@skraper35 This isn't a problem. Evolution, whether it be simulated or real, requires a goal. One particular goal: reproduction. Just as in the simulation, an organism's ability to do a particular function gives it an advantage towards that goal.
Actualy, in this case, the computer is prosessing the evolution. There is still an exterior factor making the choises and prosessing it all. And the programmer was the first one making an action to make the whole thing go. Translating that to our reality the cosmos is that one giant computer and the programmer is God. This is just basic logic and making mathematical comparisons between the two ideas. Interesting theory tho, the cosmos was created by God but they are acting hand in hand.
@Fapsamup Right, but there are those who claim that evolution is God's work. Aside from the 40% of Americans who believe in creationism, 38% believe in a evolutionary process guided by God (Newport, 2010). This is a misconception, because evolution as it was described by Darwin is a natural process, meaning that there is no supernatural intervention (Wyhe, 2009). This computer exercise as least supports this distinction. Other prior causes are speculation outside of what evolution can speak.
@Fapsamup You make a great point. I've got a question. It may sound silly, but I really want to understand exactly how you're reaching your conclusion. How do you know that a computer program has to have a programmer?
@acr08807 You will always need someone that prosesses matter in a sertain way to create a computer. And a computer on its own will never do anything unless it is ordered to do something, or programed to do something. Any teacher will say the same, how fast or how complex a computer may become, it will remain a dumb thing unless someone does something with it. A computer is a tool. Unless someone programms a computer to create other computers it will never do.
@acr08807 A computer will never do annything that it is not been programed to do. That is also why I think A.I. will never be possible, eccept if it can learn and have memories, maybe than there could be a possibility of self conciousness. If you'd like to chat with an A.I. try the A.L.I.C.E. bot.
@Fapsamup It's not a problem at all. It's just that there's not much point in continuing a discussion with someone who refuses to say why he believes what he believes. Cheers!
@Fapsamup What I really want to hear is why you think that understanding the origin of computers provides a good model for understaning the origin of universes. They seem to be pretty different kinds of things to me.
Holy crap. That just looks exactly like the motions that the african crawled frog uses to swim. I was just baffled by that. I mean if you put a computer model over that I couldn't distinguish it from the real thing
I think a lot many of them are. They are not talking from stupidity They are willfully ignorant. That ignorance is necessary to give them confidence while lying (because they can not be sure themselves when they lie) and that ignorance helps them to hold on to beliefs they cherish but can no longer substantiate.
@82abhilash I am a lover of both God and science. To call people who have seen God ignorant completely goes against what scientists value, because, to call someone ignorant is to say that you are smarter than them, as your implied intent is to state the difference between one group and another group. Scientific thinking is to say that we know nothing, but can only present sound arguments for the existences of various things. It's not something I agree with completely, but that's what it is.
@cbrhawk1 You have no idea what science means that is not the major problem as I see it. It is the claim to have seen god, that is you interpretation of your experience. It cannot escape any flaws in your judgement
@82abhilash Well, I'll put billions upon billions against the minority who have not seen God. If you're in the room with 2 friends, and they both point to something, talk about it with each other, point out its features, and both talk about the same things. Are they insane, or are you just blind?
I have seen God along with billions upon billions of people. We all experience the same thing. I have rarely been to church. I wasn't raised by a religious family. I know what I see.
@cbrhawk1 If billions upon billions tell that the earth is flat, does the earth become flat? They could be all insane or blind or just possess limited understanding. IMO Limited understanding is the most likely explanation. That is nothing unusual nor surprising. Argumentum ad populum will take you no where. What is true remains true even if no one acknowledges it. And what is false remains false even if billions claim it to be true.
@82abhilash I don't think billions upon billions of people have seen the Earth from a distance to tell if it is truly flat or not. That's completely different than people seeing God. With things that you cannot see, it's about trusting the word with others. When it comes to seeing God, you see him and experience him for yourself.
@cbrhawk1 You have a very high opinion about yourself. It is pretty obvious. Science is self-critical, consequently good scientists display some modesty. Here you have no doubt what so ever that your judgement is above flaws. You give an interpretation to your own experience and make a declaration based on it and except everyone else has to accept. Well, your experience is yours, but I do not have to accept your interpretation about it. And I won't. You have given me no good reasons to.
@82abhilash I don't know if I have anything on you, man. To talk about my life experience and philosophy in the span of three short comments? Wow. You're either really good or there's another reason you keep talking about me :). The latter makes more logical sense to me.
The beauty of making our own decisions is that we have the right turn away from God. You choose not to accept God in your own arrogance. I choose to believe what I see, and what billions have seen and known to exist.
@cbrhawk1 Right I must be the one who is arrogant. Because I recognize that people can willingly fool themselves especially when it comes to experiences that makes them feel better. You are the person arrogant enough to consider your judgement about your experience to be above all flaws in your judgement. You are the person who arbitrarily presumes that you have valid argument if you just attach the word 'billions upon billions'. And yet it is me not you who i arrogant! Brilliant!
@82abhilash If it had just been me with the experience, it would be far more logical to say I am some loon. But, I experience the same things that all others who love God experience. I have seen the work of God in my life in ways that only God could have intervened. We all have the same sorts of stories. I believe that God uses the physical world to perform his miracles, but I also believe that coincidental things are a result of his plan, and you can't explain this away every time.
@cbrhawk1 Truth is no democracy. If many people give the same interpretation to their experience, it does not make automatically that interpretation correct. If one person gives a different interpretation to that same experience it does not automatically make that interpretation wrong.
@82abhilash There are things that you can find for yourself that can be proven to yourself. I am not saying that, to you, the testimonies of billions upon billions should be taken as evidence all evidence has a different weight for different people. God is someone you have to find for yourself. I did. Science is my first love on Earth. Honestly, it makes me want to search for the connection between God and his laws, even though that information makes absolutely no difference.
@cbrhawk1 If that is the way you feel you are most welcome to. But if you want other people to accept your views, you need to convince them. In order to do that, you need to understand them.
@82abhilash Why do we need to convince people of anything? I think that's the huge problem that we have. Someone comes up with something in their heads, and others immediately want to take the credit for it. Your thoughts are your thoughts. Nobody can convince you of anything. You convince yourself. Jesus was not a salesman. He didn't tell people what they wanted to hear. He lived his life to tell the grim truth, but let us know there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
@cbrhawk1 Beats me why, but that is exactly what you are trying to do. Convince me that you are right. Not surprising, christianity is an proselytizing faith. It is not enough for christians that they believe jesus is the only way, everyone else must too. You are doing a lousy job about it. I was feeling a bit sorry for you. I could have lied and said, I was convinced. Instead I said, you could have a better chance if you understood me.
@82abhilash I think there's a misunderstanding on your part. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am on YouTube and on the internet in general to do one thing. I love to soak up perspectives like a sponge, and then write responses based on my thoughts. Generally speaking, I wish everyone loved God, but it's not my job, nor is it my desire to convince you. As I said, that's your job. All I can do is provide what information I can based on my personal testimony.
@cbrhawk1 You seem to be more interested in imposing your perspective rather than soaking up perspectives, going so far as to accuse me arrogance because I refused the imposition.
@82abhilash Put down the strawman. I don't think it ever asked for an argument :).
