09T08:16:15.639-08:00Zach provided interesting link
Here's a fun e...Zach provided interesting link<br /><br />Here's a fun evolutionary simulation: Darwin Pond.<br /><br /><br />I played with it and must say gets addictive. Another interesting simulation is <br /><br />http://golly.sourceforge.net/ <br /><br /> This is cellular automata – game of life type simulation. <br /><br />Thorton said<br /><br /><br />The only 'function' of the earliest pre-biotic molecules required was the ability to self-replicate with variation. Once you get imperfect self-replication and<br /><br /><br />Again, I think you jump too many steps forward. You are talking about complete replicating assembly that produce variation and I'm wondering about first component of the future replicating assembly. What is the purpose of this first component? Remember, step 2 comes before step 858. <br /><br /><br />David <br /><br /> You went into more details than I expected. To be honest I didn't think that far with my simple setup. It could be a Star Trek episode. You would be Spock and Thorton can be Romulan. Cornelius understandably - captain Kirk.<br /><br />You also said<br /><br />You can add an impoerfect copy mechanism easily.<br /><br />Any copy mechanism would not be simple at all. When I tested Miller's wire as a mouse trap I realized how many things are critical for this experiment. I fully understand it's just analogy but Ph.D. in science should have picked something harder to test for BS .Also you may notice I 'm constantly switching between analogies in mechanical, electrical and chemical domains. Reason is (correct me if I'm wrong) that logic should follow from one to another. <br /><br />Live long and prosper. \\ //Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39794993228269081672010-11-09T06:23:10.643-08:002010-11-09T06:23:10.643-08:00The quote in the previous comment should have been...The quote in the previous comment should have been attributed to Neal Tedford.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49949562682106075152010-11-08T18:24:01.548-08:002010-11-08T18:24:01.548-08:00Zachriel So can we agree that if we classify fish,...<b>Zachriel</b> <i>So can we agree that if we classify fish, dolphins and cats by the panoply of objective biological traits that we would group dolphins and cats? </i><br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>How many times do I have to say yes to this question. </i><br /><br />Did you? You kept pointing out how others had reached that conclusion, but didn't say you agree with it. But good. There is only one reasonable way to classify fish, dolphins and cats by biological traits, that is, by grouping dolphins and cats. <br /><br />Similarly, if we classify dolphin, cats and lions, we would group cats and lions. With these four organisms, we now have an objective nested hierarchy! As we continue to add more organisms, we observe a very strong nested hierarchy (esp. with regards to eukaryotes). If you don't agree, then we can go through the process of adding organisms to our classification to see what is what; frogs, butterflies, beetles, bears, snails, humans, etc. <br /><br />On a side-note, when we classify vehicles, we do not get this singular nested hierarchy. Rather, we can form many different and equally consistent nested hierarchies. We saw this with the classification of a Ford pickup with the full package (AC, DVD, GPS, power steering, brakes, windows, locks, etc.), Chevy pickup with the full package, and a Ford sedan with no extras. Are we okay here, too? <br /><br />Now, as we already know, the leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem. <br /><br />So, let's *posit* uncrossed lines of descent, that is, a tree. Let's also assume that at each point of divergence we modify a trait, and for starters, the trait we modify is different at each branch. <br /><br />It's easy to see that the leaves of such a tree would form a nested hierarchy when arranged by traits, and that this nested hierarchy would exactly match the nested hierarchy formed when we group by branch and stem! In other words, we can reconstruct the pattern of branching from the traits of the individual leaves. <br /><br />Okay so far?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53402965722115260112010-11-08T17:57:12.195-08:002010-11-08T17:57:12.195-08:00Zachriel said, "So can we agree that if we cl...Zachriel said, "So can we agree that if we classify fish, dolphins and cats by the panoply of objective biological traits that we would group dolphins and cats? "<br /><br />How many times do I have to say yes to this question. Linnaeus grouped these over 200 years ago as mammals. <br /><br />No further delay please... continue with your hypothesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19312206155526937912010-11-08T10:01:10.460-08:002010-11-08T10:01:10.460-08:00Neal Tedford: The same maker could account for the...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>The same maker could account for the same power train. </i><br /><br />Perhaps, but at this point, we're just discussing classification. