You memory fails you very,very badly. On April 24, 1995, 16:13:26 EST I
wrote:
>>While I agree that a computer program is not life, neither is the
mathematical pendulum equation the pendulum.That equation assumes a
point mass , a weightless string and small displacements. With all those
approximations the pendulum equation is sufficient to run my Grandfather
clock. I contend that the nonlinear dynamics is the mechanims by which
living systems mutate."
And in the post that announced the programs on May 9, 1995, 23:02 edt I
wrote:
>> While I will surely be criticised for "thinking screen creatures =
living creatures", I am aware of the limitations. Living systems have
billions of bytes in their genomes, while mine only have 8. But in both
systems, the majority of possible mutations are lethal to the well being of
the reproductive system. I have eliminated all lethal mutations so that
the effect can be shown in a reasonable time frame. This analogy is based
upon the concept that there is a reasonable correspondance between the
role DNA plays in living systems with the role the program plays in
producing screen "creatures".<<
Your assumption is flawed. I never said what you said I did!
Robert Van de Water wrote:
>1) I will go further then Glenn. I will say that non-linear dynamics
can be used to simulate any CONCEIVABLE pattern of life. In other words,
give me any pattern of life you can conceive of and I will simulate it for
you on
a personal computer using a system of linear and non-linear equations. Do
you want evolution that depends on the phase of the moon? Coming right up.
Evolution that depends on the number of nose hairs in a given population? No
problem.<<
Yes, I would like to see these. How long will it take you to write these
programs? I especially want to see the nose-hair program.
The fact that there are an infinite number of programs which can be written
does not mean that the phenomena they are attempting to model is
modelled correctly. A good model must capture the essence of
the phenomena it is explaining.
A program which models the big bang, would have little need for a nose-hair
program. Neither does a successful model of life need a nose-hair program.
Nose-hair is irrelevant to the physical phenomena.
Robert wrote:
>>Most important is the way Glenn generates "progeny". Each "organism"
>is represented by a point (XA,YA) but two successive generations are
>not related in any way that is even close to physical reality. This
>is because of Glenn's choice of the function f.
>
> XA = ABS ( COS( XA/3 - A*/3))
>
>now if (XA, YA) represents a point in some protein, codon or
>nucleotide space, then f MUST be of the following form to be realistic:
>
> XA' = XA + R
>
>where R is some vector that gets you from the point that represents
>the parent to the point that represents the progeny. Now R can be
any function of XA' that >you like, though it won't be realistic if it is
not selected
>properly. <<
Robert, you misunderstand the model. You get an F in reading programs!
You need to take a second look at this code which I will put at the end of
this post again.
A living system consistes of a genome and a body. The genome, G,
produces a living body by some type of mapping process F. The nature
of the mapping F is unknown to biophysicists today and is probably very,
very complex. But we don't know what it is. So I take a genome of 8
numbers, X(a) and Y(a), where a goes from 1 to 4. A full cycle consists
of a mutation to the genome, which I will label little g, and the mapping
of g by the function,f. The mapping, f, produces the screen 'body' . This
sequence is iterated over and over.
Does this sequence mimick life? Yes. My parents genes had some
mutations their parents didn't have. These were passed on to me. I now
pass those, and a few additional ones on to my kids. My parents genes
underwent mapping into my body by the unknown function F. This produced
my body. My genes were mutated, mixed with my wife's and those genes
were sent through F and produced my children's bodies.
You claim that I use the function XA = ABS ( COS( XA/3 - A*/3)) where
you define XA as the genomic points. This is not at all what I used. My
program does use X(a) and Y(a) for the genomic points, but I use the
variable x and y for the body mapping. Here is line 60 of the basic code I
posted a few months ago.
60 Y=ABS(COS(2*(Y-Y(A))/3)):X=ABS(COS(2*(X-X(A))/3)):A1=ABS(X-160)+A1
As you can see it is not of the form XA = ABS ( COS( XA/3 - A*/3))!!!
Read your basic books. y does not equal y(a).
Your "facts" are wrong!!!
You suggested that function of XA'=XA+R is the correct function I should
use.
Let the first XA=1 and R=1. Given enough iterations this function goes to
either
infinity. You now have a program which
counts from 1 to infinity. How does that model life? If R = 1/xa then (it is
late
and I am not going to look it up) the answer is vastly different but
unrelated to life.
Robert Van de Water wrote:
>>Speaking of Yockey, Glenn and I had a bit of an argument a while back
which I am now able to shed some more light on. I said that Yockey's
calculation would probably have to be adjusted for the fact that there were
sequences within his set of 10^93 that would actually be harmful to a given
organism (and thus these sequences would not be functionally equivalent).