I believe that anyone who cannot see God is arrogant. It isn't because you disagree with me, or because you don't impose your will or whatever your strawman thinks. It's because people who do not see God think that they are above him. That's what I believe. I don't know if that is true in every case of what I call mindless atheism, but I believe it, and that's how 90% of atheists are.
@cbrhawk1 Strawman is a term too often misused on YT. In any case you have already admitted. You have a perspective that you tried to impose on me and when you failed you accused me of arrogance and continue to. You have admitted no less. All you did was elucidate that point by giving your reasons. That I think the I am above the god you failed to establish exists. You could blame your shortcomings when it comes to convincing people, but you have an ego problem that will never let you do that.
@82abhilash What are you talking about?I wrote a comment in response to something I felt strongly about. That's not trying to impose anything on you. That's doing what you or anyone else is trying to do. I simply posted my opinion for others to read or not read.
Don't tell me you aren't using a strawman when you are talking to someone who has different feelings than what you accuse. I called you arrogant because that's my opinion of atheists. It had nothing to do with any decision of yours.
@cbrhawk1 Yes, you feel strongly about something and it pisses you off that there are people like me who see no value in what you feel strongly about. Hence the need for accusations of arrogance. Your first comment was addressed specifically to me. You may want others to read, but you where writing to me. And of course your own betray you in the end. Choosing to be an atheist is a decision. You call people arrogant for making that decision. The irony being it helps reveal your own arrogance.
@82abhilash I call anyone who refuses to accept God arrogant, because that's what it is. It had nothing to do with how you weigh what I say. It is just your position alone, and nothing else. You telling me what I do and do not know, what I think and do not think, how I do and do not feel all support my opinion of your thinking.
Feeling strongly about something doesn't mean you are angry at those who do not agree. I simply had something to say about what you wrote, so I said it. No anger.
@cbrhawk1 There is anger in you for sure. It is latent. The anger stems from people not accepting your point of view. And like you said to me, I can say to you, it is just your position and nothing else. Except you have strong feelings about your position, which means anyone who refuses to accept your position is automatically labelled arrogant by you.
@cbrhawk1 Hmmmm, i have no idea what you're saying :D, but, i don't believe in god and it's not because i'm arrogant, i don't judge people by religion, it's a choice, not something to be forced upon someone, there's too many choices for me, too many different gods, but i only see buddhism fit for me, you can't call another religion arrogant because they'd probobly say the same to you :D
@Nouseeker I consider myself a rational creationist. The computer was deliberately changing things to achieve a certain point, sounds intelligent to me. It was AI, not complete random chance, right?
@Nouseeker so what you are saying is that creationists are less rational than scientists because they believe in their own "if-then" statements that conflict with science?
It is used and some of the most challenging opponents are evolved though similar processes. Good on you for thinking of it and mentioning it as there are (i'm sure) coders out there may not have encountered the notion yet.
So there 's a selector. The job is done by the selector but they show the random part to fool people. These are for kids. They should realy learn stochastic physics. Or they repeat the same mistakes again and again. No stochastic physics, no science.
Ok, I need to explain. Feel free to ask for clarification. During Darwin wanted people to understand what he was talking about, so he wanted to use a term that people could relate with which was selective breeding. Except there is no breeder involved. It was nature acting on a self-replicating entity. For the sake of brevity he said natural selection, in an attempt to be efficient with words. But he never implied any conscious entity. I can quote him, as has Dennett..
"..if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." See he is speaking about the preservation of favorable characteristics.
The problem is that this simulation is NOT natural selection. It is simply artifical selection (or selective breeding). The program written by a human selects the "wanted" condition. They never talk about how the program is making the selection because it is the key point. All simulations they show and those are done in the research labs are all artifical selection. They know what to select and select it.
It does not. Whatever they do will be artificial selection because they are doing it. Compare it to learning about natural flying by studying birds and then designing an artificial flyer - a glider or an airplane.
I just copy and paste. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species.
And here a program written by a human has an effect on a particular species. So this simulation is not a natural selection. It is an artifical selection.
The particular species are also a product of program written by a human being. The whole thing is. It is a simulation. You do not know the difference between a simulation and what is real?
Evolutionists should prove that "there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection", which is the Darwins assumption. But they dont do it. They just keep shoving artifical selection under the name of natural selection.
I get the feeling that you have no idea what you are talking about because selection, natural or other wise is not a genetic process. You need to get yourself educated first.
Favorable variation in the gene pool is preserved for the next generation. That is natural selection. It is not a selection process as much as a preservation process.
and this is the theory. Favorable variation is transfered to the next generation WITHOUT MAKING ANY SELECTION. So this theory has nothing to do with this simulation.
I am not talking about the reality. I am talking about the theory and the simulation. The simulation should do what the thoery says. But here it does the OPPOSITE of what the theory says. Denetts words at start of part 5 is "the genome and the developmental program are outside the model". And later he ignores it as if it is not important.
The genome is random so it is what the theory want so it is OK. But the evolution should take place ON ITS OWN but in the simulation the development happens outside. The developmental program has GOALS and GIVES DIRECTIONS. This simulation doesnt prove natural selection on the contrary falsifies it because without the developmental program it CAN NOT happen.
It is not any aspect of the theory. It is THE theory. The prove is done by comparing the simulation results with the experimantal results. Neither simulation nor experiment is doing what the theory is sayin on the contrary both are doing the opposide of the theory. This is clearly disprove.
You are confusing simulation based on a theory with testing a theory. Take a flight simulator for example. It is not used to test theory in aerodynamics. It incorporates principles of aerodynamics within its simulation to teach about flying.
Let me put it this way, Do you think that while simulating car crashes they should use a real human being instead of a dummy? The dummy is so much different from a human being yet, it teaches us about how humans are impacted. Simulations are for learning. The purpose of simulation is to restrict our attention to those aspects of a theory that we are particularly interested in. The more details we want to incorporate, the less useful a simulation is and the the more useful the real world becomes.
The answer is just one word: RELATIVE. The head of the dummy should be as real as the arm or body of the dummy WITH RESPECT TO the Human. If the dummy has no head then this simulation does not give the data on the effects of high-speed collisions on the human body. It gives only the data on the effects of high-speed collisions on the headless human body then they cannot use this result to explain, say, the damage on human skulls.
Actually RELATIVE and WITH RESPECT TO make 4 words. Like I said, simulations focus on certain aspects of reality with a reality that we interested in knowing more about. By definition it only deals with a subset, maybe even a subset of a subset.
So the reality in the simulation should be at the same level of reality with respect to the real life evolution for each aspect of the theory. If you omit natural selection part of the ET then the result will not belong to ET. But it will belong to ET without natural selection and this sim does not teach anything about what Darwin has concluded using natural selection. You can not use this sim for anything that is a result of natural selection.
Well if you eliminate Natural Selection, then you do not learn about natural selection. But like I said, simulations deal with subsets of reality. You can still learn about reproduction and variation and fitness all of which are part of that theory. Although in this case fitness will relate to fitness as understood by the programmer, not fitness as it relates to nature. But it is not nature anyway, it is all a computer simulation, with virtual creatures.
Hide the truth? Hiding the truth here would be like telling you are in a real air plane when you are actually riding a simulation. No one here is under that false impression. Dennett himself clarified in the end. It is in a computer screen!!
Not true. In fact I was trying to understand what you where saying and clarifying what Darwin meant by natural selection meant from the very beginning. And I never said ET without natural selection was Darwin's ET. I challenge you to quote me on both points.
