 |
Pegasus3d.com
Discussions on multiple topics, open to all
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
OscarWilde
Unbearable Bliss of Ignorance
Vice Admiral
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Posts: 9449
Location: Somewhere that seems to be no where
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jeremy Reimer wrote: |
People misinterpret the statement. They view "fittest" as some kind of knock-down, drag-out battle for survival where only one can win, whereas the scientific interpretation of "fittest" is more like "what is the fittest variation for that particular ecological niche?" It's not quite as exciting, though. And you don't have to be the absolute fittest to survive, so it's not winner-take-all, but as environments change, certain sub-groups may reproduce more than others because conditions become more favorable. |
True, but survival of the fittest still doesn't explain how evolution works. A more amusing rephrase of 'survival of the fittest' is 'survival of the meek' in the terms you are talking about. It as you say, under certain conditions certain characteristics prosper better. So in a condition that chances dramatically, what was once the stronger of the species fails and what may have been the meekest characteristics of the species survive. Even then, survival of the fittest just paints a small picture of how animals go extinct. Extinction takes a long time to happen actually. A really long time.
| Quote: |
Mutation does play a crucial role in evolution, however. Without mutation, it would be very difficult for some types of variation to arise. Creatures that reproduce asexually rely entirely on mutation for evolutionary change. The addition of sex, however, sped up the evolutionary process dramatically, since genes could be completely remixed each generation. But it still required mutation as an initial driving point. |
I'm in the scientific evolution camp that argues mutations aren't a crucial aspect of evolution. Mutations do occur, but are not a crucial part of evolution. The simple reasoning being: when the math was done to calculate the needed freq. of mutations that make a difference, it was something like a 10,000 years (i think). That doesn't account for the variety and complexity of species we see. And more importantly, mutations doesn't explain how say a wing develops along with lighter bones, larger hearts, etc., that are required for complex flying organisms.
As far as we can tell, recognizable humans have been around for 50-60,000 years. As far as we know, there hasn't been significant changes in the human species since that time that can be attributed to genetic changes. Environment plays a huge part in the differences we see. Where are the minor changes to the human species? Height? Strength? Those are attributed to man's growing ability to acquire and store food.
| Quote: |
| The really exciting thing now is that there are computer simulations that can run through millions of years of evolution in a few hours. This has really accelerated our understanding of how complexity can arise out of chaotic situations. In simulated environments, the creation of self-replicating genetic code, evolution, speciation, and all sorts of exciting things have been observed. Google "artificial life" to download some of these cool programs. |
That's amazing but computer simulations of complex systems tend to be broken down into simple steps that hardly emulate the real world. Computers have limited sources and computational ability to emulate a process so programmers try to take short cuts. On top of all that: our understanding of evolution and genetics is still in the learning process. So all those iffy variables makes the simulation at best just showing us what we know. I hope that made sense? While I think computer simulations are valuable tools, I've read too many articles on how computer simulations are tweaked till they match the outcome we see. And even then, when a new discovery is made that questions all current understanding, we also find that all the computer simulations that worked before don't work anymore.
You can call me the type of scientist that likes to work with my mind and not the computer. I know in the science world there are the types that use their minds to do everything, and then the types that use computers to solve problems. As far as I'm aware, theoretical mind type scientists have won more then the computer science geeks. So I shall await your computer science geek side to show me the money. Till then, i'll sit here with my cigarette and coffee and ponder the universe with my brain (more powerful then any computer in the world).
muahahahahaha!!!  
Oh, I shall check on the evolution simulation apps later. Cheers on the tip! 
_________________
'An urban myth. Like the dyslexic devil worshipper who sold his soul to Santa.' - Robert Rankin (Raiders of the Lost Car Park)
'Hate traps us by binding us too tightly to our adversary.' - Milan Kundera (Immortality)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OscarWilde
Unbearable Bliss of Ignorance
Vice Admiral
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Posts: 9449
Location: Somewhere that seems to be no where
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyway, what's interesting is that this maybe the first time on OSY we're going to have a debate from two sides of a science camp. Should be interesting and different. Lets see where the discussion goes.
Remember my stand:
Evolution is based on laws and principles of science that makes evolution self organizing and doesn't need chances or rolls of the dice to work.
