The Evolution Computer Simulator

[Balloon guy 158]

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.

Except we are only satisfied that the conditions are met to arrive at point 2 before we try to proceed to point 3.And we know all forms of travel availableAnd we know how long we have to get to the final destination.So for your simulation, we have the available information, I am just asking for help in finding the conditions necessary to arrive at the first way point from a single cell organism to the next step, whatever that step is.

[Balloon guy 158]

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.

I have complete and honest faith that the answer to your impossible simulation is yes, they would come to a full and complete knowledge of the Biblical conditions for salvation. And there is no way you can prove me that it wouldn't happen, since it already did happen in the rough time frame you allowed.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I have complete and honest faith that the answer to your impossible simulation is yes, they would come to a full and complete knowledge of the Biblical conditions for salvation. And there is no way you can prove me that it wouldn't happen, since it already did happen in the rough time frame you allowed.

Ah, sweetie, but by this logic, you can't prove to evolutionists that evolution wouldn't happen, since it already did in the time frame allowed. So they have no need to prove it. [by the way, I couldn't prove that it wouldn't happen. It seems unlikely to me that it would, but by definition no one can prove it's impossible.]Perhaps it's unkind of me to piont out that my hypothetical infants, then -- in the absence of any appearance or deliberate intervention by God -- would appear to all onlookers as having made up their fish-divvyer, since I did not stipulate that anything was supernaturally revealed to them. Without God acting to reveal the truth to them, the only place it can come from in my scenario is out of their own heads. It seems to me that the only options would be: 1) Jesus would have to take another human incarnation in this population; 2) they would surmise a creation story out of their own guesses about how things work; 3) God would have to intervene and reveal something to them; or 4) you are suggesting that the whole of the bible as it exists today (but not as it existed in the first centuries AD, when it was in a variety of different forms) can be deduced rationally, without any supernatural action at all -- which seems to render the supernatural unnecessary.Edit: or a fifth possibility, that God creates us with an innate desire and ability to know him. But these hypothetical infants have no access to the bible, so if that possibility worked all on its own it would tend to render the bible unnecessary.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ah, sweetie, but by this logic, you can't prove to evolutionists that evolution wouldn't happen, since it already did in the time frame allowed. So they have no need to prove it. [by the way, I couldn't prove that it wouldn't happen. It seems unlikely to me that it would, but by definition no one can prove it's impossible.]

Well I was using the evolutionist beliefs to 'prove' my argument that left alone, children would arrive at the Biblical view. They are the ones required to prove this, not me who believes that God created us and then spoke of His love for us directly to us.

Perhaps it's unkind of me to piont out that my hypothetical infants, then -- in the absence of any appearance or deliberate intervention by God -- would appear to all onlookers as having made up their fish-divvyer, since I did not stipulate that anything was supernaturally revealed to them. Without God acting to reveal the truth to them, the only place it can come from in my scenario is out of their own heads. It seems to me that the only options would be: 1) Jesus would have to take another human incarnation in this population; 2) they would surmise a creation story out of their own guesses about how things work; 3) God would have to intervene and reveal something to them; or 4) you are suggesting that the whole of the bible as it exists today (but not as it existed in the first centuries AD, when it was in a variety of different forms) can be deduced rationally, without any supernatural action at all -- which seems to render the supernatural unnecessary.Edit: or a fifth possibility, that God creates us with an innate desire and ability to know him. But these hypothetical infants have no access to the bible, so if that possibility worked all on its own it would tend to render the bible unnecessary.

Evolution are the ones claiming that left alone, man would show up. It's just that when asked how, they claim it is too impossible to understand recreate explain to me

[vbnautilus 48]

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.

This is just very strange logic. Why is recreating history the criteria for believing it happened? In order to believe the civil war happened do we need to be able to take a bunch of people enslave some of them and see if exactly the same battles happen? I have very high certainty that the Civil War happened, but very high doubt that we could recreate it exactly in a simulation based on just initial conditions.

I had an idea for a movie /mini series / New awesome television mega show about this very thing.

Have you seen "Synecdoche, New York" ?

[vbnautilus 48]

Evolution are the ones claiming that left alone, man would show up. It's just that when asked how, they claim it is too impossible to understand recreate explain to me

The mechanism is natural selection. You know that.

[crowTrobot 2]

Evolution are the ones claiming that left alone, man would show up.

could, not would. in no way is man the inevitable result of evolution. that's why your simulation idea is pointless.

