Psience Quest

An interesting new paper, Why We Do Not Evolve Software? Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms, by Roman V Yampolskiy, at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177...4318815906 .
                     
Excerpts:

Quote:"It is interesting to do a thought experiment and try to imagine what testable predictions Charles Darwin would have made, had he made his discovery today, with full knowledge of modern bioinformatics and of computer science. His predictions may have included the following: (1) simulations of evolution will produce statistically similar results at least with respect to complexity of artifacts produced and (2) if running evolutionary algorithms (EAs) for as long as possible continued to produce nontrivial outputs, scientists would run them forever. 

Likewise, he would be able to make some predictions, which would be able to falsify his theory, such as (1) representative simulations of evolution will not produce similar results to those observed in nature, (2) researchers will not be able to evolve software or other complex or novel artifacts, and (3) there will not be any projects running EAs long term because their outputs would quickly stop improving and stabilize.
..............................
Our analysis of relevant literature shows that no one has succeeded at evolving nontrivial software from scratch.....The reason we do not evolve software is that the space of working programs is very large and discrete. Although hill-climbing heuristic–based evolutionary computations are excellent at solving many optimization problems, they fail in the domains of noncontinuous fitness. This is also the reason we do not evolve complex life or novel engineering designs.

With respect to our 2 predictions, we can conclude that (1) simulations of evolution do not produce comparably complex artifacts and (2) running EAs longer leads to progressively diminishing results. With respect to the 3 falsifiability conditions, we observe that all 3 are true as of this writing.
..............................
We are not evolving complex artifacts, we are not running EAs for as long as possible, we are not evolving software, and the public is unaware of most complex products of evolutionary computation. On close examination, all “human-competitive” results turn out to be just optimizations, never fully autonomous programming leading to novel software being engineered."

Yampolskiy concludes that the bottom line is, Darwin’s mechanism as simulated by genetic evolutionary algorithms just doesn’t do what Darwin would have expected. He lays down a challenge to the evolutionary algorithms community to address this.

He lists several possible reasons for this failure, including that we might have failed to implement Darwinian evolution correctly. Unlikely. Another: maybe there are insufficient computational resources to simulate evolution. Maybe.

Yet another possibility is the problem of complexity, which I think is close to the core of it:

Quote:"...genetic algorithms do not scale well with complexity. That is, where the number of elements which are exposed to mutation is large there is often an exponential increase in search space size. This makes it extremely difficult to use the technique on problems such as designing an engine, a house or plane. In order to make such problems tractable to evolutionary search, they must be broken down into the simplest representation possible. Hence we typically see evolutionary algorithms encoding designs for fan blades instead of engines, building shapes instead of detailed construction plans, and airfoils instead of whole aircraft designs. The second problem of complexity is the issue of how to protect parts that have evolved to represent good solutions from further destructive mutation, particularly when their fitness assessment requires them to combine well with other parts."

He grudgingly lists the final possibility for this failure: that Darwin might have been wrong, as far as nontrivial complex biological systems are concerned.

Would be interesting to see him discuss this with Idealist Donald Hoffman whose major body of work re: Interface Theory of Perception rests on computer simulations and later with an associate a mathematical proof arguing fitness necessitates a reduction in true perception.

I figure since Hoffman is an Idealist he might be willing to examine the argument and respond.

Another example of amazing mimicry - a new leaf-tailed gecko of Madagascar - Uroplatus finaritra

From article here:

Quote:"The newly discovered species comes from low altitude areas of Marojejy National Park on Madagascar’s northeastern tip. During the day, the leaf-tailed geckos are difficult to spot. They tend to hang out in dead leaves, covering themselves with their deceptive tail and sticking their limbs out like twigs. At night, however, they come alive, actively hunting in the dense rainforest—that’s when researchers conduct their surveys."

From another article here:

Quote:"Madagascar has no shortage of endemic species. Leaf-tailed geckos, genus Uroplatus, are similarly a Madagascan original. Well over a dozen species have evolved on the island, and all are equipped with impressive camouflage. In the ultimate RPG of Life, these reptiles have maxed out their stealth skill trees, appearing indistinguishable from an old leaf when at rest. Their tails are flattened and leaf-shaped, and their skin has blotchy colors and textures, even incorporating ragged edges on skin folds for that authentic, “brittle decay” look."

Has there ever been a good Darwinian explanation for carefully detailed camouflage? What good for natural selection would looking a little bit like a leaf be?

(2019-01-26, 01:24 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Another example of amazing mimicry - a new leaf-tailed gecko of Madagascar - Uroplatus finaritra

From article here:


From another article here:


Has there ever been a good Darwinian explanation for carefully detailed camouflage? What good for natural selection would looking a little bit like a leaf be?

Are you really asking what are the survival benefits of camouflage? If your broader question is, “Isn’t nature amazing?”, then yes, it is.

(2019-01-26, 01:45 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Are you really asking what are the survival benefits of camouflage? If your broader question is, “Isn’t nature amazing?”, then yes, it is.

It is one thing to evolve camouflage good enough to blend into the background but quite another to mimic something so precisely that it looks like an artist meticulously painted the details. You are a fan of mechanisms, malf, so I'd like to know how you explain this ...

(2019-01-26, 02:11 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]It is one thing to evolve camouflage good enough to blend into the background but quite another to mimic something so precisely that it looks like an artist meticulously painted the details. You are a fan of mechanisms, malf, so I'd like to know how you explain this ...

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.reddi...=undefinedC

(2019-01-26, 11:51 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Just random mutation and natural selection are obviously untenable, there are clearly lots of mechanisms, and lots of ways for life to tap into them. But I see no reason to invoke a Slartibartfast designer. or other type of god thing. I’m damn sure that if you could ask leaf-bug’s millions of ancestors whether some type of external intelligence just gifted them with this appearance, they would tell you to bugger off with your intuition, as their lives had been very hard, and billions had died, or been killed on the journey.

Now that is a great example of a strawman, Max. I asked malf for a proposed mechanism, I did NOT claim a "god thing" type of designer did it. Maybe you can take a leisurely trip back through the pages of this thread an point out where I have claimed such a designer.

(2019-01-26, 10:44 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.reddi...=undefinedC

Yeah, that's about the level of imagination I might have expected: arrogant Reddit ideologists sticking to the party line.

(2019-01-26, 05:36 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, that's about the level of imagination I might have expected: arrogant Reddit ideologists sticking to the party line.

Admittedly, it’s no match for incredulity.

(2019-01-26, 06:13 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Admittedly, it’s no match for incredulity.

One man's incredulity is another man's amazing - as in "isn't nature amazing".