Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

Robots with fins, tails demonstrate evolution

These swimming, shimmying 'bots are not the hulking droids of years past

By Michael Hill
APTRANS.gif

updated 8:14 p.m. ET, Fri., May 29, 2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31001962/

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. - Robots wag their tail fins and bob along like bathtub toys in a pool at a Vassar College lab. Their actions are dictated by microprossers housed in round plastic containers, the sort you'd store soup in.
It hardly looks like it, but the two swimming robots were set loose in the little pool to study evolution, acting out predator-prey encounters from roughly 540 million years ago.
The prey robot, dubbed Preyro, can simulate evolution.

This is not like robot evolution in the "Terminator" movie sense of machines turning on their human masters. Instead, Vassar biology and cognitive science professor John Long and his students can make changes to the tail of Preyro to see which designs help it avoid the predator robot.
"We're applying selection," Long explains, "just like natural selection."
Long is among a small group of researchers worldwide studying biology and evolution with the help of robots that can do things like shimmy through water or slither up shores. Long's robots, for instance, test theories on the development of stiffer backbones. The researchers believe the machines will catch on as technological advances allow robots to mimic animals far better than before.
Microprocessors are now tinier and more sophisticated. Building materials are more pliable. The same technology driving the use of electronic prosthetic limbs and vacuuming robots also is giving scientists a sophisticated tool to study biology.
"In the past, if you think about it, robots wouldn't work because we could only make these big metal things with rotating joints that were really stiff ... and that's not how nature is," said Robert J. Full, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley.
Full's lab at Berkeley has built robots that can creep like cockroaches or climb like geckos. In Switzerland, researchers built a bright yellow salamander robot a few years ago that can swim and walk to investigate vertebrates' transition from water to land. They posted a Web video of the robot squirming out of Lake Geneva.
At Harvard University, George Lauder, professor of organismic and evolutionary biology, studies fish locomotion with the aid of robotic fins. He says scientists are not trying to build spitting images of animals, but rather to mimic certain characteristics — a fin or a spinal column — to study how they work. Scientists then alter that characteristic to see how it affects performance.
The small amount of robot research performed so far has yet to dramatically alter evolutionary studies, but it has helped researchers evolve their understanding of some animals.
Consider Madeleine the swimming robot. Madeleine is roughly the size and shape of a big bed pillow with four flippers sticking from its sides, but it was used to study a 45-ton marine reptile that patrolled the seas in the Jurassic Period.
Fossil records show that the massive pliosaur, dubbed Predator X, had two sets of largely symmetrical flippers, indicating the animal used all four to swim. Long said that sets Predator X apart from modern animals like otters, sea lions and turtles, which tend to use one set of flippers for propulsion and the other for steering.
Researchers studying Predator X asked Long to investigate why the creature used all four flippers for swimming. Madeleine was programmed to swim with two flippers, then all four. The robot demonstrated that using four flippers to swim could be a bad proposition, energy-wise. But they do provide a sort of turbo-boost for quick accelerations — handy for catching dinner.
"The otter and the pliosaur both swim the same speed," Long said, "but, man, that pliosaur can really take off."
The Preyro robot experiment allows Long to take his evolutionary studies a step further.
By setting up Preyro in a pool with another autonomous robot — a predator named Tadiator — Long and his students simulated an evolutionary scenario. They wanted to examine qualities that would help vertebrate sea creatures of the Cambrian Period forage for food without becoming lunch for predators. Specifically, they wanted to test the hypothesis that the ancient creatures' need to scoot away fast from predators drove the evolution of stiffer tails.
Students could stiffen Preyro's backbone by fitting plastic rings (representing vertebrae) over a jelly-like column running down the tail designed to simulate the biological structures of ancient sea creatures. More rings made for a stiffer tail.
They found that changing the size of Preyro's tail fin had no effect, but that backbones stiffened with vertebrae helped Preyro swim away from danger faster. Seven vertebra worked the best; any more made the tail too stiff. They concluded that the evolution of multiple vertebrae could have been influenced by the need to avoid predators while foraging.
Robot builders like Long still use computer simulations to complement their work. But Long says swimming robots like Madeleine and Preyro have advantages over computer simulations because it is extremely difficult to simulate the interaction between a flexible solid — like an animal's tail — and a liquid.
"The thing about robots is, robots can't violate the laws of physics," he said. "A computer program can."

559fec40-5e35-4b53-8791-789c4f442351.widec.jpg
Mike Groll / AP

Vassar biology and cognitive science professor John Long poses with Madeleine, a swimming robot, in a lab at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Madeleine has four flippers sticking from its sides, and it was used to study a 45-ton marine reptile that patrolled the seas in the Jurassic Period.
 
