Robotic salamander provides clues to the past

A team of Franco-Swiss scientists has attempted to gain evolutionary insight on how animals first started walking on land by testing a salamander-like robot controlled wirelessly from a PC. They believe the slimy amphibians to be very similar to the first fish-to-land-strutting vertebrates -- their steps controlled mainly by the spinal cord. The scientists can maneuver the robo-salamander to easily switch between swimming, slithering, and crawling by sending signals from the PC to move its limbs via its mechanical "spinal cord." Since the computer system controlling the bot's spine is no more complex than the nervous systems of primitive walking pioneers, the scientists can deduce that their brains worked mostly to control speed and direction. "A decapitated chicken that runs for a while even without the brain is a good example of spinal cord regulation of locomotion," states researcher Auke Jan Ijspeert. By experimenting with the robot, the team came closer to their goal "to decode perhaps some of what happened during evolution."

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 12:31PM]

From the article:

"The computer system that runs their robot is based on just such a nervous system; it is no more complex."

Hmm... I'm not sure too many biologists would agree with that statement.

Besides, to determine the mechanics of evolution is a far cry from determining the genetics of it. While this may be of SOME insight, it appears to be just a misguided application of those cool wiggling robots that Engadget (and I) is so fond of.

[derek @ Mar 11th 2007 1:08PM]

If we evolved from Apes..... WHY THE HELL ARE THERE STILL APES????

[Das @ Mar 11th 2007 1:22PM]

The answer to your question is so pathetically easy to find if you bothered to look for it that you must have already found the correct answer and rejected it.

Go spread your ignorance somewhere else.

[bob baty-barr @ Mar 11th 2007 4:30PM]

@derek... nice argument to debunk evolution... so basically, for evolution to be true apes would have to have magically turned into humans and then vanished? that sounds more like magic -- like water into wine kinda stuff...

so basically for you to believe in evolution it has to be more wrapped in mysticism... i get it :)

[ccridero @ Mar 11th 2007 6:13PM]

because the ones around now, are *different* ones to the ones that were your ancestors. complicated?

[cocoa-loco @ Mar 12th 2007 2:34PM]

this is the unfortunate misconception that many people have about evolution. The evolutionary relationship with apes is in regards to a common ancestor. Apes did not spontaneously become people you idiot. Of the several mechanisms for evolution, all of them somehow relate to genetic isolation. Some millions of years ago a group of apes became genetically isolated from other apes and could no longer mate with them Now imagine after millions of years of this how divergent the populations would be...

[dvheil @ Mar 12th 2007 2:34PM]

this is the unfortunate misconception that many people have about evolution. The evolutionary relationship with apes is in regards to a common ancestor. Apes did not spontaneously become people you idiot. Of the several mechanisms for evolution, all of them somehow relate to genetic isolation. To become an evolutionarily distinct population, something (and yes it IS MUTATION, duplication or gene conversion) non-fatal must prevent a portion of a population from mating with others while allowing them to mate with each other. This can even be geography. Some millions of years ago a group of apes became genetically isolated from other apes and could no longer mate with them Now imagine after millions of years of this how divergent the populations would be...btw, i have a PhD in molecular biology so more often than not, I'm confused by the techno-lingo here but definitely not this area.

[Don @ Mar 14th 2007 1:43PM]

I'm going to go ahead and believe that you were joking here, because it saddens me too much to think you might be serious. That sort of thinking is why I don't have a house on Mars and a cancer cure.

[derek @ Mar 11th 2007 1:37PM]

ooooooh you can use big words! good for you! the answer is that evolution isn't REAL and has never had ANY proof what so ever!

[EVN @ Mar 11th 2007 1:23PM]

Would someone explain how a purposefully designed robot developed by intelligent persons mirrors the random and indeterminate processes of evolution?

[netgarou @ Mar 11th 2007 1:49PM]

While I see what you're getting at, I don't think that your statement is completely true. _Mutations_ are the main random component. And it's certainly correct to say that evolution is indeterminate in the sense that species are not evolving with any ultimate goal. Rather, they evolve (read: adapt) in response to some selection pressure that has, say, the possibility to kill some off. So while evolution doesn't have some end-goal, it isn't completely directionless.

That being said, it's not that odd for researchers to build something to test a random process. They are probably just testing some of the possible locomotive variations that might have been. Even if evolution was random they can still do this.