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>There are no feathers on bats or lions with human heads. </i><br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>If there were, would that falsify evolution then? No, it would be explained as examples of convergent evolution. </i><br /><br />Nope. <br /><br />Convergent evolution doesn't result in perfect equivalence of complex forms (Darwin 1859). Nor is there any plausible ancestor. Furthermore, we have reports of sphinxes, but scientific investigation has strongly indicated that they are the result of human imagination (design). We can predict with scientific confidence that you will never find a sphinx or a fossil of a sphinx. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Dolphins and cats are mammals, but this classification was noticed by creationists long before Darwin. </i><br /><br />So can we agree that if we classify fish, dolphins and cats by the panoply of objective biological traits that we would group dolphins and cats?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1332353556302680802010-11-08T08:37:32.279-08:002010-11-08T08:37:32.279-08:00Thorton said,
"It's also a matter of hist...Thorton said,<br />"It's also a matter of historical record that in every case the scientific findings had absolutely nothing to do with their personal religious creationist beliefs."<br /><br />The only counter-example is Maxwell's Demon. Before the Fall, it was an Angel! ;-pAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88318118415114869332010-11-08T08:33:12.465-08:002010-11-08T08:33:12.465-08:00Eugen asked,
"I think logic points that at st...Eugen asked,<br />"I think logic points that at step 2 some decisions must be made. Whether it is first adder or protein it's still not alive so there are no "heritable traits , selective pressures, fitness" etc .. It just floats there. What could possibly happen to it next? It will break up the way it was assembled or maybe stick around and wait for next assembly to arrive? What do you think?"<br /><br />Well, as we saw earlier, there are selective pressures that arise just from your choice of component size, magnet strength, and sloshing activity.<br /><br />Let's say for the sake of definiteness that the only component you are using in your experiment is the NAND gate. This won't stop your experiment from evolving adders or computer CPUs, NAND is all that is necessary.<br /><br />A full adder built out of NAND only takes 9 components. If you start as Zachriel suggested with a mole of NAND, and your sloshing allows components to connect according to some power law distribution (a reasonable assumption), your experiment is going to contain a very large number of 9-NAND blocks from the very beginning.<br /><br />How many of these are full adders? I haven't done the math, but there are not that many 9-NAND truth tables, so I think you'll have multiple copies of a full adder right away.<br /><br />As other posters have pointed out, nothing more is going to happen unless your experiment gets more sophisticated in at least two ways.<br /><br />You can add an impoerfect copy mechanism easily. Say your magnets connect the components strongly in 2 dimensions and weakly in the third. Then you'll get sheets of NAND that can copy themselves by component sheets making a new layer above and/or below an existing sheet. These components link strongly to each other, forming a new sheet, but only weakly to the sheet next to them. So a bit more powerful sloshing will separate the sheets from each other.<br /><br />So now your experiment has imperfectly replicating 2D sheets of NAND. Yay! But the sloshing by itself is only driving a the creation of a physical property (2D sheets) that has nothing to do with the component. The only "selection pressure" that exists is only selecting based on magnet strengths, not on component activity.<br /><br />Just the process of imperfect replication is going to give the experiment some interesting population dynamics over time. Variety of sheets will gradually decrease even if the sloshing keeps the distribution of sizes the same. But there is no driver towards adders or anything else. Adders might exist at the start and then go extinct, or they might come to dominate the 9-NAND size group. Sloshing by itself isn't going to push the population either direction.<br /><br />So if you want to see more interesting dynamics, perhaps even evolution, you'll need to add some kind of feedback loop into the experiment that involves the NAND. As an analogy in real chemistry, RNA nucleotides can stack together into chains, and these chains can extend and replicate easily. It is the fact that some sequences (even short ones) can fold, twist and then perform some enzymatic activity that creates a preference for some sequences over others. That is the selection pressure of molecular evolution. Your experiment is only a partial model of reality as long as it lacks similar mechanisms.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36279806835455149942010-11-08T07:22:30.506-08:002010-11-08T07:22:30.506-08:00Tedford the idiot said...
