What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[cyborg]

That is my point, design is going somewhere, "a better fighter than the Germans"

No, that would be a goal. Achieving a goal is another thing altogether.

 

[articulett]

http://www.bath.ac.uk/podcast/lectures/017-podbath-SteveJones.mp3

In response to the "evolution is just chance and is very unlikely to produce complexity" argument, those who understand the theory of evolution sometimes argue in its defense that the theory is just as good at producing complex things as any conscious designer. But such people are really selling the theory short. In actual fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection produces results that are often much better than those produced by conscious design.

A wonderful example that illustrates this point is given by biologist Steve Jones, as recounted in his book Almost Like a Whale: The Origin of Species Updated (1999) (Chapter IV, Natural Selection). (Thanks to Heidi Cool for alerting me to the podcast of a talk by Jones which is where I first heard this story.)

I once worked for a year or so, for what seemed good reasons at the time, as a fitter's mate in a soap factory on the Wirral Peninsula, Liverpool's Left Bank. It was a formative episode, and was also, by chance, my first exposure to the theory of evolution.

To make soap powder, a liquid is blown through a nozzle. As it streams out, the pressure drops and a cloud of particles forms. These fall into a tank and after some clandestine coloration and perfumery are packaged and sold. In my day, thirty years ago, the spray came through a simple pipe that narrowed from one end to the other. It did its job quite well, but had problems with changes in the size of the grains, liquid spilling through or − worst of all − blockages in the tube.

Those problems have been solved. The success is in the nozzle. What used to be a simple pipe has become an intricate duct, longer than before, with many constrictions and chambers. The liquid follows a complex path before it sprays from the hole. Each type of powder has its own nozzle design, which does the job with great efficiency.

What caused such progress? Soap companies hire plenty of scientists, who have long studied what happens when a liquid sprays out to become a powder. The problem is too hard to allow even the finest engineers to do what enjoy the most, to explore the question with mathematics and design the best solution. Because that failed, they tried another approach. It was the key to evolution, design without a designer: the preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of those injurious. It was, in other words, natural selection.

The engineers used the idea that moulds life itself: descent with modification. Take a nozzle that works quite well and make copies, each changed at random. Test them for how well they make powder. Then, impose a struggle for existence by insisting that not all can survive. Many of the altered devices are no better (or worse) than the parental form. They are discarded, but the few able to do a superior job are allowed to reproduce and are copied − but again not perfectly. As generations pass there emerges, as if by magic, a new and efficient pipe of complex and unexpected shape.

Natural selection is a machine that makes almost impossible things.

In other words, by mindlessly applying an algorithm based on the principle of natural selection, they were able to come up with a complex design for a superior spray nozzle that was inconceivable to the scientists trying to design one using engineering and science principles.

Believers in a god-like designer might argue that what natural selection did here was outperform mere mortal designers and that god, being a perfect designer, would be able to come up with a better design. But that argument doesn't work that well, either, as I will discuss in the next posting in this series.

http://planet.case.edu/

Calling Evolution "random" does keep people from understanding natural selection...and once engineers understand "natural selection", they can let eons of the process solve problems that plague humans. There is a great TED talk on this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/view/id/19

Honestly, Jim Bob--we understand the random parts...it truly is the easy part of the explanation--it's the power of natural selection that some of you just don't seem to get...how it "hones" the pool of random and comes up with "miracles". Until you understand the power of natural selection and incorporate it into any explanation you use--nobody is really going to care that you think it's informative or technically correct to describe evolution as "random". It's just too ambiguous and leaves out something of utmost importance to understanding the process. It's at least important to recognize the relative difference in randomness as it applies to mutation and the random components in the environment which selects from pool of randomness.

As I said before--evolution is a fact--the definitions of words and descriptions of evolution will evolve so that the most useful ways of understanding the facts will emerge. If creationists aim to obfuscate natural selection so that it all seems impossible, then the descriptions of natural selection will be honed accordingly and as a reaction to such obfuscation.

Truly, those of you who want to sum up evolution as random just don't seem to "get" natural selection. If mutations are dots--natural selection connects the dots to make the big picture.

More on the creationist backwards thinking that makes biologists more determined than ever to communicate the power of natural selection: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/gwyn_topham/2007/05/steve_jones.html

 

[articulett]

Yes, If it doesn't look indistinguishable from noise, then it has redudant informati_n (which is good for transmission) b_cause t is st_ll p_ssibl_ t_ underst_nd but, the same information could be more compressed.