[Mikeyg @ Mar 11th 2007 1:46PM]

Derek, there is more proof for evolution that there is for a supreme being creating the world in 6 days, then taking a break. Words in a book, are not proof without corroboration, of which there is none.

as regards to proof I think this might help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galapagos_Finch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Hawthorn_fly

[Mikeyg @ Mar 11th 2007 1:45PM]

Derek, there is more proof for evolution that there is for a supreme being creating the world in 6 days, then taking a break. Words in a book, are not proof without corroboration, of which there is none.

as regards to proof I think this might help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galapagos_Finch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Hawthorn_fly

[dvheil @ Mar 12th 2007 2:34PM]

unfortunately, there is no real explanation for the way gravity works but we make observations about its properties everyday. Do you doubt that too? Everytime you hear about the bird-flu infecting people, what process do you think is involved. Unfortunately, most people don't even realize bacteria, viruses and plants use the same genetic code we use. It's the same process...get your head out of the stupid jar. When was the last time you saw someone walk on water or turn water to wine?

[Mikeyg @ Mar 11th 2007 1:40PM]

evolution is not a random process! idiot

[boomhauer @ Mar 11th 2007 1:46PM]

hmm i thought evo was already a fact, why are we still trying to "decode perhaps some of what happened during evolution"? oh wait... i guess "pay me grant money to play with robots" just didnt have the same ring.

[netgarou @ Mar 11th 2007 1:58PM]

Evolution is a fact (in layman's terms, of course science uses the word 'theory' but this confuses the average person apparently).

However, the details of how things evolved and what paths they took are still not completely understood. That's why people still research it. That being said, it's not at all clear to me what point their robot serves. It doesn't sound like it reveals anything useful.

[RoboDan @ Mar 11th 2007 2:03PM]

@Ignoramus (and I'll try to keep the scientific jargon to a minimum)

The theory of evolution is based on mutation (which is a constant occurrence across all species at all times). If the mutation (note: in 'sex' cells, not autosomal cells) is such that the resultant offspring is can no longer be characterized as the original species, a new species is said to exist.

After this point, in animal species at least, there is not much in the way of explanation as to how the one individual of the new species passes on his/her genes to offspring. It may be that twins with the same mutation are born and then interbreed (although the chances of two individuals with the same mutation in the same womb are so small that this possibility seems unlikely). It may be that the individual of the new species can back-breed with the original species, resulting in offspring of only the new species. It may be something else entirely.

The point in all this, however, is that emergence of new species starts with one individual that genetically diverges from the original species. It is not the entire species that evolves "AT ONCE".

Much is still unknown as to the mechanisms of evolution, but it has only been studied for about 150 years (as opposed to a more established science like Physics or Chemistry). Cut it some slack - it's the best we could come up with so far ;)

As to the robotic salamander... it's interesting, and not wholly dismissable, but I question the methods of the scientists who undertook this study. This "biological experiment" seems to lack the "biology" portion, and the assumptions made here require huge leaps of faith (something uncommon to science).

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 2:44PM]

Hmm, seems a bit 'toastier' in here since I last vistited:

@derek: stop yelling

@Mikeyg: "evolution is not a random process" - yes, evolution IS random, for the simple fact that mutations are random, as netgarou said. Anytime you hear "We evolved in order to do ", they're lying (the key phrase being "in order to"). Evolution has no motive, and couldn't care less if all of life was extinguished, just as the dice don't care what numbers are rolled at the craps table.

"there is more proof for evolution that there is for a supreme being creating the world in 6 days" - who said anything about a supreme being, or 6 days? Keep in mind that if men like Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, believes in God (and at the same time, maintaining his belief in evolution), perhaps we have some more thinking to do on the subject. While I don't agree with him, he does present his case well.

@RoboDan: I agree, the lack of 'biology' does seem a bit shady

@All: the "proof" of evolution is much more elusive than most realize. I know I already referenced him, but I'll do it again for the sake of familiarity (see wiki for quote)

Francis Collins - speaking on evolution - "although it will always be a theory that we cannot actually prove"

Stop shouting, start thinking.

[EVN @ Mar 11th 2007 2:46PM]

Apparently, some (e.g. Mikeyg) believe that evolution isn’t a “random” process. If “evolution” is systematic, organized, methodical, planned, structured, and purposeful then those who hold this beleif should be able to explain how evolution works without invoking the impersonal influences of probability, chance, coincidence, and accident.

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 2:47PM]

Seems my post get messed up. Sorry 'bout that.

"We evolved in order to do " -- should read -- "We evolved [this] in order to do [that]"

[Mikeyg @ Mar 11th 2007 2:50PM]

evolution is not random, the mutations that occur, that are acted on by selection pressures are random. To describe evolution itself betrays it as a process, because evolution acts beautifully so organisms can adapt to their constantly changing environments.

