The Evolution Computer Simulator

[Balloon guy 158]

So I was thinking of starting a thread ( which I did ) about the reasons why evolution is still a theory, not a fact.To demonstrate this I was going to mock your beliefs and use 'God did it' to smack you guys down when you got uppidity.But the more I thought about it ( seconds 14-28) I thought how about instead of a mocking tone, I use a more inquisitive one ( not to trap but to learn ) and we work together to look at the realities of my assertion that evolution cannot be honestly tracked.So the idea begins with this, you all have been saying that evolution is a fact etc, proven blah blah , all real scientist, for a while. You guys say we understand the way we have evolved to the point of being confident that every step is science, not conjecture, and there is plenty of time for this to happen on it's own.So I asked a while back, and it got largely ignored, could we write a computer program model of the course that evolution took to begin with single cell amoebas and ended with a guy in Brooklyn hailing a cab?Could we begin a series of if/then equations, taking the DNA of the first life, and allowing for changes to happen, and assigning value sets to these changes, could we eventually get to the point of a human DNA strand?So first we would have to start with the basic life DNA, with a variable length of say 100,000 bits of info on the DNA, allow for a random mutation, then calculate the chances for this mutation to continue ( ie natural selection etc. )To make this more manageable, we can ignore any branches on our evolutionary tree and just focus on the line that got us to Brooklyn.We have computers that can perform billions of calculations per second, surely this could be crunched in a few days max.I mean it happened on it's own and we understand it enough to say it's proven, let's begin to model it. Heck we spend billions to send a couple protons around a track and we don't even get to bet on which one is faster...the least we can do is spend a couple hours writing a program to show how life evolved.Luckily I took computer programming in community college for 2 semesters 24 years ago, so I got that end covered.So we need to start with how do we introduce changes to our base variable?Is it only random mutations, or are there other ways that changes can be introduced initially?

[Randy Reed 0]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/You can use this information to fill in the blanks about the evolution of hominids.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/You can use this information to fill in the blanks about the evolution of hominids.

Well if the computer model can get us there, then they will have even 'more' proof that what they are teaching at all levels of school is in fact true

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Could we begin a series of if/then equations, taking the DNA of the first life, and allowing for changes to happen, and assigning value sets to these changes, could we eventually get to the point of a human DNA strand?

This gets very difficult very fast. What you are asking is more or less impossible. One can make cute little programs that try to demonstrate "evolution" using toy models and things like that, but trying to write anything that comes close to "real" evolution would be mind-bogglingly difficult. The main issue you would face would be converting between DNA "code" and actual physical traits, and then determining how those physical traits relate to the probability of survival. We really don't understand DNA enough to do the first part. And the second part would involve calculating how different organisms interact, how they compete for resources, and how their DNA traits effect their abilities to do so.

We have computers that can perform billions of calculations per second, surely this could be crunched in a few days max.

Computers are fast, but no, this would take a while.

[Randy Reed 0]

Well if the computer model can get us there, then they will have even 'more' proof that what they are teaching at all levels of school is in fact true

If you are concerned that we should be teaching fact in school then perhaps you can get behind the fact that Jesus of Nazereth was myth and add the reading to their Aesop's fable section.http://atheists.org/The_Myth_of_Nazareth%2...eally_Matter%3FVery quick recap. Someone analyzed the geological digs of Nazareth and found no one lived their except well beforeand after Jesus's time which pretty much shows that the gospels were made up.I just wouldn't want to include him somewhere between Homo Erectus and the cab driver.

[Balloon guy 158]

This gets very difficult very fast. What you are asking is more or less impossible. One can make cute little programs that try to demonstrate "evolution" using toy models and things like that, but trying to write anything that comes close to "real" evolution would be mind-bogglingly difficult. The main issue you would face would be converting between DNA "code" and actual physical traits, and then determining how those physical traits relate to the probability of survival. We really don't understand DNA enough to do the first part. And the second part would involve calculating how different organisms interact, how they compete for resources, and how their DNA traits effect their abilities to do so.

