Jump to content

The Evolution Computer Simulator


Recommended Posts

I don't know, BG seems to want to say that if we can't create the simulation, it's only fair to keep open the possibility that god created adam and eve in the garden of eden.I want to be clear that I think such a simulation is possible...we just can't do it at the moment due to certain limitations.
Well you quit before you began, I guess it only makes sense that you discount any other views with little effort as well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Start--------way point---------way point---------way point---------way point--------way point-------way point------Brooklyn
Is it fair to use the fossil record for the way points? I think you're posing a legitimate question about the mutation rate. You might be interested in molecular clock business.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you quit before you began, I guess it only makes sense that you discount any other views with little effort as well.
BG: Can we do this?Speedz: No.BG: Can we do this?Speedz: No. Here's why.BG: But can't we do this?Speedz: Yes, but that's different from your original question, and in general a useless idea.BG: Can we do this?Speedz: Again, no. I'd like to, but we can't. It's not possible at the moment. We cannot do it at the moment. It's a nice idea, but we can't do it.BG: BUT YOU DIDN'T EVEN TRY!!!What would trying look like to you, BG? Would you like me to email computer science professors around the globe? Should LLY try to get CERN to change its focus to see if your idea might be feasible? Should I quit vet school and devote all of my time to understanding the principles behind creating a supercomputer powerful enough to run a program such as the one you're proposing, and then maybe I could try and raise enough money to pay every programmer in the world to work on this project to see if it could eventually be done? Because after all that effort, there's a small chance that it'll turn out we could supposedly prove that evolution could conceivably have occurred in order to bring us to where we are today? Something that's already accepted by all but the most conservative religionites?You're right, I really should have put in some more effort here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
BG: Can we do this?Speedz: No.BG: Can we do this?Speedz: No. Here's why.BG: But can't we do this?Speedz: Yes, but that's different from your original question, and in general a useless idea.BG: Can we do this?Speedz: Again, no. I'd like to, but we can't. It's not possible at the moment. We cannot do it at the moment. It's a nice idea, but we can't do it.BG: BUT YOU DIDN'T EVEN TRY!!!What would trying look like to you, BG? Would you like me to email computer science professors around the globe? Should LLY try to get CERN to change its focus to see if your idea might be feasible? Should I quit vet school and devote all of my time to understanding the principles behind creating a supercomputer powerful enough to run a program such as the one you're proposing, and then maybe I could try and raise enough money to pay every programmer in the world to work on this project to see if it could eventually be done? Because after all that effort, there's a small chance that it'll turn out we could supposedly prove that evolution could conceivably have occurred in order to bring us to where we are today? Something that's already accepted by all but the most conservative religionites?You're right, I really should have put in some more effort here.
A lot of anger here.More than normal.You snowed in and stuck studying for a final or something?Whatever it is, remember that this just an internet forum. You can choose to skip this if you don't feel that I accept your premise and reject my own because you present a few problems.Especially when I have been crystal clear about my side.I'm a doer, I see a problem and I ask: Why not?"You just get mad...this is no way to approach a problem. I pity the poor sad eyed puppy that doesn't fit into your neat little packaged view of the the veterinarian world...
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a good test of evolutionary theory. Mostly because this test with fail for a whole host of reasons besides the theory of evolution being wrong. But also because the theory of evolution does not predict a specific path for evolution to take. Others have made these points already. If you think about it, if it were practically possible to simulate everything you would need to simulate in order to do this test (i.e. all of the physical conditions of the earth, its atmosphere, physics, all of biology and chemistry, the specific location of every molecule in the environment) you would have a copy of the earth itself. If you think creating a copy of the earth is within our technological grasp you have been watching too many Avatar trailers. Note that you probably came up with a bad test because you don't understand evolutionary theory1. 1Exhibit A.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not a good test of evolutionary theory. Mostly because this test with fail for a whole host of reasons besides the theory of evolution being wrong. But also because the theory of evolution does not predict a specific path for evolution to take. Others have made these points already. If you think about it, if it were practically possible to simulate everything you would need to simulate in order to do this test (i.e. all of the physical conditions of the earth, its atmosphere, physics, all of biology and chemistry, the specific location of every molecule in the environment) you would have a copy of the earth itself. If you think creating a copy of the earth is within our technological grasp you have been watching too many Avatar trailers.
