Evolution simulater (must See)

[cambrian_exp]

http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs/evsim.html

this is page i stumbled upon.looks like creationist site, pls see that.

also see this

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

[ydoaPs]

the first one ignores the fact that evolution uses cumulative selection. i've not viewd the second yet.

[the tree]

From the second one

According to the theory of evolution, living things came into existence by [... blah ... blah ... blah ...]

There's little point in reading something that doesn't know what it is refuting.

[PhDP]

That's just nonsense. To make a realistic simulation, they should start with a random 9-letters "word", then from that word, generate a certain number of word with some letter changed (mutations). Those "word" looking more like "evolution" should be selected, and from this word, again, generate a certain number of words with some letter changed, et cetera... With some generation the word "evolution" would come up easily.

[bascule]

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

 

Harun Yahya is full of shit

[cambrian_exp]

these creationist people waste their resources in stuff full of nonsense and shit

[silkworm]

these creationist people waste their resources in stuff full of nonsense and shit

 

And they show huge amounts of disrepect to the followers of the religion they share by doing so.

[mooeypoo]

hehe!!! This is the most hilarious attempt to critisize evolution I have EVER seen!!! I can't stop laughing, geesh. hehe.

 

Well, what they're doing is showing what "random" is.. not what evolution is... they're ignoring every possible rule regarding the theory of evolution, and picking only the "random events" part. Quite amusing, really. hehe.

 

Thanks for the amusement, cambrian_exp. I don't quite know how this is even WORTHY of a reply, let alone a scientific debate though, since it's so.. hilariously... wrong!!

 

 

~moo

[reor]

And yet, many creationists use this kind of "evidence" in their arguments.

[mooeypoo]

darling, creationists use "evidence" their pastors give them.

 

"You have a nose, that is meant to breath the air around you!!! How can that be created randomly?!?!" Is also something they're "using".

 

May I remind you, also, that those people often say that you should not speak "his" name without fear of devine punishment... those people are just impossible to argue with, since their "logic" is illogical, and quite frustrated to argue with. It kinda leaves you with no words.. amazed at.. the way people just take things for granted.

 

Doesn't mean its not funny... it just makes them sound extremely stupid.

 

~moo

[bascule]

the first one ignores the fact that evolution uses cumulative selection. i've not viewd the second yet.

 

Hooray for someone else who needs to read my signature!

 

Sadly I think the "evolution is random" strawman will persist forever

[ydoaPs]

Hooray for someone else who needs to read my signature!

 

Sadly I think the "evolution is random" strawman will persist forever

don't you mean "someone who DOESN'T need to read my signature!"?

[bascule]

don't you mean "someone who DOESN'T need to read my signature!"?

 

I meant them silly, not you

[ydoaPs]

well, you quoted me!

[SmallIsPower]

Oh My God! We're impossible!

 

I wonder what the probablity of the whatevers self-assembling into God.

[Steph]

Oh My God! We're impossible!

 

I wonder what the probablity of the whatevers self-assembling into God.

 

Yea.. I came to that conclusion long ago. However if we are impossible, its impossible for me to actually come to that conclusion. therefore, I exist.

[reor]

I just visited that evolution generator site again and got something like EVOLUCDON on the first refresh and some dirty words afterwards.

[Edtharan]

You know for my year 11 computing project I made an evolution simulator. The user could enter any word or sentance (up to 80 characters - this was in the old DOS days) and it would try to evolve it.

 

The way I did this was to initially produce 100 random strings of the requiered length. Then I would select the best strings. I did this is 2 ways:

1) I would count the numbers of each letter in the string. The best were the strings that had similar numbers of the letters in the target string (ie if the target string had 5 letter "F"s then the closter a string had to that number of "F"s the better it was)

2) I would check the positions of letters. If a string had more matching letters in the same position as the target string the higher it rated.

 

I then weighted the two conditions above (#1 was weighted slightly higher) and then chose the best 9 and discarded the rest. I then mutated them (transposed letters, changed letters, etc) and made 10 coppies of each. For the remaining 10 strings (in the set of 100) I would populate with purely random strings.

 

This would usually reproduce the desier target string in less than a minute.

 

Now unlike real world evolution, this is a directed evolution with a specific goal. But one could see this goal as a section of DNA that is the most efficient at doing it's job (eg: to produce the best protien shape, etc).

 

For my year 12 computing project, I made a few changes. Instead of having a preset string, the user would choose, after each generation, the strings that they though best matched their desiered target string(s). I also used around 200 strings for this one.

 

The "evolution" simulator on the webpage is just a random string simulator. With no Selection it can never come close to simulating evolution.

[GutZ]

I don't understand...are they saying that "virus fX174" is the first biological organism? How do they know that? Isn't that like calculating the possibility of a plant randomly turning into a human...where are the other steps leading to that? that makes no sense.

[Edtharan]

I think I might re write my evolution simulator someday and post it up to one of these sites.

[Severian]

This thread is grossly mistitled.