Intelligent Evolution?

[cyborg]

Because natural selection can only operate on reproducing organisms with heritable traits, or there is no incremental change over generations,

ID I really feel you are not getting the concept of abstraction here so please tell me:

Why can't I take the concepts of 'heritable' 'trait' and 'change' and pull them away from their biological expressions and synthesise a new system using them?

Or, put another way, are simulations of evolution evolution? If you say, "well duh, of course they are," then your objections to my reasoning is total bizarre because a computer simulating evolution doesn't have any physical similarities to biology at all.

If you don't think they're evolution then there is nothing more to talk about.

 

[articulett]

ID,
... if you think as human usefulness as a force which selects in the same way that the environment selects the best "information replicators", you have humans( either consciously or unconsciously) acting as the environment for increasing and honing the complexity. All it takes is an environment where some "ideas" (whether coded in genomes or dsoftware or language or products) survive to be copied

-- computer viruses can evolve, right?-- no human planned todays breeds of dogs back when they were first domesticating wolves... it's just that some wolves formed a symbiotic relationship with humans that ensured the preferential passing on of their genes, and their descendants are our pets today.

Most complexity is not truly designed. We all design the internet--but there is no overall designer-- no overlord... but every time we use the internet we participate in it's evolution. The internet IS technology and it does evolve by an "unconscious" or "partially conscious" process. But as I type and you type, our goal isn't to "build the internet".

You are thinking in terms of the concrete objects--but think it terms of the "design"-- the blueprint... the language... the "information" coding that gets passed on. Not the matter (humans, computers, etc. that carry the information). A book can't evolve... but it can carry a recipe into the future where it can "evolve" (be modified, added to, refined, etc.) The physical stuff that makes up the internet doesn't evolve in the same way the internet (all the information connected together and shared) does.

Information evolves-- genomes are information... so are "designs", "blueprints", computer codes, words, ideas, --If information ends up in vectors that are acted on by the environment, they can evolve, splinter off, or die out. When something works we refine and hone it... when it doesn't, we get rid of it... obsolete things (B drives) die out. Nature is the same... just slower and blinder... but it's the same general bottom up meandering.

Think of the information as evolving-- not the vectors which are only temporary vessels to carry the info. into the future so that it might get modified. You are a vector for your genome. Today's technology is a vector for tomorrow's technology. The first airplane was the common "ancestor" of all of today's airplanes in regard to the "design information". Not the parts-- just the design. We have lots of different species... but they all have a common ancestor in the first plane that flew.

 

[Southwind17]

So, we're agreed are we, that the historical development of certain examples of man-made creations and evolutionary development of complex organisms forms a good analogy from a casual observer's perspective, to the extent that it helps, at least, counter the notion of Intelligent Design?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So, we're agreed are we, that the historical development of certain examples of man-made creations and evolutionary development of complex organisms forms a good analogy from a casual observer's perspective, to the extent that it helps, at least, counter the notion of Intelligent Design?

That's exactly the problem. The The Evolution is a scientific theory, and it has specific terminology and jargon. You're using "design" and "inheritence" to mean something other than what those words mean in the context of evolutionary biology. Would you use "impulse" in its common usage when explaining kinematics? Would you use "positive" in its common usage when discussing electricity?

Your entire analogy is based on confusion. Living things require a special type of explanation for their existence, because they are complex and have complex functions, but no designer. Machines need no such explanation, because the explanation for them is transpearantly obvious, someone designed them, but no one designed life.

At the very best, the analogy is incredibly poor and will cause confusion.

 

[cyborg]

The The Evolution is a scientific theory, and it has specific terminology and jargon.

YET AGAIN ID - this isn't biology hour. Terminology specific in a biological context will be different in a more abstract concept - the more abstract concept we are trying to discuss yes?

Machines need no such explanation, because the explanation for them is transpearantly obvious, someone designed them, but no one designed life.

I'm glad you think that's informative because as far as I can tell telling me that my computer was designed gives me ZERO information about WHY it has the design it does.

