The Evolution Computer Simulator

[BaseJester 1]

To make this work, we'd have to be able to model the environment, which includes the weather. We're not very good at predicting weather even from week to week. I don't think this a big problem for the theory specifically, though. It's more of a statement about our lack of ability to model very complex things.We 'know' that trees grow, but we couldn't produce a model that predicts accurately how much or in what shape a particular tree will grow in a year. We can, however, see that trees in the past have grown and can confidently predict that trees will continue to grow in the future.

[Balloon guy 158]

To make this work, we'd have to be able to model the environment, which includes the weather. We're not very good at predicting weather even from week to week. I don't think this a big problem for the theory specifically, though. It's more of a statement about our lack of ability to model very complex things.We 'know' that trees grow, but we couldn't produce a model that predicts accurately how much or in what shape a particular tree will grow in a year. We can, however, see that trees in the past have grown and can confidently predict that trees will continue to grow in the future.

Well with a large enough computer, we could easily model a tree's 50 year growth cycle and try out every single possible weather pattern and come up with the one that best fits the current condition of the tree and then claim that this one is good enough of a model for government work.So the problem isn't can't do it, it's: don't want to try from all you guys.

[speedz99 145]

But clearly a successful model would be able to catch that at some point it is on a tangent that will not be successful to arrive at it's destination, and like a chess program looking at multiple options, it would be able to pick the one that gets it to where it's going.

The point is we can't model the environment closely enough to make an evolutionary simulation realistic.Look, yes, if we had the genetic code of the first multicellular organism that is our furthest ancestor, we could generate a sequence of additions and mutations that would lead us to where we are new. But that's just putting together a jigsaw puzzle.

resistance as an evolutionary trait, or inherently resistant and misapplied evolutionary credit to it's rapid adaptation?

Adaptation and subsequent shift in population due to passing it to the next generation is evolution...what's misapplied about that? Maybe I don't understand the question.

How about we pick out a dozen major points of our evolutionary tree to use as benchmarks for our simulator to reach in order to stop looking at multiple branches.So we start with the single cell, and then get to a what? in order to say we have reached stage one?Once we get a dozen points, we can then easily split each gap into more manageable goals, allowing for our computer model to have a sequence of actions that gets us from the first step to the last one.so let's try to come up with a few major points, before we try to break these down into smaller ones.

The human genome has approximately 3 billion base pairs. What exactly do you want us to do here? Like I said, yeah, we could build it via a bunch of different mechansims...but it's kind of a useless effort since it in no way would show how the human genome was actually created.

[Randy Reed 0]

To make this work, we'd have to be able to model the environment, which includes the weather. We're not very good at predicting weather even from week to week. I don't think this a big problem for the theory specifically, though. It's more of a statement about our lack of ability to model very complex things.We 'know' that trees grow, but we couldn't produce a model that predicts accurately how much or in what shape a particular tree will grow in a year. We can, however, see that trees in the past have grown and can confidently predict that trees will continue to grow in the future.

there you go with the science stuff again. If you can't make a simple computer simulation predicting exactly how a tree will grow up to be a cab driver why am I supposed to believe in trees?

[speedz99 145]

Well with a large enough computer, we could easily model a tree's 50 year growth cycle and try out every single possible weather pattern and come up with the one that best fits the current condition of the tree and then claim that this one is good enough of a model for government work.So the problem isn't can't do it, it's: don't want to try from all you guys.

You think it's possible to input every possible weather pattern for the past few billion years? And, don't forget, interactions with other organisms is in play. You also need to model the evolution of every plant and animal to ever walk the face of the earth. Considering the fact that we don't have any records of most of them, re-creating that seems pretty impossible to me. It's not that we don't want to, obviously it'd be cool as hell. It just doesn't seem possible.

[Balloon guy 158]

The point is we can't model the environment closely enough to make an evolutionary simulation realistic.Look, yes, if we had the genetic code of the first multicellular organism that is our furthest ancestor, we could generate a sequence of additions and mutations that would lead us to where we are new. But that's just putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Adaptation and subsequent shift in population due to passing it to the next generation is evolution...what's misapplied about that? Maybe I don't understand the question.The human genome has approximately 3 billion base pairs. What exactly do you want us to do here? Like I said, yeah, we could build it via a bunch of different mechansims...but it's kind of a useless effort since it in no way would show how the human genome was actually created.

So the problem isn't can't do it, it's: don't want to try from all you guys.