If it looks the same as noise, then it can't be compressed any further.

Evolution requires imperfect copying, (mutation).

Randomnness is nescesary and sufficient.

Now back to the "random selecton vs random mutation"


"While mutations are relatively random, selection is not. "

Articulett, what is wrong in saying that natural selection is probabilistic, and not disordered?

It would not be wrong information for anyone with any understanding of science or maths. It can directly conter the tornado in a junkyard analogy, by saying "that is not what random means in this case"

If anyone wants to argue that random always means that every outcome is equally likely, offer to bet $50 with them on the outcomes of ten consecutive (fair) dice throws. They willl get your cash if all ten throws are sixes, and you will get it if at least one throw is not. By their logic both outcomes are equally likely, so it is a fair bet...

You are unsure whether mijo, Schneibster, meadmaker and I have the same definiton of random.

As Schneibster has sad, we do. In factfundamentally, all the dictonary definitions that I have seen, except for the "haphazard, all outcomes equally likely" one are fundamentally acceptable, and usable.

If the ditonary said "that any of the possible outcomes are equally likely possible" then I would accept that tautological definition too.


*Omniscient about physical laws and the everything within the universe, but no supernatural ability to know the outcome of random events prior to their occurance. This being would of course know the probabilities of each event occurring in any situation...

I'm sorry, I just can't seem to follow you. Randomness is necessary, but not sufficient. Something must survive and reproduce successfully for evolution to occur--hence something must be selected.

And what is this definition of random that you all agree to? If it's the probability distribution thing, it's just not informative enough to be useful. It's ambiguous--it doesn't convey any meaning--and it's prone the creationist canard "science thinks all this happened by chance!" Chance is involved--but natural selection is responsible for the miracles. Once you say "that's not the type of randomness" we are referring to, you've lost your audience. Who cares about an ambiguous definition that is "related to or described by a probability chart"? Your answer is not better in regards to understanding how complexity of life evolves from the randomness of mutation.

I don't care if you say natural selection is probabilistic or non disordered or that some animals preferentially survive. I'm just pointing out that when biologists say that selection is the opposite of "random" they are speaking in direct response to the common understanding of random (all events being equally likely--and/or haphazard).

Your gambling analogy is silly on several levels. Each successive throw is not influenced by the throw before it, but each throw limits the number of final combinations in the series. I can't tell if your lack of knowledge on this subject or your communication skills that are problematic here.

You just seem to be missing so much. And then you get frustrated when people don't take to your definitions. I'm sure evolution is random by whatever definition you are using. But I just think it's too ambiguous and meaningless for any biologist to employ such language in discussing evolution.

You don't seem to "get" natural selection at all. If you are going to describe an entire process as random just because some of the components are random, then that makes all processes random and the evolution of anything random--hence it's too broad to be a useful descriptor.

Selection with or without results in mind is essentially the same. Nature does what humans do--it's a constant life eliminating machine--but some stuff slips by and copies itself either perfectly or imperfectly, either in part or in whole, often many many times. And it's passing through these endless series of elimination rounds that make the information that exists today as finely honed and "tuned" as it is. We don't see the humongous number of failures. And when we look at the DNA it's clearly cobbled together through time via selection. Calling evolution random leaves out this very essential detail and makes your description of evolution indistinguishable from the creationist canard...

If your goal is to undestand why Dawkins calls selection the opposite of random, you can be sure he's referring to the common meaning of the word.
If you want to know why you are unlikely to get anyone who understands evolution to call evolution random, it's because this is non-explanatory, ambiguous, and open to obfuscation and misleading conclusions.

 

[articulett]

Articulett, do you see why I don't like saying that scientific knowledge "evolves", nor that the aeroplane "evolved"?

One reason is that aircraft, including those that never got off the doodling pad, did have designers, including several "highly intelligent designers" (Leonardo da Vinci's helicopters for example).

Evolution is an iteratitive process, but not all iterations are evolution.

Selective breeding of farm animals is not really evolution, because the selection is so biased towards a particular trait. It does use an evolutionary method. Natural selection is biased solely towards reproducing the genes of the parent organisms.

<tangent>
Am I right in thinking that domestic dogs have a far larger variation in their size than domsetic cats, yet does the whole family of felines show a greater variation in size than canines?

I can't think what the largest canine is/was, anyone care to enlighten me please?
</tangent>

By largest canine if you mean weight, it's the Mastiffs. If you mean height, it's the Irish Wolfhound. Dog size was recently found to be related to an insulin gene with humans preferentially breeding for size modified--but being unaware of what they were modifying of course. They just allowed those they liked to preferentially survive.