Well if it was easy then they would already be doing this in Europe...The first part you show I was kind of hoping you could help out here. I have on my 'things to do' list to understand DNA, but so far I have put it off.The second part of course we would have to force a reasonable percentage of viability. If a change occurs, what percentage of the time would it be beneficial? I was thinking that since we are introducing random changes, this number would be quite low. but we got 4 billion years here, we can afford to waste a couple decades with almost no changes that are helpful can't we?This gets back to my question, how are changes brought into being in our single cell lifeforms and on?

Computers are fast, but no, this would take a while.

It really is dependent on the quality of the program in my mind.

[speedz99 145]

calculate the chances for this mutation to continue ( ie natural selection etc. )

You realize this calculation would have to include a simulation of everything else that's going on at the moment, yes? In essence, this program would have to re-create the evolution of every single organism on the planet (the vast majority of which we have no record of because they went extinct thousands, millions, or billions of years ago) as well as the exact conditions on the planet itself (i.e. what the weather was a billion years ago). This would be...difficult.

Is it only random mutations, or are there other ways that changes can be introduced initially?

Epigenetics. Essentially, internal and external environmental factors change the way that genes are expressed...your DNA stays the same, but certain genes are turned on or off, and thus different proteins are translated for. And since proteins do, well, pretty much everything, this can produce plenty of changes that will be passed on to the next generation.

[Balloon guy 158]

If you are concerned that we should be teaching fact in school then perhaps you can get behind the fact that Jesus of Nazereth was myth and add the reading to their Aesop's fable section.http://atheists.org/The_Myth_of_Nazareth%2...eally_Matter%3FVery quick recap. Someone analyzed the geological digs of Nazareth and found no one lived their except well beforeand after Jesus's time which pretty much shows that the gospels were made up.I just wouldn't want to include him somewhere between Homo Erectus and the cab driver.

I am going to save us time and not post my internet link to a Christian organization that spends the 1st 6 paragraphs patting itself on the back about how right they always are before it gets to the point of it's articles that counters all your link's points.Although I am curious why they admitted that the gospels were written by and during the apostles lives...thought RT proved that these were written many generations later

[Balloon guy 158]

You realize this calculation would have to include a simulation of everything else that's going on at the moment, yes? In essence, this program would have to re-create the evolution of every single organism on the planet (the vast majority of which we have no record of because they went extinct thousands, millions, or billions of years ago) as well as the exact conditions on the planet itself (i.e. what the weather was a billion years ago). This would be...difficult.

No, that would only be required if we wanted to model an exact line of evolution, we are only looking to track a rough evolutionary model, if we miss the mark by a couple million years that would be within the margin of errors.

Epigenetics. Essentially, internal and external environmental factors change the way that genes are expressed...your DNA stays the same, but certain genes are turned on or off, and thus different proteins are translated for. And since proteins do, well, pretty much everything, this can produce plenty of changes that will be passed on to the next generation.

And this occurs how often? roughly?

[speedz99 145]

If a change occurs, what percentage of the time would it be beneficial?

Very rarely. Keep in the back of your mind the fact that evolution isn't only dependent on genetic mutation. For example, the fact that cheetahs are fast isn't due to one "BE FAST!" mutation, more likely it was a "faster cheetah has a better chance of surviving to have babies" thing. There are a ton of factors involved here.Although cheetahs are a bad example considering the fact that the population has bottlenecked, isn't diverse enough, and will probably become extinct without a lot of help on our part.

This gets back to my question, how are changes brought into being in our single cell lifeforms and on?

Bacteria are single cell organisms...I'm sure you know about the whole antibiotic resistance thing.

[speedz99 145]

No, that would only be required if we wanted to model an exact line of evolution, we are only looking to track a rough evolutionary model, if we miss the mark by a couple million years that would be within the margin of errors.

The factors I named wouldn't make you miss the mark by a few million years, it would completely shift the differentiation of the species and we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

And this occurs how often? roughly?

Epigenetic changes happen all the time, but they're not sure how often they are actually passed down through enough generations to affect evolutionary shifts.For the record, I don't really care if you think we evolved from the same ancestors as monkeys. I'm just curious to see if you'll ever admit that it is physically possible.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

For the record, I don't really care if you think we evolved from the same ancestors as monkeys. I'm just curious to see if you'll ever admit that it is physically possible.