Glenn asked me if I had any evidence for this and I was unable to answer
him. AS it turns out, there is a well known phenomena that supports my
contention. This is the phenomena of inter-species rejection. When (for
medical
purposes) a protein from one species is injected into an individual of
another
species, a common result is rejection by the immune system. This shows that
a
protein sequence must be compatible with the organism or it can cause harmful
effects and that not all of the 10^93 cytochrome C sequences are truly
equivalent.<<
All I will say is that you had better re-read Yockey. The definition of a
functional
equivalent only entails whether or not the molecule will perform the function
that
cytochrome c performs. The phenomena of rejection is not the issue. While
after a while, I may reject pig cytochrome c or pig insulin, the pig does not
reject
those chemicals. They perform the same function in the pig as mine form of
cytochrome or insulin performs in me. They are functional equivalents.
glenn
Program
5 RANDOMIZE:CLS:KEY OFF:SCREEN 9:AA=0
6
LINE(0,0)-(0,480),3:LINE(0,0)-(620,0),3:LINE(620,0)-(620,480),3:LINE(620,349)-
(0,349),3
7
LINE(75,0)-(75,349),3:LINE(150,0)-(150,349),3:LINE(225,0)-(225,349),3:LINE(300
,0)-(300,349),3:LINE(375,0)-(375,349),3:LINE(450,0)-(450,349),3:LINE(525,0)-(5
25,349),3
8
LINE(0,75)-(620,75),3:LINE(0,150)-(620,150),3:LINE(0,225)-(620,225),3:LINE(0,3
00)-(620,300),3
10 DIM X(4),Y(4):E=10
20 X(1)=0:X(2)=0:X(3)=0:X(4)=0
30 Y(1)=0:Y(2)=0:Y(3)=0:Y(4)=0:X=.84:Y=.84:Z=.84
35 X1=X(1):X2=X(2):X3=X(3):X4=X(4):Y1=Y(1):Y2=Y(2):Y3=Y(3):Y4=Y(4)
40 REM
50 A=INT(4*RND)+1:REM PRINT A,Y-Y(A),Y,Y(A)
55 L=L+1
60 Y=ABS(COS(2*(Y-Y(A))/3)):X=ABS(COS(2*(X-X(A))/3)):A1=ABS(X-160)+A1
61 Z=ABS(COS(2*(X+Y+Z)/2)):IF Z>.1 THEN CC=1
62 IF Z>.2 THEN CC=2
63 IF Z>.3 THEN CC=3
64 IF Z>.4 THEN CC=4
65 IF Z>.5 THEN CC=5
66 IF Z>.6 THEN CC=6
67 IF Z>.7 THEN CC=7
68 IF (40*X+CNT*75+30<CNT*75) OR (40*X>CNT*75+75) THEN GOTO 80
69 IF (40*Y+CNT2*75+30<CNT2*75) OR (40*Y>CNT2*75+75) THEN GOTO 80
70 LINE((
40*X+CNT*75+30),40*Y+CNT2*75+30)-((40*X+CNT*75+30),40*Y+CNT2*75+30),CC
80 REM LOCATE 1,24:PRINT A1
90 IF L=5000 THEN GOSUB 1000
95 IF CNT2=4 THEN GOTO 200
100 GOTO 40
200 END
1000 B=INT(4*RND)+1:C=INT(2*RND)+1:rem mutation
1001 REM B 2000
1005 F1=16
1010 IF B=1 AND C=1 THEN X(1)=X(1)+INT(F1*(RND-.5) )
1020 IF B=2 AND C=1 THEN X(2)=X(2)+INT(F1*(RND-.5))
1030 IF B=3 AND C=1 THEN X(3)=X(3)+INT(F1*(RND-.5))
1035 IF B=4 AND C=1 THEN X(4)=X(4)+INT(F1*(RND-.5))
1040 IF B=1 AND C=2 THEN Y(1)=Y(1)+INT(F1*(RND-.5))
1050 IF B=2 AND C=2 THEN Y(2)=Y(2)+INT(F1*(RND-.5))
1060 IF B=3 AND C=2 THEN Y(3)=Y(3)+INT(F1*(RND-.5))
1065 IF B=4 AND C=2 THEN Y(4)=Y(4)+INT(F1*(RND-.5))
1070 L=0:CNT=CNT+1
1071 IF CNT=8 THEN CNT=0:CNT2=CNT2+1
1075 REM LOCATE 1,24:PRINT X(1);X(2);X(3);X(4);Y(1);Y(2);Y(3);Y(4);B;C
1080 RETURN