"You", later, is plural, "the people of these videos". I am talking about the lecture. I didnt mean you said that. Those both "hidden truth" are my conclutions from the lecture.
I dont have problem with algorithmic processes or simulations. I simply said that this sim is not Darwins ET. Why?
Actually it was a misunderstanding due to singular "you" and plural "you". I was always talking about the lecture not your quotes.
Maybe biologists knows something I don't know. This was the thought of a physicist. Who cares?! In these cases our excuse is the same. "Imagination is more important than knowledge". :)
ID thing is totaly my made-up. I didn't claim it true/wrong. ID theory needs better study anyway.
ID is an old theory. And its competition in natural sciences is the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution explains variation in life, not how life first began. But ID proponents are obsessed with evolution.
Yep. It's very odd how one of the first arguments IDers have is the simple misunderstanding that evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life. That blatant, criminal misunderstand is indicative of all the misconceptions Creationists have about evolution. Not that they bother to enlighten themselves by educating themselves on the subject.
Dr Szostak's abio research illustrates a scenario you may find quite interesting if you haven't seen it yet. In some respects variation and selection can occur in pre-gene coding replicating systems.
@shade1978x You can't place the blame flatly on their shoulders. Often in tv shows and such depicting evolution's path as we understand it present some theoretical ideas concerning abiogenesis without making clear any distinction. Not to say that a little curiosity and such wouldn't dispel any misconceptions one might be left with after viewing such a program, but in a society where people are used to swallowing whatever's fed them it doesn't surprise me.
You're right about that. Most people watch the news and believe exactly what is told to them, without an iota of critical analysis of the information. "If it's on TV, it must be true!"
And that's the problem; when the voting public can so easily have their perspectives modeled by special interest, it's difficult to get across anything evidence-based. Everyone is skeptical of science but no one seems to be skeptical of fantastic claims. It's considered rude not to accept claims outright.
Also you say imagination is more important than knowledge. I am not sure I agree with that. Imagination has a part to play in the knowledge seeking activity, that may be correct. But what is really important is thinking things through.
Why is ID an old theory? didn't ID come after ET to oppose it?
Einstein said that qoute. Al least that was what was written on the department wall. At first I didn't care. After years I realised how important it is. I make a comparison between brain and computer like,
Knowledge vs data
thinking vs calculating
imagination vs simulation
Well, it didn't stop here. It goes mad. it looks like it is just a small part of Chakra system. But I have no idea about Chakra yet.
He first starts with the definition of Darwins natural selection and he considers an algorithm "a purely mechanical mindless process". This part is acceptable so I am expecting a "mindless" process.
Suddenly, he switched to "a generate-and-test algorithm". It looks like a mindles process but it is not. Because it is an "intelligent" process. Since I dont know the algorithm I follow what he says. Follow the quotes.
I suppose you got confused because he had not prepared the lecture for you. He had prepared it for biologist type people already in universities and maybe their students. It was a lecture for people who already knew a lot about evolution.
There is a program outside. It has the goal and makes the selection for it. For each action swimming, walking, jumping and following, the program runs different selection rules. So the evolution is due to the information written in the program and this info comes from the programmer. This evolution does not happen on its own. The selections makes it evolve that way. And this is in fact artifical selection.
Creatures that cannot move will not get to get to any energy source. As you may noticed in this simulation the creatures don't need any energy source. They also cannot die. Because it is a very, very basic simulation.
Instead of claiming stupid things how about proving that the "natural" selection would not take place in a complete and accurate simulation of nature?
At the and, my own claim without any prove is that if evolution with natural selection is Darwins ET then the opposite, evolution with artifical selection, goes to Intelligent Design. So that is why I called these kind of evolutions, not only this sim also all the others and experiments, disprove Darwins ET. This claim belongs to me and it has nothing to do with you.
Evolution with artificial selection is not Intelligent Design. It is simply artificial breeding. Here is the ID definition from the people at Discovery institute,
'Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.'
This video can actually support creationism as well:-) If you look at this man as "God" who "He just gave his computers some basic parts and let his creatures go from there" (0:54 - 0:58 in video)
Isn't that sort of a Inteligent Design simulation?:-))
Nah, the program doesn't say anything about the origin of life, the programmer just had to build something first to simulate evolution. To support creationism you need to identify a creator, not just speculate one.
Evolution is not a theory that sets out to explain the creation of life, instead it is a theory that set out to map the processes in which live adapts and changes throughout the course of time.
You completely miss the point retardo. Of course a human can design a program and therefore be "God" - but the whole point of his program is to show what the computer is able to create BY ITSELF. You should read Dennett's book, which explains at length why the common human intuition of top-down creation (eg a complex thing is necessary to create a simple thing) is NOT the essence of evolution. Rather evolution is a bottom-up process that is mindless and algorithmic.
Thank you for explaining. English is not my mother tongue - I think I did not formulate well the point I wanted to make.
Your sentence - " to show what the computer is able to create BY ITSELF" - well :-)))) You have to create a program for a computer to show that it can create anything BY ITSELF- otherwise computer wont do anything...Or....will it?
Sigh. Your comment is so lame, stating that the fact of human intervention to make this possible shows the need for top-down creation, as though this is invalidates what is being shown. Your retort is so obvious that it is treated as the starting point for evolutionary analysis- that humans cannot help but project a human-like idea of creation onto the universe itself (eg a blacksmith making a horseshoe or computer engineer making software) The whole point is to show why this intuition is wrong.
Nobody can answer your question, as you really arent asking any. You are here merely to reflexively defend your dogmatism and obviously have no desire to answer or understand anything. Is evolution not a human-like idea projected onto the Universe?
Well... Is it? How is it different than creationism? Are different methods employed to reach the conclusion of evolution as opposed to creationism? If so, what are those differences?
fairly represented = accurately represented. But the point is moot anyway as small evolutionary changes as represented in the sim don't produce massive morphology and locomtion changes. Although we can make legs and extra wings grow on a fruitfly, they are hopless cripples because of the many simultaneous changes to genes that would need to take place for function.
You mean to suggest that artificial selection by human beings cannot result in a creature that can out compete one produced by natural selection. Well, was the dodo not driven to extinction by the domestic cat?
Over 90% of mutations are neutral or loss of function. If this isn't fairly represented in the simulation, the deck has been stacked in favor of the "organism". Deck stacking = Intelligent design.
It is nothing but a program, with an "intelligent" person writing the program. The person made them move - they did NOT do that on their own - it was a random number generator and an "if then" statement. They give it a goal (red dot etc.), have it make some random move, then ask "did the random move get you closer to x? if it does - remember it, if not, don't remember...
not independent life - life created by a semi-intelligent computer programmer.
This is a simulation the purpose of which is to enhance our understanding about particular aspects of evolution. It is not life, it teaches us about life.
It does no such thing. Sure it is one of the conclusions one could come to, but not the one and only conclusion. Take for example, Galileo pushing two objects of different weights from an edge at the same time to study falling objects. Are we to conclude that therefore objects cannot fall unless someone pushes them over an edge? That is only sometimes true, not always true.
This is not a simulation to create life. All it does is show that evolution works perfectly fine for creating fitter variation, even with a simple set of exterior rules like gravity and friction, interior rules like mutation and replication and natural selection depending on the organisms fitness, measured at certain goals. Just like in nature, but with simplified rules. The origin of life is called Abiogenesis, which is chemical evolution.
