Chris
Thanks, Steve.
I'll look it over. I see a general problem with it already, in that many
of the items listed should *evolve* from others, and should not be included
as a basic part of the simulation. For example, a really good simulation of
evolution would start "at the beginning," with nothing more than a
simulation of suitable physics and chemistry, and the rest would all be
evolved from that starting point. Nevertheless, I think the list is
valuable and probably could be extended.
However, much about evolution can be studied *without* many of these
features. For example, one claim is that random processes, even repeated
and cumulative, cannot produce complexity. This is not a specific claim
about DNA-based evolution, but much more general claim. It can therefore be
studied with simulations that do not represent DNA at all, but merely a
process that demonstrates whether complexity *can* be accumulated by this
kind of process. Similar considerations apply to selection.
At 05:20 AM 10/16/2000, you wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 02:31:35 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> >DB>1) Your list of 47 specific aspects that should be considered in any
> >>"evolution simulating" program is quite impressive.
>
>Thanks to David
>
> >CC>Where did you see this list of 47 specific aspects? I tried to find a
> post
> >by Stephen on the 5th that had such a list, but was unsuccessful.
>
>Here it is again:
>
>===================================================
>On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:11:34 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> >WE>Certainly the further work of Holland and others in
> >>evolutionary computation
>
>SJ>I am interested in how biologically realistic and therefore relevant
>these so-
> >called genetic algorithms of "Holland and others" were.
> >
> >A basic sexually reproducing eukaryote system has the following (grossly
> >*simplified*) components that all play a part in reproduction and
> >inheritance and therefore any mutation and selection. Do "Hollland and
> >others" computer simulations have the silicon equivalent of:
> >
> >1. bodies?
> >2. reproductive systems?
> >3. cells?
> >4. membranes?
> >5. cytoplasm?
> >6. cytoskeleton?
> >7. organelles?
> >8. nucleus?
> >9. ribosomes?
> >10. enzymes?
> >11. DNA?
> >12. genes?
> >13. gene expression?
> >14. pleitropy?
> >15. chromosomes?
> >16. RNA?
> >17. proteins?
> >18. genetic codes (there are now known to several)
> >19. DNA transcription?
> >20. RNA translation?
> >21. Error checking?
> >22. mitosis?
> >23. meiosis?
> >24. crossover?
> >25. Mendel's rules?
> >26. fertilisation?
> >27. zygotes?
> >28. embryo?
> >29. development?
> >30. adulthood?
> >31. populations?
> >32. environment?
> >33. catastrophes
> >34. competition?
> >35. sex?
> >36. death?
> >37. adaptation?
> >38. stasis?
> >39. extinction?
> >40. random mutation-genetic?
> >41. randon mutation-chromosomal?
> >42. genetic drift?
> >43. natural selection-stabilising?
> >44. natural selection-disruptive?
> >45. natural selection-directional?
> >46. macroevolution?
> >47. possibility of failure?
>
>[...]
>===================================================
>
>Of course this list is not complete.
>
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
>having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
>Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
>Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 07:47:39 EDT