Darwinbots Forum
General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Griz on November 08, 2005, 05:37:27 PM
-
thanks for all the work you have done ...
and continue to do.
I'll get our of your way and let you be ...
go for it ...
do it like you know it.
there's enough stuff here for me to sort out/thru ...
to keep me busy thinking about where I'd like it to go ...
and inspire me to get back into VB so I can do that ...
and who knowz ... even C++.
so thanks for the inspiration.
I'll just twiwaltr ...
and give you guys some feedback if/when I find bugs/errors ...
if I think they will be of use.
otherwise ...
I'll let you get on with your own vision of what it should be.
in any case ...
good luck with it.
-
Is this "so long, farewell" sort of message? Because I think we've gotten a couple of those from you over the last month or so.
Just can't stay away, can you ;)
-
Me to, I figured , if eveyone here thinks my work is a work of a lunatic, then I wont do anything for you anymore. I had nothing to prove to you exsept first bot. Gess you blew your chance. I stoped using db already.
-
As it has been mentioned here before, ALife scene is not really a zero-sum game. All those "competitors" are not really competing for users, they are generating interest in this topic, bring new people in and that means we all benefit from that. We want more different programs, doing things different ways.
So, if you want to make your own project - cool, keep us posted on your progress. I'm definetely willing to give it a go and provide feedback.
For now I'm sticking with DB because it involves a whole order of magnitude more than any other ALife sim. But if another cool program pops up, who knows... :)
-
there is a great deal of misunderstanding about how evolution works in the world
There is no misunderstanding. If someone continues my work, by only making any robo accumilate the same amount of mutations after 8000 cycles. He will get results faster then shvartz.
Although I won't care because I will try to illiminate problems from my simulators internaly. Hopefully, what I learned here will not come usefull.
-
here in the united snakes ...
we are having debates about evoluvtion and intellegent design being
taught in our schools.
I wonder if we are about to embark upon a new dark ages.
or maybe a new enlightenment. :)
I personally hope the debate between Evo and ID results in a stronger overall theory. The basic principles of Evo are pretty simple to demonstrate working both in reality and in simulations; but the more complex aspects of how life initially began need to be answered.
An interesting point to note is that DB leaves these questions unanswered itself; we as Inteligent Designers have originated every single bot's dna.
Makes you wonder. ^_^
-
the debate between Evo and ID results in a stronger overall theory
Just so that we are clear on that: what theory are you talking about?
-
That is one nice thign about DB. It really isn't a tirade against either Intelligent Design or natural evolution. It takes neither side, and simply is what it is, with no alterior (or is it olterior?) motive.
-
here in the united snakes ...
Haha! :lol: Haven't heard that before! You live there?
-
That is one nice thign about DB. It really isn't a tirade against either Intelligent Design or natural evolution. It takes neither side, and simply is what it is, with no alterior (or is it olterior?) motive.
Yeah, reminds me of reality itself. With the past shrouded by time and change who can say what exactly started it all :D
Inteligent Design - Someone(God, aliens, other) created life as we know it upon earth, proponents believe roughly that the sheer complexity of life and even simple life could not arise through evolution alone.
Evolution - (Paraphrased possibly not exact)Chance mutations arise that either increase an organisms overall reproductive efficency or have a neutral affect, allowing bennefial or neutral mutations to increase in frequency. Deleterious mutations are weeded out.
A bit of a troubling question is how all the more or less random chemicals/compounds began replicating in the first place.
IMO
My take on it all is that the message(dna/rna/other) being carried through time is simply trying to maximize it's time existing in general.
Simply more identical messages are bennefical to a degree(when loss is possible) until the sheer identicality leads to losses. Then it becomes benneficial to have similar messages that share the same basic traits but perhaps yield slightly different effects. Then of course it becomes useful to more deliberatly share genes amongst a species allowing overall error fixing(yes, I know the dna/rna is capable of impressive feats in this regard but there is a wee bit of a logic problem if the error fixing sites themselves are messed up).