Evolution is an inherent property of life. Actually, the simulated organisms within this application do themselves qualify for being called alive, eventhough their range of action is limited to a certain program.
Complexity is able to evolve from incredibly simple things. If this is incompatible with your belief because a certain scripture has a different explanation and claims to be right it might be time to check if you are following the right belief.
All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best
What is simpler? That complexity is able to overcome incredible odds to somehow evolve from simple building blocks?
-or-
as Helmholtz and Pasteur have postulated, that complexity, life, laws, have always existed with no beginning, no end, and no need to somehow evolve from anything.
What do you "believe" has eternally existed? Conservation of mass/energy - you don't get something from nothing.
Where did the exterior rules come from? If you cannot explain the origin of the rules, you cannot rule out ID. The rules come from a "Programmer"... :)
You're saying that evolution isn't exsisting, because you don't know where the laws of nature (exterior rules) came from? And an additional conclusion is that therefore there is a god!? Seriously?
I have been looking for spontaneous generation during twenty years without discovering it. (we should) consider that life has existed during eternity and not matter."
Helmholtz, "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..."
According to theoretical physics time did not exist before the Big Bang, no time, no causality, no problem, it didn't always exist because its existence was bound by time. Your false dichotomy of anthropic principle or one in a quadrillion overlooks the possibility of a multiverse and many other possibilities as to why life, at least as we know it, could come into existence given our universal constants. Why an intelligent being would choose this world is also contrived and finite.
Occam's razor once more, how do you invoke a reason for such 'always existed' when we see such evidence to the contrary. That life and the universe are finite and had a beginning, time came into existence and our universe naturally used the fact that things that reproduce themselves, compete for resources and inherit variations will evolve.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To the programmer, you give an Example and you forget your ownwork.. The ultimate number of combinations is finite depending on the number of parameters that you entered.
if the original creatures were given x parameters that allows you to have 500 million possible combinations then the evolution process is nothing more than a search for the right combination. God created the world, gave it its parameters and then let the simulation run, just like you did to your program. So creation is real.
biological goals: getting to food, getting to other to mate
ratelslangen 2 months ago
The problem with this as an argument against creationism is that the programmer gives the program certain goals...
skraper35 4 months ago
@skraper35 This isn't a problem. Evolution, whether it be simulated or real, requires a goal. One particular goal: reproduction. Just as in the simulation, an organism's ability to do a particular function gives it an advantage towards that goal.
chodaboy51500 4 months ago
First: This. Next: Cybernet.
xXRazorfistXx 5 months ago
Comment removed
xXRazorfistXx 5 months ago
This is the evolution of Mindcraft! XD
BiggySeth 7 months ago
Some these forms look like creatures from the Burgess shales. Well, to me.
This a brilliant film. Thanks for making and uploading!
benbisley 8 months ago
Actualy, in this case, the computer is prosessing the evolution. There is still an exterior factor making the choises and prosessing it all. And the programmer was the first one making an action to make the whole thing go. Translating that to our reality the cosmos is that one giant computer and the programmer is God. This is just basic logic and making mathematical comparisons between the two ideas. Interesting theory tho, the cosmos was created by God but they are acting hand in hand.
Fapsamup 8 months ago
@Fapsamup Right, but there are those who claim that evolution is God's work. Aside from the 40% of Americans who believe in creationism, 38% believe in a evolutionary process guided by God (Newport, 2010). This is a misconception, because evolution as it was described by Darwin is a natural process, meaning that there is no supernatural intervention (Wyhe, 2009). This computer exercise as least supports this distinction. Other prior causes are speculation outside of what evolution can speak.
eayrs 8 months ago
@Fapsamup You make a great point. I've got a question. It may sound silly, but I really want to understand exactly how you're reaching your conclusion. How do you know that a computer program has to have a programmer?
acr08807 6 months ago in playlist Sc - Evolution
@acr08807 You will always need someone that prosesses matter in a sertain way to create a computer. And a computer on its own will never do anything unless it is ordered to do something, or programed to do something. Any teacher will say the same, how fast or how complex a computer may become, it will remain a dumb thing unless someone does something with it. A computer is a tool. Unless someone programms a computer to create other computers it will never do.
Fapsamup 6 months ago
@Fapsamup I'm not disputing the point, I'm asking HOW do you know that a computer is a dumb thing.
acr08807 6 months ago
@acr08807 A computer will never do annything that it is not been programed to do. That is also why I think A.I. will never be possible, eccept if it can learn and have memories, maybe than there could be a possibility of self conciousness. If you'd like to chat with an A.I. try the A.L.I.C.E. bot.
Fapsamup 6 months ago
@Fapsamup I guess you're simply incapable of explaining the reasons that you think the things you say are true. Maybe you are the ALICE bot.
acr08807 6 months ago
@acr08807 I answered your questions. If you can't see the answer that is your problem.
Fapsamup 6 months ago
@Fapsamup It's not a problem at all. It's just that there's not much point in continuing a discussion with someone who refuses to say why he believes what he believes. Cheers!
acr08807 6 months ago
@acr08807 What do you want to hear then? You want to hear from me that I am either a creationist or a Darwinist?
Fapsamup 6 months ago
@Fapsamup What I really want to hear is why you think that understanding the origin of computers provides a good model for understaning the origin of universes. They seem to be pretty different kinds of things to me.
acr08807 6 months ago
Is there any way to get this program? I'd love to play around with it, maybe even try to expand on it.
MrFrootmig 1 year ago
Is there any way to get this program I'd love to play with it, and maybe even try to expand it's functionality.
MrFrootmig 1 year ago
amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Artem56k 1 year ago
Is it just me or does the narrator sound like Alan Alda from M*A*S*H.
Just a little bit anyways.
I used this video in a school project. I understood evolution and why it occurs much more because of it.
charmedgirl11235 1 year ago 2
@charmedgirl11235 It is Alan Alda. He hosted Scientific American Frontiers. The clips are from that show.
82abhilash 1 year ago 5
@82abhilash I suppose that's what Dan meant by "That's the end of the Alan Alda bit" :D
michaelroseagain 1 year ago
this is cool.
davdd1032 1 year ago
@ 7:42
Holy crap. That just looks exactly like the motions that the african crawled frog uses to swim. I was just baffled by that. I mean if you put a computer model over that I couldn't distinguish it from the real thing
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
btw, im of the theory that creatonists will one day evolve and become rational people
Nouseeker 2 years ago 43
I think a lot many of them are. They are not talking from stupidity They are willfully ignorant. That ignorance is necessary to give them confidence while lying (because they can not be sure themselves when they lie) and that ignorance helps them to hold on to beliefs they cherish but can no longer substantiate.
82abhilash 2 years ago 6
@82abhilash well put 82abhilash!
55bjam 1 year ago
@82abhilash I am a lover of both God and science. To call people who have seen God ignorant completely goes against what scientists value, because, to call someone ignorant is to say that you are smarter than them, as your implied intent is to state the difference between one group and another group. Scientific thinking is to say that we know nothing, but can only present sound arguments for the existences of various things. It's not something I agree with completely, but that's what it is.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 You have no idea what science means that is not the major problem as I see it. It is the claim to have seen god, that is you interpretation of your experience. It cannot escape any flaws in your judgement
watch?v=WKhQs2-g8EY
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash Well, I'll put billions upon billions against the minority who have not seen God. If you're in the room with 2 friends, and they both point to something, talk about it with each other, point out its features, and both talk about the same things. Are they insane, or are you just blind?
