The Minkowski Challenge

[shernren]

I think this is one of the very basic flaws in the argument, misunderstanding of how evolution actually works. While it is a much more detailed and convoluted argument, it is basically the old:

If evolution is true, why didn't we evolve wings?
or
If evolution is true, why do mothers still only have one pair of hands?*

Evolution doesn't think to itself, "oh I know, wings would be handy I must evolve some of those" It doesn't plan ahead, "encryption would be handy, I'll go in that direction".

*Obviously a baby born with four pairs of arms would be seriously disadvantaged. The mother would never be able to get babygrows and cardigans to fit and the baby would be in risk of hypothermia.

I would respectfully disagree, the main argument here seems to be more a combination of repeatability + evolution of IC structures (note the description of encryption, sounds awfully Behe-ish), the argument is that since encrypted programs exist, if someone were to claim that all programs were derived via evolution, then it should be possible to evolve an encrypted program, but it isn't. Something more like mark's arguments from incredulity against the evolution of the human brain.

As such my main problem is that there is a fundamental difference between evolving a program and evolving a protein or an organism, the analogy breaks down when you try to compare the impossibility of evolving a program to the "impossibility" of biological evolution since the two are not entirely comparable.

 

[Assyrian]

I agree it is not the main argument which is about IC, but it is a fundamental flaw there.

The main argument seems to be a series of non sequiturs.

While a computer program can demonstrate evolution in action, (I believe some have), the failure of a particular computer program does not mean evolution is false, simply that the program is inadequate, as you pointed out.

The failure of this program to evolve encryption does not mean encryption is irreducibly complex, simply that this program did not find a path.

Even if encryption is irreducibly complex, it does not mean biological systems are. If encryption is irreducibly complex (which they have not shown), then it would be wrong to claim it could evolve. It simply does not follow that irreducibly complex biological systems exist.

 

[pgp_protector]

I could be wrong, but arnt there already self ecnrypting programs that change themself to avoid detection ?

There called self encrypting Virus, and the Antivirus compines seem to have the hardest time with them.

 

[Smidlee]

I could be wrong, but arnt there already self ecnrypting programs that change themself to avoid detection ?

There called self encrypting Virus, and the Antivirus compines seem to have the hardest time with them.

True. Since Anti-virus programs look for any virus on it's list only a few changes would make the virus undetectable. This is one reason you got to continue to pay and update your anti-virus program. What would be impressive would (and a lot more difficult) have an evolving anti-virus program.
For there's many more way of breaking (destroying) something than creating/building it.

 

[pgp_protector]

True. Since Anti-virus programs look for any virus on it's list only a few changes would make the virus undetectable. This is one reason you got to continue to pay and update your anti-virus program. What would be impressive would (and a lot more difficult) have an evolving anti-virus program.
For there's many more way of breaking (destroying) something than creating/building it.

I hate to see an evloving AntiVirus program.

Still mad at a few versions that decided it was it My best intrist to wipe out my collection of joke programs

 

[shernren]

Heuristic scanning.

 

[laptoppop]

Somehow a truly evolving virus seems even more scary...... Matrix, anyone?

 

[relspace]

I think one of the biggest problems to the computer sequence idea itself is the problem of specificity. In computer programming there is a discrete relationship between source codes and functions. What I mean is that in a computer program it is "all or nothing": either a particular instruction does something (whatever it is) or it does nothing (or crashes the system) and there is no possibility of gradualism because the meaningful codes are often separated by nonsense. For example:

Code Function
pop -------------------------
oop -
nop -------------------

(attempting to simulate a bar graph here)

You can see that if I graphed function against code, there would be a sort of spiky graph, and "evolution" would have to jump from one spike to another to get anywhere. Clearly that would be impossible.

When we talk about proteins, amino acids and genetic instructions, on the other hand, we are talking about real molecules with complex and subtle interactions, where it would certainly be possible for one thing to substitute for another. For example, consider the three amino acids alanine, glycine, and valine. (structural formulae here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Amino_acids_2.png ) They all have small non-polar side-groups causing hydrophobic behaviour (for non-chem-geeks, hydrophobic means like how oil avoids mixing with water), and so I would reason that they can be suitably interchanged to give roughly equivalent behaviour, because if I changed say glycine with alanine, the affected region (of the side group) would still be hydrophobic but now slightly larger. (To mutate between one and the other would be easy, too: all three amino acids have U_ _ RNA codons, meaning that a single-base substitution in the second base would switch one to the other.)

