OK. Evolution is not"random". Evolution happens through natural selection which is about the least random process you can imagine. The mechanism for organisms to change is in fact random mutation, but by far the majority of mutations are either neutral or non-adaptive and die out. So those few random mutations that are adaptive survive and propagate. This may, to people like Mims, make them seem magical, but to most biologists they're just common sense.
I agree with your general inputs and conclusions. However, I think that Mims is correct, in a sense.
"The evolution of these complex molecules, which had to exist in the earliest cells, is so improbable..." --Mims
Yes, it is improbable, on a small-scale, and that seems to be where Mims' analysis has stopped.
"If enough random things happen and the beneficial things survive, then not only is the evolution not improbable, it's almost inevitable given enough time." --parent
Yes indeed.
I found Mims' statement that he has "built thousands of circuits, none of which were made by randomly wiring together components" very telling. If he were to wire billions of circuits by randomly wiring together components, then he might end up with a few that were useful.
I'm having a hard time reconciling his beliefs with his electronic achievements. This is not meant as a slam.
If he were to wire billions of circuits by randomly wiring together components, then he might end up with a few that were useful.
There are people who did exactly that [hackaday.com] with simulators and FPGAs. Some of these circuits have peculiar properties like being very sensitive to the substrate they're working on, and I got the overall impression that they're sort of messy and "un-designed-like", just like living organisms, as opposed to engineered machines.
I found Mims' statement that he has "built thousands of circuits, none of which were made by randomly wiring together components" very telling. If he were to wire billions of circuits by randomly wiring together components, then he might end up with a few that were useful.
That experiment was also done. Doing it in hardware turned out to give a lot of unexpected side effects, such as not being able to remove a "dead" circuit, as it's effect on capacitance and cross talk having a real effect after all.
So in order to address this they instead tried simulation of passive analogue filters (obvious fitness function and you can control which building blocks that "nature" gets to play with) and matched against the patent data base. It turns out that you indeed end up with a lot of d
Evolution may have failed to produce advanced life forms, or any life at all, on a million worlds. Only the successful random mutations exist to contemplate it.
Who says it hasn't failed to produce advanced life forms here? There may be a life form out there so advanced that you look like a slime mold in comparison.
If I set here and stare at nothing long enough, people might think
I'm an engineer working on something.
-- S.R. McElroy
Total misrepresentation of Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. Evolution is not"random". Evolution happens through natural selection which is about the least random process you can imagine. The mechanism for organisms to change is in fact random mutation, but by far the majority of mutations are either neutral or non-adaptive and die out. So those few random mutations that are adaptive survive and propagate. This may, to people like Mims, make them seem magical, but to most biologists they're just common sense.
Mims writes: "The evolution of these complex mol
Re:Total misrepresentation of Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it is improbable, on a small-scale, and that seems to be where Mims' analysis has stopped.
Yes indeed.
I found Mims' statement that he has "built thousands of circuits, none of which were made by randomly wiring together components" very telling. If he were to wire billions of circuits by randomly wiring together components, then he might end up with a few that were useful.
I'm having a hard time reconciling his beliefs with his electronic achievements. This is not meant as a slam.
Re: (Score:3)
billions a day for a billion years.
Of course it's just a new way of using the junkyard example.
Example of their ignorance to be precise.
Re: (Score:3)
I had to look that one up. Is it this?
Hoyle's fallacy, also known as the Junkyard tornado [rationalwiki.org]
Re:Total misrepresentation of Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
If he were to wire billions of circuits by randomly wiring together components, then he might end up with a few that were useful.
There are people who did exactly that [hackaday.com] with simulators and FPGAs. Some of these circuits have peculiar properties like being very sensitive to the substrate they're working on, and I got the overall impression that they're sort of messy and "un-designed-like", just like living organisms, as opposed to engineered machines.
Re: (Score:2)
I found Mims' statement that he has "built thousands of circuits, none of which were made by randomly wiring together components" very telling. If he were to wire billions of circuits by randomly wiring together components, then he might end up with a few that were useful.
That experiment was also done. Doing it in hardware turned out to give a lot of unexpected side effects, such as not being able to remove a "dead" circuit, as it's effect on capacitance and cross talk having a real effect after all.
So in order to address this they instead tried simulation of passive analogue filters (obvious fitness function and you can control which building blocks that "nature" gets to play with) and matched against the patent data base. It turns out that you indeed end up with a lot of d
Product of success (Score:2)
Evolution may have failed to produce advanced life forms, or any life at all, on a million worlds. Only the successful random mutations exist to contemplate it.
Re: (Score:2)