What are we missing about the real workings of the evolutionary process?

Question

As a scientist (and a computer scientist at that) my view is that if we cannot simulate a process we have not understood it properly. I have been following the interesting field of Artificial Life for quite some time and the results are sobering - let me just quote two paragraphs from current overview articles:

One thing that always seems to happen with such projects is that, after they achieve their intended aim, if the ‘evolutionary’ program is allowed to run further it produces no further improvements. This is exactly what would happen if all the knowledge in the successful robot had actually come from the programmer [...]

That is why I doubt that any ‘artificial evolution’ has ever created knowledge. I have the same view, for the same reasons, about the slightly different kind of ‘artificial evolution’ that tries to evolve simulated organisms in a virtual environment, and the kind that pits different virtual species against each other.

Source: David Deutsch (2011): The Beginning of Infinity

One of the earliest networked artificial life experiments was based on the well-known A-Life system, Tierra. This was created in the early 1990s by the ecologist Tom Ray to simulate in silico the basic processes of evolutionary and ecological dynamics. After Ray began his work, he soon recognized the potential of the Web to create a large complex environment in which digital organisms could freely evolve. So he set up a project called Network Tierra to exploit this potential

The results of this experiment were mixed. One goal of Network Tierra was to reproduce the Cambrian explosion in which single-celled organisms on Earth evolved rapidly into multicellular ones and then into more complex animals.

The in silico experiment began with a human-designed multicellular organism consisting of two different cell types. This survived under natural selection, a significant success in itself, but the number of cell types never increased beyond two.

Source: MIT Technology Review (2014): The Curious Evolution of Artificial Life

The point is that I have myself successfully worked a lot with genetic algorithms and genetic programming (I am also teaching this stuff) but what bothers me is that we are still not able to create some abstract form of (co-)evolution inside a computer where some real dynamics take place to produce ever and ever more sophisticated "species".

My question
Are there hints from the biological sciences what this mysterious ingredient could be which we still seem to be missing? Is it physics? Is it chemistry? Is it something else?

EDIT
Obviously the question is not clear as it stands, so I try a clarification: I refer to complexity of the resulting "species" in artificial life simulations. For example their behavioural or structural complexity. Why do these simulations always get stuck at some very low level (e.g. following food) and never ever even create something as complex as a bacterium? The computing power should be more than sufficient by now - and still, nothing... It seems that only what has been put into the simulation comes out but real evolution produces something really new (this is what the renowned scientist and polymath David Deutsch (University of Oxford) means by "I doubt that any 'artificial evolution' has ever created knowledge.")

EDIT2
Nathaniel gave me a decisive hint in the comments that this problem is called "open-ended evolution (OEE)" in the Alife community and it is one of the biggest research challenges there - unsolved yet! As a starting point see here: https://www.google.de/search?q=%22open-ended+evolution%22&artificial&life

Very interesting that it doesn't seem to bother the biological community and is met even with hostility here (some even lecturing me that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and thereby implying that I might be some kind of crackpot creationist - unbelievable...)

...and no, the answer is not a matter of opinion (why this question was closed) but a valid research question (hopefully with some good answers someday)!

EDIT3
Last year there was even a big conference on this topic with many interesting results (although the problem itself is still unsolved):
http://www.tim-taylor.com/oee1/

See also my follow-up question here:
If evolution is not about increased complexity, why does so much complexity evolve?

