Bet 44
By 2020, in real or artificial life, sustainable evolutionary progress in a genetically closed system will be demonstrated.
Go to Bet
Prediction 44
Duration 18 years (02002-02020)
Predictor
Brig Klyce
Challenger
TBA
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
DEFINITIONS
'Artificial life' describes computer models used to test evolutionary phenomena that are believed to occur in real life. 'Evolutionary progress' means an increase in organized complexity analogous to that which life appears to undergo as it advances from prokaryotes to [long list of intervening steps] to primates. A similar progress, made possible by human agents, is also evident in the world of personal computers, as [long list of] new features and capabilities become available. In both examples, the length of the necessary instruction set grows as the programs for new features and capabilities are added. 'Sustainable' means capable of continuing indefinitely. The symbiotic joining of two subsystems would not, by itself, exemplify sustainable progress. Neither would the assembly of a puzzle, because, for both examples, when the joining or assembly is complete, the process is over. On the other hand, if these processes are abetted by the invention of programs for new features or capabilities, with no impediment to the invention of other ones, the process appears to be sustainable. Invention is the key; joining and assembly are also necessary, but not sufficient, for evolutionary progress in a closed system. We acknowledge that it is possible to split hairs over the definition of 'progress'. However, as life advances from prokaryotes to primates, progress is intuitively clear. As the wager ages, we hope that wide interest in it will generate discussion that crystalizes the definition of progress. Meanwhile, one can readily imagine demonstrations that would so clearly exemplify progress that hair-splitting would not be necessary. For this reason, the wager is not premature. 'Genetically' means pertaining to genes or their analog, computer programs. Both real and artificial life use linear strings of a few standard symbols to convey instructions that are capable of being executed. A system is genetically closed if, after the experiment begins, no additional instructions in any form -- viruses, bacteria, plasmids; or computer viruses, subroutines, patches, etc. -- are admitted. 'Demonstrated' means clearly shown to occur in a repeatable experiment. Practically speaking, experiments will be much easier to repeat in a reasonable amount of time in artificial life than in real life.
DISCUSSION
In the standard account of evolution on Earth, programs for new features or capabilities are invented, with no impediment to the invention of other ones, in a closed system. However, the recent emergence of astrobiology alerts us that genetic material may arrive from space, so Earth's biosphere may not be genetically closed. And by horizontal gene transfer, genetic material may be installed far more readily than we used to think. Consequently, the history of life on Earth does not require the invention, on Earth, of programs for new features or capabilities. They might come from elsewhere. Of course, the usual version of the big bang theory requires the whole universe to be a completely closed system that began in a lifeless state a finite time ago. If so, the programs for new features or capabilities had to subsequently get invented in it. But other, non-finite cosmologies have been proposed. In any case, if the programs for new features or capabilities can be invented in a closed system, it should be possible to demonstrate this process. Until this demonstration is made, at least in a computer model, the accepted theory of evolution lacks an important confirmation.
WHY AM I BETTING NO?
I think that sustainable evolutionary progress in a genetically closed system, in real or artificial life is impossible. Instead, for real life, I like the strong version of panspermia. In it, highly evolved life has always existed, and the history of life on Earth exemplifies the local _development_ of that life. But I am not trying to sell you on strong panspermia. For that see http://www.panspermia.org/. I only want to draw attention to an important test that the standard theory has not yet met. I don't think it ever will.
I AM WILLING TO INCREASE THE WAGER AMOUNT IF A TAKER WISHES!
Brig Klyce is negotiating the terms of a bet about this prediction. It will soon be added to Bets on the Record.
By 2020, in real or artificial life, sustainable evolutionary progress in a genetically closed system will be demonstrated.
Go to Bet
I was thinking.. Maybe artificial intelligence is the next step in human evolution? Maybe we are evolving into machines.. not directly.. but though the creation of a self-sustaining artificial lifeform, that could replicate, etc. Just an idea.. although an interesting one.
That post made me think - maybe human intelligence in artifical bodies is the next step instead. Where is the line between human and artificial life? Is it just the brain?
