Digital Darwin

An anonymous reader writes "Using genetic algorithms to breed strings of computer code graphically, this week's Nature magazine describes results from Caltech and Michigan State. Their program is Avida. While they mainly mimic mutation, not genetic cross-over [or inheritance (thus wiping away much memory of initial conditions)], their simulations show how a short-term backward step in survival strategies can generate innovative advances. It is not unlike running a maze which necessarily involves testing alot of dead-ends, and thus shares the graphical look of Conway's classic Game of Life." Here's a National Geographic story about this as well, or see their press release.

Comments

Re:I've used genetic algorithms

[drooling-dog]

Indeed. Given the way that genetic inheritance works -- e.g., with mutation, crossover recombination, etc. -- you could argue that evolution is a matter of mathematical necessity. But faith always trumps reason with the creationists, and so it's usually an exercise in exasperation to debate the issue, no matter how solid your arguments are. They will refuse to comprehend them as a point of principle.

I've done some GA work myself, and it is quite fascinating. E.g., too high a mutation rate and the system destabilizes, but too low a rate and it never (or very slowly) finds its optimum fitness. Throw in some genetic recombination (simulating sexual reproduction) and evolution to higher mean levels of fitness accelerates considerably as useful "genes" are conserved while others quickly disappear. It's very cool.

Modern creationists are in the same place that official Christiandom was in the time of Galileo, I think. If you're religious, nothing in modern biology (which largely is evolution) really denies a role for a deity in kickstarting the whole shebang. Setting up the system to run itself unattended, in fact, would have been the smart way to do it. Those who insist that God would create a system far inferior to this -- i.e., that requires endless hand-tweaking of every minute detail -- are really delivering Him a kind of insult, aren't they?

Re:I've used genetic algorithms

[greg_barton]

That makes the assumption that the anti-evolutionists are logical people.

Very true. And, in the case of using genetic algorithms as a point of evidence in an argument, this assumption works against you. For many people computers are a black box. If you say, "I have a computer program that models mysterious process X" it's just replacing something mysterious with something incomprehensible.

And, before you do that, you have to assume that arguing is a productive activity in the first place. With many evolution deniers, it is not. But since they've wandered into my cave (the realm of logical, rational thought) I find it's my duty to eat them alive. :)

forget the anti-evolution argument

[gol]

having just successfully completed an undergraduate project in which i have used genetic algorithms to achieve full adaptive image compression, i have learnt rather a lot about these curious beasts that is seldom mentioned in modern text. the use of genetic algorithms in a computer does in no way prove or disprove any evloution/anti-evolution argument. these algorithms do not magically evolve new creatures, or new solutions. they just search the solution space in a highly parallel manner, and they surprise people because they come up with solutions they did not consider. the solution is there waiting in solution space - but you can't find it because your brain is not capapble, you don't spend enough time on it... whatever. this is not new, its not intelligent, its not the creation of a new species. think of genetic algorithms as exploiting adaptive characteristics, simple as that, i.e. skin colour changing due to intensity of sunlight. of course... there are fields of research that involve using one class of genetic algorithms to derive the schemata (structure) of another class, but the research has come up with nothing to date.

Re: I've used genetic algorithms

[Black Parrot]

> The problem with "creation scientists" is the same problem with "evolutionary biologists" - each firmly believes in their position regardless of the weakness of the position or evidence to the contrary.

Could I trouble you to summarize the weakness of the position of evolutionary biologists and the contrary evidence? Presumably you have something beyond the same old tripe that has been refuted hundreds of times, or you wouldn't be saying that.

> Weak minds often have a hard time with the intelligent design arguments of creation. While we don't specifically deny evolution, we posit that there was a Creator who started the process, and has and does attend to his creation.

And that position is completely worthless as a way of understanding the universe, because it is compatible with any observation whatsoever.

> When one looks at the complexity of living things compared to that of inanimate objects, one can't help but be struck by the difference in complexity between what merely exists and those things that grow.

What measure of complexity are you using? I'd like to see your calculations showing the complexity of a squirrel and the complexity of the Nile delta.

But maybe before we get into that too deeply... What has complexity got to do with anything? Are you making an underlying claim that complexity can only come about as a result of intelligent design? Is the Nile delta the result of intelligent design? Are intelligent designers the result of intelligent design? (Where did the first intelligent designer come from?)

> Interestingly, while this study can show the merits of evolution, it does more to bolster the intelligent design theory than to destroy it. While the experiment was very interesting, we must remember that the digital organisms did have an intelligent designer - it's not like the programs sprang to life on their own!

Yes, and our simulations of continental drift are written by humans too. Are we to conclude that humans are pushing the continents around?

Study up on the concept of "non sequitur" when you have a little spare time.