There have been many experiments on artificial evolution (for example: http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/thesis/), most notably the GOLEM@Home project, which used Distributed Computing to experiment with evolution on a grand scale.
The project description:
___
The GOLEM@Home Project designed and evolved robotic lifeforms via a screensaver application. The screensaver randomly created a population of virtual robots on users' systems and then evolved them (the rule for evolution was survival of the robots who could move the greatest distance over an infinite plain). Every week or so a few of a user's robots moved to someone else's Golem screensaver and a few of someone else's robots moved to the user's screensaver (this feature could be disabled for users worried about security). The virtual robots contained design information that could be used to build actual working robots.
___

The project was stopped because evolution did not pass a certain complexity level, as the model was limiting its progress.

In the end, artificial evolution should indeed be possible. However, as evolution has taken millions and millions of years to get where we are now, an 'increased speed ' evolution might still take way too long for us to ever see any results.

Maybe that's a good thing, or we might end up with this:
Permalink | Report

Q: If evolution is true then scientist should be able to shorten the time to create artificial life?

A: First, a point of semantics: You need to be more precise about what you mean by "evolution", because "evolution", as a general phenomena, happens all the time, to all kinds of things, i.e., cultural features such as language evolve, as do galaxies, etc., plus you also need to be more precise about the mechanism of the evolution. Do you mean "natural selection"?

However, given the context, my guess is you're probably refering to the hypothesis that humans evolved from earlier life forms by a process of natural selection, as compared to the hypothesis that the earliest humans were invented and constructed in a complete, modern form by some other form of life having the technical skills and ability and will to do so.

Furthermore, as stated, the question doesn't make any sense, because evolution doesn't start until *after* life has begun.

If you're asking whether or not there are ways to speed up the triggering of life, the answer is: probably, but also probably not by much, because if the conditions are right, then, given the millions of chemical reactions per second that single atoms and molecules can go through when the temperature is right, combined with the gagillions of atoms and molecules available for recombination on an earth-sized ball of material, combined with the fact that atoms and molecules don't recombine randomly - rather, they are finicky about what kinds of bonds they will form with other atoms and molecules, the fact is it probably wouldn't take very long for some form of self-reproducing molecular organization to happen, and indeed, evidence indicates that life on earth started quite early, almost as soon as formation of the planet had settled down.

In other words, if the conditions are right, then it doesn't take very long to *start* life, but in terms of how fast it will evolve once started, there's a handful of factors that need to be taken into consideration in order to answer, i.e. is the environment changing, such that natural selection would force evolution? If so, how fast is the environment changing, such that the organism must change to be able to survive in the new environment? Is there more than one form of life, and if so, are they competing for the same resources? Are those different forms of life engaged in predation? Etc.

Q: As scientist attempt to create artificial life, do they run into the barieer of infinite complexity?

A: That depends upon the rules and conditions that the scientists set up for the building blocks and environment of the artificial life, but in the case of carbon-based organic life, the answer is no, because organic molecules do *not* recombine randomly. Rather, constituent atoms are somewhat finicky about what other atoms they will combine with, and how, which means, the natural laws controling how atoms will bond to form molecules puts a natural cap on infinite complexity.

Q: Which is more complex, the brain or DNA molecule to understand?

A: The brain.

Q: What groups in the field of artificial life?

A: What groups what in the field of artificial life? I don't understand the question.
Permalink | Report