Some evolutionists are ...<i>Tedford the idiot said...<br /><br />Some evolutionists are uncomfortable with giving creationists, like Linneaus, their respect. </i><br /><br />Respect for Linneaus is given due to his scientific work. It doesn't comes from him being a creationist.<br /><br /><i>It is a matter of historical record that creationists founded nearly every branch of modern science.</i><br /><br />It's also a matter of historical record that in every case the scientific findings had absolutely nothing to do with their personal religious creationist beliefs.<br /><br />I really don't know why idiot creationists like Tedford keep using this non-sequitur as 'evidence' for Creationism, except possibly desperation.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66746246467141714462010-11-08T06:59:59.502-08:002010-11-08T06:59:59.502-08:00Troy,
Aristotle was NOT an evolutionist or creati...Troy,<br /><br />Aristotle was NOT an evolutionist or creationist. Furthermore, he had general categories of species and genus, but his system became mostly obsolete. He had a general category for live-bearing animals, but Linnaeus, a creationist, was the first to coin the word "mammal" directly from latin in 1758. <br /><br />Some evolutionists are uncomfortable with giving creationists, like Linneaus, their respect. It is a matter of historical record that creationists founded nearly every branch of modern science. Evolutionists down play this in one way or another, but the fathers of science did not need Darwin to do their great work. Hitler and Stalin did, but not Linneaus and Pasteur, etc.<br /><br />More on this later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25468657956944719792010-11-08T06:18:49.237-08:002010-11-08T06:18:49.237-08:00Troy:
"Aristotle was the first to classify d...Troy:<br /><br />"Aristotle was the first to classify dolphins as mammals rather than fish. He also believed that matter was eternal."<br />=====<br /><br />Further proof of Evolution being a major part of Greek Mythology, thus religious. Though their religious beliefs were simple in this regard, they never the less believe life oozed out of oceans from fish to animals to humans. The Egyptian and Babylonian ancient pagan civilizations preceeded them in these religious myths centuries before.<br /><br />Thanks for sharing.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68978416128078542682010-11-08T04:43:17.922-08:002010-11-08T04:43:17.922-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27381498288529482262010-11-08T04:41:01.352-08:002010-11-08T04:41:01.352-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69672001324483341282010-11-08T03:38:12.978-08:002010-11-08T03:38:12.978-08:00Tedford the Lying Pastor:
"Dolphins and cats...Tedford the Lying Pastor:<br /><br />"Dolphins and cats are mammals, but this classification was noticed by creationists long before Darwin."<br /><br />Aristotle was the first to classify dolphins as mammals rather than fish. He also believed that matter was eternal. <br /><br />You fail again.<br /><br />"Now evolutionists claim it as their own."<br /><br />Pants on fire.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4550070495071442402010-11-07T20:19:55.987-08:002010-11-07T20:19:55.987-08:00Zachriel said, "But let's go with tentati...Zachriel said, "But let's go with tentatively grouping the Fords together. <br /><br />Now let's try another example; Ford pickup with the full package (AC, DVD, gps, power steering, brakes, windows, locks, etc.), Chevy pickup with the full package, and a Ford sedan with no extras. Which two group better now? What if the two Fords share a power train? <br /><br />Do you see the problem? When we start looking at traits, there are several equally consistent nested hierarchies. With organisms, we don't see this pervasive borrowing across lineages. There are no feathers on bats or lions with human heads."<br /><br />------<br /><br />"What if the two Fords share a power train?"<br /><br /><br />Indeed. The same maker could account for the same power train. Perhaps this is why we see similarity across species... same designer. If only ONE automaker and parts supplier manufactured all the vehicles then wouldn't there would be much more similarity shared by automobiles? <br /><br />As you said, "With organisms, we don't see this pervasive borrowing across lineages." <br /><br />One designer. We do see borrowing, but apparently evolutionists don't see it as pervasive. "Pervasive" is surely a word that has a precise scientific meaning.<br /><br />You said, "There are no feathers on bats or lions with human heads." <br /><br /><br />If there were, would that falsify evolution then? No, it would be explained as examples of convergent evolution. So your statement is true, except when it isn't. <br /><br />Evolutionists are like Burger King customers, they like to have the evidence "their way".<br /><br />Consider another issue about automobiles vs. life.... Every human is unique... unique finger print, voice print, etc. Genetically no two people are 100% the same. There are vehicles, however, that are identical (other than serial numbers). When you get down to the most fundamental characters, it is possible to find identical automobiles, but not identical people. <br /><br />Dolphins and cats are mammals, but this classification was noticed by creationists long before Darwin. Now evolutionists claim it as their own. It's like someone in 1980 claiming they discovered the light blub. Perhaps evolutionists invented the internet also.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68657859538519367842010-11-07T18:00:56.071-08:002010-11-07T18:00:56.071-08:00natschuster said...