Stories like that confuse the issue.
I don't know of any who denies that there are evolutionary processes in nature.

The subject of controversy and debate is whether random, unguided evolution, led to the development of all life on this planet. And I don't want to restate the arguments, but this article doesn't suggest anything challenging. Merely that scientist can better study dinosaurs with technology, and maybe see what kind of things provide an evolutionary advantage..
 
Did these robots develop out of a random course of events, or were they created?

No, but when they were left alone in the tank, they developed the ability to reproduce, and later on, the new version of Windows emerged from the tank... but in fairness, it was a little buggy.
 
Trolls like hrmwrm aren't interested in honest discussion, only in pissing us off.

that quick statement sounds like trolling.
nobody is here to piss any one off. i post here to state what i have found id to be. now if you want to argue your point, fine. but i'm not being dishonest in any way. and accepting only arguements that agree with you is being dishonest, just as id being "scientific" is dishonest.
why not be honest and state your position as propaganda for id.
 
i post here to state what i have found id to be. now if you want to argue your point, fine. but i'm not being dishonest in any way. and accepting only arguements that agree with you is being dishonest, just as id being "scientific" is dishonest.
why not be honest and state your position as propaganda for id.

You're arguing that there's no scientific approach behind ID, yet many scientists would disagree with that statement. So, is it really appropriate to state such a thing as though it were uncontested or fact?

Let's get rid of the labels and simplify the concept.
One of the most damaging arguments that I know of us that undermines random evolution and reinforces some concept of design is how complex systems such as an eye or ear are formed.

The premise of evolution is that small genetic mutations lead to a biological advantage that leads to it being passed down to successive generations. When dealing with complicated systems like an ear or an eyeball, systems that are so interdependent, small mutations wouldn't provide an advantage they'd be a liability. If a single part of the system fails to work, the system fails, leaving the animal with a huge biological disadvantage. Systems like that can't develop in just one generation and they can't develop over successive generations because that would put the organism at a disadvantage.

ID doesn't argue that there is a Christian God, or that Human's are divinely created. It doesn't argue that humans are born in the image of God, or that Adam and Eve popped up in the garden of eden. It does none of those things. It merely states that it's extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for these systems found in many animals, to have developed at random, and that some form of order may have helped shape that.

A lot of atheists like to argue that humans have a tendency to put God into the void of things they don't understand. When they didn't understand gravity, space, lightning, whatever, they explained it with God. ID doesn't do that. It simply presents the argument that we just don't know. It doesn't PRESUME to know the answer, it doesn't dismiss the inconvenient evidence or math regarding the subject, it states the limits of our knowledge.

If you chose to put God into that void, you can do that.
If you chose to put aliens into that void, you can do that to.
If you want to say that a "spaghetti monster" touched the earth, you can speculate that.
Or if you just want to say, "I have no idea"- that's consistent with ID as well.

ID simply looks at the evidence, concludes that random evolution would have been impossible, and leaves it there. You can be atheist, agnostic, or religious and still subscribe to the ID hypothesis.

The mere fact that religious people also agree with ID doesn't make it a theological stance.
 
no offense cal, but you miss the point of the counter id arguement.
to say a spaghetti monster, god or aliens is fine. take it and run with it.
id wants to impose itself in science. just because they have a few scientists who say it is a possible explanation, does not make it science. that is the arguement.
science has certain standards of evidence for hypothesis and then a great requirement to theory. id wishes to make simple statements and call itself science theory without the great amount of work necessary.
it tries to avoid debate by leaving an intelligent designer open.

evolution has a fully developed system of operation. id has nothing for it's workings. until it can contrive an operating method, it is not science.
then there is the bigger arguement of should it be taught in school. which IS a religiously backed movement.

it doesn't dismiss the inconvenient evidence or math regarding the subject,

nor does it attempt to solve it. it merely makes a cloud of doubt to implant itself. i suggest you look up philip e johnson"s wedge strategy. if that doesn't throw up a red flag of implications, then you may as well believe id.
 
ok it seems like its the people who believe in evolution vs. the people he believe in intelligent design. whats to say "God"(however you want to view him,her,it) didnt guide evolution, thus making us the final result(as far as we know?)
 
Why... would God have to guide evolution? He (or she) is supposedly all powerful, all God would have to do is go *poof* and there we'd be.
It would be much simpler than wait all these years, "guiding" evolution.

Remember, this is the deity that supposedly thought the Universe into existence.
 
but also remember, millions of years to us isnt necessarily millions of years from where "god" is. for all we know, the 6000 some odd years the earth has been around could have been a ten minute job for god. all im saying is whatever the truth is, it would be completely uncomprehendable by us.
 
ok it seems like its the people who believe in evolution vs. the people he believe in intelligent design. whats to say "God"(however you want to view him,her,it) didnt guide evolution, thus making us the final result(as far as we know?)