1st:In your ( and by your I mean all of you closed minded evolutionist brood ) in your "Let's pigeon hole BG's point before we explore the possibilities he presents' manner, which is typical, I approached this clearly from a standpoint of a learning example. You guys have a great venue where an attentive non-believer is asking questions, and all you guys can come up with is whiny excuses why it's not possible. And whomever says that your excuses haven't been whiny, needs to stop their next girlfriend get together for another Sex in the City marathon because your whiny meter is way mis-calibrated.2nd:More than once I clearly pointed out that we would need to come up with acceptable variables to fill in the many many many many large gaps of our understanding of evolution as it pertains to human life. I also have yet to offer that we use this as an example to present to the Harvard Board of really self-important people's ideas or any other esteemed body for their peer review, so cut it some slack.3rd:I actually know that evolution doesn't have a clear cut path, I get the word variable and understand random. Again, let's work on the overall and quit pretending that one problem is enough to forgo the effort. Man we would still be using Texas instruments Ti-99s and trying to reduce lour resources so these pages wouldn't take 20 seconds to refresh if it wasn't for real men who ignored the problems and worked on the solutions.4th:A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and it's waste here is in you all wanting to give upgq.jpg5th:
Note that you probably came up with a bad test because you don't understand evolutionary theory1. 1Exhibit A.
Didn't you quit in the middle of that game too?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I was remarkably patient about the fact that you refuse to accept the answer(s) to your question(s).
I didn't offer a question per se, I offered a project, one that we could work on together, and your side pussed out.It's okay, our side will once again do all the back breaking work, you atheist can take credit for the work later and sponge off it's results.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Your test is not a good one, its that simple. It would be like if I proposed the following: In order to test whether Christianity is true, I will take a child, leave him in the woods for 3 days and see if he finds Christ! You are not obligated to carry out my test simply because I have proposed it. Evolution is a testable theory, and it has been tested in many ways. I'm happy to talk about all of those tests, or even devise new ones with you. But the one you want to do is not appropriate. I do appreciate your interest in evolution, and your attempt to generate discussion about it. But you have to be open to the possibility that the value to come out of this discussion may be in coming to understand why this is not a good test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In your ( and by your I mean all of you closed minded evolutionist brood ) in your "Let's pigeon hole BG's point before we explore the possibilities he presents' manner, which is typical, I approached this clearly from a standpoint of a learning example.
Go back and read the thread. It took 50 posts before anyone tried to pigeon hole your point (yes, it was me who eventually did it). You have a number of serious responses from LLY, crowTrobot, hblask, BaseJester, vbnautilus, and myself. All of them explain why your experiment cannot be carried out. What would it take for you to accept the fact that your idea, while coming from a good place, is unrealistic? There's no need for you to get defensive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't offer a question per se, I offered a project, one that we could work on together, and your side pussed out.
Well, we could continue to bitch at each other, or we could think of a different, better project. Any other ideas?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we could continue to bitch at each other, or we could think of a different, better project. Any other ideas?
Maybe we can discuss the movie that is about the life of Charles Darwin (ironically (?) called Creation) and how it can't get a U.S. distributor because it is too controversial for America.That's not really a project though.And it might no longer be true either.Although I don't see how that last point matters.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe we can discuss the movie that is about the life of Charles Darwin (ironically (?) called Creation) and how it can't get a U.S. distributor because it is too controversial for America.That's not really a project though.And it might no longer be true either.Although I don't see how that last point matters.
That's sad.This is funny, if you can ignore the annoying way it's presented.
Link to post
Share on other sites

( Just wanted to add that there are of course simplified/abstracted simulations of genetic transmission and mutation across generations that demonstrate some of the principles of the heredity involved in evolution. What you can't do is simulate an entire ecosystem and all its organisms as they evolve over time. )

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't offer a question per se, I offered a project, one that we could work on together, and your side pussed out.