And like cyborg, I don't understand your problem with using selective breeding or the evolution of technology as examples of evolution. In fact, I think it's pretty damn useful in understanding why or how some information "sticks" and is honed...and some doesn't. Evolution is descent with modification based on what is best (for whatever reasons) and getting itself copied. You can see the evolution of nozzles in the example above.

And nature is biased towards particularly traits too--1 in particular, surviving long enough to get other vectors to carry the info. into the future after the current vector can no longer do so. There's an interesting story about selective breeding of foxes to make them tamer (so that those breeding them for their coats could have tamer animals)--but doing so made them likely to have spots and white patches and floppy ears, and other things associated with dog domestication. White animals with spots such as Holstein cows or Dalmations don't really have a camouflage survival advantage in the wild, but they are very common in domesticated animals. So even though though the breeders were biased towards a goal--natural selection made their goal unlikely-- Randomness is involved in the evolution of everything--but just because randomness is involved, doesn't make it useful to describe natural selection as random--this goes for all things that evolve.

 

[articulett]

That is my point, design is going somewhere, "a better fighter than the Germans"

Use of evolutionary algorithms in design is also going somewhere too.

Please read about the nozzles. The only "goal" of any genome is to have it's vector survive and reproduce as many copies of it's information as possible. Everything in the environment, be it the shape of ducks genitals, to the amount of food available, to Tsunamis--means that only a relative few will survive to pass on genes--only a very few will be selected. It does not matter if an animal is more fit by human standards (faster, sharper teeth)--it only matters if it is selected and it does pass on genes. To the extent that the information in the genome conferred any survival or reproductive advantage to that organism, it is preferentially passed on.

We can never know of all the technological wonders that could have existed in place of what exists today if we changed a few things. We can only see what DID work--what was selected. Random components do not a random process make.

Maybe some people really truly cannot understand what is "non random" about natural selection...

Pythagorean theorem is a math theorem containing random variables--however Pythagoreans theorem isn't random nor are math problems in general nor are the right triangles Pythagorean theorem describes. By the same token--evolution contains randomness, but it is as uninformative to call evolution in it's entirety random as it is to call Pythagorean theorem random.

 

[articulett]

I want to add something to the lottery example, because some people here seem confused as to "how" the house always wins. In a lotto, all tickets are equally likely to be drawn. The numbers are drawn randomly, and as each number is drawn the potential winners decrease. The pay off of lotteries is usually about 2/3 of the total money taken in--that means the house will always get 1/3 of the money taken in--the more people that play, the more money they will get. The pot grows larger as more people play too...But people are paying 1/3 of their ticket price to the house to have the opportunity to win the 2/3 return on all the money collected.

The house always has an advantage because the percent paid overall to winners is lower than the amount of money taken in by those who want the opportunity to win. This way their intake is directly related to the number of players--This sort of absolutely predictable aspect of probability and large numbers keeps a lot of small restaurants and bars, etc. open in Vegas.

And I don't play poker, but I think that the money is paid up front to be able to play in casinos and dealers are tipped by players--but whoever wins the "pot" wins the whole pot--that is you pay for the right to play and you pay to have the cards dealt to you...unlike poker amongst friends where all the money a person puts into the game is returned to players.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Can any of the "non-randomites" explain to me how technological entities that were designed by an agent distinct from the entity itself for a specific purpose and with a specific goal in mind and that were modified on the basis of both the successes and failures of their predecessors are at all analogous to biological entities that came to be without the action of an agent distinct from the entity itself for no specific purpose and with no specific goal in mind and that were modified only on the basis of the success of their predecessors?

 

[cyborg]

Can any of the "non-randomites" explain to me how technological entities that were designed by an agent distinct from the entity itself for a specific purpose and with a specific goal in mind and that were modified on the basis of both the successes and failures of their predecessors are at all analogous to biological entities that came to be without the action of an agent distinct from the entity itself for no specific purpose and with no specific goal in mind and that were modified only on the basis of the success of their predecessors?

First you would have to understand what an analogy is. Second if you are going to criticise analogies you should do so with the ones made. Third you are going to have to actually have to read the replies.

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob
That is my point, design is going somewhere, "a better fighter than the Germans"

No, that would be a goal. Achieving a goal is another thing altogether.

OK, "let's make this fighter faster, by adding a supercharger to the engine..."

 

[cyborg]

OK, "let's make this fighter faster, by adding a supercharger to the engine..."