@Downvoter: It is good practice to state your reasons. How can I improve the question? Thank you. — vonjd, Jan 05 '16 at 19:12
I am voting to close as this question will only generate answers based on personal opinion. I will also be the second downvoter, as we understand and have 150 years worth of scientific evidence to support Evolution and the process of Natural Selection. Furthermore you have cherry-picked two articles that back up your point, and it is not the case that "if we cannot simulate a process we have not understood it properly." Galileo could not simulate the solar system, yet he could prove heliocentrism. Newton and Leibniz could not simulate the infinitesimal, but they could understand it. — AMR, Jan 05 '16 at 20:46
@AMR: What does it have to do with it that we have evidence of evolution with my statement that we don't really understand the process? We have evidence of qualia and yet don't understand it scientifically. We have evidence of quantum mechanics and of the general theory of relativity and are still not able to combine them - so what is your point? And I would argue that Galileo, Newton and Leibniz didn't know all there is to know - and today we are able to simulate those processes! — vonjd, Jan 05 '16 at 20:52
@AMR: If you think I cherrypicked something give me one reference (only one) where artificial simulation really created something sophisticated. — vonjd, Jan 05 '16 at 20:54
@AMR: Are you kidding me? I had a quick look at the paper and I have done much more sophisticated stuff with genetic algorithms myself. The author only writes about some simple simulation on a simple morphological structure - which is not surprising considering the paper is over a quarter of a century old. Seriously: You should acquaint yourself with the area of artificial life which is much richer and deeper. The wikipedia link I gave above is a good starting point.... and yet it does not fly! (and no, it is not a matter of opinion but a hard scientific question!) — vonjd, Jan 05 '16 at 21:13
You've answered the question in your first lines: .. my view is that if we cannot simulate a process we have not understood it properly. How can you make a model whilst it is unknown how the first cells appeared and why and how multicellular organisms arose? It ain't magic; if you don't put the parameters in, a model won't generate magic — AliceD, Jan 05 '16 at 22:04
There is an inherent problem to Deutsch's argument, " if the ‘evolutionary’ program is allowed to run further it produces no further improvements." He is falling for one of the biggest misconceptions about evolution that you can, that evolution is about "improvement." Evolution has simply only ever been about change. Think of sickle cell anemia. Without Plasmodium driving selection, sca is a debilitating disease, and the wild-type population thrives, while scan mutants are less fit. No throw in the parasite, and people with the mutant allele survive while WT organisms die. — AMR, Jan 05 '16 at 22:54
Under one set of conditions one group is more fit, under the other, the other group is. Neither is an improvement or better, they are what they are in the context of the environment that they find themselves in. — AMR, Jan 05 '16 at 22:55
@AMR: Your last two comments were quite helpful - Thank you. — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 07:49
@AMR: Please see my follow-up question: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42050/if-evolution-is-not-about-improvement-why-is-there-so-much-improvement — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 09:57
@Christiaan: Please see my follow-up question: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42050/if-evolution-is-not-about-improvement-why-is-there-so-much-improvement — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 10:06
@shigeta: You write in your profile: "I believe that biology and other stackexchange sites should welcome newbies and encourage dialog about science, evolution, technology and etc." Just to let you know I don't feel very welcome here (just look at the comments) and I know how stackexchange works... see e.g. my profile here: http://quant.stackexchange.com/users - I know it is not your fault but it is a shame for the biology.SE site. Sorry to say... — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 10:44
This is known in Artificial Life circles as "the problem of open-ended evolution." It is (still) an area of active research (e.g. there was a workshop on it at the last ALife conference in York, UK last year) but nobody believes with certainty that they know the answer at this stage. — N. Virgo, Jan 06 '16 at 14:15
In my opinion it's mostly due to the constraints of computing power, which was very limited throughout most of the field's history, and is even now not quite enough. Because of this, we tend to use the smallest population we can get away with, and very strong selection pressure, because otherwise we would be waiting too long for anything to happen at all. But with small populations and strong selection you should not really expect anything other than strong convergence to a local optimum. — N. Virgo, Jan 06 '16 at 14:19
Deutsch's "doubt that any 'artificial evolution' has ever created knowledge" seems unfounded to me, since there are a moderate number of well-documented examples of exactly that, in the form of electric circuits that work in ways no human ever designed, and that sort of thing. (But I have not read Deutsch's paper and perhaps he addresses those.) — N. Virgo, Jan 06 '16 at 14:21
@Nathaniel: "the problem of open-ended evolution." - this is a very good hint from where I can get started. Interesting though that the biological community seems unaware of it... — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 14:33