I have seen God along with billions upon billions of people. We all experience the same thing. I have rarely been to church. I wasn't raised by a religious family. I know what I see.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 If billions upon billions tell that the earth is flat, does the earth become flat? They could be all insane or blind or just possess limited understanding. IMO Limited understanding is the most likely explanation. That is nothing unusual nor surprising. Argumentum ad populum will take you no where. What is true remains true even if no one acknowledges it. And what is false remains false even if billions claim it to be true.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash I don't think billions upon billions of people have seen the Earth from a distance to tell if it is truly flat or not. That's completely different than people seeing God. With things that you cannot see, it's about trusting the word with others. When it comes to seeing God, you see him and experience him for yourself.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 You have a very high opinion about yourself. It is pretty obvious. Science is self-critical, consequently good scientists display some modesty. Here you have no doubt what so ever that your judgement is above flaws. You give an interpretation to your own experience and make a declaration based on it and except everyone else has to accept. Well, your experience is yours, but I do not have to accept your interpretation about it. And I won't. You have given me no good reasons to.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash I don't know if I have anything on you, man. To talk about my life experience and philosophy in the span of three short comments? Wow. You're either really good or there's another reason you keep talking about me :). The latter makes more logical sense to me.
The beauty of making our own decisions is that we have the right turn away from God. You choose not to accept God in your own arrogance. I choose to believe what I see, and what billions have seen and known to exist.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 Right I must be the one who is arrogant. Because I recognize that people can willingly fool themselves especially when it comes to experiences that makes them feel better. You are the person arrogant enough to consider your judgement about your experience to be above all flaws in your judgement. You are the person who arbitrarily presumes that you have valid argument if you just attach the word 'billions upon billions'. And yet it is me not you who i arrogant! Brilliant!
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash If it had just been me with the experience, it would be far more logical to say I am some loon. But, I experience the same things that all others who love God experience. I have seen the work of God in my life in ways that only God could have intervened. We all have the same sorts of stories. I believe that God uses the physical world to perform his miracles, but I also believe that coincidental things are a result of his plan, and you can't explain this away every time.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 Truth is no democracy. If many people give the same interpretation to their experience, it does not make automatically that interpretation correct. If one person gives a different interpretation to that same experience it does not automatically make that interpretation wrong.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash There are things that you can find for yourself that can be proven to yourself. I am not saying that, to you, the testimonies of billions upon billions should be taken as evidence all evidence has a different weight for different people. God is someone you have to find for yourself. I did. Science is my first love on Earth. Honestly, it makes me want to search for the connection between God and his laws, even though that information makes absolutely no difference.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 If that is the way you feel you are most welcome to. But if you want other people to accept your views, you need to convince them. In order to do that, you need to understand them.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash Why do we need to convince people of anything? I think that's the huge problem that we have. Someone comes up with something in their heads, and others immediately want to take the credit for it. Your thoughts are your thoughts. Nobody can convince you of anything. You convince yourself. Jesus was not a salesman. He didn't tell people what they wanted to hear. He lived his life to tell the grim truth, but let us know there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 Beats me why, but that is exactly what you are trying to do. Convince me that you are right. Not surprising, christianity is an proselytizing faith. It is not enough for christians that they believe jesus is the only way, everyone else must too. You are doing a lousy job about it. I was feeling a bit sorry for you. I could have lied and said, I was convinced. Instead I said, you could have a better chance if you understood me.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash I think there's a misunderstanding on your part. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am on YouTube and on the internet in general to do one thing. I love to soak up perspectives like a sponge, and then write responses based on my thoughts. Generally speaking, I wish everyone loved God, but it's not my job, nor is it my desire to convince you. As I said, that's your job. All I can do is provide what information I can based on my personal testimony.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 You seem to be more interested in imposing your perspective rather than soaking up perspectives, going so far as to accuse me arrogance because I refused the imposition.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash Put down the strawman. I don't think it ever asked for an argument :).
I believe that anyone who cannot see God is arrogant. It isn't because you disagree with me, or because you don't impose your will or whatever your strawman thinks. It's because people who do not see God think that they are above him. That's what I believe. I don't know if that is true in every case of what I call mindless atheism, but I believe it, and that's how 90% of atheists are.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 Strawman is a term too often misused on YT. In any case you have already admitted. You have a perspective that you tried to impose on me and when you failed you accused me of arrogance and continue to. You have admitted no less. All you did was elucidate that point by giving your reasons. That I think the I am above the god you failed to establish exists. You could blame your shortcomings when it comes to convincing people, but you have an ego problem that will never let you do that.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash What are you talking about?I wrote a comment in response to something I felt strongly about. That's not trying to impose anything on you. That's doing what you or anyone else is trying to do. I simply posted my opinion for others to read or not read.
Don't tell me you aren't using a strawman when you are talking to someone who has different feelings than what you accuse. I called you arrogant because that's my opinion of atheists. It had nothing to do with any decision of yours.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 Yes, you feel strongly about something and it pisses you off that there are people like me who see no value in what you feel strongly about. Hence the need for accusations of arrogance. Your first comment was addressed specifically to me. You may want others to read, but you where writing to me. And of course your own betray you in the end. Choosing to be an atheist is a decision. You call people arrogant for making that decision. The irony being it helps reveal your own arrogance.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@82abhilash I call anyone who refuses to accept God arrogant, because that's what it is. It had nothing to do with how you weigh what I say. It is just your position alone, and nothing else. You telling me what I do and do not know, what I think and do not think, how I do and do not feel all support my opinion of your thinking.
Feeling strongly about something doesn't mean you are angry at those who do not agree. I simply had something to say about what you wrote, so I said it. No anger.
cbrhawk1 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 There is anger in you for sure. It is latent. The anger stems from people not accepting your point of view. And like you said to me, I can say to you, it is just your position and nothing else. Except you have strong feelings about your position, which means anyone who refuses to accept your position is automatically labelled arrogant by you.
82abhilash 10 months ago
@cbrhawk1 Hmmmm, i have no idea what you're saying :D, but, i don't believe in god and it's not because i'm arrogant, i don't judge people by religion, it's a choice, not something to be forced upon someone, there's too many choices for me, too many different gods, but i only see buddhism fit for me, you can't call another religion arrogant because they'd probobly say the same to you :D
xMastaDrillx 8 months ago
@Nouseeker I consider myself a rational creationist. The computer was deliberately changing things to achieve a certain point, sounds intelligent to me. It was AI, not complete random chance, right?
GBot77 1 year ago
@GBot77
Ah yes, the old "Evolution is random chance" argument. Good job, kid, you've graduated to the status of "tool"
scourfish 1 year ago
@Nouseeker so what you are saying is that creationists are less rational than scientists because they believe in their own "if-then" statements that conflict with science?
1objection 7 months ago
"... soon take us from the dog levels, to superintelligence ..."
i think he greatly underestimates the intelligence of dogs
Nouseeker 2 years ago
Where can I get this program and can someone get it to work with spore?
Craydon 2 years ago
Why so much babbling about "natural" and "artifical" selection?