That's still the same thing - it's a goal. How do you know it will actually make it faster?

 

[mijopaalmc]

First you would have to understand what an analogy is. Second if you are going to criticise analogies you should do so with the ones made. Third you are going to have to actually have to read the replies.

And first you have to understand that in order for analogies to be valid the two sets of analogs have to share the same point of correspondence. The reason that cat:kitten::horse:foal is a good analogy is that the cat-kitten pair shares the point of correspondence as the horse-foal pair, namely that a kitten and a foal are the young of a cat and a foal, respectively.

Your analogy of how engineered entities "evolve" to how biological entities evolve does doesn't have the point of correspondence between the analog as mentioned in the question I asked. Now, it may be that you were going for a different point of correspondence. For instance, as you and articulett have both noted, evolution and engineering are iterative processes that result in the improvement of an entity according to a set of criteria. However, I don't think that it is necessarily wise to even attempt to analogize technological entities to biological one because it plays right in to the concept of "intelligent design" because humans are intelligent agents (however poorly intelligence my be defined). Your analogy implies that Nature "wants" a biological entity to have a certain trait and therefore Nature "chooses" biological entities with that trait just as humans want a technological entity to have a certain trait and therefore humans choose technological entities with that trait.

I find it frustrating to no end that the "non-randomites" say that, while calling evolution "random" may be technically correct given a proper definition, it still falls pray to creationist misinterpretations but they ignore the fact that analogizing biological entities with technological entities immediately implies a designer and a teleology, which is the main goal of IDists.

 

[jimbob]

Exactly, mijo, post #1291

Originally Posted by jimbob
OK, "let's make this fighter faster, by adding a supercharger to the engine..."

That's still the same thing - it's a goal. How do you know it will actually make it faster?

It doesn't matter if it actually makes it faster, it was intended to

 

[cyborg]

Your analogy of how engineered entities "evolve" to how biological entities evolve does doesn't have the point of correspondence between the analog as mentioned in the question I asked.

Except for all the ones I pointed out.

However, I don't think that it is necessarily wise to even attempt to analogize technological entities to biological one because it plays right in to the concept of "intelligent design" because humans are intelligent agents (however poorly intelligence my be defined).

No, it absolutely is entirely wise. Before one can claim intelligent design is a valid alternative (even given all the problems with creating false dichotomies) one should actually observe the process of design from what we actually know about how humans design things rather than persist with idealised, romantic and unrealistic concepts about it. What we observe is that the notion that somehow evolution is some-sort of bizarre counter-intuitive process of creating things is in fact not when we note the similarities as to how humans actually achieve a successful design process.

Your analogy implies that Nature "wants" a biological entity to have a certain trait and therefore Nature "chooses" biological entities with that trait just as humans want a technological entity to have a certain trait and therefore humans choose technological entities with that trait.

Only if one is determined not to actually read what I have written.

I find it frustrating to no end that the "non-randomites" say that, while calling evolution "random" may be technically correct given a proper definition, it still falls pray to creationist misinterpretations but they ignore the fact that analogizing biological entities with technological entities immediately implies a designer and a teleology, which is the main goal of IDists.

And you will find your frustration continuing if you will insist on not reading what I say.

I have stated numerous times why the term 'random' is problematic giving a far more precise definition with well defined terms that do not allow such ambiguities and emotional attachments to certain notions about what being random should entail. Otherwise it becomes an exercise in cheerleading, not in any sense about resolving the issue.

It also rather ignores the fact that IDists are proposing design as something that can achieve something evolution cannot. Actually demonstrating how this is not the case by demolishing fallacious notions of what design entails undermines this argument.

It is sure as hell not my issue if these people won't grasp this but since the problem is that these people want ID to be true more than they care if it is so or not it seems rather moot to me.

 

[cyborg]

It doesn't matter if it actually makes it faster, it was intended to

And again I have to ask: what difference does it make if a change was intended or not (with all the metaphysical problems the concept of intent raises) if it achieves the same effect? Implicit goals work just as well.

 

[articulett]

And again I have to ask: what difference does it make if a change was intended or not (with all the metaphysical problems the concept of intent raises) if it achieves the same effect? Implicit goals work just as well.

Exactly.

In the domestication of dogs, dogs that got along well with humans for whatever reasons, preferentially survived. Humans didn't kill them, let them eat their spoils, gave them shelter, etc. There doesn't need to be any consciousness about reproduction or aiding survival or killing (pruning) for it to happen. This relationship would be reinforced if the dogs (wolves) helped human survival by protecting or hunting or herding, etc. That is how symbiotic relationships and communities evolve. We have a whole host of microorganisms that live on us and in our guts that have a beneficial effect or that do no harm...this was a useful evolutionary "trick" for them and us. This happened without any consciousness on the part of either of us.