There aren't differen...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> There aren't different degrees of death, true, but there are different causes. An organism can die because it can't run as fast as another organism. Or it can die because it has a defect that is fatal due to a mutation. </i><br /><br />The overall cause is the same - a mutation that eventually led to death. The overall result is the same - the animal died before the it could reproduce. When the mutation killed the animal makes <b>not one bit of difference</b> to the validity of the results.<br /><br /><i>I didn't see any evidence of the latter kind in the article. In that sense it is unrealistic.</i><br /><br />It's a <b>model</b> nat. Of <b>course</b> it's not going to reproduce every aspect of reality down to the gnat's behind. But it did reproduce evolutionary processes well enough to validate the hypotheses for the evolution of behavioral patterns.<br /><br /><i>And I didn't see any mention in the articles linked about an "adaptation" that requires multiple mutations before there is any advantage can "evolve." </i><br /><br />That wasn't what was being modeled nat. If you are too lazy to read the paper and the articles on genetic algorithms or do the slightest bit of research on your own I can't help you. You seem to be consciously trying to not 'get' the scientific stuff.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62584968926991604232010-11-07T16:56:57.172-08:002010-11-07T16:56:57.172-08:00And I didn't see any mention in the articles l...And I didn't see any mention in the articles linked about an "adaptation" that requires multiple mutations before there is any advantage can "evolve."natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18186696806795745732010-11-07T16:44:09.308-08:002010-11-07T16:44:09.308-08:00There aren't different degrees of death, true,...There aren't different degrees of death, true, but there are different causes. An organism can die because it can't run as fast as another organism. Or it can die because it has a defect that is fatal due to a mutation. I didn't see any evidence of the latter kind in the article. In that sense it is unrealistic.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45317633099297612152010-11-07T06:04:23.623-08:002010-11-07T06:04:23.623-08:00Here's a fun evolutionary simulation: Darwin P...Here's a fun evolutionary simulation: <a href="http://www.ventrella.com/Darwin/darwin.html" rel="nofollow">Darwin Pond</a>.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47965463011910931612010-11-07T05:50:10.499-08:002010-11-07T05:50:10.499-08:00natschuster said...
I didn't see amnythin...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> I didn't see amnything in the article about mutations that rendered the robots inoperable. Mutations lke that doo exist in the real world. I only saw mention of mutations that mkae the robots less fit compared to other robots.</i><br /><br />Some robots had mutations that led to them being immediately killed. Being killed makes them inoperable. It's still selection, and doesn't alter the outcome of the experiment. You're trying to make distinctions between degrees of 'dead' when none exist.<br /><br /><i>And do have the algorithms that pthat produce complex algorithms been tested in anyway. Or are they still just speculation. I'm just asking.</i><br /><br />They're real and they work. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm" rel="nofollow">Genetic algorithms</a> are actively being used by science and industry every day. NASA has a whole <a href="http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/index.htm" rel="nofollow">Evolvable Systems Group</a> that uses them to design complex analog circuits and antennas better and faster than a human could.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1391807931125199032010-11-07T04:28:50.373-08:002010-11-07T04:28:50.373-08:00natschuster:
"I didn't see amnything in ...natschuster:<br /><br />"I didn't see amnything in the article about mutations that rendered the robots inoperable. Mutations lke that doo exist in the real world. I only saw mention of mutations that mkae the robots less fit compared to other robots.<br /><br />And do have the algorithms that pthat produce complex algorithms been tested in anyway. Or are they still just speculation. I'm just asking.<br />======<br /><br />Your going to have to slow it down and take your time in the typing department and not be in such a hurry. Your giving your opponants (who no doubt are vacant in the answers treasure chest) an excuse for deflection from the subject at hand by magnifying spelling errors and perceived literary flaws. Unless of course you were purposely illustrating mutations problems on purpose. *wink*<br /><br />Well, you know how it is ???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15213731956732775752010-11-07T04:02:34.842-08:002010-11-07T04:02:34.842-08:00I didn't see amnything in the article about mu...I didn't see amnything in the article about mutations that rendered the robots inoperable. Mutations lke that doo exist in the real world. I only saw mention of mutations that mkae the robots less fit compared to other robots. <br /><br />And do have the algorithms that pthat produce complex algorithms been tested in anyway. Or are they still just speculation. I'm just asking.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50393140440539699582010-11-06T21:18:21.137-07:002010-11-06T21:18:21.137-07:00natschuster said...
Some mutations will kill ...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> Some mutations will kill an organism even if there are no competitors. Those where left out. That makes the experiment unrealistic.</i><br /><br />No nat, it wasn't left out. Those were the mutations that resulted in the poor performing robots being 'killed'. As in the real world <b>anything</b> that kills you before you reproduce is selection. You just can't seem to grasps the basics, not that you're trying that hard.<br /><br /><i>And, to the bets of my knowledge, nobody questions the ability of natural selection to create adaptations that can be made in small increments. Its the complex adaptations that create the problems.</i><br /><br />Why do you think it's a problem? Science uses Genetic Algorithms with the identical evolutionary processes to produce complex adaptations (including the IDC mantra 'irreducibly complex' things) every day.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42262673849634712802010-11-06T20:46:32.926-07:002010-11-06T20:46:32.926-07:00Some mutations will kill an organism even if there...Some mutations will kill an organism even if there are no competitors. Those where left out. That makes the experiment unrealistic.<br /><br />And, to the bets of my knowledge, nobody questions the ability of natural selection to create adaptations that can be made in small increments. Its the complex adaptations that create the problems.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.com