At the very best, the analogy is incredibly poor and will cause confusion.

The only one here that is confused as far as I can tell is you. Everyone else seems to have the ability to switch domains.

 

[bignickel]

I will avoid posting any of my thoughts on this thread, except:

ID, get thee hence to a bookstore with all due haste and purchase Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"!

After you've read it, then come back and post in this thread to your heart's content.

(Since I haven't followed this thread closely, for all I know, you could be completely right, but after you've read Dennett's book, I think you'll have a greater clarity about these issues. I certainly did, and I didn't even fully understand the sections about Gould and Chomsky)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I will avoid posting any of my thoughts on this thread, except:

ID, get thee hence to a bookstore with all due haste and purchase Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"!

After you've read it, then come back and post in this thread to your heart's content.

(Since I haven't followed this thread closely, for all I know, you could be completely right, but after you've read Dennett's book, I think you'll have a greater clarity about these issues. I certainly did, and I didn't even fully understand the sections about Gould and Chomsky)

Own it. Read it. Have given two copies away.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

YET AGAIN ID - this isn't biology hour.

It most certainly is. If you're talking about Evolution, than you have to use the terminology of Evolution. If you were talking about entropy, you've have to use the terminology of Physics.

 

[cyborg]

*SIGH*

Why can't I take the concepts of 'heritable' 'trait' and 'change' and pull them away from their biological expressions and synthesise a new system using them?

Or, put another way, are simulations of evolution evolution? If you say, "well duh, of course they are," then your objections to my reasoning is total bizarre because a computer simulating evolution doesn't have any physical similarities to biology at all.

Could you PLEASE answer this ID without appealing to the fact that non-biological things aren't biological? Thanks.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

*SIGH*



Could you PLEASE answer this ID without appealing to the fact that non-biological things aren't biological? Thanks.

Because when a living things passes on heritable traits, they are passed on to their offspring. Machines don't have offspring, so they don't pass on traits. It's a non-starter.

You could use bond strength selection processes in annealing metals as an analogy for natural selection, but you couldn't use it as an analogy for evolution, because those bonds don't reproduce.

 

[cyborg]

Because when a living things passes on heritable traits, they are passed on to their offspring. Machines don't have offspring, so they don't pass on traits. It's a non-starter.

*Sigh*

You could use bond strength selection processes in annealing metals as an analogy for natural selection, but you couldn't use it as an analogy for evolution, because those bonds don't reproduce.

You are so far off the mark and I just don't know how else to explain this.

You really need to get away from the physical and start dealing with the metaphysical. That's what we're doing here: we're taking an observation about one physical process, synthesising metaphysical concepts about it and then seeing how those metaphysical concepts can be applied to other physical processes.

If all you are going to do is continually complain that instances of living machines are constructed in a different way to instances of non-living machines you are going to miss the point.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

*Sigh*



You are so far off the mark and I just don't know how else to explain this.

You really need to get away from the physical and start dealing with the metaphysical. That's what we're doing here: we're taking an observation about one physical process, synthesising metaphysical concepts about it and then seeing how those metaphysical concepts can be applied to other physical processes.

If all you are going to do is continually complain that instances of living machines are constructed in a different way to instances of non-living machines you are going to miss the point.

Now you're trying to obfuscate the faulty analogy in vague generalities. Machines do not pass on traits to offspring. Human designers may choose to corporate elements similar to existing designs in future designs. Those humans may choose to make alterations. Those humans may choose to make a machine a pastiche of elements from other machines.

Heritable traits are passed on without any intelligent actors and without any choice. Mutation occurs at random, not at the behest of an intelligent actor. Natural selection occurs impartially and randomly on the organisms bearing traits. All the factors involved are mindless, autonomous, and automatic. The end result is living things which are extremely dissimilar to machines which were designed.