For us higher level lifeforms numbers of sperm released probably respond to dangers facing a population. If danger is high larger numbers are released increasing competition, lower means dangers are less and dna can be more liberal in the possible species traits that can be represented.
Ie. In times of plenty expand dna expression, in times of scaracity deminish it.
We're seeing this currently in our society. It's not really an issue of worse genes being expressed more often its an issue of dna trying to more completly express itself. Basically the dna will select for increasingly more fit dna in dangerous times; while selecting for less/basically fit dna in plentiful times.
The question of rapid spread for species is probably answered by the flipside of massive deaths. If a new species is not only more efficent but also directly deadly to another, the older species niche will be subsumed and the species consumed vastly accelerating the spread of a new species.
Junk Dna, epigenetics, and Viral Cross-species gene transfer should have their own roles in species evolution expounded upon and be included in an improved overall theory of Evolution.
Alright, keep in mind the above is my own opinion, assembled from all sorts of sources. Flames to a minimum please, as this is mostly largely guesswork on my part anyways.
I'm heading a way for a bit over a week soon, so don't be too worried :lol:
-
My personal take on all of it is that ID is not precluded from the realm of possibility, so we shouldn't dismiss it. There were many rather stocastic evolutionary developments that can be explained as outside interference.
Cambrian explosion/development of eukaryotes comes to mind. It also doesn't necessarily need to be explained that way. But being able to explain something using a different set of events doesn't mean that set of events is wrong.
What bugs me is the fanatics on the side of evolution. I can understand fanatics on the side of ID, since it has religious undertones, but science is supposed to be less religious and more logic. Since strong ID theories say evolution is impossible, "science" people feel the need to say ID is impossible, and totally dismiss it.
Which gets annoying really fast for me. It is not outside the realm of possibility, or even probability, that our planet's development has been influenced at some point by an intelligent outsider. We've been here for 5 billion years, the universe is huge, life probably developed elsewhere. Why can't we assume that at some point in 5 billion years, something intelligent somewhere influenced the Earth one way or another.
It's simply unreasonable to assume we've been in our own little bubble for 5 billion years. Which is an interesting statement because it probably would tick off both evolutionists and creationists at the same time.
-
Probably. :D
Who knows? My own guess is that there a whole slew of factors known and unknown affecting life. Most of the "positive proofs" I've seen can be taken either way supporting the complex logic and richness of evolution or the insightfulness of a creator.
Do you ever sleep? Man it must be really early where you are. :)
Have a good week.
Make sure DB is simulating reality perfectly by the time I get back :lol: :D :lol:
-
My personal take on all of it is that ID is not precluded from the realm of possibility, so we shouldn't dismiss it.
The problem with ID is that in essense it is not a scientific theory. Not because "it is wrong", but simply because it is not a scientific theory. Take any poem - it is a perfectly nice thing to learn and ponder about, but it is not a scientific theory. So, it should not be discussed as such.
Any scientific theory should be testable by an experiment. It is impossible to come up with an experiment that would either prove or disprove ID. So, I'll repeat, it is not a scientific theory. It's place is in phylosophy class, not in science.
-
Is forming an artificial organism impossible? I'd say no, as I bet most people would say.
Can organisms form themselves? Again, I'd say yes.
So I really don't see what all the fuss is about in the turf of science. I mean, evolution throws some kinks in many religions, but the reverse simply isn't true.
Testable? Why, ID is very nearly testable. Right now we're just copying and pasting genes around, but very soon I'll wager we will be able to create custom genes that do what we want (or not do what we want, but that's really another issue). Genetic manipulation is truly coming into its own.
Once we're at that point, we've just proved that ID is indeed possible and really not all that difficult with the right tools.
Is it unfeasible that we humans, in the future, would genetically engineer different life forms to exist and colonize different worlds? Leaving the pure desire for creation aside, a dead planet is much less productive than a somewhat terraformed planet. Admitedly it would take many, many years to form free oxygen in the atmosphere, but terraforming a dead planet like Mars into something with a thick atmosphere and some form of life is really not all that difficult. It's almost within the realm of present technology (if not prohibively expensive).