Define "sustainable evolutionary progress". In essence one could argue that the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a case of sustainable evolutionary progress. The organisms are evolving, and adapting to changing environments. They are successful in creating progeny. This bet seems moot.
While it would only seem logical that the advancements in technology would lead up to AI in 18 years, the truth of the matter is that this deadline is too soon. We will eventually come up with AI, and a long time after that we will create life that will evolve, but that is a long, long time away from now. To give everybody an example of how much work will need to be put into creating AI, consider this: humans are quite possibly the only intelligent life in the universe. It was a one in 300,000,000,000,000 chance that we would have the correct structure to have intelligence. Think of how much work will need to be done in studying the human body and then on technology capable of thought! 18 years simply is not enough time.
Bacterial resistance to drugs is usually caused by the acquisition of "resistance plasmids" by lateral gene transfer. Sometimes point mutations disable (or rarely, re-enable) genes that promote or suppress other genetic programs. Some germs can change to keep ahead of the host immune systems by program switching -- employing a new protein coat for which the genes are already in their genomes. And viruses can change protein coats with random single nucleotide substitutions in the relevant genes. Except for gene transfer, none of these processes has been shown to be capable of supplying new genetic programs that would drive evolutionary progress.
Progress is most easily defined by example. Examples of progress would be the first instances of transcription, translation, metabolism, cells, photosynthesis, oxygen-based metabolism, multicellularity, cell specialization, locomotion, hard shells, scales, feathers, hair, skin, eyes, lungs, limbs, bones, digestive systems, circulatory systems, nervous systems, wings, eyes, ears, speech, etc., etc.
Progress is sustainable if nothing prevents one example from being followed by another. In the history of life on Earth, sustainablilty is obvious (although not necessarily without eventual limits.)
I believe this sustainable progress is made possible by gene transfer in an open system. I believe that in a closed system, once the genetic programs that were initially present are fully expressed, the progress stops. However, if new genetic programs can be composed de novo, by mutation and recombination from old ones, as most Darwinists believe, then I am wrong and sustainable evolutionary progress can occur in a closed system.
In my bet I am asking if this process, de novo composition of new programs, can be demonstrated. If it can, Darwinism passes an important test. If it can't, there is reason to consider other sources for the new genetic programs behind sustainable evolutionary progress.
"humans are quite possibly the only intelligent life in the universe."
There are quite possibly intelligent life forms in this galaxy at a density of one inhabited planet per 100 ly side cube.
Neither your statement, nor mine, says anything substantive. All we can say at present is that no non-human life form has been proven to have 'intelligence' to the satisfaction of humanity in general.
The adaptive mechanisms of bacteria may, in fundamental principal, be the same process which drives evolution. Adaptation and radiation, ala the late great Dr. Gould.
We have things like the fossil record, cladistics, genetic studies that fortify the position of evolution. Have you even looked at the transformation of life pre-dating the Cambrian?
I understand that you are looking for some Poperian evidence of evolution. It's all around you. and its all supposition untill someone invents a time machine, and even then, the creationists won't listen.
Fear those who claim to have a handle on the truth, curiosity may have killed the cat, but it is the fire behind humanity's drive.
The mechanism that drives evolution was always considered, in the modern synthesis, to be the same for bacteria as for all of life. But within the past decade or so, biologists have fully accepted the importance of horizontal transfer among bacteria. Ernst Mayr says it's "all there is" for bacteria. If the difference you hint at is now acknowledged, that's why.
The fossil record is fairly consistent with Darwinism, but (because of punctuated equilibria) fits gene transfer scenarios even better. And genetic studies support gene transfer over point mutations as the source of genetic novelty or progress, in all forms of life.
The bet is open.
Or can't posts be inserted by the admins into the top of existing threads?
For your convenience I have added a link to the original post.
Thanks for trying, but it didn't quite make it.
"indefinitely sustainable progress" is unrealistic as it is in excess of what has been demonstrated 'in the wild'.