Of course there is no natural selection because the simulation lacks anything that would lead to natural selection.
* Ressources
* The actual structure of matter and therefore
* Pretty much all chemical processes
...
...
I am sure you can imagine many more points.
chrisxy123 2 years ago
they robots dont need recorces beacuse the program just selects the best swimmers, therfore eliminateing the need for resources.
ikalpo 2 years ago
These simulations are so awesome!!
Why aren't game developers using evolutionary algorithms? Or are they? Enemies that learn from their mistakes or something like that.
villeppi 2 years ago
It is used and some of the most challenging opponents are evolved though similar processes. Good on you for thinking of it and mentioning it as there are (i'm sure) coders out there may not have encountered the notion yet.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i bet there surely was an ID in that simulator
DISREGARDTHAT11meh 2 years ago
Jesus the size of that screen!
YourBreakfast 2 years ago
This is fascinating stuff. Well done, Karl Sims and co.
seacoastofbohemia 2 years ago 4
Key sentence is "The best swimmer is selected"
So there 's a selector. The job is done by the selector but they show the random part to fool people. These are for kids. They should realy learn stochastic physics. Or they repeat the same mistakes again and again. No stochastic physics, no science.
Fractional 2 years ago
Ok, I need to explain. Feel free to ask for clarification. During Darwin wanted people to understand what he was talking about, so he wanted to use a term that people could relate with which was selective breeding. Except there is no breeder involved. It was nature acting on a self-replicating entity. For the sake of brevity he said natural selection, in an attempt to be efficient with words. But he never implied any conscious entity. I can quote him, as has Dennett..
82abhilash 2 years ago
"..if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." See he is speaking about the preservation of favorable characteristics.
82abhilash 2 years ago
The problem is that this simulation is NOT natural selection. It is simply artifical selection (or selective breeding). The program written by a human selects the "wanted" condition. They never talk about how the program is making the selection because it is the key point. All simulations they show and those are done in the research labs are all artifical selection. They know what to select and select it.
Fractional 2 years ago
This is a simulation of nature, not nature. The whole thing happens in cyber world, there are lots of ways it can differ from the real thing.
82abhilash 2 years ago
But it can not differ from the theory. The theory says natural selection and they keep doing artifical selection.
Fractional 2 years ago
It does not. Whatever they do will be artificial selection because they are doing it. Compare it to learning about natural flying by studying birds and then designing an artificial flyer - a glider or an airplane.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I just copy and paste. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species.
And here a program written by a human has an effect on a particular species. So this simulation is not a natural selection. It is an artifical selection.
Fractional 2 years ago
The particular species are also a product of program written by a human being. The whole thing is. It is a simulation. You do not know the difference between a simulation and what is real?
82abhilash 2 years ago
Evolutionists should prove that "there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection", which is the Darwins assumption. But they dont do it. They just keep shoving artifical selection under the name of natural selection.
Fractional 2 years ago
I get the feeling that you have no idea what you are talking about because selection, natural or other wise is not a genetic process. You need to get yourself educated first.
82abhilash 2 years ago
The words in quotes are not mine. I just repeat what they keep saying.
And it seems that the word genetic here is not about genes but it is Of, relating to, or influenced by the origin or development of something.
Fractional 2 years ago
Favorable variation in the gene pool is preserved for the next generation. That is natural selection. It is not a selection process as much as a preservation process.
82abhilash 2 years ago
and this is the theory. Favorable variation is transfered to the next generation WITHOUT MAKING ANY SELECTION. So this theory has nothing to do with this simulation.
Fractional 2 years ago
You are correct about that aspect. It does not cover all aspects that are defined by the theory. Dennett covers that point later on in the lecture.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I am not talking about the reality. I am talking about the theory and the simulation. The simulation should do what the thoery says. But here it does the OPPOSITE of what the theory says. Denetts words at start of part 5 is "the genome and the developmental program are outside the model". And later he ignores it as if it is not important.
Fractional 2 years ago
A simulation by definition does not cover every aspect of any theory.
82abhilash 2 years ago
The genome is random so it is what the theory want so it is OK. But the evolution should take place ON ITS OWN but in the simulation the development happens outside. The developmental program has GOALS and GIVES DIRECTIONS. This simulation doesnt prove natural selection on the contrary falsifies it because without the developmental program it CAN NOT happen.
Fractional 2 years ago
It is a simulation. It is used to learn, not to prove.
82abhilash 2 years ago
It is not any aspect of the theory. It is THE theory. The prove is done by comparing the simulation results with the experimantal results. Neither simulation nor experiment is doing what the theory is sayin on the contrary both are doing the opposide of the theory. This is clearly disprove.
Fractional 2 years ago
You are confusing simulation based on a theory with testing a theory. Take a flight simulator for example. It is not used to test theory in aerodynamics. It incorporates principles of aerodynamics within its simulation to teach about flying.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Are you just telling me this?
"This simulation is for educational purposes so it doesn't really matter if it completely fits to the theory or not "
Fractional 2 years ago
Let me put it this way, Do you think that while simulating car crashes they should use a real human being instead of a dummy? The dummy is so much different from a human being yet, it teaches us about how humans are impacted. Simulations are for learning. The purpose of simulation is to restrict our attention to those aspects of a theory that we are particularly interested in. The more details we want to incorporate, the less useful a simulation is and the the more useful the real world becomes.
82abhilash 2 years ago
The answer is just one word: RELATIVE. The head of the dummy should be as real as the arm or body of the dummy WITH RESPECT TO the Human. If the dummy has no head then this simulation does not give the data on the effects of high-speed collisions on the human body. It gives only the data on the effects of high-speed collisions on the headless human body then they cannot use this result to explain, say, the damage on human skulls.
Fractional 2 years ago
Actually RELATIVE and WITH RESPECT TO make 4 words. Like I said, simulations focus on certain aspects of reality with a reality that we interested in knowing more about. By definition it only deals with a subset, maybe even a subset of a subset.
82abhilash 2 years ago
So the reality in the simulation should be at the same level of reality with respect to the real life evolution for each aspect of the theory. If you omit natural selection part of the ET then the result will not belong to ET. But it will belong to ET without natural selection and this sim does not teach anything about what Darwin has concluded using natural selection. You can not use this sim for anything that is a result of natural selection.
Fractional 2 years ago
Well if you eliminate Natural Selection, then you do not learn about natural selection. But like I said, simulations deal with subsets of reality. You can still learn about reproduction and variation and fitness all of which are part of that theory. Although in this case fitness will relate to fitness as understood by the programmer, not fitness as it relates to nature. But it is not nature anyway, it is all a computer simulation, with virtual creatures.
82abhilash 2 years ago
If you want to study ET without natural selection good luck with that. You can do whatever you want. You can simulate anything you want.
It is fine with me as long as you don't hide the truth, like "it is artifical selection, not natural selection".
Fractional 2 years ago
Hide the truth? Hiding the truth here would be like telling you are in a real air plane when you are actually riding a simulation. No one here is under that false impression. Dennett himself clarified in the end. It is in a computer screen!!
82abhilash 2 years ago
I never asked how real is the sim. You keep telling that.
Hiding the truth I meant 2 things.
1) You show artifical selection as natural selection although both are absolutely opposite.
2) You call ET without natural selection and with artifical selection as Darwin's ET although it is not.