@AMR: See my new edit2 - perhaps you would like to reconsider your downvote... Thank you — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 15:19
No. Nothing has changed. I do not need a computer simulation to be able to look at genetic homology between species and understand how evolution worked. I can look at actual data and interpret it. It tells me why humans have 46 chromosomes per diploid cell and not 48 as our ape relatives have. I can look at fossil records and see how species evolve. The Earth has provided all of the simulation and data for evolution and natural selection that one would ever need to understand it and prove it. — AMR, Jan 06 '16 at 15:27
You are also missing the point of the close votes. None of the answers on your other post are referenced and they are most all based on opinion, even if some of them are valid opinions. The guiding principle of the site is not to allow for questions that lead to that kind of answer. It is for questions that will lead to fact based, referenced answers. Your question is more appropriate for a lab meeting or a working group to brainstorm ideas and not for a site that does not look to be an open opinion forum. There are plenty of those on the Web and that is not what we are trying to be, — AMR, Jan 06 '16 at 15:33
@AMR: You don't get the difference between "seeing that something works" and "understanding how something works", right? For you it is enough to stand in front of a miraculous machine in awe and just acknowledge that it works. We agree on that one. What seems to be the difference between us: I really want to understand how it works - up to the tiniest detail of the process. This is why I became a scientist and this is why I asked this question: "What are we missing about the real workings of the evolutionary process?" — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 15:34
Again, you are pretty much completely wrong and that is likely because you haven't truly invested the time and effort to learn biology. It isn't mysterious or miraculous. It is predictable and behaves in a logical way. That is why it is the Theory of Evolution and not the hypothesis of evolution. We understand Evolution so well that we can use it to make predictions about nature and natural phenomena that hold up and can be proven to the greatest rigor of science. The only things we are missing is actual proof of the very beginnings up to the Last Universal Common Ancestor. — AMR, Jan 06 '16 at 15:41
@AMR: Oh, and by the way I am fully aware of how SE sites work - I am No. 1 by far on one of them: http://quant.stackexchange.com/users - and to tell you the truth: The climate is much more welcoming there than here! — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 15:41
To clarify my close vote - you write ...and no, the answer is not a matter of opinion (why this question was closed) but a valid research question (hopefully with some good answers someday)!... It may be a valid question, but the answers will be primarily opinion-based, making the question off-topic here. — AliceD, Jan 06 '16 at 15:42
@AMR: "The only things we are missing is actual proof of the very beginnings up to the Last Universal Common Ancestor." You forgot the point that we are not able to reproduce open-ended evolution in a computer simulation... So there are at least two things... — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 15:44
@Christiaan: How do you know that before you have even encountered the right term under which the research results are to be found ("problem of open-ended evolution OEE")??? — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 15:48
A computer cannot reproduce Graham's Number, even though it is finite, and has been used in a rigorous mathematical proof. So I am not going to lose any sleep over the inability of computer "scientists" to simulate evolution in silico. Computers are a great tool, but just because something cannot be done with them doesn't mean there is a problem with the actual event they are trying to mimic. — AMR, Jan 06 '16 at 15:53
@AMR: Fair enough, yet I think the problem is not that we are not able to reproduce it but that we do not even know what is missing (we know that in the case of Ramsey theory!) - and this is all I asked for. — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 16:19
I may be entirely wrong, but I don't hear Evolutionary or Paleo Biologist saying that we need computer simulations to understand the subject, in the same way that astronomers ask for computer models that simulate cosmic expansion or galaxy formation. And that is because the model we are given from the Theory is fairly complete. We may have gaps, but we have no unexplained life forms to date. I can plate a dish of yeast, mutagenize them, and put them under selection, and I will, in some small probability find adapted mutants not present in the control. And we understand the mechanism for that. — AMR, Jan 06 '16 at 18:07
""What are we missing about the real workings of the evolutionary process?" - "Are there hints from the biological sciences what this mysterious ingredient could be which we still seem to be missing? Is it physics? Is it chemistry? Is it something else?" - Different people see "different hints", and there is no definitive answer. Anybody could be correct as to what direction we should head in. This is the very definition of opinion based. That doesn't make it a bad question - it just means there cannot be "one true answer", which is what the SE sites aim for, (as you know) — DoubleDouble, Jan 06 '16 at 23:25