Demonstrated evolutionary progress is from proto-bacteria (or whatever) to the (alleged, current) peak of humanity. It has not been going on for an infinite amount of time, thus cannot be shown to be 'indefinitely sustainable' and far from continual progress a large number of species have reached genetic dead-ends and / or been pushed out of the race entirely.
Not to mention that the only certain way to demonstrate 'indefinitely sustainable progress' in a living species would involve a trial period of infinite length.
A more realistic test would be whether a 'genetically isolated' species could evolve a capability that (according to its evolutionary history) it could not have inherited. Even then it would be more meaningful if a non-isolated set-up be carried out in parallel to better gauge what (if any) differences between the two sets there are.
Now it works. Pesky links.
I'm not a biologist and I want to understand your point. So let me see if I can simplify your bet and not oversimplify it:
I think you are saying that you DO NOT believe that even basic evolution can be "proven" in a genitically (or for that matter, entirely) closed environment. The flip side is that you WOULD believe that evolution has occured because of outside influences and that the earth is not a closed system.
Is it also true that you believe that the universe as we observe it is also not closed? I think you allude to a multi-verse possibility....
Is there an almost religious tone to your bet? Do you believe that some otherworldly being is influencing the outcome of the _local_ implementation of highly evolved life?
Since you are betting the "don't" on this, can you point to scientists that might be working on proving the theory? It would be hard for me to take the bet without having someone on my side working on the problem!
One problem with the word "evolution" is that it has no single meaning. Microevolution, as when the finches' beaks change shape, is one thing. The first appearances of major features like photosynthesis, skeletons, or lungs -- examples of macroevolutionary progress -- are different. Macroevolutionary progress is what the layman usually means by evolution. If this is also what you mean, then yes, I do not believe it can be proven in a closed system. (Certainly it has not already been proven. I wish scientists would notice this shortcoming of the existing theory.)
I think macroevolutionary progress has apparently occurred on Earth because Earth is not genetically closed. I say "apparently," because I believe it is actually not evolution, but the _development_ of preexisting, highly evolved life that we observe. To avoid miracles, preexisting life must come from the infinite past, it seems to me.
I do not think it is possible to scientifically discuss supernatural causes, if that's what you mean by otherworldly. In my theory, we must have had cosmic ancestors beyond our planet and solar system -- but in this world. They would not actively influence life here, or even be aware of it. In an important sense, we are they. The implications of this theory are broad enough to infringe upon some religious beliefs. This was the case for new paradigms in the past, like the heliocentric universe, or Darwin's theory of evolution.
Many if not most of the people doing artificial life simulations in computers are working to prove me wrong. John Koza, Mark Bedau, Chris Adami, Stuart Kauffman, John Holland, Manfred Eigen, Richard Dawkins, and the people at the Santa Fe Institute are a few of them. Check my webpage, "Computer Models of Evolution" at http://www.panspermia.org/computrs.htm for more names, references and links.
In biology, experiments with fruit flies begun by Dobzhansky and still going on have not produced any sustained progress, even though they are genetically open -- to viruses, for example. The best example of a genetically closed experiment is a series done with bacteria by Richard Lenski of Michigan State University, and others. For a discussion of this work see "Experimental Evolution with Microbes and Molecules" at
http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne9.htm# 990926txt
Rest assured, the work is under way.
Point 1: Complexity –
The bet describes an "evolutionary progress" further defined as "an increase in organized complexity". In his book “FullHouse” Gould argues that “increased complexity” is not a required pre or post condition of Darwinian evolution.
The engine of random mutation and natural selection is the method by which organisms adapt to changing conditions in their environment. Organisms needn’t be any more complex than the environment requires at a minimum.
Assuming a “genetically closed” environment were constructed and populated with artificial life we should not expect the process of random mutation and natural selection to produce more complex organisms. We should only expect that the organisms become increasingly viable in the particular environment.
Without specific and well-controlled changes in the test environment, we should not expect to be able to evoke or detect minute adaptations.