Evolution does not have a 'motive' but it is not random.

[Mikeyg @ Mar 11th 2007 2:52PM]

Natural selection comes from differences in survival and reproduction. Differential mortality is the survival rate of individuals to their reproductive age. Differential fertility is the total genetic contribution to the next generation. Note that, whereas mutations and genetic drift are random, natural selection is not, as it preferentially selects for different mutations based on differential fitnesses. For example, rolling dice is random, but always picking the higher number on two rolled dice is not random. The

[EVN @ Mar 11th 2007 2:56PM]

If an ancient aquatic vertebrate can "purposefully" develop little legs to crawl, maybe Mikeyg can explain how humans can "purposefully" develop a super-intelligence. I don't doubt that you've been trying, Mikeyg.

[EVN @ Mar 11th 2007 3:03PM]

Mikeyg, you are truly deluded. You have stated that the process of evolution is entirely dependent on the influences of random selection. However, that still does not answer the question how intelligent humans designing a mechanical apparatus without the inherent capacity to reproduce is an example of the evolutionary process. This was my original argument and if you wish to use it, you are a fool.

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 3:16PM]

Now see, EVN, taunts don't fuel discourse, they fuel flames. I agree with what you're asking, but keep in mind this ancient proverb:

"A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (p.s. it applies to taunts as well :)

@Mikeyg: I fail to see how evolution is NOT random. Here's why: the most fundamental mechanism of evolution is genetic mutation, which is random. Therefore the most fundamental mechanism of evolution is random. Natural selection, by admission of many/most evolutionary biologists, is one of the weakest forces in nature. Life dies due to MANY reasons, but they are certainly not correlated with choosing more evolutionarily advanced genes. I know this was brief, and a bit inadequate, but I have studying I ought to be doing. Besides, if you wish to pit yourself against what the evolutionary biologists actually believe about evolution (i.e. that it's random) I guess I can't stop you.

[EVN @ Mar 11th 2007 3:39PM]

Brian:

I was writing to the intellect and rationality of my audience (e.g. Mikeyg). I felt compelled to write in terms that he was both familiar with and would understand.

[Rich @ Mar 12th 2007 6:50PM]

I love these Creation verses Evolution discussions. These will go on till the second coming of Christ. Great to see how different we all are.

[RoboDan @ Mar 11th 2007 7:44PM]

Here's a scary thought for everyone to comprehend...

Maybe science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Maybe there is a God who 'created' (and I use the term loosely) mankind, and science is our way of explaining how it was done (/is being done).

As for mutations... you are all a little right and a little wrong (there's no absolute truth - get used to it ;) )
Although the mutations are technically random, they do occur with a greater frequency at particular sequences (which geneticists have called "hot spots".) Furthermore, the mutagens/carcinogens that mutate an organism can be sequence specific (this is a fairly recent contribution to genetics). So, though mutation is not COMPLETELY random, it is also not CHOSEN by the individual... that is unless we choose to mutate our genes, having the knowledge of how to do it, but that would be just silly... Or is it the future ;)

P.S. This is one of the best EnGadget stories yet... and not even a "ROBOTS WILL DESTROY US" reference, despite the obvious looming eventuality that we will be overrun by these unfeeling, unthinking, unstoppable killer RoboSalamanders.

[RoboDan @ Mar 11th 2007 7:54PM]

Here's a scary thought for everyone to comprehend...

Maybe science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Maybe there is a God who 'created' (and I use the term loosely) mankind, and science is our way of explaining how it was done (/is being done).

As for mutations... you are all a little right and a little wrong (there's no absolute truth - get used to it ;) )
Although the mutations are technically random, they do occur with a greater frequency at particular sequences (which geneticists have called "hot spots".) Furthermore, the mutagens/carcinogens that mutate an organism can be sequence specific (this is a fairly recent contribution to genetics). So, though mutation is not COMPLETELY random, it is also not CHOSEN by the individual... that is unless we choose to mutate our genes, having the knowledge of how to do it, but that would be just silly... Or is it the future ;)

P.S. This is one of the best EnGadget stories yet... and not even a "ROBOTS WILL DESTROY US" reference, despite the obvious looming eventuality that we will be overrun by these unfeeling, unthinking, unstoppable killer RoboSalamanders.

