From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
>Chris
>Thanks, Steve.
>
>I'll look it over. I see a general problem with it already, in that many
>of the items listed should *evolve* from others, and should not be included
>as a basic part of the simulation. For example, a really good simulation of
>evolution would start "at the beginning," with nothing more than a
>simulation of suitable physics and chemistry, and the rest would all be
>evolved from that starting point. Nevertheless, I think the list is
>valuable and probably could be extended.
>
>However, much about evolution can be studied *without* many of these
>features.
Yes. It's in the nature of a simulation that it's based on an abstracted
model of reality. For total accuracy, we would have to simulate every
sub-atomic particle, which is clearly impossible. The point of a simulation
is to model the significant features of the system in question while
abstracting out the insignificant details. That always leaves the
possibility that we have omitted some feature that we don't know about or
consider to be insignificant, but which in reality *is* significant. But
that's life. Science is not perfect.
>For example, one claim is that random processes, even repeated
>and cumulative, cannot produce complexity. This is not a specific claim
>about DNA-based evolution, but much more general claim. It can therefore be
>studied with simulations that do not represent DNA at all, but merely a
>process that demonstrates whether complexity *can* be accumulated by this
>kind of process. Similar considerations apply to selection.
Agreed.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
>At 05:20 AM 10/16/2000, you wrote:
>>On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 02:31:35 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>> >DB>1) Your list of 47 specific aspects that should be considered in any
>> >>"evolution simulating" program is quite impressive.
>>
>>Thanks to David
>>
>> >CC>Where did you see this list of 47 specific aspects? I tried to find a
>> post
>> >by Stephen on the 5th that had such a list, but was unsuccessful.
>>
>>Here it is again:
>>
>>===================================================
>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:11:34 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>> >WE>Certainly the further work of Holland and others in
>> >>evolutionary computation
>>
>>SJ>I am interested in how biologically realistic and therefore relevant
>>these so-
>> >called genetic algorithms of "Holland and others" were.
>> >
>> >A basic sexually reproducing eukaryote system has the following (grossly
>> >*simplified*) components that all play a part in reproduction and
>> >inheritance and therefore any mutation and selection. Do "Hollland and
>> >others" computer simulations have the silicon equivalent of:
>> >
>> >1. bodies?
>> >2. reproductive systems?
>> >3. cells?
>> >4. membranes?
>> >5. cytoplasm?
>> >6. cytoskeleton?
>> >7. organelles?
>> >8. nucleus?
>> >9. ribosomes?
>> >10. enzymes?
>> >11. DNA?
>> >12. genes?
>> >13. gene expression?
>> >14. pleitropy?
>> >15. chromosomes?
>> >16. RNA?
>> >17. proteins?
>> >18. genetic codes (there are now known to several)
>> >19. DNA transcription?
>> >20. RNA translation?
>> >21. Error checking?
>> >22. mitosis?
>> >23. meiosis?
>> >24. crossover?
>> >25. Mendel's rules?
>> >26. fertilisation?
>> >27. zygotes?
>> >28. embryo?
>> >29. development?
>> >30. adulthood?
>> >31. populations?
>> >32. environment?
>> >33. catastrophes
>> >34. competition?
>> >35. sex?
>> >36. death?
>> >37. adaptation?
>> >38. stasis?
>> >39. extinction?
>> >40. random mutation-genetic?
>> >41. randon mutation-chromosomal?
>> >42. genetic drift?
>> >43. natural selection-stabilising?
>> >44. natural selection-disruptive?
>> >45. natural selection-directional?
>> >46. macroevolution?
>> >47. possibility of failure?
>>
>>[...]
>>===================================================
>>
>>Of course this list is not complete.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
>>having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
>>Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
>>Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 08:30:14 EDT