What does it mean if we were engineered, leaving philosphy aside for the moment? Evolution is really one of the least explored theories. We just chalk up so many things to evolution without really understanding the intracacies of the process.
Maybe some things really are impossible for evolution to do. Within a limited time period anyway (say, the 10 billion years our sun is stable). Can we say one way or another how complex evolution can form things? Do we have experimental evidence?
Maybe ID and evolution are components in part of a large, intergalactic ecosystem that spans the beginning to the end of time. Understanding the interaction between the two could be a science in and of itself.
Just thinking outloud really. My point is that ID is no more or less intrinsically scientific than evolution. They are just different modus operandi for the same process.
-
take it to the limit:
in an infinite universe ...
not only is anything possible ...
it already IS.
-
Testable? Why, ID is very nearly testable. Right now we're just copying and pasting genes around, but very soon I'll wager we will be able to create custom genes that do what we want (or not do what we want, but that's really another issue). Genetic manipulation is truly coming into its own.
That doesn't make inteligent design testable though.
That would mean that it is possible to create life and not that that is what did happen.
ID as a theory claims that at some point in the past (or possibly even right now and still ongoing) some inteligence did, is continuing to have an input on the development of life.
This theory is 100% untestable. It cannot be falsified and is therefore unscientific.
The fact that something is possible is NOT evidence that it happened.
Science does not make any attempt to say that it is not possible for life to have been inteligently created. It simply says that there is ZERO evidence that it happened. There is simply no way to investigate/test the hypothesis.
It falls entirely outside the realms of science and so science utterly ignores it.
ID is a philosophical concept and until ID proponents come up with a real theory that is scientifically testable, it will and should stay that way.
It is a perfectly valid and even possible scenario that deserves a good examination of it's tenets. However this should NOT take place in any kind of science class.
-
Is forming an artificial organism impossible? I'd say no, as I bet most people would say.
Then you are in the minority.
Most people, and in fact all creationists/IDists that I have spoken to, claim that we will never be able to do this and that this is the primary reason for believing in an omnipotent designer.
If we were able to create life (artificial is not really the point. Life is life) then we would be the equal of the designer so the concept falls apart. You are then left with the question of who designed the designer. This goes back an infinite number of steps until you finally reach the point of an omnipotent designer who exists outside of time and has no beginning.
Wait a minute. :idea:
We already have one of those. His name is GOD.
ID is a thinly veiled attempt to get religion back into our schools, in spite of the constitution.
-
ID as a theory claims that at some point in the past (or possibly even right now and still ongoing) some inteligence did, is continuing to have an input on the development of life.
I'd call that the strong ID theory. In a weaker version, I'd say something like:
some intelligence did and may be continuing to shape our evolution.
The "may be doing it now" is indeed quite untestable.
As to what happened millions of years ago, it is no more possible to say that the organisms evolved than to say they were just plopped here. Now, saying they evolved is a fairly good claim. Fossil record seems to support the idea of a gradual increase in complexity. Don't get me wrong.
But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history. Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time). Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.
It's sort of like Gaia theory. It doesn't really change anything or present new facts, it just changes how we approach the data and information.
Right now if you see something in the fossil record, you're assuming it's a direct ancestor of the first organism. You're assuming natural forces alone led to its creation. While probable, it's hardly exhaustive.
-
Is forming an artificial organism impossible? I'd say no, as I bet most people would say.
Then you are in the minority.
Most people, and in fact all creationists/IDists that I have spoken to, claim that we will never be able to do this and that this is the primary reason for believing in an omnipotent designer.
If we were able to create life (artificial is not really the point. Life is life) then we would be the equal of the designer so the concept falls apart. You are then left with the question of who designed the designer. This goes back an infinite number of steps until you finally reach the point of an omnipotent designer who exists outside of time and has no beginning.
Wait a minute. :idea:
We already have one of those. His name is GOD.