Living things must have undesirable traits that their ancestors bore, simply because they inherited them, and they are only lost if the net selection pressure is strong enough. Human designers retain what elements they think are useful, based on their own goals, which involve functional machines. Functionality is not a goal in Evolution, only an emergent property. Designers can institute complete design overhauls, Evolution cannot. The differences between designed things and evolved things are so numerous, I don't know what you're doing comparing them to convince a hypothetical person of the validity of Evolution.

 

[Southwind17]

That's exactly the problem. The The Evolution is a scientific theory, and it has specific terminology and jargon. You're using "design" and "inheritence" to mean something other than what those words mean in the context of evolutionary biology.

Your entire analogy is based on confusion. Living things require a special type of explanation for their existence, because they are complex and have complex functions, but no designer. Machines need no such explanation, because the explanation for them is transpearantly obvious, someone designed them, but no one designed life.

At the very best, the analogy is incredibly poor and will cause confusion.

I've just started to read The Blind Watchmaker again. I've realized that I never finished it the first time around. Interesting that Dawkins repeatedly uses the terms 'design' and 'designer' right from the out when explaining the idea of evolution. Admittedly, he uses them in the context of an 'apparent design/designer', but that's exactly what we've been doing here. Is it some apparent 'superiority complex' that you behold ID that prevents you from appreciating the analogy offered by us mere mortals? Will you need to re-read the authoritative Dawkins to remove the mental block and see the point?

Own it. Read it. Have given two copies away.

Admirable, but in addition to not getting the T-shirt, did you actually understand it? A simple 'yes' response might not be entirely convincing!

It most certainly is. If you're talking about Evolution, than you have to use the terminology of Evolution. If you were talking about entropy, you've have to use the terminology of Physics.

OK - place yourself in the history museum alongside the time traveller whom I referred to in my earlier post (I note you saw no need to comment on the analogy at that point, but here's an invitation). Can you not possibly hear him say something like: "Oh, I get it now. I can see how the shark has become what it is because I appreciate how the Merc has changed incrementally over time right from being mere 'dust' in the ground"? What would possibly preclude him from saying that, based on what he's been shown? Don't forget, you haven't needed to offer him any evolutionary theory with all its 'specific terminology and jargon' (to use your words). It would, afterall, be totally lost on him, and it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT anyway to what he's able to 'understand' SIMPLY FROM WHAT HE'S OBSERVED!

 

[Southwind17]

Machines do not pass on traits to offspring.
Human designers may choose to corporate elements similar to existing designs in future designs. Those humans may choose to make alterations. Those humans may choose to make a machine a pastiche of elements from other machines.

How the traits/elements pass/incorporate is IRRELEVANT to the analogy of what's OBSERVED 'in the field'. There are no books on evolutionary theory or design technology lying around on the ground in the Savannah next to the lion and the land rover!

Heritable traits are passed on without any intelligent actors and without any choice.

Irrelevant to the analogy of what's OBSERVED afterwards. Drop it!

Mutation occurs at random, not at the behest of an intelligent actor.

Irrelevant to the analogy of what's OBSERVED afterwards. Drop it!

Natural selection occurs impartially and randomly on the organisms bearing traits.

Irrelevant to the analogy of what's OBSERVED afterwards. Drop it!

All the factors involved are mindless, autonomous, and automatic.

Irrelevant to the analogy of what's OBSERVED afterwards. Drop it!

The end result is living things which are extremely dissimilar to machines which were designed.

Which is why we're only using machines as an analogy; they must be different, by definition. How they compare absolutely is irrelevant. How they separately came to be complex like they are is entirely the point.

Living things must have undesirable traits that their ancestors bore, simply because they inherited them, and they are only lost if the net selection pressure is strong enough.

No machine is perfect, and if the 'ideal' materials have yet to be developed then the machine MUST 'inherit' those of its predecessor, for the time being. For 'selection pressure' read: 'technological advancement', or 'consumer demand'.

Human designers retain what elements they think are useful, based on their own goals, which involve functional machines. Functionality is not a goal in Evolution, only an emergent property.