It's just that when asked how, they claim it is too impossible to understand recreate explain to me

part of the communication problem in this thread comes from the fact that you are disputing and mixing two different subjects -A. that evolution happenedB. that the mechanism of natural selection is sufficient to explain itas you should be aware by now if you're being honest with yourself, the evidence for A exists independantly from knowing the precise details of "how" (which nobody does). proving A to someone who is intellectually honest about the evidence is trivial, and does not rely on B. even if it were possible to run one, a simulation of B would be irrelevant to A.in light of A, B is certainly open for debate. but it doesn't even make sense for you to question B unless you first accept A.in other words - in this thread you are essentially arguing for "designed" evolution, not creationism. make up your mind

[speedz99 145]

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?

Do you really not understand why it's an impossible (and impractical) task for us? I'm sorry we're not interested in wasting our time by continuing to talk about it. If you don't get it by now, you're never going to.You know what else I'd like to do? Fly by flapping my arms really hard. Yet, it's a physical impossibility, therefore I'm not going to devote any time to trying to make it happen. I guess I really do like to quit without even trying.

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.

All you've demonstrated in this particular thread is the fact that you're too stubborn to give up on an idea even when it's explained to you multiple times using simple logic that it's an impossibility. It's not quite irony, but it's something.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

This is just very strange logic. Why is recreating history the criteria for believing it happened? In order to believe the civil war happened do we need to be able to take a bunch of people enslave some of them and see if exactly the same battles happen? I have very high certainty that the Civil War happened, but very high doubt that we could recreate it exactly in a simulation based on just initial conditions.

This, precisely.

[hblask 1]

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.

Well, that only narrows it down a tiny bit. For example, do you want to know how an animal can go from tree-dwelling to upright walking?All we need to do is figure out what traits cause that -- arm length, hip structure, etc, and run the simulation so that the variables that determine those things to vary over time. You could set a bunch of different environments, some where being on the ground is dangerous, others where falling out of a tree is a bigger danger than predators on the ground. Vary each, give a prediction of survival, repeat. Now, that's a million things, so you probably have to limit it further, such as the chance that hip structure will change enough to go from walking on all fours to the skipping on all fours sort of gait many simians have. Again, it's not a difficult change to imagine, it all comes down to the level of detail you want the simulation to be. I can write a rough high-level algorithm in 10 seconds; but if you want to compute the number of genes that are required to change, then you need to get biologists, geneologists (sp?), anthropologists, etc involved, and suddenly you have a multi-person multi-year project.So again, write your Detail Specification, and we can continue.

[hblask 1]

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.

Is this what this is all about? Because the theory of evolution makes no comment on Intelligent Designers, because that is an untestable theory. There is no way to distinguish between1. Life evolved by a series of random mutationsand2. Life evolved by a series of mutations guided by an intelligent but invisible and undetectable being who made the process look exactly like a series of random mutations.So no, no simulation will distinguish between those two cases because science does not comment on the untestable. It just makes the assumption that if things can be explained by normal physics, there is no need to invoke supernatural physics. It doesn't rule out supernatural physics, it just puts the burden of evidence on people who would claim that the supernatural forces exist.

[Balloon guy 158]

Alright fine.We have a theory of evolution, that we apparently do not understand enough about to make a general map of it's route that we know it took, and even if we did we could never try to duplicate it, and even if we did try it would be impossible because we would have to have the knowledge of God...But it's good enough theory to stake your eternal destination on.Because you have a couple pieces of the puzzle figured out.I know I know...No we know it works, but we just aren't capable of showing it, because the scientific method of recreation, observation and confirmation are passe when it comes to the entire meaning of life.I know I know...that's not what it means, you guys are just afraid to look too close.I know I know you guys aren't afraid, you are all open minded and willing to explore and open your minds to everything except this because it would be too hard.Here, I'll change this whole problem to an easy math problem.How many changes would be required to go from AABTCCTTBBAA * 100,000 lines of code in a simple DNA strand for a single cell organism to get the DNA strand of a human which is closer to AABTCCTTBBAA * 3,000,000,000? if each change was only correct .25% of the time and each change occurred every second?

[hblask 1]

We have a theory of evolution, that we apparently do not understand enough about to make a general map of it's route that we know it took, and even if we did we could never try to duplicate it, and even if we did try it would be impossible because we would have to have the knowledge of God...

I haven't said that at all; in fact, if you narrow down the problem to any well-defined, specific, and reasonably-sized subset, I can tell you the exact approach to write a simulation. What people are saying is that going from single cell to sentient life in any reasonable amount of detail is beyond the scope of all the programmers, biologists, and geneticists working together for hundreds of years. Narrow down the problem to a manageable size, and I can explain how to find a solution. In other words, any specific problem can be explained in any detail you want; but the overall problem requires expertise from thousands of areas of research and years of programming.

Here, I'll change this whole problem to an easy math problem.How many changes would be required to go from AABTCCTTBBAA * 100,000 lines of code in a simple DNA strand for a single cell organism to get the DNA strand of a human which is closer to AABTCCTTBBAA * 3,000,000,000? if each change was only correct .25% of the time and each change occurred every second?

