Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[Aric2000]

That would be fun, but since it does not exist, well, yeah, hmm. Wouldn't be much of a debate.

[js1138]

Or if it was inside out, a mini-Dyson sphere of some kind.

But then you wouldn't need a mountain, would you? Same for you x-ray vision wackos. Nope, it's flat, always has been, and it's turtles all the way down.

[AmericanAge]

Amen.

And yet, that's what they believe. That instead of creating us, like the bible says, they believe that God created a puddle of slime, and then told it "randomly change around until you become a person".

And they have the gall to compare US to flat-earthers. :P

[Theo]

A frog turning to a prince in a moment is a fairly tale. It's called "evolution" if you give the frog long enough....

[AmericanAge]

So, you want us to provide a way to falsify God?

Please, why not ask us to discover Bigfoot or count to infinity while you're at it?

[Carlucci]

"What sort of "moral lesson" is there in God creating the world? An analogy would make absolutely no sense there..."

Protoevangelium!

[Aric2000]

Indeed it is, and can you tell the difference?

I can, but then again, I do not take the bible as the literal word of god, so I have a pretty open mind about it.

Fascinating book, but if I were to take the bible literally, I would think that the god that wrote it was an absolute LOONEY tune, or at least a bit schizo.

Sorry, don't mean to be disrespectful here, but that is another reason I would hope that you would not take the bible literally.

[balrog666]

That's how you atheists... er, "bible mistrusters" (is that a better term?)... try and rationalize those who actually believe in the word of God, as it is explicitly spelled out in the Bible?

Why, the same way *YOU* rationalize about the Sikhs, the Jans, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Moslems, the Shintoists, the Voodooisants, the Wiccans, the shamanists, the Last Thursdayists, and the just-plain-crazies and all their special, little, obscure, and equally-holy books and beliefs.

[f.Christian]

... mngmt out to lunch -- permanently !

[js1138]

Being able to see all of the kingdoms of the world is a phrase.

So you are the gatekeeper who gets to say which parts of the bible are literal and which parts are metaphore?

[Grando Calrissian]

Squid Mucus!!

[balrog666]

But then you wouldn't need a mountain, would you? Same for you x-ray vision wackos. Nope, it's flat, always has been, and it's turtles all the way down.

Arg, got me! I guess I jsut haven't spent as much time studying such absurdities.

[elbucko]

but I'm determined that it shall not become the public face of the Republican party.

I'll "evolve" to that! Cheers!

[f.Christian]

... mngmt out to lunch -- permanently !

[Zeroisanumber]

The theory of Evolution doesn't state that the universe or complex life organisims came from nothing. The whole point of this experiment is to track how less complicated organisims might have mutated and evolved into highly complex organisims.

Given time, materials, and gravity, you can form a sun and planet systems out of Hydrogen. How is this any different?

[donh]

Is there a computer system that operates on a random clock cycle?

Depending on how good your microscope is, they all operate on a random clock cycle.

There are some partially async computers around. There are some truly async, clockless analog computers operating on factory floors.

Wouldn't the function yielding the random mutation have to be checked at the regular clock cycle of the computer system or some timer interval dependent upon the computer's clock cycle? Wouldn't that function have to have been programmed by somebody?

I would say this speculation is correct, but largely irrelevant. A computer simulation on an ordinary computer is going to be code-constrained by a clock. Whether this code constraint manifests itself materially in the data (the display or other consumption of the simulation) will depend on what the programmers decide to do. The random function they used is, I highly suspect, random enough for our purposes. You can find whole computer science books on this subject. We're pretty good now at for-all-practical-purposes random number generation--it's tricky, but it's not that tricky.

Isn't the "random" function, in fact, not random, but dependent upon the computer's clock cycle and the program itself? Just wondering.

Not usually. Beginners often try to generate random numbers that are, in fact, rendered non-random by the clock, in some devious manner, but by the time you are actually doing commercial work, you've figured out how not to do that.

[Carlucci]

... mngmt out to lunch -- permanently !

huh?

[webstersII]

"The evolution of the horse from a species of small, forest dwelling omnivores to a species of large plans
dwelling herbivores is confirmed by the fossil record."

This idea was debunked several years ago due to dis-similar traits in the supposed progression of the animals. Not sure if the Chicago museum still has their exhibit on display, though.

[f.Christian]

... anarcho-loons --- spores (( anthrax )) from the liberal party !

[Dimensio]

So, you want us to provide a way to falsify God?

Well, yes. A test to perform for which a specific observation -- or, more likely, lack of observation -- would indicate that God is disproven. For example, you could disprove gravity by showing that an object released within very close proximity of Earth with no nearby larger masses nor sufficiently strong opposing forces did not fall to earth.