I think that anyone should be able to read the nozzle example in my first post in the series of posts above (in italics) and understand this, shouldn't they? I think Jim Bob just doesn't understand natural selection, but I think mijo purposefully does not want to understand it--he wants to be able to say "evolution is random" as though that is meaningful. But to me, it's identical to saying that a math problem IS random just because it contain random variables. It's uninformative at best; misleading at worst...and obfuscates the understanding of natural selection in exactly the same way creationists do (e.g. "evolution says all of this came about by random chance").

There is a bias in natural selection--escape death until you can spawn more than any competitors. That's the basic algorithm driving DNA.

(and Jim bob--your jet examples...humans are applying knowledge of what worked before...the info that worked before is modified--if it works better, it becomes part of future designs...if not, it's back to the drawing board...that is what nature is doing...just like the nozzle example...)

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob
It doesn't matter if it actually makes it faster, it was intended to

And again I have to ask: what difference does it make if a change was intended or not (with all the metaphysical problems the concept of intent raises) if it achieves the same effect? Implicit goals work just as well.

Because if you are discussing how organisms arose, and discussing with people who say, "We evolved but God directed the evolution", then saying that designed systems also evolved is just going to muddy the waters.

With evolution the only metainformation about the organism that is transimtted is "this managed to reproduce". Nothing like, "most dogfights occur in low to medium level, so we can sacrifice high-altitude performance for improved low-level performance, let's change the wing shape in the next spitfire variant."

I don't see what the problem is in saying that design is not evolution.

Both are iterative processes, true, but that is pretty much where the analogy stops.

Design: Can learn from failures and successes, needs an intelligent designer. Input is nonrandom, output is nonrandom. Can use evolutionary algorithms.

Evolutionary algorithms: Have a determined set of criteria for defining "fitness". The resulting output will be better than the starting "designs". Doesn't need a "designer", but does need some definition of fitness, so a "goal". Input is pseudorandom, selection is nonrandom. Needs an intellignet selector, or definition of fitness.

Selective Breeding: As for the Evolutionary algorithms, but other advantageous traits, as determined by the breeder may also be attempted to be bred, if an intereting mutation shows itself. Input is random, selection is nonrandom. Needs an intelligent selector, or definition of fitness.

Evolution: Random mutations from successfully reproducing organisms. The only criterion for selection, is what actually manages to reproduce. There is no predefined criterion of fitness. There are many possible "solutions", (carnivore or herbivore, for example). Input is random, output is probabilistic. No need for any definiton of "fit", no need for any intelligent input.


Because the environment consists of many highly-optimised organisms, it is harsh for most individuals in the vast majority of species, so selection is very efficient at culling weaknesses.

In fact it also culls many that are otherwise "fit". Fish produce millions of spawn, because many are simply "unlucky", so evolution favoured producing millions so that at least two spawn (for a stable population).

ETA:

The evolutionary algorithm, and the selective breeding, and evolution can come up with surprising "solutions". Certainly in electronics solutions that could not have been designed.

However there is a clearly defined set of performance criteria in these examples "a better nozzle". With natural selection, the only criteria is did it reproduce?

You agree on that, but where I differ form you is that this is not an explicit goal, and there are a myriad of types of "solution" to this problem.

Second ETA, is it possible for a "designer" to design anything l more complex than the designer?

I doubt it, so evolutionary algorithms are probably going to become more important in future.

 

[cyborg]

Because if you are discussing how organisms arose, and discussing with people who say, "We evolved but God directed the evolution", then saying that designed systems also evolved is just going to muddy the waters.

No it is not. It is the first meaningful step one must perform to have a sensible discussion about intelligent design; namely just what the hell it is.

With evolution the only metainformation about the organism that is transimtted is "this managed to reproduce". Nothing like, "most dogfights occur in low to medium level, so we can sacrifice high-altitude performance for improved low-level performance, let's change the wing shape in the next spitfire variant."

That would be an example of an incorrect analogy. Your second statement is not metainformation about any airplane design; it is a requirements constraint for an airplane design. As such the correct design constraint for a biological organism would be, "must reproduce."

I don't see what the problem is in saying that design is not evolution.

The main problem is that merely stating that conveys no information about what either design or evolution are.