Fractional 2 years ago
Not true. In fact I was trying to understand what you where saying and clarifying what Darwin meant by natural selection meant from the very beginning. And I never said ET without natural selection was Darwin's ET. I challenge you to quote me on both points.
82abhilash 2 years ago
"You", later, is plural, "the people of these videos". I am talking about the lecture. I didnt mean you said that. Those both "hidden truth" are my conclutions from the lecture.
I dont have problem with algorithmic processes or simulations. I simply said that this sim is not Darwins ET. Why?
Fractional 2 years ago
Caught you didn't I? Now you have to back down.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Actually it was a misunderstanding due to singular "you" and plural "you". I was always talking about the lecture not your quotes.
Maybe biologists knows something I don't know. This was the thought of a physicist. Who cares?! In these cases our excuse is the same. "Imagination is more important than knowledge". :)
ID thing is totaly my made-up. I didn't claim it true/wrong. ID theory needs better study anyway.
Fractional 2 years ago
ID is an old theory. And its competition in natural sciences is the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution explains variation in life, not how life first began. But ID proponents are obsessed with evolution.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Yep. It's very odd how one of the first arguments IDers have is the simple misunderstanding that evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life. That blatant, criminal misunderstand is indicative of all the misconceptions Creationists have about evolution. Not that they bother to enlighten themselves by educating themselves on the subject.
shade1978x 2 years ago 3
Dr Szostak's abio research illustrates a scenario you may find quite interesting if you haven't seen it yet. In some respects variation and selection can occur in pre-gene coding replicating systems.
CDK007's video
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
is just stunning.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
If Creationists had the capacity for thinking they wouldn't be Creationists in the first place.
kossmikham 2 years ago 28
True. Creationism isn't a theory based on anything but wish-thinking.
shade1978x 2 years ago
@kossmikham if people didn't have the capacity for speculation... :D nevermind
andreirocks1992 2 months ago
@shade1978x You can't place the blame flatly on their shoulders. Often in tv shows and such depicting evolution's path as we understand it present some theoretical ideas concerning abiogenesis without making clear any distinction. Not to say that a little curiosity and such wouldn't dispel any misconceptions one might be left with after viewing such a program, but in a society where people are used to swallowing whatever's fed them it doesn't surprise me.
JamesMachine420 2 years ago
You're right about that. Most people watch the news and believe exactly what is told to them, without an iota of critical analysis of the information. "If it's on TV, it must be true!"
And that's the problem; when the voting public can so easily have their perspectives modeled by special interest, it's difficult to get across anything evidence-based. Everyone is skeptical of science but no one seems to be skeptical of fantastic claims. It's considered rude not to accept claims outright.
shade1978x 2 years ago
Also you say imagination is more important than knowledge. I am not sure I agree with that. Imagination has a part to play in the knowledge seeking activity, that may be correct. But what is really important is thinking things through.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Why is ID an old theory? didn't ID come after ET to oppose it?
Einstein said that qoute. Al least that was what was written on the department wall. At first I didn't care. After years I realised how important it is. I make a comparison between brain and computer like,
Knowledge vs data
thinking vs calculating
imagination vs simulation
Well, it didn't stop here. It goes mad. it looks like it is just a small part of Chakra system. But I have no idea about Chakra yet.
Fractional 2 years ago
ID is the old creationism theory. The intelligent designer is god.
82abhilash 2 years ago
He first starts with the definition of Darwins natural selection and he considers an algorithm "a purely mechanical mindless process". This part is acceptable so I am expecting a "mindless" process.
Suddenly, he switched to "a generate-and-test algorithm". It looks like a mindles process but it is not. Because it is an "intelligent" process. Since I dont know the algorithm I follow what he says. Follow the quotes.
Fractional 2 years ago
I suppose you got confused because he had not prepared the lecture for you. He had prepared it for biologist type people already in universities and maybe their students. It was a lecture for people who already knew a lot about evolution.
82abhilash 2 years ago
"Then all the offspring got a swimming test, with the best swimmers selected as the basis for the next generation.
mutation and selection process had a new goal"
"What I was telling them to do was to just move"
"All he does simply changes the selection rule"
"The genome and the developmental program are outside the model."
Fractional 2 years ago
There is a program outside. It has the goal and makes the selection for it. For each action swimming, walking, jumping and following, the program runs different selection rules. So the evolution is due to the information written in the program and this info comes from the programmer. This evolution does not happen on its own. The selections makes it evolve that way. And this is in fact artifical selection.
Fractional 2 years ago
I think you have a point there.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Are you stupid or something?
Creatures that cannot move will not get to get to any energy source. As you may noticed in this simulation the creatures don't need any energy source. They also cannot die. Because it is a very, very basic simulation.
Instead of claiming stupid things how about proving that the "natural" selection would not take place in a complete and accurate simulation of nature?
chrisxy123 2 years ago
At the and, my own claim without any prove is that if evolution with natural selection is Darwins ET then the opposite, evolution with artifical selection, goes to Intelligent Design. So that is why I called these kind of evolutions, not only this sim also all the others and experiments, disprove Darwins ET. This claim belongs to me and it has nothing to do with you.
Fractional 2 years ago
Evolution with artificial selection is not Intelligent Design. It is simply artificial breeding. Here is the ID definition from the people at Discovery institute,
'Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.'
82abhilash 2 years ago
1998!? I wana see where this went this is amazing.
DarkTheAtheist 2 years ago
University of Washington. You can google their website.
82abhilash 2 years ago
this was made in 98.... so where is the new stuff huh?
illustriouschin 2 years ago
Someone should a game that is basically a evolution simulation... I would buy that.
Or maybe I start doing it myself.
mckampela 2 years ago 5
SPORE?
ChimpityChoo 2 years ago
Nah, there is no evolution or anything like it in Spore.
mckampela 2 years ago 8
This video can actually support creationism as well:-) If you look at this man as "God" who "He just gave his computers some basic parts and let his creatures go from there" (0:54 - 0:58 in video)
Isn't that sort of a Inteligent Design simulation?:-))
Demokritos31 2 years ago
Nah, the program doesn't say anything about the origin of life, the programmer just had to build something first to simulate evolution. To support creationism you need to identify a creator, not just speculate one.
NoeLPZC 2 years ago 5
@NoeLPZC
Evolution is not a theory that sets out to explain the creation of life, instead it is a theory that set out to map the processes in which live adapts and changes throughout the course of time.
defiythelie 1 year ago
@defiythelie Thank you for telling me what I already knew.
NoeLPZC 1 year ago
You completely miss the point retardo. Of course a human can design a program and therefore be "God" - but the whole point of his program is to show what the computer is able to create BY ITSELF. You should read Dennett's book, which explains at length why the common human intuition of top-down creation (eg a complex thing is necessary to create a simple thing) is NOT the essence of evolution. Rather evolution is a bottom-up process that is mindless and algorithmic.
Nudiford 2 years ago
Thank you for explaining. English is not my mother tongue - I think I did not formulate well the point I wanted to make.
Your sentence - " to show what the computer is able to create BY ITSELF" - well :-)))) You have to create a program for a computer to show that it can create anything BY ITSELF- otherwise computer wont do anything...Or....will it?