That is why proteins can evolve satisfactorily even if programs cannot. Alanine is roughly similar to glycine, not identical so that there is no change, but not too wildly different that the protein is altogether upset. And it only takes a single-base mutation to substitute between any three of them. Is there any equivalent in computer programming? Is there another instruction which is roughly similar, but not identical to, say "PRINT", and can it be easily reached by mutation?

I disagree. This is not a valid argument. What you point out here is a coding problem which is not that difficult to solve. DNA itself can be considered a special language which enables this property of continuous adaptive change. The programing problem here is to devise a similar high level language in which every modification produces functional behavior. This is difficult but not impossible.

In fact if you go to the machine code, this is one way of achieving this in a quick superficial manner because now instead of interpreted strings for the purpose of readability you simply have a set of numbers representing the different commands to the processor. In this case changing the number does in fact give a different valid command to the processor. But for a good evolutionary language I think we want a considerably higher level language developed specifically for this purpose. It could even be modeled on DNA where every sequence of three letters represents one particular sequence of code to be executed. It sounds like an interesting project, I will think about giving it a try.

 

[shernren]

I disagree. This is not a valid argument. What you point out here is a coding problem which is not that difficult to solve. DNA itself can be considered a special language which enables this property of continuous adaptive change. The programing problem here is to devise a similar high level language in which every modification produces functional behavior. This is difficult but not impossible.

In fact if you go to the machine code, this is one way of achieving this in a quick superficial manner because now instead of interpreted strings for the purpose of readability you simply have a set of numbers representing the different commands to the processor. In this case changing the number does in fact give a different valid command to the processor. But for a good evolutionary language I think we want a considerably higher level language developed specifically for this purpose. It could even be modeled on DNA where every sequence of three letters represents one particular sequence of code to be executed. It sounds like an interesting project, I will think about giving it a try.

I think you're quite right, but in the article I was responding to the program was specifically set in C++ (if i'm not mistaken), or in any case a language which is not conducive to the possibility of continuous adaptive change. And random mutations were being applied to human-interpretable source code instead of assembly code. If there were such a programming language built, then my objection would indeed disappear. However, the specific example (in the OP) did not use such a programming language and thus I think my objection holds there.

As a layman I am skeptical that a computer language which can mimic DNA reliably can be constructed. Such a language would probably have to take into account at least the existence of junk DNA (imagine a computer where 95% of hard-drive reads don't send any signals to the CPU!) and the redundancy of the third base in many codon combinations, to say nothing of RNA and post-transcriptional modifications, etc. I just don't think it can be replicated or simulated reliably in a digital environment. Having said that, I freely admit that I am merely arguing from incredulity in this respect, and would be quite excited to be proved wrong.

 

[laptoppop]

When you consider quantum mechanics, etc., at the lowest level..... this entire universe is just a digital simulation. <grin>

 

[pgp_protector]

When you consider quantum mechanics, etc., at the lowest level..... this entire universe is just a digital simulation. <grin>

I thought it was a Holographic projection ?

 

[Assyrian]

When you consider quantum mechanics, etc., at the lowest level..... this entire universe is just a digital simulation. <grin>

I love the proof that we probably are in a simulation.

Our computer technology is developing to the point where such a simulation will be possible. In any universe there are probably a large number of civilisation sufficiently developed to simulate a universe. If that is the case, then there will be many more simulated universes than real ones, and the probability is that our universe is one of the simulations.

 

[cubanito]

The area of dispute is not if "evolution" occurs. Everyone agrees that in some sense, "evolution" occurs. Sometimes randomly, other times via human manipulation (breeders). That a chihuahua can be bred out of the general canine kind is best termed "microevolution" since that chihuahua can still succesfully interbreed with the wolf.

The question regards "Macroevolution". That is, can an animal population be produced which is now unable (not unlikely, but unable) to mate with the ancestral population, yet is self-sustaining. The populations these days termed "species" are merely races, genetically able to interbreed back into the main pool. Macroevolution, the complete change of one population into a wholly different type of life form, genetically unable to interbreed is not demonstrable, though not for lack of trying.