ID is a thinly veiled attempt to get religion back into our schools, in spite of the constitution.
Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.
Who designed the designers? Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence. Simple numbers game.
But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot. There are some major hurdles to overcome after all. Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.
In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.
-
But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history. Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time). Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.
OK I have a problem with this logic. What is the proposed nature of this inteligent designer and where did it come from?
If it evolved itself then the same time constraint applies to it.
If not then we are talking about God which makes ID religion.
-
Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.
Who designed the designers? Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence. Simple numbers game.
But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot. There are some major hurdles to overcome after all. Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.
In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.
Granted that this scenario could be possible. It still comes down to evolution eventually though and the universe only has a finite lifetime in which it could have happened.
What you are suggesting is not typical of ID though.
They mouth off about not being specific about who the designer was but when it comes right down to it they always bring God in at some point.
Did you catch that story on the news this morning. In response to a recent decision by a Pensylvanian school board to reject ID from its science classes, some pillock (can't remember his name) declared "If a natural disaster strikes your town then don't turn to God! You have thoroughly rejected him"
:blink:
WTF has God got to do with ID? ID is specifically supposed to have nothing to do with God.
Or have we just caught the IDers out in another underhanded cheap ploy?
-
But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history. Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time). Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.
OK I have a problem with this logic. What is the proposed nature of this inteligent designer and where did it come from?
If it evolved itself then the same time constraint applies to it.
If not then we are talking about God which makes ID religion.
Let's say that on average abiotic elements take 15 billion years to form into life, with a standard deviation of 3 billion years.
That would be a time constraint that wouldn't prohibit the development of life somewhere, but would mean very little life evolved on its own.
-
Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.
Who designed the designers? Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence. Simple numbers game.
But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot. There are some major hurdles to overcome after all. Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.
In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.
Granted that this scenario could be possible. It still comes down to evolution eventually though and the universe only has a finite lifetime in which it could have happened.
What you are suggesting is not typical of ID though.
They mouth off about not being specific about who the designer was but when it comes right down to it they always bring God in at some point.
Did you catch that story on the news this morning. In response to a recent decision by a Pensylvanian school board to reject ID from its science classes, some pillock (can't remember his name) declared "If a natural disaster strikes your town then don't turn to God! You have thoroughly rejected him"
:blink:
WTF has God got to do with ID? ID is specifically supposed to have nothing to do with God.
Or have we just caught the IDers out in another underhanded cheap ploy?
I'll admit alot of poor science from ID people. Really really poor. It sickens me.
What gets my goat is that I see much the same behavior from "scientists". It's sort of like the white-supremicist arguments you occassionally find in science articles from 100 years ago.
At best its quait. At worst its destructive to science as a whole.
Anyone who doubts that evolution occurs is only kidding themselves. What we don't know is how successful evolution is, what sort of time it needs to do its thing, etc.
-
Let's say that on average abiotic elements take 15 billion years to form into life, with a standard deviation of 3 billion years.
That would be a time constraint that wouldn't prohibit the development of life somewhere, but would mean very little life evolved on its own.
So what you are saying is that our own Earth is a relative new comer to the cosmos at a mere 4.5 billion years of age whereas other parts of the universe are thought to be as old as 14 billion years.
Evolution could have occurred somewhere and then gradually migrated across the universe on the boots of some advanced form of life. They either did it deliberately (ID) or through not being careful enough (AD "Accidental design" :D )
I don't have a problem with that concept as a hypothesis. Can it be proven though? What predictions would be made based on the hypothesis? Can the hypothesis be tested?
If not then it is just as valid to hypothesize that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called "The Great Green Arkelseizure" and we should all live in constant fear of a time known only as "the coming of the great white hand kerchief" HitchHiker's guide to the galaxy
After all we can't disprove that either.
-
I don't have a problem with that concept as a hypothesis. Can it be proven though? What predictions would be made based on the hypothesis? Can the hypothesis be tested?
One would expect to see stochastic evolutionary events. Not that stochastic events always mean ID, but that's what you'd expect to see.