Both are iterative processes, true, but that is pretty much where the analogy stops.

Not really for the reasons I've pointed out numerous times related to just what an analogy is and just what concepts are analogous.

Can learn from failures and successes, needs an intelligent designer.

How intelligent?

Input is nonrandom, output is nonrandom.

Imprecise. Specify the deterministic relationships.

Evolutionary algorithms: Have a determined set of criteria for defining "fitness".

So does any engineering project - a good one at least.

Needs an intellignet selector, or definition of fitness.

How intelligent?

Selective Breeding: ... Needs an intelligent selector

How intelligent?

Evolution: Random mutations from successfully reproducing organisms. The only criterion for selection, is what actually manages to reproduce. There is no predefined criterion of fitness. There are many possible "solutions", (carnivore or herbivore, for example).

Input is random, output is probabilistic.

BE PRECISE. Is random the same thing as probabilistic? No? Under what definitions?

In fact it also culls many that are otherwise "fit". Fish produce millions of spawn, because many are simply "unlucky", so evolution favoured producing millions so that at least two spawn (for a stable population).

Um, you are really going to have to get away from the concept that talking about individual organisms is at all meaningful.

In what possible sense could it be said the organism is fit for purpose if it employed a reproduction strategy that failed to produce a viable population?

 

[jimbob]

Articulett, the nozzles fit into the "evolutionary algorithms" section above.

As I said before: the environment changes randomly (or pseudorandomly according to Ivor and Cyborg) so the selection "landscape" alters randomly (over geological timeframes). Even when the environment is "stable", many organisms with (what would seem to be) "perfectly good" combinations of traits are simply unlucky, and don't reproduce.

Saying "selection is nonrandom" would mean that if one could assign a hypothetical fitness value to each organism, all those above the threshold would reproduce, and all those below wouldn't.

This doesn't happen, so it is probabilistic.

I think Jim Bob just doesn't understand natural selection, but I think mijo purposefully does not want to understand it--he wants to be able to say "evolution is random" as though that is meaningful.

What is different in your model of evolution from "Chimps and us evolved from a common ancestor, and the nonrandom process of divine natural selection inevitably led to the evolution of humanity, who much later made fighter aircraft in WWII that evolved into better fighters"?

 

[mijopaalmc]

And again I have to ask: what difference does it make if a change was intended or not (with all the metaphysical problems the concept of intent raises) if it achieves the same effect? Implicit goals work just as well.

Quite simply because the agent that intends to make a change has often spent much time trying to anticipate that consequences of the change that is going to be made and selecting the most beneficial consequences of all the available changes to be made. This is what I mean when I say "intelligent". Such action by the "intelligent" extrinsic agent doesn't mean that the altered design will be perfect or that there won't be unintended consequences because of the change, but it is not a romanticization or idealization of the development process to say that an "intelligent" extrinsic agent effects change on technological entities during technological development while no such agent acts, or indeed even exists to act, on biological entities during biological evolution. Technological development occurs most often as a result of some "intelligent" agent extrinsic to the entity being changed that, at least in the case of human technology, has considered a large set of possible consequences of the change it desires to make and has chosen one the minimize the detrimental effect of the change and maximizes the beneficial aspect of the change. Biological evolution though does not occur because of the machinations of an "intelligent" extrinsic agent; the changes just happen and are then sorted out by the environment.

Technological development and biological evolution may be iterative processes. However, their differences, as mentioned above by jimbob and me, far outweigh their similarities. This is important, as a far as I can tell, the only reason articulett and cyborg want to analogize technological development with biological evolution because the perceive technological development to be non-random and appear to think that this non-randomness transfers to biological evolution through the fact that both are iterative processes, the point of correspondence they have picked.

 

[jimbob]

Quote:
With evolution the only metainformation about the organism that is transimtted is "this managed to reproduce". Nothing like, "most dogfights occur in low to medium level, so we can sacrifice high-altitude performance for improved low-level performance, let's change the wing shape in the next spitfire variant."

That would be an example of an incorrect analogy. Your second statement is not metainformation about any airplane design; it is a requirements constraint for an airplane design. As such the correct design constraint for a biological organism would be, "must reproduce."

No, because the information was from failures. "We struggled here, let's try to improve this aspect. " The only information is an evolutiony approach was that this set of designs performed better. let's choose these as the parents of the next generation.

I was thinking about the stated reasoning behind, the alteration of the Spitfire's Wing for its low level variants (Mk V, I think).

You are interested in the similarities, I think the differences are more important.

?