This is probably a manageable math problem.For example, if the chance of adding a letter is 0.001%, and that change gives a 5% chance of survival and a 95% chance of DOA, and the chance of subtracting a letter is the same, but gives a 0.5% chance of survival and 99.5% death (since presumably those genes exist for a reason in most cases), we can do some simple math, so that: Genes_t+1 = (genes_t) + ((0.00001) * (0.05)) + ((0.00001) * (0.005))when averaged over millions of iterations of t+1You can substitute in any number you like for chances of survival and chance of death for both adding and subtracting genes. If you want to make it slightly more complicated, instead of making survival or death binary, you could make each change have a percentage chance of increasing or decreasing survival by a certain percentage instead of the way I did it. I think you'd quickly get a calculus and or differential equation problem that is probably beyond the scope of this forum, but the general idea is intuitive enough.Looking this over, I see a problem, in that the equation gives fractional genes, so you'd probably have to use some discrete probablility functions rather than what I've shown. LLY is probably one of the few people here who could do it without much research, but what would be the point? If he writes the exact mathematics, would you be convinced of anything?

[Balloon guy 158]

I haven't said that at all; in fact, if you narrow down the problem to any well-defined, specific, and reasonably-sized subset, I can tell you the exact approach to write a simulation. What people are saying is that going from single cell to sentient life in any reasonable amount of detail is beyond the scope of all the programmers, biologists, and geneticists working together for hundreds of years. Narrow down the problem to a manageable size, and I can explain how to find a solution. In other words, any specific problem can be explained in any detail you want; but the overall problem requires expertise from thousands of areas of research and years of programming.

Again, we are apparently not going to try to do what I want to do...that's cool, let's do everything you guys want to do, in my forum.But I think you guys were being a little picky in the whole, everything must be perfect attitude. We could have come up with a rough outline of the direction life took since we have the fossil records and all this knowledge of evolution that we can make television shows on Discovery about that explain how everything else happened, but when I want to ask it's noooo we would need a billion years of data collection.It's cool, I was being uhh selfish I guess.

This is probably a manageable math problem.For example, if the chance of adding a letter is 0.001%, and that change gives a 5% chance of survival and a 95% chance of DOA, and the chance of subtracting a letter is the same, but gives a 0.5% chance of survival and 99.5% death (since presumably those genes exist for a reason in most cases), we can do some simple math, so that: Genes_t+1 = (genes_t) + ((0.00001) * (0.05)) + ((0.00001) * (0.005))when averaged over millions of iterations of t+1You can substitute in any number you like for chances of survival and chance of death for both adding and subtracting genes. If you want to make it slightly more complicated, instead of making survival or death binary, you could make each change have a percentage chance of increasing or decreasing survival by a certain percentage instead of the way I did it. I think you'd quickly get a calculus and or differential equation problem that is probably beyond the scope of this forum, but the general idea is intuitive enough.

See, it's an easy fix done in a few minutes of a smart man's time. Now what exactly does that thingy up there with all the '(''s and ')''s mean?and how long did it take in years.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Here, I'll change this whole problem to an easy math problem.How many changes would be required to go from AABTCCTTBBAA * 100,000 lines of code in a simple DNA strand for a single cell organism to get the DNA strand of a human which is closer to AABTCCTTBBAA * 3,000,000,000? if each change was only correct .25% of the time and each change occurred every second?

I hope that someone answers this question to your satisfaction.But please keep in mind that we're working backwards from a particular gene sequence among a very large set of possible sequences that generate very interesting species. The human race exactly as it is is mind bogglingly unlikely. The only reason we're interested in exactly as it is is because it's the case that actually occurred.It's the same principle that spawns all sorts of meaningless poker questions. Suppose, for instance, the board in hold'em comes out 2 4 6 8 T . That's an interesting pattern, so someone asks, "Wow, what are the chances of that?" Someone else gets out his abacus and declares,"3 in a billion." Surely someone stacked the deck, right? There must be an intelligent shuffler. Well, no. There are many, many interesting patterns; so it's not so unlikely that an interesting pattern occurred.

[Balloon guy 158]

I hope that someone answers this question to your satisfaction.But please keep in mind that we're working backwards from a particular gene sequence among a very large set of possible sequences that generate very interesting species. The human race exactly as it is is mind bogglingly unlikely. The only reason we're interested in exactly as it is is because it's the case that actually occurred.It's the same principle that spawns all sorts of meaningless poker questions. Suppose, for instance, the board in hold'em comes out 2 4 6 8 T . That's an interesting pattern, so someone asks, "Wow, what are the chances of that?" Someone else gets out his abacus and declares,"3 in a billion." Surely someone stacked the deck, right? There must be an intelligent shuffler. Well, no. There are many, many interesting patterns; so it's not so unlikely that an interesting pattern occurred.