@AMR "I may be entirely wrong, but I don't hear Evolutionary or Paleo Biologist saying that we need computer simulations to understand the subject" - actually there are quite a number of very senior and influential evolutionary theorists who use simulation extensively. Szathmáry and Nowak both come to mind straight away, though there are many others. — N. Virgo, Jan 07 '16 at 05:07
@Nathaniel Szathmáry is using simulation to test specific hypothesis about molecular machines and also multicellular development, based on the assumption that evolution does occur in a predictable and understandable way. This question is saying that we cannot understand evolution as a mechanism if we cannot simulate it in a computer, there is a difference. "if we cannot simulate a process we have not understood it properly." That is very different from using a computer algorithm to test a hypothesis that would have developed over millions or billions of years. — AMR, Jan 07 '16 at 14:56
@AMR: Imagine physicists observe the solar system and collect evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the planets are attracted to each other and that "gravity" is responsible for their movements. They even summarize "gravity" into some nice laws. Now you put these laws into a computer and see how different objects are affected. Unfortunately instead of ellipses the objects move in rectangles. Getting back to the physicists they tell you: "Never mind, we fully understand gravity and we don't have to simulate it because there is evidence that the planets move in ellipses" How would you react? — vonjd, Jan 07 '16 at 16:01
The sim is wrong, not the evidence or the theory. Take a look at the code you wrote and find the error. You are enamored with computers and for some reason cannot seem to divorce yourself from the idea that the data that they generate is perfect and that everyone else is wrong. If you want to deal in hyperbole, if a simulation has sheep giving birth to monkeys, I'll find the grad student that wrote the code and tell them to kindly stop being sophomoric. If however, an entire flock of sheep start giving birth to monkeys, then I would say that maybe we have to look at something in evolution. — AMR, Jan 07 '16 at 16:20
@AMR: Very good answer indeed: many scientists double checked the code over decades... still rectangles (see my edits and the links given there). I am not saying that the theory is wrong but that it may be incomplete (you do recognize the word "missing" in my question, right? And you do understand that this is different from "wrong"?) And one clarification: Declaring oneself to be beyond any criticism whatsoever is not only bad style but is not science either. The majority of this community agrees with me now so you seem to be the one saying "everyone else is wrong" ;-) — vonjd, Jan 07 '16 at 16:41
"The majority of this community agrees with me now...." Because you have a question that got 21 upvotes? @Remi.b got 39 upvotes for an answer about Morning Wood — AMR, Jan 07 '16 at 16:48
@AMR: So obviously this is also a great contribution - but I did this in one (!) day and that answer is nearly two years old. I am very happy about this development :-) — vonjd, Jan 07 '16 at 17:01
Does it not phase you that almost ever single answer tells you your premise is basically wrong? And he got 78 for this answer, even though he didn't bother to provide references and the original, unedited question got 26 upvotes, even though its premise was entirely incorrect. http://biology.stackexchange.com/a/40581/16651 — AMR, Jan 07 '16 at 17:25
I'm also a CS guy, so maybe my opinion shouldn't have that much weight, but I did do biology research in college and I work at a company that produces biology research instruments. That said: I find it pretty sad that this question was closed, and it's absolutely ridiculous that it seems to have been interpreted as "in your opinion, why is the theory of evolution flawed/lacking." (Not to mention the bizarre comparison to "simulating" infinitesimals, whatever that means.) Have an upvote. — Kyle Strand, Jan 07 '16 at 17:31
@KyleStrand the close is not about the question. "Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise." — AMR, Jan 07 '16 at 17:36
@AMR: My premise is that we are not able to successfully reproduce important stylized facts of evolution and this is correct - many people agree with me. But I understand that you think that you are the one in this community who decides which premises are correct or incorrect, you are not to be bothered by dozens of votes from the community. I think you should just relax and find a good answer to my question - Thank you. — vonjd, Jan 07 '16 at 17:38
@AMR I see that. I don't understand why the question as stated is necessarily opinion-based, though. — Kyle Strand, Jan 07 '16 at 17:41
@KyleStrand It does not matter if the question is opinion-based or not, what matters is the answers that are generated. And as can be seen from the follow up to this question one out of the ten answers had a reference. The majority of posters opened accounts yesterday to answer, and as such, that goes against the stated goals of the site. — AMR, Jan 07 '16 at 17:44
@AMR: So questions that are able to grow this site are against the stated goals.. I think you might have misunderstood something here ;-) — vonjd, Jan 07 '16 at 17:47
It is actually the stated goal of the entire network. http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/ — AMR, Jan 07 '16 at 17:50
@AMR The *frick?? No. No no no no no no no no no. You do not* close questions because bad answers show up; you delete the answers. You do close questions that have an inherent tendency to attract opion-based answers, i.e., subjective *questions*. — Kyle Strand, Jan 07 '16 at 17:52
