MASSIVE evolution simulator

[foofighter]

is it realistic to expect biologists to study evolution eventually through massive simulations, to learn how complex structures such as (insert creationist claim here) could have come about through Natural selection? i'm talking about a simulator that would have all the detail of the real world - from organism down to atom, along with all their interactions, in entire virtual ecosystems of hundreds of individuals in turn belonging to hundreds of virtual species, all interacting. how far away are we from that level of simulation in terms of our computing power. is that level of detail in a simulation ever attainable? if it is, it could IMHO finally put to rest the claim of "irreducible complexity" in a way that might satisfy more people, though not everyone. because to be honest, that is one thing that baffles me, the complexity of life. although i'm not a creationist, i am at the same time not entirely satisfied with Dawkins' explanations. which brings me to another point - Does anyone know of anybody who does a better job explaining than him?

[foodchain]

That’s basically taxonomy. It gets finer in detail over time from the study of life in retrospect to biology and all its aggregate fields, such as entymology or molecular biology. Its not just biologists that study evolution of life either, I mean that’s basically paleontology too for example. As for I guess a computer model that runs the simulation of such if thats what you are getting at, well I dont know if anyone has ever done such for all of life in retrospect to every aspect of evolution.

[someguy]

i don't see why it couldn't theoretically be possible. but we are waaaaaaay short in terms of computing power. but i would even say you could go as far as simulating self aware being with alleged freedom of choice.

[foofighter]

yea although it is beyond us - it did strike me as easier to accomplish than AI lol

[foodchain]

yea although it is beyond us - it did strike me as easier to accomplish than AI lol

 

You have to be careful with creationist arguments. They are typically skewed and self serving of emotional positions. Not that anything is wrong with that in a free world, just that its probably not the best place to go to understand science or why science may claim something. Personally I don’t understand relativity all to well, this does not however equate into me thinking its false.

 

I mean using thermodynamics, or in creationist camps, entropy, life simply cant exist, even right now it would seem life cant exist. Yet it does, and to boot it can live and die still via such, and if you look at life in more extreme ranges of say temperature, either in highs or lows you can find adaptation that has allowed life to persist and survive even there. If you want more detail on the origin of life question, well, the reality of that is that such a question is not something any one particular field is going to be able to solve. I mean, just go and look up how to get fluorine, and that’s just one element. I mean simply looking at survival functions for cells, you have structures of chemicals, why would they take the shape they did? Personally, I think it was natural selection battering success into matter and energy, though some will whip out that bs reductionist fallacy argument, even while what they promote is a product of reduction. Simply put if life violated fundamental laws it would not occur, its why we only have certain areas on the earth that have hurricane activity for instance.

 

The origin of life is complex from our position of ignorance. I mean at one point the steam engine was the pinnacle of technology at a point in human history. Reaction mechanisms go outside of simply electrons also, in that maybe some part of what lead to life took place in porous rock under certain conditions, and another step was in a place that exposed such to UV light for instance, and to go along with the example maybe the whole deal took over a thousand years to complete, anyone waiting to set up a thousand year reaction mechanism? Some known reactions can take hours upon hours over days to complete, and to add with this some formations of matter on an atomic/molecular scale you might encounter in geology take incredibly long to occur.

 

Listen, the best person to make a choice on this matter is you of course, but try not to just listen to anything or anyone. You should get rather educated on the matter actually and then listen to what’s empirical, simply put past that all you can ever have ultimately is something subjective. Its what drives me away from majoring in physics, I get scared of being trapped around people that want to solve the universe from some room on a blackboard with calculus.

[lucaspa]

is it realistic to expect biologists to study evolution eventually through massive simulations, to learn how complex structures such as (insert creationist claim here) could have come about through Natural selection? i'm talking about a simulator that would have all the detail of the real world - from organism down to atom, along with all their interactions, in entire virtual ecosystems of hundreds of individuals in turn belonging to hundreds of virtual species, all interacting.

 

This level of detail -- down to the atom -- may not be achievable. But it is unnecessary anyway. That much detail in a simulation may demand more computing power than is available in the universe.

 

However, there are already very complex and detailed simulations and other work showing how complex structures can arise by natural selection in more general terms. See here:

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

 

if it is, it could IMHO finally put to rest the claim of "irreducible complexity" in a way that might satisfy more people, though not everyone.

 

Oh, that's been done. See that paper.

 

because to be honest, that is one thing that baffles me, the complexity of life.

 

Two things to remember:

1. Natural selection is an algorithm to get design. That is, it is a series of steps that, if followed by a servile dunce, is guaranteed to produce the result. Long division is an example of an algorithm. The result of the algorithm of natural selection is design. Humans use natural selection when the design problem is too tough for them and, often, the results are so "complex" that humans can't figure out how the design works!

 

2. Natural selection adds information. Many systems in living organisms are more complex than they have to be. This is because natural selection can only add information. Where an intelligent agent would simplify a system natural selection can only make it more complex by adding another level of control. For instance, look at the blood clotting system. In trying to fine-tune the system, natural selection must keep adding levels of control.

 

which brings me to another point - Does anyone know of anybody who does a better job explaining than him?

 

The first 3 chapters of Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett is very good.

 

You have to be careful with creationist arguments. ... I mean using thermodynamics, or in creationist camps, entropy, life simply cant exist, even right now it would seem life cant exist.

 

Sorry, but here you have to be careful with creationist arguments. Thermodynamics and entropy does NOT prevent life from existing. It's the strawman and misrepresented version of entropy presented by creationists that says entropy forbids evolution.

 

If you want more detail on the origin of life question, well, the reality of that is that such a question is not something any one particular field is going to be able to solve.

 

Yes, chemistry or biochemistry will/has solved that.

 

I mean simply looking at survival functions for cells, you have structures of chemicals, why would they take the shape they did?

 

Because of the chemistry. Ask in more detail exactly what you mean by "the shape" and I'll walk you thru it.

 

Personally, I think it was natural selection battering success into matter and energy,

 

No, natural selection can only work once you HAVE life. It won't tell you how to get life to begin with. That's biochemistry. For natural selection to work, you have to have the following things:

 

1. Populations, or groups, of entities

2. Variation in one or more characteristics among the members of the population.

3. Selection among variations.

4. Reproduction

5. Hereditary similarity between parents and offspring.

 

Once you have life, then you have these criteria. But you don't have them before life.