[hblask 1]

OK, I'll give it a little try. The first problem involves figuring out what physical arrangement of atoms gives certain characteristics. But say we've figured that out.So first we start with a simulation that contains every atom in the universe, it's current state at the start of the simulation, and it's chances of interacting with every other atom, and the exact timing and result of that interaction. Now we increment time by one one-billionth of a second, and run that simulation a billion-billion times. Then we analyze every atom that interacted with another, and determine the result. Since we've figured out what the physical arrangements mean in the real world, we can determine all the probabilities of interactions at time + (2/1,000,000,000). And so on.At each stage, we look at the molecules and determine if each one, under certain conditions, will chemically bond to other atoms floating around to eventually build an image (a body double) of itself. Then we determine the strength of that bond. So let's say that at each time increment, there is a one in 1.0E1,000,000,000,000,000 chance that the atom will bond to a string of atoms similar to itself. So now, after a few seconds, we can determine how many self-replicating atoms we have. For each of these we have to determine what are the chances that such a molecule will eventually break into two equal parts, with each part going off in different directions and collecting random atoms to build an image of itself again. Perhaps the thing that breaks it apart is temperature changes, so if this molecule is on a comet orbiting the sun, every 10,000 years it heats up and the molecules break into two similar pieces that then create self-images. Or maybe it's in a thermal vent under the ocean that circulates continuously. Or maybe it's on a planet that rotates every 24 hours creating cool periods of darkness followed by warmer periods of light. Also, it could have lots of cosmic rays that can break apart the molecules a certain percentage of the time, or rearrange a few of the atoms.So now, we have a bunch of molecules that collect up images of themselves from the raw atoms in the environment, then split into two such molecules. Every so often, it makes a mistake and substitutes a "wrong" atom in. This could mean it can no longer collect atoms and no longer replicates, or it could become better at it. It could also provide a "shell" for the molecule so that it is less likely to be broken apart by physical forces, but only binds on one side instead of in the full three dimensions.So let's start there. You write that program, and tell me how it works, and we can decide where to go from there. Because really, you only need that first self-replicating molecule. Everything after that is just trivial details.

[Balloon guy 158]

You think it's possible to input every possible weather pattern for the past few billion years? And, don't forget, interactions with other organisms is in play. You also need to model the evolution of every plant and animal to ever walk the face of the earth. Considering the fact that we don't have any records of most of them, re-creating that seems pretty impossible to me. It's not that we don't want to, obviously it'd be cool as hell. It just doesn't seem possible.

So the problem isn't can't do it, it's: don't want to try from all you guys.

[Balloon guy 158]

OK, I'll give it a little try. The first problem involves figuring out what physical arrangement of atoms gives certain characteristics. But say we've figured that out.So first we start with a simulation that contains every atom in the universe, it's current state at the start of the simulation, and it's chances of interacting with every other atom, and the exact timing and result of that interaction. Now we increment time by one one-billionth of a second, and run that simulation a billion-billion times. Then we analyze every atom that interacted with another, and determine the result. Since we've figured out what the physical arrangements mean in the real world, we can determine all the probabilities of interactions at time + (2/1,000,000,000). And so on.At each stage, we look at the molecules and determine if each one, under certain conditions, will chemically bond to other atoms floating around to eventually build an image (a body double) of itself. Then we determine the strength of that bond. So let's say that at each time increment, there is a one in 1.0E1,000,000,000,000,000 chance that the atom will bond to a string of atoms similar to itself. So now, after a few seconds, we can determine how many self-replicating atoms we have. For each of these we have to determine what are the chances that such a molecule will eventually break into two equal parts, with each part going off in different directions and collecting random atoms to build an image of itself again. Perhaps the thing that breaks it apart is temperature changes, so if this molecule is on a comet orbiting the sun, every 10,000 years it heats up and the molecules break into two similar pieces that then create self-images. Or maybe it's in a thermal vent under the ocean that circulates continuously. Or maybe it's on a planet that rotates every 24 hours creating cool periods of darkness followed by warmer periods of light. Also, it could have lots of cosmic rays that can break apart the molecules a certain percentage of the time, or rearrange a few of the atoms.So now, we have a bunch of molecules that collect up images of themselves from the raw atoms in the environment, then split into two such molecules. Every so often, it makes a mistake and substitutes a "wrong" atom in. This could mean it can no longer collect atoms and no longer replicates, or it could become better at it. It could also provide a "shell" for the molecule so that it is less likely to be broken apart by physical forces, but only binds on one side instead of in the full three dimensions.So let's start there. You write that program, and tell me how it works, and we can decide where to go from there. Because really, you only need that first self-replicating molecule. Everything after that is just trivial details.