Because that would essentially be Intelligent Design.
 
but also remember, millions of years to us isnt necessarily millions of years from where "god" is. for all we know, the 6000 some odd years the earth has been around could have been a ten minute job for god. all im saying is whatever the truth is, it would be completely uncomprehending by us.

I know the truth! I have seen the light! I have walked the promi... wait... that was Dr. King... never mind.
 
i wish i had a smart response but i dont. i really dont have any extensive knowledge in this stuff im just theorizing.
 
science has certain standards of evidence for hypothesis and then a great requirement to theory.

What specific standards of evidence does ID not meet that darwinian evolution does? ID is just as directly testable as Darwinian evolution.

You are claiming a lot of baseless speculation as fact here.

it tries to avoid debate by leaving an intelligent designer open.

Actually, it is the darwinists who are constantly trying to avoid any honest debate involving ID, not the other way around.

evolution has a fully developed system of operation. id has nothing for it's workings

What do you mean by "system of operation"? and "nothing for it's workings"?

nor does it attempt to solve it. it merely makes a cloud of doubt to implant itself.i suggest you look up philip e johnson"s wedge strategy. if that doesn't throw up a red flag of implications, then you may as well believe id.

Again, ad hominem reasoning. The motives or agenda of the proponents of the theory don't say anything about the credibility of the theory itself.

The only way this is a valid argument is if the critiques ID makes of Darwinism are specious and not valid. However, those critiques are very valid.
 
ok it seems like its the people who believe in evolution vs. the people he believe in intelligent design. whats to say "God"(however you want to view him,her,it) didnt guide evolution, thus making us the final result(as far as we know?)

that would ruin the god hypothesis of all things were created at once.
 
there is no way to find the right answer on this world at least. i guess well all find out when were dead...lol
 
well, first i'll leave dembski alone.
on to philip johnson. since you don't believe me, i quote from others yet again.

Johnson shaped the strategy that guides the current campaign against Darwinism. He is optimistic his forces will win back control of the culture.


Johnson calls his recipe for victory “the wedge strategy.” Part of the strategy is a result of avoiding the sorts of “traps” Clarence Darrow and other defense attorneys set out in the Scopes trial. He tells his supporters to focus on whether a Creator has to do the creating and avoid being drawn into other issues—as Bryan did in 1925--such as Noah’s flood or what transpired in the Garden of Eden. In fact, Johnson urges his army to keep “the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy.” Rather, he advises, “phrase the argument in such a way as you can get in heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters.”
and

“why not assume life is what is so evidently seems to be, the product of creative intelligence.”

this is the stuff of id. it's goal is to usurp evolution with a creator. leaving out a creator but saying there is one is the same god philosophy of many thousands of years ago.

What do you mean by "system of operation"? and "nothing for it's workings"?
natural selection has a means of operation.
id? a creator. who is the creator?. what is the creator? what is the method of creation?
does it send little purple men with green fingers with the newest creations to be implanted on earth?

ID is just as directly testable as Darwinian evolution.

You are claiming a lot of baseless speculation as fact here.

you keep sayng that, but i have yet to see you support it.
 
you keep sayng that, but i have yet to see you support it.
WHAT??????

YOU'RE the one who is supposed to back up your speculation. It's not Shag's job to prove a negative.

Jeez, you're talking yourself in circles.

The old Mary Mapes standard - prove me wrong or it's true. :rolleyes:
 
WHAT??????

YOU'RE the one who is supposed to back up your speculation. It's not Shag's job to prove a negative.

Jeez, you're talking yourself in circles.

The old Mary Mapes standard - prove me wrong or it's true. :rolleyes:

hey doughbrain. shag says id is testable. that's his assertion. i'm asking him to prove how it is testable.
 
hey doughbrain. shag says id is testable. that's his assertion. i'm asking him to prove how it is testable.
Hey douchebag. Every time some scientist DESIGNS AND CREATES a robot or a mechanism or some mass of cells, that demonstrates ID.
 
Hey douchebag. Every time some scientist DESIGNS AND CREATES a robot or a mechanism or some mass of cells, that demonstrates ID.
really? so your alluding to humankind being the creator of all?
 
really? so your alluding to humankind being the creator of all?
Straw man, besides your complete obtuseness in not understanding what I said. It has to be a deliberate obtuseness, since what you posit is absurd and I would never make such a claim. Thus, you're just grasping and not actually thinking.
 
i understood what you replied fully. that is a bad example of yours then. but since id is about the creation OF man and life, not creation BY man, maybe you have the answer to how it is a testable hypothesis. if not, STFU.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top