I heard that a gorilla's fully erect penis is only two inches long.So I can see why you think that.Edit: I'm probably gonna get nailed on some technicality like a gorilla isn't a monkey.

[speedz99 145]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/4...ntrasexual.htmlDisclaimer: I didn't read the whole thing and can't vouch for any scientific principles that may or may not have been included in whatever conclusions the writer has drawn.

[Balloon guy 158]

The factors I named wouldn't make you miss the mark by a few million years, it would completely shift the differentiation of the species and we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

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.

Epigenetic changes happen all the time, but they're not sure how often they are actually passed down through enough generations to affect evolutionary shifts.

Look, I can find enough reasons why we can't do this on my own. Let's try to work on finding ways TO DO THIS. Work with me here. Help me....help you

For the record, I don't really care if you think we evolved from the same ancestors as monkeys. I'm just curious to see if you'll ever admit that it is physically possible.

I have already stated a few times that I don't think evolution is bad science, meaning that it's hypothesis is based on sound principles, I only hold that these principles are improperly applied.As demonstrated in my Delorean time travel bit, science says Adam must be 18+ years old, and all that science is sound, but he was 2 days old. They don't have to both be wrong, it is possible that they are both right.

[crowTrobot 2]

So the idea begins with this, you all have been saying that evolution is a fact etc, proven blah blah , all real scientist, for a while. You guys say we understand the way we have evolved to the point of being confident that every step is science, not conjecture, and there is plenty of time for this to happen on it's own.

us all have only been saying life/species evolving by descent with modification over time has been proven. the mechanism(s) driving evolution aren't fully understood at this point, so a simulation wouldn't prove anything even if it were practical to attempt one.also even if the mechanisms were understood fully there's no reason to expect a simulation using them to end up producing humans - unless the environment of the last 3 billion years could be modeled down to the tinyest detail, which isn't remotely possible without a time machine and exponentially more computing power than exists in the entire world.

Is it only random mutations, or are there other ways that changes can be introduced initially?

very good question, and area of ongoing research. much of what makes a species unique isn't necessarily all hard coded within individual genes, but can also come from the way multiple genes interact with each other. there is evidence some forms of hereditary environmental adaptation might occur proactively through changes in complex gene interactions rather than by simple environmentally selected random mutation.

[Balloon guy 158]

Very rarely.

Of course it's very rarely, if it happened all willy nilly then we'd have people with the ability to fly and control time/space...

Keep in the back of your mind the fact that evolution isn't only dependent on genetic mutation. For example, the fact that cheetahs are fast isn't due to one "BE FAST!" mutation, more likely it was a "faster cheetah has a better chance of surviving to have babies" thing. There are a ton of factors involved here.Although cheetahs are a bad example considering the fact that the population has bottlenecked, isn't diverse enough, and will probably become extinct without a lot of help on our part.

The value we place on the change would be traceable, ie we know where we are going. So any mutation / change that begins growing gills and a wing would be considered not relevant and that branch would be abandoned so we can keep our eyes on the result we are looking for. Later we will try to trace the story line for all life...

Bacteria are single cell organisms...I'm sure you know about the whole antibiotic resistance thing.

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

[Balloon guy 158]

us all have only been saying life/species evolving by descent with modification over time has been proven. the mechanism(s) driving evolution aren't fully understood at this point, so a simulation wouldn't prove anything even if it were practical to attempt one.also even if the mechanisms were understood fully there's no reason to expect a simulation using them to end up producing humans - unless the environment of the last 3 billion years could be modeled down to the tinyest detail, which isn't remotely possible without a time machine and exponentially more computing power than exists in the entire world.

I got a Delorean if you want to borrow it.Don't let LLY drive, I always assume New Yorker's can't really drive

very good question, and area of ongoing research. much of what makes a species unique isn't necessarily all hard coded within individual genes, but can also come from the way multiple genes interact with each other. there is evidence some forms of hereditary environmental adaptation might occur proactively through changes in complex gene interactions rather than by simple environmentally selected random mutation.

Rather than, or in addition to?