See speedz...all it took was a little effort.Okay:REM:THIS IS THE FIRSTLINE OF MY SUPERCOOL PROGRAMREM:REM: Vairable applicationsA=(1)BOkay, I need a little help here on

[Balloon guy 158]

Well with a large enough computer, we could easily model a tree's 50 year growth cycle and try out every single possible weather pattern and come up with the one that best fits the current condition of the tree and then claim that this one is good enough of a model for government work.

You think it's possible to input every possible weather pattern for the past few billion years? And, don't forget, interactions with other organisms is in play. You also need to model the evolution of every plant and animal to ever walk the face of the earth. Considering the fact that we don't have any records of most of them, re-creating that seems pretty impossible to me. It's not that we don't want to, obviously it'd be cool as hell. It just doesn't seem possible.

This is going to take forever if you don't read what I write before you tell me why I am wrong

[Balloon guy 158]

The point is we can't model the environment closely enough to make an evolutionary simulation realistic.

How about I grant you that whatever outside environmental condition occurs, it will not kill your beneficial mutation 25% of the time? I mean I think I am being pretty generous here with giving you a 25% chance for continuation here.

[hblask 1]

See speedz...all it took was a little effort.Okay:REM:THIS IS THE FIRSTLINE OF MY SUPERCOOL PROGRAMREM:REM: Vairable applicationsA=(1)BOkay, I need a little help here on

for i = 1 to 1,000,000,000,000 callsub next_generation ()next iI will leave it as an exercise to you to write the subroutine next_generation ()

[Balloon guy 158]

for i = 1 to 1,000,000,000,000 callsub next_generation ()next iI will leave it as an exercise to you to write the subroutine next_generation ()

That's not Pascal or FORTRAN...so I may need a little help here.I know, how about we begin to PROBLEM SOLVE THIS instead of quitting before we try?Man you guys would be fun in a real world environment of trying to solve a problem.

[speedz99 145]

This is going to take forever if you don't read what I write before you tell me why I am wrong

You...don't understand why at the moment it may be possible to model the growth of one tree but not be able to model every second of every day of the last ten billion years including the behavior of every living organism? This...doesn't make sense to you?You realize that humans and computers do have some limitations at the moment, yes? I mean, maybe it's possible, but I don't think so. And obviously I don't know how to do it, and neither does anyone else on this forum, so what's the point of discussing it? What are you trying to get out of this conversation? We all admit that nobody knows the exact step-by-step history of [first eukaryotic cell > guy hailing cab].

[speedz99 145]

How about I grant you that whatever outside environmental condition occurs, it will not kill your beneficial mutation 25% of the time? I mean I think I am being pretty generous here with giving you a 25% chance for continuation here.

Yeah, but the weather (and other plants and animals in the immediate environment at any given point in time) is a large part of what dictates whether a mutation is beneficial or not. It's not nearly as simple as "weather will or won't kill single mutation".

[hblask 1]

You...don't understand why at the moment it may be possible to model the growth of one tree but not be able to model every second of every day of the last ten billion years including the behavior of every living organism? This...doesn't make sense to you?You realize that humans and computers do have some limitations at the moment, yes?

See, that's why I limited the simulation to just the first blip of time of free-floating molecules, and searching for some that attract more or less similar molecules to themselves. Solve the small problem first, the rest is cake. The universe can run that simulation a (possibly) infinite number of times every second, but if we got every computer in the world to work together, we could probably run a few minutes worth of the simulation before everyone on this forum is dead.Then after it solves that, maybe it can solve the question of whether to us "a" or "an" before the parentheses in that sentence.

[hblask 1]

That's not Pascal or FORTRAN...so I may need a little help here.

Yeah, I don't know what language it is... pseudo-BASIC? I use or have used too many languages to keep track of the format of each one.I'd probably recommend against trying to write this in either FORTRAN or BASIC.