Edit: by the way, that is a real scientific opinion I mentioned above. It's not some creationist or intelligent design view point. I think the universe works on immutable laws that cannot be broken. The laws themselves describe what can happen under certain conditions and what cannot happen no matter what the conditions. The world can be described as a series of formulas. So I guess I'm a purist math type? Don't know. Just making up stuff now. 
_________________
'An urban myth. Like the dyslexic devil worshipper who sold his soul to Santa.' - Robert Rankin (Raiders of the Lost Car Park)
'Hate traps us by binding us too tightly to our adversary.' - Milan Kundera (Immortality) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FondueDaredevil
Linux Looney
Rear Admiral
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5381
Location: My name is Elmer J Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OscarWilde wrote: |
| ... The laws themselves describe what can happen under certain conditions and what cannot happen no matter what the conditions. The world can be described as a series of formulas. So I guess I'm a purist math type? Don't know. Just making up stuff now. |
Mathematics is consistant within itself and isn't supposed to be a definition of the world, only an approximation. As we advance our knowledge that approximation approaches reality.
_________________
"Our products just aren't engineered for security."
- Brian Valentine, Senior VP in charge of MS Windows Development
"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisers to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad." Sen. Dick Durbin, 1998
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" - William Hilf, Microsoft homonculous
Supervillains for Linux!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7833
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That's amazing but computer simulations of complex systems tend to be broken down into simple steps that hardly emulate the real world. Computers have limited sources and computational ability to emulate a process so programmers try to take short cuts.
|
Of course--the models are abstractions, as are all models of the natural world by necessity. They aren't meant to duplicate the world exactly but merely increase our understanding of how certain parts of it work.
| Quote: |
On top of all that: our understanding of evolution and genetics is still in the learning process.
|
Yes, but it has advanced a lot farther than most people are aware of.
| Quote: |
So all those iffy variables makes the simulation at best just showing us what we know. I hope that made sense? While I think computer simulations are valuable tools, I've read too many articles on how computer simulations are tweaked till they match the outcome we see.
|
Sometimes that is the case, but many times it is not. For example, the computer simulation of solar system formation (ACCRETE) generated a bunch of solar systems with the gas giants up front, the exact opposite of our own and what was thought to be the case in the universe. Subsequent observations have shown that in fact such "top-heavy" planetary systems do exist in nature and the computer model was right all along. (Such systems are still rare, however, and usually the large planets end up farther away, as in our own system. Click on the link and give the model a try! Double-click to generate a new system)
| Quote: |
And even then, when a new discovery is made that questions all current understanding, we also find that all the computer simulations that worked before don't work anymore.
|
This is rarely the case. Most of these discoveries (such as Einstein's laws revolutionizing Newtonian mechanics) only apply to extreme edge cases. The old laws continue to work fine 99.999% of the time in these cases.
Computer modelling will never replace observation of the natural world. It simply works as an adjunct, assisting our understanding of it.
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Count_Blah
Yummy?
Commander
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 514
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most models aren't able to model the complete truth. We had quite a discussion about this with a math professor who called Physisit crazies because some physics models where so accurate, that he found it scary. (Quantum Electro Dynamics comes to mind)
Computer models may increase insight into nature, and facilitate in modelling nature. But to really explore nature time has to be spent in the lab.
Mathematics is a funny place since the Hilbert project failed. For mathematics to be able to describe everything the number of definitions would have to rise to infinity.
Evolution leads to deadbranches, when animals enter into to specific niches, like the Koala. How the hell could a Koala survive? The little thing could get a heart attack if you lift it unexptently. I don't expect to be rulled by Koala overlords in a few million year.
A computer simulation has a hard time dealing with chaos, which already happends with simple coupled systems like two connected pendulums. (Hell I encounterd it in a model of a little car for a project, altough that included some stuff)Imagine scallling such a model up to the size of the whole earth. If you modify one variable at the start you would start to see extra-ordinary things happening later on.
Mythbuster rocks serious ass. It must be cool to be able to goof around like those guys. Do some simple calculations on the back of a napkin, then do the experiment.
_________________
"The count on sesamestreet is an imposter, he is only from Brooklin, I am a real Count from Romania, Blah" - Count Blah in Gregg the Bunny
Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.
-- Dave Butler |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11j © 2001-2005 phpBB Group with many Smammy additions by Jeremy Reimer 2003-2005
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