I understand your point, Of course if we were all standing around on Primordial soup Day and betting on the odds of the guy in Brooklyn happening it would be impossible, yet afterward it's not relevant what the odds were of it happening, because it happened.I would point out that you are however betting that you could get from A to b within a time frame, and if said time frame doesn't allow for the possibility, then it becomes a different issue.Say I want to bet you how long would I have to flip a coin to get 1 million heads in a row? That number can be quantified. Let's say the number is 1:1 hundred trillion, so if I say you get 1 hundred trillion tries then you can say the odds allow for the possibility. However, if I say you only get 4 billion tries, you can actually declare the odds to be insurmountably and therefore it isn't possible.So what would the odds be to go from a functioning 100,000 bit data strand to a functioning 3 billion bit data strand? And could it happen by chance ( with natural selection ) in the time frame we have of 4 billion years ( actually less since we had a cooling off period after the formation of the planet thing, but I'll give you the full 4 billion years )

[Balloon guy 158]

The mechanism is natural selection. You know that.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...0&start=240

[hblask 1]

But I think you guys were being a little picky in the whole, everything must be perfect attitude. We could have come up with a rough outline of the direction life took since we have the fossil records and all this knowledge of evolution that we can make television shows on Discovery about that explain how everything else happened, but when I want to ask it's noooo we would need a billion years of data collection.

Again, specify the level of detail, then. You are asking for a huge solution without being very specific about what answer would satisfy you.

See, it's an easy fix done in a few minutes of a smart man's time. Now what exactly does that thingy up there with all the '(''s and ')''s mean?and how long did it take in years.

It took at least 3.5 billion years, and probably less than 5 billion. I'll go with 3.8 billion.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Well I was using the evolutionist beliefs to 'prove' my argument that left alone, children would arrive at the Biblical view. They are the ones required to prove this, not me who believes that God created us and then spoke of His love for us directly to us.

You know, by using this logic and being ironic, you are dodging my question. You do it with wit and we always buy it and move on, but I want to know: if we began again at the beginning, do you believe that Christianity would be replicable in a new population unexposed to it?

[uncooper 1]

I understand your point, Of course if we were all standing around on Primordial soup Day and betting on the odds of the guy in Brooklyn happening it would be impossible, yet afterward it's not relevant what the odds were of it happening, because it happened.I would point out that you are however betting that you could get from A to b within a time frame, and if said time frame doesn't allow for the possibility, then it becomes a different issue.Say I want to bet you how long would I have to flip a coin to get 1 million heads in a row? That number can be quantified. Let's say the number is 1:1 hundred trillion, so if I say you get 1 hundred trillion tries then you can say the odds allow for the possibility. However, if I say you only get 4 billion tries, you can actually declare the odds to be insurmountably and therefore it isn't possible.So what would the odds be to go from a functioning 100,000 bit data strand to a functioning 3 billion bit data strand? And could it happen by chance ( with natural selection ) in the time frame we have of 4 billion years ( actually less since we had a cooling off period after the formation of the planet thing, but I'll give you the full 4 billion years )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[vbnautilus 48]

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...0&start=240

...but not so well.

[Balloon guy 158]

You know, by using this logic and being ironic, you are dodging my question. You do it with wit and we always buy it and move on, but I want to know: if we began again at the beginning, do you believe that Christianity would be replicable in a new population unexposed to it?

No it would not, because it never has created itself in the past. It was given to us directly from God. So it had an outside source that directed it's birth.

[Balloon guy 158]

Again, specify the level of detail, then. You are asking for a huge solution without being very specific about what answer would satisfy you.

And yet you guys assumed we needed to go straight to knowing the placement of every atom in the universe to represent how difficult it would be.

It took at least 3.5 billion years, and probably less than 5 billion. I'll go with 3.8 billion.

Dang..that kind of backfired on me.

[crowTrobot 2]

So what would the odds be to go from a functioning 100,000 bit data strand to a functioning 3 billion bit data strand? And could it happen by chance ( with natural selection ) in the time frame we have of 4 billion years ( actually less since we had a cooling off period after the formation of the planet thing, but I'll give you the full 4 billion years )

the YEC society just called. you're being disbarred.

[Mills 0]

You should know, that you are fighting a losing battle out of the gate.When you say evolution is a "theory" and not a "fact," You are displaying a great ignorance of scientific termanology.Despite what you might think, the word "theory" as it is used in the scientific community has a much different meaning than the one you or I might give to it in colloquial terms....In scientific Terms, a theory is : "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another."So you see, your statement that a theory is not a fact is off base from the jump, a theory works with nothing but facts.Think of it this way... would you ever say that germ theory is not good enough because it is just a theory? How about atomic theory?