Point 2: Adaptation Quantification –
The process of quantifying adaptations as either microevolution or macroevolution is spurious at best. This may be the crux of the issue between Darwinian evolution and alternative theories. Any line drawn on the continuum of possible adaptations to separate microevolution from macroevolution is inherently arbitrary. I would be interested to hear how you feel this line should be drawn. Your latest post seems to indicate that you would like to ignore micro evolutionary adaptations in deciding the bet.
Point 3: Panspermia –
I read and was interested by the content on the panspermia website. As a testable prediction it has a number of merits. I can’t help but feel however, that it is only a deferred solution. It seems to address the creation and diversity of life on Earth, but not throughout the universe. Is there a sister theory or theories that posit how such a diverse set of life came to exist outside the planet? Panspermia seems to require that life was created and developed independently many millions of times over.
This seems to be more of a tomAYto vs. tomAHto argument, methinks.
Point 1 -- I completely agree that 'increased complexity' is not required in Darwinian evolution. But it has obviously been one outcome of the process that is under way.
Point 2 -- In macroevolution, new genetic programs are acquired and activated. The standard theory says that this can happen gradually, in a genetically closed system. This hypothesis has not been demonstrated. Meanwhile, I have made a new stab at differentiating micro- from macroevolution at http://www.panspermia.org/harvardprep.htm
Point 3 -- The strong version of panspermia requires highly evolved life to come from the eternal past. If I lose this bet, the strong version of panspermia is unnecessary. Until then, the big bang theory is not sufficient to prove that sustained evolutionary progress in a genetically closed system is possible.
http://www.panspermia.org/harvardprep.htm
Is it not the case that on the demonstration of any
evolutionary change within a closed system, you can simply
claim that this was merely carrying out a previously
encoded 'program' ?
You also say "And closed-system experiments that would
demonstrate macroevolutionary progress without transfer
have not succeeded"
This leads me to ask
- What (biological) experiments have been _attempted_ that
you would classify a 'closed-system experiments'?
- What 'open system experiments' have _succeeded_ in
demonstrating macroevolutionary progress?
A program may try every phone number until it reaches the police department. When it succeeds, yes, it was merely carrying out an existing program. But if, in the process, it happens to invent and begin to execute another process such as "call waiting," for which the program was not previously installed, then no, this is not merely carrying out an existing program. The latter is analogous to the darwinian mechanism behind evolutionary progress.
Dobzhansky's experiments with fruitflies were once thought to be biological closed-system experiments. They turn out not to be, however, because bacteria and viruses were not kept out. The best exasmple I know of is a series by Richard Lenski and others. See for example Marin Vulic, Richard E. Lenski and Miroslav Radman, "Mutation, recombination, and incipient speciation of bacteria in the laboratory," p 7348-7351 v 96 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 30 March 1999.
For an open system experiment that has succeeded, how about planet Earth?
Thank you for your interest!
But if, in the process, it happens to invent and begin to execute another process such as "call waiting," for which the program was not previously installed, then no, this is not merely carrying out an existing program.
But the only difference in the above is the 'intent of the creator'. If an outsider saw such a program in action there would be no way of telling that the 'call waiting' function was not intended from the start.
For an open system experiment that has succeeded, how about planet Earth?
No control set. And no (convincing) evidence that the Earth was not a (biologically) closed system.
If an outsider saw such a program in action there would be no way of telling that the 'call waiting' function was not intended from the start.
As evolution, starting with prokaryotes, produces primates, countless new genetic programs are employed that, under darwinian theory, could not have been "intended from the start." Stephen Jay Gould emphasized a very similar point. True, silent subroutines can be hidden within large blocks of software, to be activated later. But activating them is merely the final step in the execution of the existing programs. The same system will not go on to create newer subroutines and programs. That is why darwinism, to be demonstrated, must exhibit _sustainable_ progress.
Your probing is helpful.