Demokritos31 2 years ago
Sigh. Your comment is so lame, stating that the fact of human intervention to make this possible shows the need for top-down creation, as though this is invalidates what is being shown. Your retort is so obvious that it is treated as the starting point for evolutionary analysis- that humans cannot help but project a human-like idea of creation onto the universe itself (eg a blacksmith making a horseshoe or computer engineer making software) The whole point is to show why this intuition is wrong.
Nudiford 2 years ago
I dont think you answered my question, I am sorry
BTW - Is evolution not a human-like idea projected onto the Universe?:-))))
Demokritos31 2 years ago
Nobody can answer your question, as you really arent asking any. You are here merely to reflexively defend your dogmatism and obviously have no desire to answer or understand anything. Is evolution not a human-like idea projected onto the Universe?
Well... Is it? How is it different than creationism? Are different methods employed to reach the conclusion of evolution as opposed to creationism? If so, what are those differences?
-You really dont care.
Nudiford 2 years ago
This is really interesting but must be so out of date. Does anyone have any info or links at all about this subject, but up to date?
ToddlerFondler69 2 years ago
That's incredible, Life finds a way.
Synaisthisi 3 years ago
Yes and since you are alive, so will you and so will me. We will find some way. To survive.
82abhilash 3 years ago
Is the voice in the background hawkeye from mash?
zeppelinfreak51 3 years ago
Hawkeye from MASH was played by Alan Alda. It is his voice, yes.
82abhilash 3 years ago
fairly represented = accurately represented. But the point is moot anyway as small evolutionary changes as represented in the sim don't produce massive morphology and locomtion changes. Although we can make legs and extra wings grow on a fruitfly, they are hopless cripples because of the many simultaneous changes to genes that would need to take place for function.
RTyp06 3 years ago
You mean to suggest that artificial selection by human beings cannot result in a creature that can out compete one produced by natural selection. Well, was the dodo not driven to extinction by the domestic cat?
82abhilash 3 years ago
yah because evolution doesn't REALLY work....[snicker]
educate yourself on the evidence of evolution.
educate yourself on the work of evolutionary algorithms.
did you know nasa uses it to build antenna?
did you know all the car companies use it to build better cars?
did you know control structures built from artificial neural nets have most likely saved your life at least twice if your over 30?
yah, evolution doesn't work. surrrrre.
addmoreice 2 years ago
i whunt that program
cheeseyomama 3 years ago
Over 90% of mutations are neutral or loss of function. If this isn't fairly represented in the simulation, the deck has been stacked in favor of the "organism". Deck stacking = Intelligent design.
RTyp06 3 years ago
Hardly. More than 90% of all species that ever walked on earth has gone extinct.
82abhilash 3 years ago
[snicker]
love how you spew this without knowing the evidence.
1 out of 150 mutations in humans (and most animals) is beneficial or detrimental.
the rest are neutral.
YOU have 128 mutations (according to the averages) that neither of your parents had AND you will develop another 30 over your life time.
add in things like sickle cell anemia which are BOTH....
Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.
addmoreice 2 years ago
2:40 HAIRCUT!!!!
philateliceun 3 years ago
*coughcubescough*
M1cR0S0fT4Ev3r 3 years ago
It is nothing but a program, with an "intelligent" person writing the program. The person made them move - they did NOT do that on their own - it was a random number generator and an "if then" statement. They give it a goal (red dot etc.), have it make some random move, then ask "did the random move get you closer to x? if it does - remember it, if not, don't remember...
not independent life - life created by a semi-intelligent computer programmer.
No programmer, no life.
JamieJourney 3 years ago
This is a simulation the purpose of which is to enhance our understanding about particular aspects of evolution. It is not life, it teaches us about life.
82abhilash 3 years ago
Yes, and what it "teaches" us, is that life cannot be created without a programmer.
JamieJourney 3 years ago
It does no such thing. Sure it is one of the conclusions one could come to, but not the one and only conclusion. Take for example, Galileo pushing two objects of different weights from an edge at the same time to study falling objects. Are we to conclude that therefore objects cannot fall unless someone pushes them over an edge? That is only sometimes true, not always true.
82abhilash 3 years ago
haha I think you just kicked yourself in the head with that one mate.
TheRealSnedz 3 years ago
Details please.
82abhilash 3 years ago
Really, I think it is an apt description with a shadowy veil of cynicism that adds nothing nor debunks anything.
scienceminded 3 years ago
This is not a simulation to create life. All it does is show that evolution works perfectly fine for creating fitter variation, even with a simple set of exterior rules like gravity and friction, interior rules like mutation and replication and natural selection depending on the organisms fitness, measured at certain goals. Just like in nature, but with simplified rules. The origin of life is called Abiogenesis, which is chemical evolution.
xerc1 3 years ago
Evolution is an inherent property of life. Actually, the simulated organisms within this application do themselves qualify for being called alive, eventhough their range of action is limited to a certain program.
Complexity is able to evolve from incredibly simple things. If this is incompatible with your belief because a certain scripture has a different explanation and claims to be right it might be time to check if you are following the right belief.
xerc1 3 years ago
Occam's razor
All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best
What is simpler? That complexity is able to overcome incredible odds to somehow evolve from simple building blocks?
-or-
as Helmholtz and Pasteur have postulated, that complexity, life, laws, have always existed with no beginning, no end, and no need to somehow evolve from anything.
What do you "believe" has eternally existed? Conservation of mass/energy - you don't get something from nothing.
JamieJourney 3 years ago
"simple set of exterior rules "
Where did the exterior rules come from? If you cannot explain the origin of the rules, you cannot rule out ID. The rules come from a "Programmer"... :)
JamieJourney 3 years ago
You're saying that evolution isn't exsisting, because you don't know where the laws of nature (exterior rules) came from? And an additional conclusion is that therefore there is a god!? Seriously?
xerc1 3 years ago
Abiogenesis? unproven theory.
Pasteur:
I have been looking for spontaneous generation during twenty years without discovering it. (we should) consider that life has existed during eternity and not matter."
Helmholtz, "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..."
JamieJourney 3 years ago
According to theoretical physics time did not exist before the Big Bang, no time, no causality, no problem, it didn't always exist because its existence was bound by time. Your false dichotomy of anthropic principle or one in a quadrillion overlooks the possibility of a multiverse and many other possibilities as to why life, at least as we know it, could come into existence given our universal constants. Why an intelligent being would choose this world is also contrived and finite.
scienceminded 3 years ago
Occam's razor once more, how do you invoke a reason for such 'always existed' when we see such evidence to the contrary. That life and the universe are finite and had a beginning, time came into existence and our universe naturally used the fact that things that reproduce themselves, compete for resources and inherit variations will evolve.
scienceminded 3 years ago
thats not true! one day these things are going to take over the world like Terminator LoL what do you think rogue computer viruses are?
TheRealSnedz 3 years ago
I WANT THAT SIMULATOR!!!!
Rocker921 3 years ago
this is amazing.
flamesforfun 3 years ago
cool it's like when i play "empire earth" i make the world put people in in stark them of at different levels of technology.
i seat different limits of how advance they can get and what allies they have.
roryoc31 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To the programmer, you give an Example and you forget your ownwork.. The ultimate number of combinations is finite depending on the number of parameters that you entered.
if the original creatures were given x parameters that allows you to have 500 million possible combinations then the evolution process is nothing more than a search for the right combination. God created the world, gave it its parameters and then let the simulation run, just like you did to your program. So creation is real.
rantasoya 3 years ago