Such experiments in "forced speciation" were carried out early in the 20th century (eg Muller and fruitflies). The prediction by evolutionary biologists at that time was that by artificially speeding the random mutation rate, together with artificial OR natural selection (both tried), on rapidly reproducing organisms (fruit flies) that a truly new kind of animal would be produced. That is to say, by the STRICT definition of species, that a new species would evolve. When the experiments uniformly failed to demonstrate speciation, the experiment was blamed rather than the theory.

Now this computer modeling could easily be shown to produce "microevolution." Sure lots of altered programs would result. Just as many variant forms of fruit flies can be easily produced,both in the wild (wingless varieties in very windy small islands) and in the lab. It has no bearing on the central question: can accretion of small or sudden changes in the genetics of an individual lead to a population that can no longer mate with the ancestral line, but can within it's own? Put another way, can microevolution lead to macroevolution?

I do not see where this computer modeling has any relevance to the question at all. I would become interested should, for example, generations of this produced an word processor, or some other vastly complex and different kind of programming. Even so, I do not know how we could define speciation among programs. Among life forms such a term once had a reasonably strict defintion.

BTW, I stopped believing in "macroevolution" while still an agnostic, years before becoming a Christian, when my parents brought home a wild-born half wolf/dog which my biology textbook's definition of species precluded from existing. The fact is, the word "species" today is a political term, and has no strict scientific definition, because the original strict definition became an embarrasment.

JR

 

[shernren]

I love the proof that we probably are in a simulation.

Our computer technology is developing to the point where such a simulation will be possible. In any universe there are probably a large number of civilisation sufficiently developed to simulate a universe. If that is the case, then there will be many more simulated universes than real ones, and the probability is that our universe is one of the simulations.

Also, any civilisation in a simulated universe will only be able to create a simulated universe instead of a real one, while any civilisation in a real universe would be able to create either a simulated universe or a real universe. Furthermore, any civilisation intelligent enough to simulate a universe should also be intelligent enough to make this simulated universe able to house intelligent life which are in turn able to simulate universes, while the same might not be valid for a civilisation intelligent enough to simulate a real universe.

Assume that you start with x real universes. Out of the universes created from those, some will be simulated while others will be real, hence there is a non-zero probability that a universe randomly chosen from this "first generation" of universes will be simulated. However, any simulated universes thus created will only give rise to more simulated universes, and thus the proportion of simulated universes to real universes will increase exponentially with each successive generation. Thus the probability that a given randomly chosen universe is simulated instead of real approaches 1 as the number of generations goes to infinity.

Since we cannot prove that our universe was not generated from an infinity of earlier universes (i.e. that the number of generations has not actually gone to infinity), the probability that our universe turns out to be simulated when randomly chosen from the set of all universes is 1. As such, our universe is simulated.



(This is riddled through with errors. But it's all for (simulated) fun!)

BTW, I stopped believing in "macroevolution" while still an agnostic, years before becoming a Christian, when my parents brought home a wild-born half wolf/dog which my biology textbook's definition of species precluded from existing. The fact is, the word "species" today is a political term, and has no strict scientific definition, because the original strict definition became an embarrasment.

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is considered a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus). As such, the biological species concept has no problem with the existence of wolfdogs; in fact, they are not even called hybrids as technically wolves and dogs are of the same species.

They are separated as subspecies because the gene flow between their respective gene pools is extremely limited in the wild, even though their individuals are biologically capable of intermating. Geographical and behavioural barriers to successful interbreeding (prezygotic barriers) are as much a part of the species concept as sheer biomechanical incompatibility.

 

[artybloke]

Also, any civilisation in a simulated universe will only be able to create a simulated universe instead of a real one, while any civilisation in a real universe would be able to create either a simulated universe or a real universe. Furthermore, any civilisation intelligent enough to simulate a universe should also be intelligent enough to make this simulated universe able to house intelligent life which are in turn able to simulate universes, while the same might not be valid for a civilisation intelligent enough to simulate a real universe.

Assume that you start with x real universes. Out of the universes created from those, some will be simulated while others will be real, hence there is a non-zero probability that a universe randomly chosen from this "first generation" of universes will be simulated. However, any simulated universes thus created will only give rise to more simulated universes, and thus the proportion of simulated universes to real universes will increase exponentially with each successive generation. Thus the probability that a given randomly chosen universe is simulated instead of real approaches 1 as the number of generations goes to infinity.

Since we cannot prove that our universe was not generated from an infinity of earlier universes (i.e. that the number of generations has not actually gone to infinity), the probability that our universe turns out to be simulated when randomly chosen from the set of all universes is 1. As such, our universe is simulated.