As a computational evolutionary biologist I can only comment on the (strong) circumstantial evidence in genome sequences supporting a simple evolutionary mechanism for new genetic programs and increased complexity arising in a closed system. The mechanism is gene duplication and subsequent divergence of 'function' of the duplicated gene sequence. Whole genomic sequences of the fruit fly Drosophila, the nematode C. elegans, the mouse Mus musculus and the Human Homo sapiens provides ample comparative evidence for evolution by gene duplication of, for example, the Hox gene cluster. The Hox gene cluster has been central to "body plan" evolution and the cluster seems to have duplicated and subsequently increased in functional complexity multiple times in the evolutionary history of life on the planet Earth.
Would the predictor view a demonstration of gene duplication followed by a new enzymatic function in the duplicated gene as evidence of macroevolutionary potential in a closed system?
I would view a demonstration of gene duplication followed by a new enzymatic function as evidence of macroevolutionary _progress_ in a closed system if
1) the system is closed, and
2) the new function is new in the sense of the list of examples given in my post of 06/07/2002 (below).
Furthermore, if nothing prevents the demonstrating system from continuing to invent new functions, I would view it as sustainable.
Ok, while I believe that you will lose this bet (evolution in a simulated world shouldn't be hard to reproduce, as we learn more and more about our genome), even if Darwinian evolution is never fully provable I don't see that you're attempting to disprove it, only to claim that panspermia is possible. Even saying both are possible, does not give a reason not to believe evolution is true. For example, it's equally likely that things exist and we see the light reflected off of them as it is that we're simply delusional and are halucinating all that we see. Neither can you disprove, but the former is the one you must believe. If all else fails, the simplest explanation is best. The infinite existance of life forms is certainly not simple.
On one other side note, while, no I haven't read your site, you claim you don't think "sustainable" Darwinian evolution can exist. But, if you're claiming macroevolution happens only through transfer of what's already there, your theory can't support "sustainable" evolution, it would require something that is infinitely complex to exist, which is nonsensical.
> Even saying both are possible, does not
> give a reason not to believe evolution
> is true....
"Evolution" has at least two very different meanings, so clarification is needed before asking if it is true. The aspect that I question is the ability of any system based on encoded instructions, including life, to invent new programs for itself. Other aspects of evolution, such as microevolution, drift, small adaptations, extinction, etc., are less problematic, and have been demonstrated in computer models.
> But, if you're claiming macroevolution
> happens only through transfer of what's
> already there, your theory can't support
> "sustainable" evolution, it would require
> something that is infinitely complex to
> exist, which is nonsensical.
In retrospect, the progress of evolution from prokaryotes to primates was sustained, and thus at any given point in the past, sustainable. I am not claiming to know that this progress will continue forever. Therefore, my proposed alternate theory does not require something that is infinitely complex to exist.
All we know is that evolution got this far. If this is as far as it goes, the sustainable progress that got it here still needs explaining.
I should have been more clear. What I meant to say is that just because your theory and macroevolutionary theory (that organisms can indeed initiate new programs) are possible does not give any reason to believe yours, because yours is more complicated and thus less likely/pragmatic. Obviously pragmatism is not a good basis for finding truth, but unfortunately it's what we must use sometimes. As I mentioned in my delusion situation, we must believe that the universe actually exists as we see it, based purely on the fact that that view is most practical.
On another note, the way the genetic system is setup is ideal for execution of new programs. For example, take a binary sequence. Now say that each bit codes for a certain program to run. So, 11011100. 5 programs are on and 3 are off. Now mutate/variate; flip a bit here, switch a pair of bits here and there . . . and we have 11111001. Now we have two programs that did not previously exist. They're "new." Now of course the orignal system could not have predicted all the potential programs and said, "turn most of them off for now." Right? Actually, if you think about it, say each program corresponds to a protein. Expand the single bits into base sequences. And in fact, you don't even have to have a space for each protein because you can do more than just turn them on and off. Each mutation can also alter a program by changing an amino acid. I don't see why this would be unlikely to you. I think simply knowing how the system works is clear enough evidence that sustainable evolution (up to this point! there are a limited number of proteins, however vast an amount) is possible and even probable.
Please sign in to comment.