[hblask 1]

I didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if someone said this, but the OP seems to be making a faulty assumption: that evolution has a direction, from simple self-replicating molecule to guy hailing a cab in New York City.It doesn't. If you could go back in time and set the conditions exactly the same as during the primordial soup, the chances that it would evolve into something resembling modern life is infinitesimally small. For one thing, those early mixtures are affected by Brownian motion, so the chances of the exact same reaction occurring at exactly the same time is basically zero.It's the difference between *you* winning the lottery, or somebody somewhere winning the lottery. There's no particular reason life had to end up *here*, it just changed over time to produce a variety of lifeforms. If you ran the simulation again using the exact same starting point and exact same rules, you could end up with a completely different set of lifeforms.So no, creating a computer program that could go from the first primordial molecule to humans as we know them is not possible. Going to something that is self-aware is much more likely, but it probably wouldn't resemble humans. I guess if you ran enough simulations to account for every three-dimensional configuration of every atom on earth with probabilities that it would be at point A at time t+1, but I think that number is too big to even consider reproducing. But it also explains why it's not so surprising that self-replicating molecules occurred at some point in that process. It only needs to happen once.

[crowTrobot 2]

Rather than, or in addition to?

that's part of what's not fully understood.

[Balloon guy 158]

I didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if someone said this, but the OP seems to be making a faulty assumption: that evolution has a direction, from simple self-replicating molecule to guy hailing a cab in New York City.

It is you making the faulty assumption, I am not saying that it will always lead to Brooklyn, only that since this one did and we 'understand' Darwinian evolution, we should be able to create a model for it.

It doesn't. If you could go back in time and set the conditions exactly the same as during the primordial soup, the chances that it would evolve into something resembling modern life is infinitesimally small. For one thing, those early mixtures are affected by Brownian motion, so the chances of the exact same reaction occurring at exactly the same time is basically zero.It's the difference between *you* winning the lottery, or somebody somewhere winning the lottery. There's no particular reason life had to end up *here*, it just changed over time to produce a variety of lifeforms. If you ran the simulation again using the exact same starting point and exact same rules, you could end up with a completely different set of lifeforms.So no, creating a computer program that could go from the first primordial molecule to humans as we know them is not possible. Going to something that is self-aware is much more likely, but it probably wouldn't resemble humans. I guess if you ran enough simulations to account for every three-dimensional configuration of every atom on earth with probabilities that it would be at point A at time t+1, but I think that number is too big to even consider reproducing. But it also explains why it's not so surprising that self-replicating molecules occurred at some point in that process. It only needs to happen once.

Evolution is a science that you guys are 99.99% sure is correct. Therefore, filling in the blanks as to how we got here may be impossible for a guy with a pen and paper, but for a computer doing billions of if/then calculations every second, we can speed up time to the point of trying out a billion different scenarios every second.After we follow a trail for a bit, we should see if we can get to points in the generational tree that leads us to the goal of the Brooklyn guy.So it's all about setting a couple dozen evolutionary time points, then allowing raw data crunching with brute force of a Cray's evolutionary next generation super computer to clearly define the track.I mean this is like pulling teeth. I am trying to say let's look at the history of our own evolution, and you guys are all saying we can't.

[Balloon guy 158]

that's part of what's not fully understood.

Well a computer model with only random mutation as a source for change would clearly tell us if this one thing is enough, or whether we need to change our understanding of changes in cells.

[looshle 6]

Of course it's very rarely, if it happened all willy nilly then we'd have people with the ability to fly and control time/space...

Hate to burst your bubble

[Balloon guy 158]

So to try to keep this moving forward let's try this instead.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.Like a road map, we want to go from California to Maine, we don't have to draw one long line, we can take it in stages, trying to get from California to Arizona, then worry about Arizona to New Mexico etc.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.

[Balloon guy 158]

Hate to burst your bubble

If there is one thing I can bank on, it's in this threads glee in the notion of bursting my bubble...And besides, Hiro is almost dead, because his mutation is killing him!

[looshle 6]

If there is one thing I can bank on, it's in this threads glee in the notion of bursting my bubble...And besides, Hiro is almost dead, because his mutation is killing him!

havent watched since it started getting real bad. like early season 3, sick writing.back to genes and evolution and shit