@AMR In case the above gets flagged as rude (sorry, but it shocks me that someone with a relatively high rep on any SE site would so badly misinterpret the subjective-questions policy), I'll restate the point more calmly: the blog post you cite clearly states that it is about questions. The fact that a question draws some opinion-based answers may be an indication that the question itself is opinion-based, but it is not in itself sufficient reason to close the question as "primarily opinion-based." — Kyle Strand, Jan 07 '16 at 17:56
@AMR: Please show us the part where it says that it is "against the stated goals of the network" when "the majority of posters opens new accounts to answer". I think this is getting more and more ridiculous and we can all see that you are just not prepared to admit a mistake. — vonjd, Jan 07 '16 at 17:58
@vonjd Extensive discussion in the answers or below in the comments is indeed discouraged. stackexchange is set up as a question and answer site, not as a discussion site. This is something you can regret in terms of scientific discussions, but these are the rules. You could look into this stackoverflow post for example. Opinion-based questions are seen as unscientifically and not welcomed here on biology. So please, respect the rules of the community. And please stop discussing in the comments and move this over to chat. — Chris, Jan 07 '16 at 18:48
@Chris: I fully agree and upvoted your comments. Thank you for your service to the community. — vonjd, Jan 07 '16 at 19:10
I don't really understand @Chris's objections to the discussion here; AFAIK there is no problem with using the comments to discuss whether a question is appropriate for a site, though at this point perhaps someone should just open up a Meta question to resolve the issue. — Kyle Strand, Jan 08 '16 at 18:20
But OP, I think am beginning to understand the claim that your question is subjective, and I think it could use a pretty substantial edit (not just another addendum, but a rewrite of what's already there) to clarify who "we" are when you say "we are missing" things in the theory of evolution. As far as I can tell, there are two possible interpretations, and both are actually fairly valid as (non-subjective) questions: — Kyle Strand, Jan 08 '16 at 18:20
first, "what parts of evolutionary biology are missing from CS evolutionary simulations?" (which would completely evade the "evolution is not in doubt" argument from @AMR et al), and second, "what open questions in evolutionary biology might also be 'missing factors' in CS simulations of evolution"? The second question is obviously more open to the charge of subjectivity, though I personally wouldn't consider it overly subjective (though it might be too broad; every field, including reasonably well-established ones like evolutionary biology, have lots of open questions!). — Kyle Strand, Jan 08 '16 at 18:22
@KyleStrand: I agree but I am pondering the possibility to ask a new and clearer question. New because closed questions tend not to be reopened on SE sites and I want to give everybody a chance to answer this question. — vonjd, Jan 08 '16 at 18:44
Editing is nevertheless the "standard" way to go. Note also that editing a closed question automatically places it in a "reopen" review queue, so there is actually a good chance it will be re-opened if it has improved. (There may be some exceptions to the automatic-placement-in-the-reopen-queue rule, but I'm not sure.) — Kyle Strand, Jan 08 '16 at 18:50
@KyleStrand The comments are not meant for discussion here on stackexchange. Like it or not, but respect it. — Chris, Jan 08 '16 at 19:01
@Chris When the automatic "continue this discussion in chat" link is created, I almost always use it, but there apparently has not yet been enough back and forth to generate one. Since you have the mod-powers necessary to move the discussion without the auto-gen link, it would be fine if you did so (your earlier comment to that effect sounded a bit like a threat, though, which I found odd). — Kyle Strand, Jan 08 '16 at 19:15
Based on prior experience, I don't think your attitude is actually all that standard for StackExchange; between this and OP's follow-up question (where non-discussion comments were deleted), it seems Bio.SE is generally less welcoming toward long sequences of comments on a question. This is fine, but I'd appreciate it if you stopped accusing the rest of us of not understanding network-wide policies. — Kyle Strand, Jan 08 '16 at 19:15
@KyleStrand: I asked the new question and it is again on the brink of being closed although this time I really tried to make the point explicit: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42151/bootstrapping-symmetry-breaking-in-evolution — vonjd, Jan 09 '16 at 13:38
@AMR : Galileo is a bad example, because he didn't prove heliocentrism, he was right for the wrong reason. He argued that the tides are caused by the motion of the Earth around the Sun, while his opponents correctly argued that the tides are caused by the Moon. Also, the theory of gravity was not invented yet, so as strange as it seems, with the instruments available at that time, heliocentrism didn't have any more solid scientific proof than geocentrism. — vsz, Feb 22 '16 at 22:12
@vonjd If you are interested, I recommend looking into Basener's ceiling. It's a mathematical proof that all evolutionary algorithms hit the complexity limit that you see in practice. It is from the Intelligent Design literature, which I know is disliked around here, but the proof is sound. — yters, Jun 14 '17 at 19:31