[Balloon guy 158]

Start--------way point---------way point---------way point---------way point--------way point-------way point------Brooklyn----- = If X mutation occurs it is beneficial B # of times and it survives S # of times, producing a new organism than we can reapply variables to. We will need to assign a time to each occurrence of ----- to better track our needed goalsX is a random mutation sub routine that creates a change in the DNA sequencing by adding 33.3% of the time, subtracting 33.3% of the time, and making no change 33.3% of the time. .1% of the time it will wild card and give us a large burst of 100 changes in order to simulate aliensB is yes .005% of the timeS is 25% of the timeIf after the time frame needed by our way point checks this change is not reached, the computer program goes back and beings again. Obviously the more way points we establish, the easier it will be to track the computer and allow for the large numbers of times that we need for this model to formulate itself.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, I don't know what language it is... pseudo-BASIC? I use or have used too many languages to keep track of the format of each one.I'd probably recommend against trying to write this in either FORTRAN or BASIC.

This was the one that got us to the moon....LOL If you believe this and don't know that the entire moon landing was done on a sound stage in Burbank.

[Balloon guy 158]

You...don't understand why at the moment it may be possible to model the growth of one tree but not be able to model every second of every day of the last ten billion years including the behavior of every living organism? This...doesn't make sense to you?You realize that humans and computers do have some limitations at the moment, yes? I mean, maybe it's possible, but I don't think so. And obviously I don't know how to do it, and neither does anyone else on this forum, so what's the point of discussing it? What are you trying to get out of this conversation? We all admit that nobody knows the exact step-by-step history of [first eukaryotic cell > guy hailing cab].

Negative Negative Negative. I can't have all your negativity around me

[speedz99 145]

All that simulation would prove is that we can get from one genome to another. For example:Genome A: ACCTGGATCGGenome B: ACCCTTAGGCGTCGAAGTCGCTAGGGAATCTAGATCWell, yeah, we can get from A to B...we could get from any A to any B.

[Balloon guy 158]

All that simulation would prove is that we can get from one genome to another. For example:Genome A: ACCTGGATCGGenome B: ACCCTTAGGCGTCGAAGTCGCTAGGGAATCTAGATCWell, yeah, we can get from A to B...we could get from any A to any B.

It would also prove whether we need to be looking for another explanation of mutations and change in the make up of our evolution.It would also show us whether 4 billion years is enough time, or whether we need to tack on another couple billions years.And it would show us that all those people that argue that the complexity of the human race is far too complex to have happened randomly without Intelligent Design behind it are right/wrong.

[hblask 1]

All that simulation would prove is that we can get from one genome to another. For example:Genome A: ACCTGGATCGGenome B: ACCCTTAGGCGTCGAAGTCGCTAGGGAATCTAGATCWell, yeah, we can get from A to B...we could get from any A to any B.

Exactly. And we can get from "random disorganized molecules" to "A".And "random disorganized molecules" to "C".And from "A" and "C' to "AC".So where is the problem? I mean, do we really need to write a simulation to show that, if you put enough hydrogen and carbon and oxygen molecules in a given space, that they will eventually interact?What are we exactly trying to prove? Each micro-step can be explained in enough detail that we could write a simulation. It would take trillions of man-hours to write a full simulation to go from random molecules to sentient life. So what are we looking for here?Really, OP, if you just want plausible theories of how each micro-step could've occurred, just ask. I don't believe that you really expect anyone to write a simulation, or to give enough details to write such a simulation. But give me a small enough part of the problem (e.g., the first self-replicating molecule) and I can write a simulation for that:function boolean SelfReplicateTest () { long chance_of_replication = 1000000000000000; // chance is one in this number long iterations = 1000000000000000 // how many iterations to run for i = 1 to iterations { x= random (chance_of_replication); if (x == 1) { // then replicating molecule created return true; } }return false;}

[speedz99 145]

It would also prove whether we need to be looking for another explanation of mutations and change in the make up of our evolution.And it would show us that all those people that argue that the complexity of the human race is far too complex to have happened randomly without Intelligent Design behind it are right/wrong.

I'm saying that if we don't include all of the incredibly complex variables I have been talking about, it won't prove anything either way. Of course we can go from A to B, the important question you seem to be asking is if it's realistic to do so within the context of the last 4 billion years of the earth's existence.

It would also show us whether 4 billion years is enough time, or whether we need to tack on another couple billions years.

What's a billion here and there if you think the earth was created six thousand years ago?

[speedz99 145]

What are we exactly trying to prove? Each micro-step can be explained in enough detail that we could write a simulation. It would take trillions of man-hours to write a full simulation to go from random molecules to sentient life. So what are we looking for here?

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.