But the end result in both instances is increased complexity and/or better functionality.

Designers can institute complete design overhauls, Evolution cannot.

True, but we're excluding those examples. We're talking about machines displaying incremental improvement only.

The differences between designed things and evolved things are so numerous, I don't know what you're doing comparing them to convince a hypothetical person of the validity of Evolution.

We're NOT comparing 'them'; you are! We're simply comparing the very similar MANIFEST incremental changes that apply to both evolved organisms and designed machines!

I've highlighted the most pertinent aspects of this response for a reason. Please feel free to dwell on them, and re-read, if necessary.

Get it, now?!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

How the traits/elements pass/incorporate is IRRELEVANT to the analogy of what's OBSERVED 'in the field'. There are no books on evolutionary theory or design technology lying around on the ground in the Savannah next to the lion and the land rover!


Irrelevant to the analogy of what's OBSERVED afterwards. Drop it!


Irrelevant to the analogy of what's OBSERVED afterwards. Drop it!


Irrelevant to the analogy of what's OBSERVED afterwards. Drop it!


Irrelevant to the analogy of what's OBSERVED afterwards. Drop it!

The above assertions are not correct. Because living things Evolved, and were not designed, they retain "undesirable" features that cannot be discarded of changed. Human feet and the human back are inordinately prone to injury because their form is ill suited to the function of bipedal locomotion. However, because natural selection only modifiers what is available through small steps, we're stuck with them. There will never be a rapid change in the form of these features, as there can be overnight in the design of a machine.

Example: Two bicycles of similar design can have radically different wheels merely because the designer wants solid core wheels rather than spokes, and it's as easy for the designer to make that change as it is to retain the spoke design. Machines are clearly made by intelligent designers, who actively seek out flaws, correct them, and institute radical overhauls. Because the creation process for machines bears no resemblance to the creation process of living things, machines are not restricted in retaining the characteristics of earlier machines, as living things necessarily are.

Which is why we're only using machines as an analogy; they must be different, by definition. How they compare absolutely is irrelevant. How they separately came to be complex like they are is entirely the point.


No machine is perfect, and if the 'ideal' materials have yet to be developed then the machine MUST 'inherit' those of its predecessor, for the time being. For 'selection pressure' read: 'technological advancement', or 'consumer demand'.


But the end result in both instances is increased complexity and/or better functionality.

No, a thousand times no. The result of evolution is living things that effectively perpetuate themselves. That present life forms include highly complex creatures is nothing but an incidental emergent property. Evolution is not trying to build fast, sleek, strong, smart animal, Evolution is creating things that are good at perpetuating themselves. Televisions are not made to perpetuate more televisions.

True, but we're excluding those examples. We're talking about machines displaying incremental improvement only.

Every new machine is designed by humans, who can take characteristics from anywhere, including things they just thought up. There's no resemblance between inherited DNA and machine design. The process is important, because the characteristics of the final product are informed by the process.

We're NOT comparing 'them'; you are! We're simply comparing the very similar MANIFEST incremental changes that apply to both evolved organisms and designed machines!

The whole premise of your OP is to educate someone about Evolution through comparison to the development of machine designs.

I've highlighted the most pertinent aspects of this response for a reason. Please feel free to dwell on them, and re-read, if necessary.

Get it, now?!

I understand your point, I just disagree with the validity of it.

 

[articulett]

But humans are environmental agents that choose. The qwerty keyboard isn't the fastest--it's a byproduct of the typewriter age when it was better to type slower so the keys didn't lockup. And people got used to it,so it sticks. The same with the U.S. failure to convert to metric. What evolves is built on what comes before as selected by the environment. It doesn't matter if the environmental agent is a meteor, a human, a bacteria, a mate, or all of the above...the environment is the "sieve"-- and what passes through gets built upon. Humans may or may not consciously direct evolution of products or technology or cities or the internet-- usually they just go about being humans and act as environmental agents without awareness as to how they are reinforcing some "designs" while eliminating other possibilities. Any time you have information accumulating and being pruned through time, you have evolution-- whether it's genomes, the internet, cities, languages, technology, forums, threads, or binary code.