[Rich @ Mar 11th 2007 8:33PM]

What does amaze me is, how we don't know the absolute truth. But every body thinks they have the answer. I have all the parts of a new bike in my shed I'm just waiting for it to turn into what it should. I think it will get rusty then turn to Dust. Shame though all the bits are there. Here's an even freakier way of looking at it. I have the manual. maybe With my intelligence and the instructions or Plan on how to assemble it, it may become what it was suppose to be in the first place . Yep more chance of that happening.Of this I am convinced. No the really confusing thing for me is now there is only one bike but I would like two of the same kind what are the chances of me getting one bike with the bits and pieces i have for the actual bike and another one just like it with the junk in the pile out back of the shed. This could take some time. Ah ha. time we have an unlimited supply of this. Yep if I wait long enough there might just be possibility of bike two down the track.

[Don @ Mar 14th 2007 1:56PM]

@Rich

Ah yes, the weak argument by analogy of the uninformed pretending to be "open minded".

Sorry, but your "way of looking at it" is horribly flawed logically. I know you can't see it, and never will because it's easier for you to understand that something in the shape of Jesus or Allah or Raelians or whatever idea you've latched to that "sounds good" just made everything you see. Good luck providing evidence for your view though. Since no one ever has - including the much bandied Behe and Collins of the ID camp - I don't think I'll bet on your horse.

You've constructed a horrible version of Paley's watchmaker argument. It's been debunked thoroughly for over a century; you might want to exit the 19th and enter the 21st.

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 7:44PM]

I am not sure why you people are saying that mutation is inherent to the theory of evolution. Generally a mutation is not beneficial and impedes the ability to survive, which is opposite to how evolution works. The evolution of a species is very, very gradual. You will never see a single mutated animal contributing to the survival of a group.

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 7:48PM]

Hey I am a different Brian who posted that last post. Sry.

[RoboDan @ Mar 11th 2007 7:56PM]

Firstly, please excuse the double-post.

@ Brian

"Generally a mutation is harmful..."
Yes and No. The most common mutation (based on statistical simplicity) is a point mutation of one base, leading to a potentially different amino acid being encoded, and to have a potential effect on the function of a protein. This mutation can also be silent (ie. the point mutation does not change the amino acid, or the new amino acid has similar properties to the original one) which generally has no effect on the function of the protein.

Remember also that a mutation can be both beneficial and harmful at the same time. A much discussed mutation of this type is Sickle Cell anemia, which is widespread among African people. Although the homozygous form is often lethal (lifespan of about 20 years) and very painful, the heterozygous form confers a resistance to Malaria (something very widespread). In this way, "evolution" has "acted" due to a selective pressure to keep this potentially gene for Sickle-Cell Hemoglobin (HbS), and this can be a positive thing.

Point: Evolution does not "ACT" in the way a person would. It is difficult to distance ourselves from human characterizations even when working with things that are, admittedly, not subject to our logic or behavior patterns. It must, however, be done to better understand certain processes.

[Rich @ Mar 11th 2007 9:15PM]

By the way after constructing my bike, and when I've finished making my bike I can enjoy the bike. it actually will have a purpose and I'm going share it with others to enjoy and they can use it for the purpose I intended it for.

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 9:16PM]

[Warning: this is the original Brian, not the impostor ;) ]

@RoboDan: "there's no absolute truth"
-This statement is false because it's self-contradictory. To state that there is no absolute truth is a statement that applies to EVERYTHING, thus being an absolute statement itself. SOME things are relative, just as some things are absolute. The next step is to figure out how or why we decide things to be absolute/relative.

"Maybe there is a God"
-It'd be pretty hard for God to exist (or anything else, for that matter) if nothing is absolute ;)

"Point: Evolution does not "ACT" in the way a person would."
-Glad I'm not the only one who understands this.

"these unfeeling, unthinking, unstoppable killer RoboSalamanders."
-Always reminds of of the Matrix.

[RoboDan @ Mar 11th 2007 10:20PM]

@Brian
Re: "There's no absolute truth."
... The only truth I know is that I will never know the truth.

By logical interpretation, that very statement does negate itself. We do, however, fail in our logic to attain perfection, ergo that statement may apply, despite not being a "truth". I believe that Einstein referred to that as a paradox, not that I would begin to class myself in the same bracket as Einstein.

As to the topic of relative vs. absolute truths... Well they pretty well do not matter. This is because our perception of truth, be it absolute or relative, is imperfect (ie. made biased by our subjectivity, and thus is not objective, and thus not 'true'). However, relative to our perception of our semi-self-created reality, our relative truths may at least be useful in aiding our survival.

