09.05.07
Can Computers Mimic Darwinian Evolution?
Can Computers Mimic Darwinian Evolution?
Abstract, also from Panspermia
Darwinism holds that new genes can evolve blindly out of old genes by gene duplication, mutation and recombination under the pressure of natural selection. The strong version of panspermia holds that they cannot arise this way or any other way in a closed system. If a computer model could mimic the creation of new genes by the Darwinian method, it would establish that the process works in principle and strengthen the case for Darwinism in biology. Here we briefly discuss some evidence and arguments for the Darwinian mechanism and some for panspermia. Then we consider three well-known computer programs that undergo evolution, and one other proposal. None of them appears to create new genes. The question remains unanswered.
Stephen P. Smith said,
September 6, 2007 at 11:30 am
The question is answered below:
Natural selection as an equation can run on a computer. However, this makes natural selection into little more than a tautology: those that survive are the ones that survive.
Natural selection as a one of Kant’s synthetic a-prior is not an equation that can run on a computer. Rather, life must be able to respond to selection pressures because life must be able to feel selection pressures. This provides that sentience is a precondition for evolution, and hence the precondition cannot be exported into a compute, nor can evolution explain its own precondition. This provides a basis for neo-Lamarckism where genes become aquired characteristics of life. With this version of natural selection one cannot prove, as Dawkins attemted, that the watchmaker is blind. One must stop with Kant’s arguments, or one follows the path provided Fitche, Schelling, Hegel, Peirce, Hussrle, and Whitehead. With the science of Trinity I followed that path beyond Kant.
This seems like a strong argument to me.
Luke Rondinaro said,
September 9, 2007 at 8:27 pm
From: Luke Rondinaro @
The Consilience Projects
A quick point on some of these computer simulation issues vis a vis evolution. Why must we necessarily assume “sentience” or out-and-out “consciousness” is involved here? Cannot we hold that through a programme of “encapsulated randomness”, such as the following material entails, the same results that we note in today’s world of living organisms could have been achieved? That’s my question. I realize, of course, that Lofting is driving at a slightly different point than I am in these essays of his; even so, on a higher cosmological-big historical level, why can’t the encapsulation of randomness produce today’s life-outcomes and the functional complexity of the universe at present?
Thoughts on this, John, or from you Hucklebird? I think Chris, here, makes some very valid pts. in putting forward this “encapsulated randomness” concept in the discourse on evolution/design as he did awhile ago back on the Chaopsyc list at UVM; still I’d like to get your own views on it as well.
Looking forward to your feedback on this stuff. Best! (Lk R)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/anota.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/icmaths.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/NeuroMaths3.htm
Stephen P. Smith said,
September 10, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Some feedback on your two questions:
The burden is on evolutionists to demonstrate that sentience does not need to be introduced into their computer simulations. The assumption has been made that sentience is not a precondition to evolution. So it is more on the mark to ask: Why has it been assumed that “sentience” or out-and-out “consciousness” is not involved in evolution as a precondition??????
The silence on this question is very telling! Instead of providing an answer we find the reverse question being asked. But it remains a fact that evolution (as an equations that can be imported into a computer) cannot explain its own precondition, whatever that precondition is revealed to be. Moreover, Schelling (as an evolutionist) has already put forward what he believes is the precondition for awareness of any kind. Moreover, every law in nature is experiential: meaning that a law is first conceived in the mind, and later it is empirically verified. If every law of nature is already one of Kant’s synthetics. This being the case it seems to be a wild leap of faith to assume that life emerged on sufficient ground from mere conditions of necessity given by laws as equations.