(This is riddled through with errors. But it's all for (simulated) fun!)



The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is considered a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus). As such, the biological species concept has no problem with the existence of wolfdogs; in fact, they are not even called hybrids as technically wolves and dogs are of the same species.

They are separated as subspecies because the gene flow between their respective gene pools is extremely limited in the wild, even though their individuals are biologically capable of intermating. Geographical and behavioural barriers to successful interbreeding (prezygotic barriers) are as much a part of the species concept as sheer biomechanical incompatibility.

My dog smells of poo.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

BTW, I stopped believing in "macroevolution" while still an agnostic, years before becoming a Christian, when my parents brought home a wild-born half wolf/dog which my biology textbook's definition of species precluded from existing. The fact is, the word "species" today is a political term, and has no strict scientific definition, because the original strict definition became an embarrasment.

there is an excellent book which has a minor purpose in showing how the definition of species changes over time--_Darwinism Evolving_ Depew and Weber. I do not know what you mean by "strict" however there are several good definitions of species and AFAIK this definitions are not in the political sphere in any way and are not an embarassment to anyone.

hey are separated as subspecies because the gene flow between their respective gene pools is extremely limited in the wild, even though their individuals are biologically capable of intermating. Geographical and behavioural barriers to successful interbreeding (prezygotic barriers) are as much a part of the species concept as sheer biomechanical incompatibility.

just a curious observation, i'll bet that there are an order of magnitude more wolf-dog and coyote-dog hybrids then there are Great Dane-Mexican hairless ones.

 

[cubanito]

I do apologize for unintentionally hijacking the thread. Let me try to refocus:

How would you propose that this "Minkowski" experiment differentiate between microevolution from macroevolution?

Everyone I've ever met believes that microevolution occurs, as my dog example was trying to point out. Where creationists like myself exit is on the point that prolongued microevolution can in fact result in macroevlution.

So, will the "Minkowski virus" program ever become a functioning word processor?

Consider the jump in complexity between simple organic molecules to functioning bacteria, from bacteria to eukaryotes, and so on, and you will see that the microevolution of a virus program into a somewhat different form of a virus program is no answer to the question at all. It is much like saying that a wolf can be domesticated into a German Shepherd, it proves nothing at all.

JR

 

[shernren]

I do apologize for unintentionally hijacking the thread. Let me try to refocus:

How would you propose that this "Minkowski" experiment differentiate between microevolution from macroevolution?

Everyone I've ever met believes that microevolution occurs, as my dog example was trying to point out. Where creationists like myself exit is on the point that prolongued microevolution can in fact result in macroevlution.

So, will the "Minkowski virus" program ever become a functioning word processor?

Consider the jump in complexity between simple organic molecules to functioning bacteria, from bacteria to eukaryotes, and so on, and you will see that the microevolution of a virus program into a somewhat different form of a virus program is no answer to the question at all. It is much like saying that a wolf can be domesticated into a German Shepherd, it proves nothing at all.

JR

Will the Minkowski program ever become a functioning word processor? (Actually, the answer might well be yes, given the right assembler, but that's a completely different issue.) The problem is that the computer-simulated evolution demonstrated simply isn't DNA, it is quantized instead of continuous and does not take into account the transcription processes as well as posttranscriptional significance of the various amino acids etc.

It's like trying to compare a chain email to a 200-person-long game of Chinese Whispers. Analogy works somewhat but breaks down with respect to crucial details.

 

[cubanito]

If shenren is correct, then this computer simulation is hopelessly flawed.

JR

 

[Deamiter]

The question regards "Macroevolution". That is, can an animal population be produced which is now unable (not unlikely, but unable) to mate with the ancestral population, yet is self-sustaining. The populations these days termed "species" are merely races, genetically able to interbreed back into the main pool. Macroevolution, the complete change of one population into a wholly different type of life form, genetically unable to interbreed is not demonstrable, though not for lack of trying.

I don't suppose you've looked into ring species much? There are many cases where ring species do not interbreed, but more importantly, there are indeed cases where scientists have been unable to MAKE them interbreed (even artificially).

I know, it wasn't precisely observed, but in the quote above you said it is not demonstratable. I contest that it may indeed be demonstratable (and I believe it is) but not on the extremely short timescale that you demand.