BTW - Self-created realities stem from a philosophical concept of "Cogito Ergo Sum" ie "I think, therefore I am"

But who knows... perhaps there is a truth, and perhaps it exists on a continuum and is not a discrete unit, but perhaps there is not. I do, however, stand by my initial statement that "The only truth I KNOW is that I will never know the truth", because I can admit that I may be wrong not only about mutation, but about everything in life.

Re: "Maybe there is a God -It'd be pretty hard for God to exist (or anything else, for that matter) if nothing is absolute ;)"
Maybe :)

Either way, this concept is too difficult to debate in just one thread on EnGadget. We will, no doubt, spend the remainder of our time on this earth (both you and I, and humans beings in general) seeking the answer to these, the simplest of questions.

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 10:49PM]

@RoboMan:

"Cogito Ergo Sum"
-Good 'ol Descartes

"We will, no doubt, spend the remainder of our time on this earth (both you and I, and humans beings in general) seeking the answer to these, the simplest of questions."
-Fully agreed. It's at least good to know that not all of the Engadget's readers are mindless flamethrowers.

I suppose it's time to retire to studies conducive to good grades, instead of just personal interest :)

-regards

[Brian @ Mar 11th 2007 10:51PM]

...ah yes, nice one Brian. End your last post calling him "RoboMan" instead of "RoboDan"... classic

[renai @ Mar 12th 2007 1:09AM]

if an organism's environment changed, can't u guys just for a second see that the "random" mutations that occured would be singled out to only a few, because only the mutations that were successful for survival in the new environment would reproduce and live on in the offspring? Tell you what, go and see Galapagos for yourself if you lack the imagination...

[EVN @ Mar 12th 2007 1:54AM]

Renai:

Imagine that genetic drift (i.e. micro-evolution) is not the same as macro-evolution and you would soon understand that minor phenotypic variations observed in the natural world never comes close to explaining the molecular processes necessary to develop uniquely individual species. Darwin never comprehended the sciences of molecular biology and molecular genetics, yet every evolutionist has attempted to build upon Darwin’s basic assumptions knowing now that Darwin’s theory was based upon profound scientific ignorance. Have you ever imagined why Darwin’s fallacy has never been formally rejected? I’ll answer this rhetorical question for you. The alternative is rejected a priori. So much for open-mindedness when one’s life’s work is spent attempting to prove an invention of pretension.

[EVN @ Mar 12th 2007 2:10AM]

“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…”

Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders

[dvheil @ Mar 12th 2007 2:42PM]

EVN, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I think you're actually confused about very similar topics. My wife happens to be a HS bio teacher so I understand how this can be confusing to you. I'm a post-doctoral fellow in molecular bio so there go my credentials. It's not that we don't have an acceptable theory on evolution. The fact of the matter is that there are various mechanisms that can lead to significant changes in gene frequency (ie evolution). Often when you hear a debate among evolutionary scientists, what they are debating about is which mechanism is likely to have caused the split between two or more related species. They are NOT saying that we have no acceptable theory of evolution! This is another unfortunate misconception. The burden of proof should not require scientists to go back in time or find fossil evidence from every second of history. Our understanding of science is based on observation and tests that reflect the technology of the time. As long as we ask questions using the scientific method, there will always be more questions and unfortunately people who see more questions as confusion.

[EVN @ Mar 12th 2007 3:37PM]

dvhell:

The effects of gravity are readily observable, testable, repeatable, and mathematical defined; this is what intelligent people call experimental science. The “processes of evolution” are, as defined, non-observable as they are purported to have occurred over millions of years. It is amazing how this very simple and obvious detail is incomprehensible to you.

Therefore, whatever you happen to believe is a matter of faith rather than fact. Yes, I do think that intelligent design requires faith in a superior being. Alternatively, your faith is in denying His existence. Question is, which requires more faith, belief in God or rejecting the possibility of God? Does your science prove God does not exist? Can your science prove that God does not exist? You know it doesn’t and it can’t. Your decision to exclude God as an explanation for physical reality is not based on scientific evidence, but bias and prejudice against the concept of a superior being. At least be honest and admit it.

[Whatsizface @ Mar 13th 2007 5:14PM]

I, for one, welcome our robotic salamander overlords.

[Rich @ Mar 18th 2007 3:20PM]

No need to apologize you've done nothing wrong. Er ?? In the mean time i'm still waiting for bike two to assemble itself on your terms. I'm very patient and I'm sure eventually it will happen. Just by chance would you have a 1/2 inch spanner to finish putting my first one together. I'm just about done and the seat is the last thing to go on then I can get on my bike and go for a ride.