score 5 · Accepted Answer · edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:42

The question appears interesting and made me think but I might not fully understand it. Let me know if I am answering your question.

Genetic algorithm vs simulation of evolutionary processes

I think that the whole issue comes from a confusion between the concept of simulating evolutionary processes and the use of genetic algorithm (type of optimization algorithm) for various purposes.

Genetic algorithm

Genetic algorithm is a type of optimization algorithm (and the OP knows much more than I do in this field) aiming to find solutions to search problems. The accuracy of the analogy between a genetic algorithm and the biological reality that inspired such algorithm is completely irrelevant to the usefulness of the algorithm at doing a specific task (such as the NP-hard travelling salesman problem for example).

Numerical simulations in science

I think your question is not specific to evolutionary biology but rather to science as a whole (this leads me to think that Philosophy.SE would be a good place to ask such question).

In natural sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology and others), we model things! We abstract the essentials from a complicated world and model it. When we model, we assume a number of properties of the system of interest. These assumptions might be extremely well documented and verified or not. When the assumptions of a model are not well documented, it is of course essential to study a posteriori the robustness of the model to violation of the assumptions and to consider the results of the model with a pinch of salt. A model can be purely verbal or most often expressed in mathematical formulations. However, many complex systems cannot be modelled mathematically (even for the most brilliant mathematicians). This is where numerical simulations come into play. Note that once a process has been modelled, we empirically investigate the accuracy of our model by formulating predictions and testing them.

You say:

if we cannot simulate a process, we have not understood it properly

If we already understood a process, there is no point spending time and money to simulate it anyway! So again, this sentence suggests that numerical simulations is worthless in science. It is true though that we can only simulate the processes for which we know the basic components (but we might not understand the dynamic of a system of interest).

Simulations in Evolutionary biology

You cite one work (which I am not familiar with) which fail to reproduce the observed pattern. In other words, the predictions of the model are not met/observed in reality.

As I said above, one needs to understand the basic components of a system in order to be able to simulate it. We happen to already know a faire amount of stuff! Of course, it is impossible to address the question "what do we know in Biology" as it would be way too broad. There are thousands of studies that have used numerical simulations (and also mathematical simulations) to study evolutionary processes.

Example

Imagine for example, you are interested to know the probability for a given new neutral mutation to rise in frequency in a diploid population to reach "fixation" (that is a frequency of 1; everybody then carry this mutant allele). There exists a number of mathematical models (Wright-Fisher (binomial) model of genetic drift, Moran (Birth-death) model and Coalescence (branching process) model) to calculate this probability but let's assume we fail to develop such mathematical/analytical model and and we need to simulate it. We could simulate this process a lot of time (using a ABC kind of approach) and calculate the expected probability of such mutant allele to get fixed. Btw, this probability is $\frac{1}{2N}$, where $N$ is the effective population size.

Want to know more?

I am not a philosopher of science (but a PhD student using numerical tools to model evolutionary processes) and I think the question is not specific to evolutionary biology. I would recommend to ask the question What is usefulness of numerical modelling in science? or Are numerical modeling worth as much as analytical modelling in science? on Philosophy.SE.

If you do so, can you please link to your posts here, I would love reading the answers. If you don't ask these questions on Philosophy.SE, I probably do it at some point and will add the links here.

