Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 141 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Cellular Automata
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't believe this thread is still open, and that no one has mentioned cellular automata and genetic algorithms as a "proof" or "demonstration" of the principles of evolution, and of how complex structures could have "evolved" into being.
This is my own example based on things I read long ago. I hope to get it correct enough for government work!
Imagine 20 grids of empty cells. Now, with some random decision-making process, put a black stone in some of the cells. Then, apply some "rules" to change the contents of each cell based on its neighbors. For example, if a cell has black stones in three of its neighbors, put a black stone in this cell if there's not already one there. After each iteration of the rules to each separate grid, pick some number of the "best grids", where "best" corresponds to the ends you're trying to achieve. (I'll explain that further in a minute.) Then, "breed" the grids together (this gets a little fuzzy, but I think of it as comparing two grids to each other, and if both cells have a stone, the child grid gets a stone in that cell, if neither has one it doesn't, and if one does and one doesn't, flip a coin). You can also randomly choose (for some number of squares), to NOT follow the rule - have two black stones result in no stone in the child grid. You can also randomly choose NOT to breed all of the best grids, or to also breed some number of the bad grids. Repeat applying the rules and then breeding for some number of iterations, until your "goal" is achieved.
The random initial state corresponds to the "before" picture, before the evolution begins. The "rules" are chemical processes. Choosing the "best" resulting grids is "natural selection." And the random parts of the "breeding" are the random mutations of evolution.
Scientists have used this kind of process to generate a flashing checkerboard on a computer screen, out of simple initial states, rules, and random mutations.
How difficult is it to believe that biological evolution might be able to do the same? How difficult is it to believe that maybe a random lightning strike 4 billion years ago on a lake of chemicals might have caused some of them to combine in interesting ways, and follow different rules than the component chemicals ever did? And then each step combining more and more complex chemicals together until rabbits and humans roam the earth.
Creationists that also believe in microevolution will say "Yes, but the scientist had to build these things in order to get that to happen." I have some respect for those creationists. (Not a lot, but some.) They're right. Maybe something DID throw that lightning bolt. That does not invalidate 4 billion years of evolution that happened after it!
But I have NO respect for the creationists that say nope, sorry, it could not have happened that way because I have this book that says that God Did It. It's the only proof I need that evolution does not exist.
I mentioned above that you could randomly choose some number of cells to NOT obey the rules. If the number changed each time is small, it might take a long time to manifest a particular behavior. If the number is large, one of two things could happen. Either oops, that grid goes all black, totally useless, game over, no breeding for you. Or, wow, fabulous, look, you went from a grid with random stones in it to one with every other square containing a stone in a checkerboard pattern. LOOKING at the grid while you do it is having a Creator. Keeping your eyes closed is evolution.
Another thing. I said these were random mutations. But, 2 million or so years from now, we may finally learn that those were not random mutations - they were just a "rule" of the game that we did not know about during the 20th century ACE. That would nullify the "random mutation" part of evolution, but not the "natural selection" part.
One last thing. I used the example of selecting the grids based on some ending goal in sight. That is a bit of a misnomer. The only true goal is, have more "good" offspring. Maybe one round of selecting the "best" grids, there are 8 good ones, and the next round there are only 2. Natural selection, man!
Here's another kind of creationist I have some respect for. The old earthers who say "yes, the earth is 4 billion years old and the universe 13.2. But, I don't believe that 4 billion years is enough time for MACRO evolution to have happened." I personally happen to believe that the fossil record shows that it HAS happened, whether it seems likely or not. But at least they accept the BASIC principles of evolution. They just need a little more convincing of the rest of it.
But young earth creationists that say "This is the way the world has always been and there's no such thing as evolution," well, they're delusional.
PS. No, I don't know the initial state or the rules that got humans here. Maybe in 2 million years someone will have figured that out!