I didn't puss out, I just assigned a small part of the problem to your programming skills. You do your tiny little, first million billionth of a part of this simulation (the first few molecules), and I'll do the rest. I promise. If you have some reasonably-sized module that you think I should work on, I'd do my part if you do yours.But saying "simulate the universe" and then claiming people who refuse are wimping out is more than a bit silly, don't you think?Also, I'm trying to figure out the level of detail you want. At a high level, it goes like this:1. Create random life2. See if it reproduces3. If not, stop following that path and go to step 1.4. If it does, reproduce it with minor variations5. Go to step 2Repeat an infinite number of times.I'm assuming you want more detail than that, but less than simulating every molecule in the universe. Please, the first step in any programming project is a Detailed Specification. If you produce one written in the correct format that gives the necessary information, then I can give a more elaborate answer as to how long it would take and the approximate cost.I mean, you wouldn't go to IBM and say "Please have your programmers write a unique car operating system for me, and I'll pay you if you get it right." They'd laugh you out of the place. But that is basically what you are doing here -- giving a concept rather than a Detailed Specification, and acting like our reluctance to tackle what would be a gigantic project is some admission of defeat.So now you've got two projects: write the program for the Replicate Molecule module, and provide a Detailed Specification for the rest of it. If you can't do that, I'll be forced to assume you are just yanking our chains.(I might not argue evolution/creationism well, but don't mess with me on programming -- I'm king of that land.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't puss out, I just assigned a small part of the problem to your programming skills. You do your tiny little, first million billionth of a part of this simulation (the first few molecules), and I'll do the rest. I promise. If you have some reasonably-sized module that you think I should work on, I'd do my part if you do yours.But saying "simulate the universe" and then claiming people who refuse are wimping out is more than a bit silly, don't you think?Also, I'm trying to figure out the level of detail you want. At a high level, it goes like this:1. Create random life2. See if it reproduces3. If not, stop following that path and go to step 1.4. If it does, reproduce it with minor variations5. Go to step 2Repeat an infinite number of times.I'm assuming you want more detail than that, but less than simulating every molecule in the universe. Please, the first step in any programming project is a Detailed Specification. If you produce one written in the correct format that gives the necessary information, then I can give a more elaborate answer as to how long it would take and the approximate cost.I mean, you wouldn't go to IBM and say "Please have your programmers write a unique car operating system for me, and I'll pay you if you get it right." They'd laugh you out of the place. But that is basically what you are doing here -- giving a concept rather than a Detailed Specification, and acting like our reluctance to tackle what would be a gigantic project is some admission of defeat.So now you've got two projects: write the program for the Replicate Molecule module, and provide a Detailed Specification for the rest of it. If you can't do that, I'll be forced to assume you are just yanking our chains.(I might not argue evolution/creationism well, but don't mess with me on programming -- I'm king of that land.)
Well, I was aware that the beginning of life is a difficult problem that the evolutionist side is at odds to explain, so I wanted to start late in the process by allowing for a fully functioning self-replicating organism and begin the process from there.We now know where we start, and we know where we finish, and we know a few steps along the way ( although I would bet many would argue which steps were required for humanoid development )So the question is can we apply a reasonable equation to begin a flow chart.I tried to start with what processes allow for introduction of change besides random mutation. I got a theoretical one which allows for an almost purposeful introduction of positive mutation ( for lack of a better term ), so we can add a wild card I guess.But to track the entire scope of every atom in the universe is only required if we in fact wanted to actually map the actual existence of evolution. If we wanted to just map out the rough understanding, then we can maybe avoid knowing what happens to a starfish when a comet passes within 2 light years of our moon and applies a slight gravitational anomaly to the tidal flows for two days.I would think the challenge would be interesting enough to at least try, nobody is claiming that the entire scientific community stand or fall to what we hash out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back and read the thread. It took 50 posts before anyone tried to pigeon hole your point (yes, it was me who eventually did it). You have a number of serious responses from LLY, crowTrobot, hblask, BaseJester, vbnautilus, and myself. All of them explain why your experiment cannot be carried out. What would it take for you to accept the fact that your idea, while coming from a good place, is unrealistic? There's no need for you to get defensive.
The responses were all the same, why it can't be done.I get that this isn't something that will be done with 4 posts and a couple of fixes, but to quit without even trying?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that China exists. Let's make that way point #1.I know that Kansas exists (if you can call that existing). Let's make that way point #2.I know that England exists. Let's make that way point #3.I know that Florida exists. Let's make that way point #4.I know that Australia exists. Let's make that way point #5.Now tell me, what model of truck should I use to get from China to Florida? Can I sail from Kansas to England?We can actually be 100% certain about the way points and still know virtually nothing about what's between them, and without knowing that, we have no way whatsoever to know the best way to get from one way point to the next.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What? Your test is not a good one, its that simple. It would be like if I proposed the following: In order to test whether Christianity is true, I will take a child, leave him in the woods for 3 days and see if he finds Christ! You are not obligated to carry out my test simply because I have proposed it.
