Two Simulations Of Evolution Making Seemingly Improbable And Complex Transitions

Great Quotes: We live as though the world were as it should be

Two simulations of evolution making seemingly improbable and complex transitions

Posted On Oct 22, 2008 at 11:14 pm

3 Comments

Here is a two-part video that has two different kinds of evolutionary simulations. You have to remember that even though evolution does not have a final design in mind for what organisms should look like over time, it does indeed have a goal. That goal is to survive and reproduce most efficiently in the current environment. The variables that effect survival and reproduction in our world are completely dynamic and environmental. The pressures of surviving are vastly different in the Sahara desert than they are in Antarctica. This is a very important concept to understand in order to fully appreciate and understand evolution.

The first evolution simulation is of pixels. The environmental variables for survival is to mimick the color intensity of the landscape in their particular position. The landscape from a higher perspective is that of a picture of cartman. You must not confuse this as trying to design the outcome. Remember, the environmental variables for survival are completely dynamic in nature and so in this video, those variables are simplified by making them static for a better understanding to beginners. Many people who watched this video did not understand this concept, so a part 2 was created that makes the environmental variables completely dynamic.

Part two more closely replicates the driving force for organism survival in our world. All organisms on this planet have two primary needs to survive. These are to find food and to reproduce. This of course can "pull" the outcome in two different directions and so through evolution as you will see in the video, natural selection has a way to finding the most efficient way to satisfy both needs (with varying results with every simulation run!)

Videos produced by cdk007. Transcribed by me.

Part 1 Transcription

Just ONE reason why Intelligent Design is WRONG. ID proponents usually use a handful of false arguments to claim that evolution is wrong, better yet, impossible. They often claim they can tell when an object is "designed", meaning it could not have occurred by random chance.

For example, if you came across a watch on a beach you would instantly know it was designed and did not appear by chance. Just as, if you came across Mount Rushmore you would instantly know it could not have eroded randomly and must be designed. But then they claim that proteins, the little machines inside all living cells are too complex to appear by chance. But proteins are part of living organisms which do three things mountains and watches don't: They Reproduce. They mutate. They are subject to natural selection.

Reproduction may be random; Mutations are random; But Natural Selection is NOT! Natural Selection can make almost infinitesimally improbably events occur with ease.

Heres how: We are going to simulate evolution with pictures as our organisms.

Start with 50 pure random images.
Mate them to produce the first generation. Each generation consists of about 12,000 children.
Allow some random mutations to occure. 1% of the pixels are randomly changed.
Impose natural selection. Kill off 99.5% of the new generation keeping the 50 that are most fit. An image is used to define the fitness landscape. This is equivalent to simulating mimickry in biology.
Mate the surviving 50 to produce the next generation and repeat.

And here's what it looks like at 10 generations per second. In this environment, fitness is increased by mimicking a SouthPark character. In 100 generations we have evolved an organism that never would have occured by random chance.

The probability of an image as good as the final image appearing by chance is 1:1E¹²

That's equivalent to winning the PowerBall Lotto 16 times in a row. Or entering a raffle the size of the Universe and picking the winning subatomic particle. And yet nothing was 'designed'. Natural Selection is a guiding force and that's the key.

Let's try another example this time removing all mating leaving only asexual reproduction with random mutations. In this environment, fitness is increased by mimicking a sentence. After 500 generations you can only begin to see something appear. But if we throw sex back in the mix The seemingly impossible evolves with ease.

Part Two Transcription

Imagine if 2 cheetahs each run down a gazelle. One who can catch it in 4 seconds and one who can catch it in 10 seconds. Its quite easy to tell who's better. But we can solve the problem of defining what is better another way; By comparing each to "Super Cheetah" Able to run down a gazelle in 0 seconds. This would be the perfect cheetah. Since the first [4 second] cheetah is closer to Super Cheetah it is better.

Example number 2. Bacteria evolved sodium channels to move sodium across their membranes. The perfect sodium channel would transport ions at a rate limited only by diffusion. One can compare channels directly: bacteria with channels that conduct more ions per second win; Or indirectly: bacteria with channels that conduct ions with a rate closest to the perfect channel win.

As you can see we have invoked the use of a 'perfect' goal to indirectly compare the fitness of organisms. Without invoking God or a Designer. With that said, onto the real purpose of this video. To simulate evolution without a goal image.

Remember: There must still be Natural Selection Without it evolution does not work.

The fitness of an organism will be determined by a simple mathematical function. The function merely drives evolution without forcing it to pick any single outcome. To make it interesting I've chosen a 2 part function. Each part pulls the organism in different directions. For example of what I mean, take the seal's flipper. It must be good for swimming and walking. Both pulling its form in different directions. Evolution found a great solution.

Rule 1: Increase the number of colors shown & Increase the representation of each (more food available)

Rule 2: Minimize the difference between neighboring pixels. (increase ability and efficiency for reproduction)

[Watch video to see results]

The outcome is again unbelievably improbably. More so then the examples given in the first video. It never would have occurred by chance. But evolution found it.

If we run the simulation again We keep getting slightly different outcomes. That is because evolution is looking for a way to increase the fitness without caring what the outcome is.

So once again, I have shown that Evolution driven by Natural Selection will find incredibly improbable solutions simply by applying Survival of the Fittest.

It's that simple.