DNA builds vectors to test in the environment and the winners make more of themselves with a chance of their information being modified in future descendants. It really isn't that different than computers using their down time to come up with the next prime number or digit of pie or protein folding or Seti-- the winners add to the chain, the losers disappear--technology that works gets refined and honed and cheaper and more distributed... the more useful it is in it's environment, the more the design is used to back better future generations of "stuff". Consider the iphone... and what it has evolved from and why. It's not like someone could even begin to describe it 20 years ago even.

Yes, humans are the replicators of technology. But humans are also the replicators for some viruses and many memes. But we're talking about the evolution of the information.
The computers doing the protein folding and such don't evolve--the information does. Google uses an algorithm and all our input is part of what evolves when results are returned.

Once again-- think of the information that is evolving--not the vectors--not the stuff the information is written on or in or encoded into-- just the information. How did the information to make an iphone come to be? It couldn't be from the top down. It's very complex-- but it clearly was from the bottom up-- built upon technologies that worked before. Yes, humans conceived it before it was built--but the conception would be useless until the moment we evolved the information where that could be the next step.

 

[articulett]

Good ideas or tricky ideas get copied and evolve just like genomes and viruses and venereal diseases and predators and prey and other things with DNA. Look at how the titles in spam mail have evolved based on what is likely to make other people open it... and thus spread it... though "it" doesn't think. Yes, genomes build their own vectors-- cellular ones do, anyhow... but not viruses... and technology uses people to copy and distribute it's "ideas" in a similar way that DNA uses vectors to copy and distribute it's information into the future.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

But humans are environmental agents that choose.

We're much more than that. We are the force that makes machines, not the reproduction of machines. We are the force that designs them in the first place, too. That's why human products bear no resemblance to Evolved life form. We can choose the long term, Evolution cannot. We can overhaul designs, Evolution cannot. We can make machines with a function in mind. Evolution cannot. We can take a newly designers car with a four stroke combustion engine, and swap that out for a rotary engine, or an electric motor. That sort of total change in a heartbeat is beyond Evolution.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Good ideas or tricky ideas get copied and evolve just like genomes and viruses and venereal diseases and predators and prey and other things with DNA. Look at how the titles in spam mail have evolved based on what is likely to make other people open it... and thus spread it... though "it" doesn't think. Yes, genomes build their own vectors-- cellular ones do, anyhow... but not viruses... and technology uses people to copy and distribute it's "ideas" in a similar way that DNA uses vectors to copy and distribute it's information into the future.

Ah, if you're going to make the meme comparison, than the "favorable traits" you want to look at in a machine are not how well the machine works, not how similar machines appear over time, but simply how much one idea influences another, gives rise to another, and how the ideas propagate and persist through time.

The idea of this or that machine behaves in ways very similar to a gene, yes. The tangible expression of the idea, such as a computer, or a bicycle, does not, however.

 

[CapelDodger]

Considering how technology has evolved over just the last 200 years it doesn’t seem at all amazing to me that animals and plants have only come as far as they have in the last 4 billion (catastrophic wipe-outs excepted)!

Aren't they always? You miss one generation - and you never get invited again! That's harsh. But there it is.

I think you've got the right time-scale at about 200 years since systematic design has become widespread. Prior to that most technology developed empirically - hey, we did this accidentally and look what happened. Received wisdom, rules of thumb, and experience were dominant. Underlying theory, not so much.

The first iron bridge was (and is) held together with carpentry joints. Just thought I'd mention that .

The systematic approach, going from what to why to why not this, then? has simply catapulted our technology over a couple of centuries compared to the previous ten thousand years, or even the previous two thousand.

The foundation, of course, is the brick-by-brick construction of Science, the greatest and purest product of our species.