For instance, the development of eukaryotes was very sudden. We have little evidence of the steps that occurred from one to another. It just sort of bang occurs in the fossil record.
That eukaryotes were designed from preexisting microbes by an alien intelligence (perhaps as part of a terraforming project or something along those lines) would explain that better than evolution. Not that evolution couldn't have done that, just that ID fits the evidence as well or better.
-
That eukaryotes were designed from preexisting microbes by an alien intelligence (perhaps as part of a terraforming project or something along those lines) would explain that better than evolution. Not that evolution couldn't have done that, just that ID fits the evidence as well or better.
Let's follow this through logically and scientifically.
Evidence - The development of eukaryotes was very sudden. (note: By sudden we still mean several 10s of millions of years at least but this can be termed sudden by evolutionary standards)
This can be explained by 2 (at least) possible mechanisms.
Hypothesis 1 - Inteligent aliens caused the modifications.
Supporting evidence - None. No direct evidence of this has been found.
Circumstantial evidence - None. We don't know whether any other alien race exists or has ever existed. No evidence of them has ever been found.
Hypothesis 2 - Evolution got a bit lucky and made a breakthrough by pure chance.
Supporting evidence - None. No direct evidence of this has been found in the fossil record.
Circumstantial evidence - Evolution happens. We see it happen all around us every day.
From these two possible scenarios we see that evolution is by far the most probable explanation because we know that it happens to this day. Although we cannot directly test what happened during the cambrian, by extrapolation it is possible to see that it could well have happened this way.
Furthermore, assuming that the aliens were not God (no beginning or end etc. yada yada), then they themselves must have evolved somewhere else. Further evidence that evolution can go from nothing to a sentient being.
In the absence of absolute proof either way, the principle of parsimony (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/asc/PRINCI_SIMPL.html) (or Occam's razor) states that we should always choose the answer with the least complexity.
In this case, the addition of any kind of inteligence is increasing complexity. It is completely unecessary and must therefore be rejected, pending further evidence.
-
Okay, let's suppose that we make contact with intelligent aliens tomorrow. Let's suppose that these aliens have terraforming technology.
Then suddenly the ID and evolution theories are on equal footing...
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that would tell you there are no aliens whatsoever. I also think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that says designing life is impossible.
Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.
Occam's Razor has been used far too often IMO to discredit theories. Occam's Razor does not tell you what theory is right. It only presents guidelines for picking among competing theories the one you should accept as your primary. Don't discard your competing theories. Evidence may change.
Stochastic evolution is simply more difficult to describe using evolution than ID. Evolution tends to work in steps. Skipping several intermediary steps in the process isn't something terribly easy for evolution, but is something absolutely hallmark of ID (using our Bots in DB as an example).
I don't know that you can ever say what happened on Earth conclusively. But we will probably be able to say one day what the evidence on Earth seems to point to, and what is the more common origin of life in the universe. Probably primarily evolution, but a few leaps and jumps might be accredited to outside tinkering.
And we know not that the process of Eukaryotization took 10 million years or so (or whatever the time frame), just that it occured within that sort of window. Fossil dating for stuff that old is sketchy, so we end up with a time limit.
-
Okay, let's suppose that we make contact with intelligent aliens tomorrow. Let's suppose that these aliens have terraforming technology.
Then suddenly the ID and evolution theories are on equal footing...
Absolutely. In light of new evidence, the prevailing scientific theory is apt to change. That is what differentiates science from religion.
-
Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.
I agree with this too. It is just that what you are proposing is not what is typically understood to be inteligent design.
-
Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.
I agree with this too. It is just that what you are proposing is not what is typically understood to be inteligent design.
Hmm, maybe I should form my own competing theory XD
-
Just join these guys: http://www.venganza.org/index.htm (http://www.venganza.org/index.htm)
-
As we are all "touched by his Noodley appendage" :pray:
-
Don't let a bunch of bad (and in this case sarcastic) grapes spoil the bunch.