Thank you, I think your answer goes definitely into the right direction (and I upvoted it). My main question is why has no artificial simulation ever been able to really create something sophisticated but seems always getting stuck after reaching some low level of complexity? — vonjd, Jan 05 '16 at 20:57
[...] reaching some level complexity. Do you refer to the complexity of the model? — Remi.b, Jan 05 '16 at 21:01
I refer to complexity of the resulting "species" in those artificial life simulations. For example their behavioural complexity. I mean why do these simulations always get stuck at some very low level and never ever even create something like a bacterium? The computing power should be more than sufficient by now - and still, nothing... — vonjd, Jan 05 '16 at 21:18
See also my Edit at the bottom of the question. Thank you again. — vonjd, Jan 05 '16 at 21:25
Oh, so your question is less general as I thought. You are talking about a few quite specific type of simulations apparently. You should clarify the definitions of these simulations. Are the authors of those simulations particularly interested in the evolution of cell cooperation in a multicellular organism or maybe they are interested in the evolution of a complex genetic network... or maybe something else. — Remi.b, Jan 05 '16 at 21:33
I would suggest that you investigate a bit more about what they are trying to build (and from which basic mechanisms) and then ask a more specific question about why these simulations fail to produce what is observed. For the moment, it is unclear what category of simulations you are referring to. — Remi.b, Jan 05 '16 at 21:34
If the term artificial life experiments refers to a specific type of simulation, then your question relatively clear I guess. But I would guess that most people don't know what is meant exactly by artificial life experiments (at least I don't) — Remi.b, Jan 05 '16 at 21:36
Please see my follow-up question: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42050/if-evolution-is-not-about-improvement-why-is-there-so-much-improvement — vonjd, Jan 06 '16 at 10:06

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Jan 05 '16 at 22:24

1

Agree with the previous answer.

Are there hints from the biological sciences what this mysterious ingredient could be which we still seem to be missing? Is it physics? Is it chemistry? Is it something else?

The OP already seems to support evolution theory, as anyone with basic biology knowledge would do.

Since he is asking about possible "mysterious ingredient", the question is very likely to be regarding the stimulation of the evolutionary process rather than generic algorithm.

Even more specifically, he wants to stimulate the evolution to know if "Probablity theory" will support evolution theory without any need for the "mysterious ingredient".

As answered above, without fully understanding all the components of the system, it may be difficult to stimulate an evolutionary process. There is not even need for that.

But if you want to test if complex characteristic can be achieved by chance you can stimulate it easily by some other method.

Develop a program which has "face detection" (from the image)function, and add some other functions such as self replication, forced "mutation", and an enviroment which will select the fittest. Try super computers where your software will self-replicate "unlimited" times at a second, and consider yourself successfull when your program gain a newer function such as "sex" detection from the or image after several years (assuming sex detection feature will make the program "fitter" at your enviroment)

answered Jan 05 '16 at 22:24

TeoFriendly

203
1
9

"The OP already seems to support evolution theory" - why would anyone doubt it? I just want to fully understand it. Anyway, could you please clarify your last paragraph, how exactly would you go about? – vonjd Jan 05 '16 at 22:31
1

I have read some comments under your question, and thought that some people may think you do not support evolution because of lack of stimulation. I am sorry if i misunderstood this. Anyway i found your question very interesting and already upvoted it. I agree with you. – TeoFriendly Jan 05 '16 at 22:55
Please see my follow-up question: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42050/if-evolution-is-not-about-improvement-why-is-there-so-much-improvement – vonjd Jan 06 '16 at 10:06
1

@vonjd nice question. i will comment. I have some computer programming background i generally share your feelings about improvments – TeoFriendly Jan 06 '16 at 11:05
Algorithmic depth and processing power are miniscule compared to the algorithms of life. The 70 common chemical elements have Van-Der-Valls force, flow, dissolution, 70^70 simple combinations, a google number of proteins, The best mathematicicans can't even model a single tree... it takes them months to program diatoms, leaves, and they always fail. trillions of gygabytes database and algorythms that cover many cd's are used in biology, and for the moment we rival them to about a billionth of their numerical depth. – bandybabboon Jul 22 '17 at 10:18

What are we missing about the real workings of the evolutionary process?

2 Answers2

Linked