Avida vs Intelligent Design

[Kopji]

I did a search on the forum for the word 'Avida' and did not find a match. A discussion of the implications of this evolution modeling program might be worthwhile.

http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/

The site includes links to downloads.

The February 'Discover Magazine' has an article titled 'Testing Darwin' by Carl Zimmer

Avida begins to answer long standing questions like:

What good is half an eye?
Why does a forest have more than one kind of plant?
Why be nice?
Why sex?
What does life on other planets look like?
What will life on earth look like in the future?

"One things the digital organisms do particularly well is evolve. 'Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it, Penock says. 'All the core parts of Darwinian process are there. These things replicate, they mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is happening there. If that's central to the definition of life, then these things count"
-from the article

 

[pupdog]

Got a question?

I think the interesting aspect is that there is no end goal specified, as in the case of Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel"--we now have digital "species" that have relative fitness based on their reproduction.

 

[Kopji]

My only question on this might be around why so many otherwise scientific people still promote Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution.

The Avida program results seem devastating to ID, am I missing something obvious?

The program experiments show that complex operations can be created out of simpler routines by applying principles of natural selection. In the case of the program, numbers become 'food' and limiting their supply actually improves the results.

This program is a fundamental attack on the core premise of Intelligent Design, which makes an assertion that some things in nature are irreducibly complex.

 

[Dylab]

The article mentioned is online here.

 

[toddjh]

I've tried playing the "genetic algorithms" card on creationists a number of times. They come back with one of several pre-canned responses, all of which miss the point.

The most common response is that an intelligent system created the framework, so therefore the statement that no intelligent direction is required is proven false.

The next most common response is that the parameters of mutation are set in advance and have certain built-in limits, thus ensuring that only "microevolution" can occur.

Jeremy

 

[Kopji]

The most common response is that an intelligent system created the framework, so therefore the statement that no intelligent direction is required is proven false.

I considered this too. Sort of like the programmer is god. Humm, they might be pleased at that...

These questions do not seem to negate the evidence that evolution of so-called 'irreducible organisms' are entirely possible under the constraints of natural selection.

Thanks dylab, that's the one.

 

[steenkh]

I considered this too. Sort of like the programmer is god. Humm, they might be pleased at that...

Apparently, they are not pleased. I have never understood why the non-fundamentalist ID supporter not simply accept evolution as the way to achieve the Intelligent Design. After all, they believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, who could have said to have used evolution because he knew it would lead to humanity (and crucifixion).

 

[toddjh]

Apparently, they are not pleased. I have never understood why the non-fundamentalist ID supporter not simply accept evolution as the way to achieve the Intelligent Design. After all, they believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, who could have said to have used evolution because he knew it would lead to humanity (and crucifixion).

The problem with that approach, even for some non-fundamentalists, is that it acknowledges that the world we observe could be the result of purely natural processes operating according to fixed physical laws. If that were the case, then not only is the hand of God not required, but it's not even entirely clear that there would be anything left for God to do even if he were around.

Also, spending three or four billion years setting up a "game" that will, according to the Bible, only last for a few millennia seems like a pretty inelegant solution for an omnipotent being. Special creation seems like a much more fitting method for Mr. Fiat Lux over there.

Jeremy

 

[pupdog]

otherwise scientific people

Yes, those people have some sort of "otherwise" science, quite different from what we're used to.

No, Kopji, you're not missing anything obvious; they are. They are blinded by a fanatical desire to believe in a concept that is faith-based, but somehow feel the need to "prove" it.