The analogies are not similar, you are trying to restrict my options for the child to find Christ by setting a highly restrictive set of conditions, I am trying to open up the conditions to whatever we need to accomplish this goal.
Evolution is a testable theory, and it has been tested in many ways. I'm happy to talk about all of those tests, or even devise new ones with you. But the one you want to do is not appropriate. I do appreciate your interest in evolution, and your attempt to generate discussion about it. But you have to be open to the possibility that the value to come out of this discussion may be in coming to understand why this is not a good test.
The theory of evolution as understood makes the claim of answering where we came from with enough finality to discount the need for an Intelligent Designer. Saying you guys can only reproduce tiny bits of the entire process isn't proof, it's clearly showing that with a minute amount of information, you guys are willing to take by faith that the rest of the brazilion things needed happened as well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that China exists. Let's make that way point #1.I know that Kansas exists (if you can call that existing). Let's make that way point #2.I know that England exists. Let's make that way point #3.I know that Florida exists. Let's make that way point #4.I know that Australia exists. Let's make that way point #5.Now tell me, what model of truck should I use to get from China to Florida? Can I sail from Kansas to England?We can actually be 100% certain about the way points and still know virtually nothing about what's between them, and without knowing that, we have no way whatsoever to know the best way to get from one way point to the next.
But with little effort we can try every option available to get from point #1 to point #2. If an option fails, ie we try a kite, then we go back and try another method, say a freighter containing bananas ( which has half the DNA of a human ) and see if it can get from China to Kansas in the time frame needed.Your analogy would be solvable with a computer model in about 30 minutes of calculations if we used 29 minutes to try to understand Royal tour's last 40 posts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we could continue to bitch at each other, or we could think of a different, better project. Any other ideas?
I started this, if you have a better project, I am willing to listen, because as I have demonstrated, I am an open book, looking to learn and explore, because I don't fear the truth.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The proper analogy, then, is exactly the same test as you suggest. Let's take newborn infants from several different parts of the world, isolate them completely, tell them nothing about how anything works, let them reproduce a few thousand years, and see if they come up with a guy divvying fish and bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But with little effort we can try every option available to get from point #1 to point #2. If an option fails, ie we try a kite, then we go back and try another method, say a freighter containing bananas ( which has half the DNA of a human ) and see if it can get from China to Kansas in the time frame needed.Your analogy would be solvable with a computer model in about 30 minutes of calculations if we used 29 minutes to try to understand Royal tour's last 40 posts.
Computer modeling could not solve this puzzle, though, because without sufficient data on what's going on in between, the computer would have no way of knowing whether or not the kite or freighter or saddled-up kitten ever got to point B. Once it left point A, it would essentially vanish into the unknown as far as the computer is concerned.
Link to post
Share on other sites
( Just wanted to add that there are of course simplified/abstracted simulations of genetic transmission and mutation across generations that demonstrate some of the principles of the heredity involved in evolution. What you can't do is simulate an entire ecosystem and all its organisms as they evolve over time. )
I had an idea for a movie /mini series / New awesome television mega show about this very thing.The premise is the creation of a computer that calculates the weather by using massive amounts of data collection points. After all, if we know the temperatures of every point on the planet, and add in things like tide, wind and sun we should be able to formulate a pretty accurate map of what will happen where.This computer slowly expands it scope and includes political choices and their impact on the world, would x war accomplish x goals etc.Eventually our society evolves into a sort of religion around this computer, with the data collection people acting as special envoys, and individual access points to the mainframe becoming churches and their programmers/question entry people, becoming like priests, being able to control the questions and if wanted being able to slightly influence the answers.Of course there would be the religious parts of society being virulently anti-computer worship.The intrigue behind people's motivations to control data, control the questions presented etc would be fodder for a lot of story lines that could keep writers busy for a few seasons.I got the idea from a story in the newspaper about a company in Redlands that is trying to make a computer model of the earth's weather in real time.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...