Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

Excuse me, but what I did was itemize, point-by-point, numerous areas in which the analogy failed because of dissimilarity. What have you done, precisely?



They are welcome to speak for themselves. They are capable of articulating their own arguments for themselves, are you?



My position is corroborated by facts. I have shown that Evolution is an unguided process which requires no involvement of any intelligent actors. That is a simple matter of fact. What facts have you brought to the table?

Actually, biological evolution is guided by the will, desire, hunger, and instincts of the entities they create and refined by such entities interaction with the environment. And that is true of many complex things by humans... sure the internet is created based on various human drives and desires-- but not because anyone is trying to invent what it is or even understands it in it's entirety--any more than an ant understands an ant colony. But guided and unguided and planned in part or in whole via a jagged path of assorted inputs are not the similarities that define the two... it's just information being replicated based on how it interacts with the environment--

"Biological evolution and the spread of knowledge are completely the same process when we regard them as systems for the self-replication of information." Smarter people than me have said that and added, "The processes are basically the same. In both, when genes or people try various things, there are sometimes failures or mutants; those adapted to the environment remain." http://www.natureinterface.com/e/ni04/P026-029/ People who teach many. I just don't want to take credit for being the one who said those wise words first--though like Southwind...I remember the Eureka moment when I first pondered the thought, and I wasn't sure if anyone else had explored it. And that is what Southwind was saying in essence. It resonates with people that sound way smarter than you to me. (And juvenile delinquent high school kids that I teach also). And many posters that dropped by this thread. Why do you imagine your opinion on the subject would matter more?

(oh, and I know that you can't speak for Mijo and JB, because they sound as garbled as you. Just as woo never seems on the same page as other woo because they are sure that they are NOT woo...so too is your pedantry and nothingness on par with theirs. You argued that no-one was saying that atoms were different in living matter versus non-living... but Mijo, the creationist, was arguing just that.)

 

[articulett]

It's the similarities that you don't get that make the analogy useful to so many as linked. Not the differences you exaggerate in your head. And who cares what you are arguing? It's an opinion about how to explain the facts. And yours is not even a useful opinion regarding the OP as far as I can tell.

Of course, in your head, just like all those arguing a faith held view, you are playing a win-lose game where you are winning. The rest of us were having a dialogue about the OP. Most weighed in with the opinion that the analogy was useful. Those who disagreed didn't even seem to understand the analogy, and thus their opinion is useless. Especially since no one can sum up what they are saying--and they sure aren't saying anything more useful , nor are they the forum members applauded for their ability to teach others. It's the same ol' pedants as always.

It gets old hearing insults of people from people more worthy of said insults applied to themselves. I like to encourage those members that I find funny or smart or informative--and discourage the pedants and the preachy or faith filled.

 

[articulett]

What have I done?-- like Cyborg and others, I've repeatedly shown why the two are the same at their essence-- and quoted respected professionals who have said as much. Your exceptions do not invalidate the rule. Your failures don't lessen the understanding others can use such analogies for--they just boost your faith in your own egotistical point of view.

And now I shall put you on ignore, because I have determined that you have Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620 and your goal is to win some imaginary contest.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's the similarities that you don't get that make the analogy useful to so many as linked. Not the differences you exaggerate in your head. And who cares what you are arguing? It's an opinion about how to explain the facts. And yours is not even a useful opinion regarding the OP as far as I can tell.

Yeah, yeah, we know that ImaginalDisc's opinion is not useful because it doesn't support the idea that the analogy is effective in explaining biological evolution in terms of technological development. The flaw in the argument against the objections to the analogy is that those who oppose it do not recognize the similarities between technological development and biological evolution. Everyone who has posted at least three times in this thread has acknowledged that technological development and biological evolution are both examples of "change over time with retention of 'what works'". However, what I (and I think ImaginalDisc, jimbob, and quixotecoyote) object to is the implication that "change over time with retention of 'what works'" is the only important aspect of biological evolution when comparing it to technological development and that the mechanism of such change and retention, which are drastically different in both processes, are irrelevant to the comparison and can be abstracted away at will.

 

[jimbob]

And now I shall put you on ignore, because I have determined that you have Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620 and your goal is to win some imaginary contest.

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

My goal is not to win some imaginary contest. I don't want a poor analogy that is misleading to be used as it is a common miosconception about how evolution actually works.

If you compare posts I think there might be a better candidate for this than ImaginalDisc.

I accepted that if you are trying to show that even human designs change over time, then by replacing the word "evolution" with "develop" the OP could be useful

ID proponents like (and use) the term "intelligent evolution" in the same way that you are advocating.

 

[jimbob]

Actually, biological evolution is guided by the will, desire, hunger, and instincts of the entities they create and refined by such entities interaction with the environment. And that is true of many complex things by humans... sure the internet is created based on various human drives and desires-- but not because anyone is trying to invent what it is or even understands it in it's entirety--any more than an ant understands an ant colony. But guided and unguided and planned in part or in whole via a jagged path of assorted inputs are not the similarities that define the two... it's just information being replicated based on how it interacts with the environment--

The behaviour of the organisms is determined by their evolutiary heritige .

They do not guide evolution, except in the same way that other traits might affect reproductive fitness.

(oh, and I know that you can't speak for Mijo and JB, because they sound as garbled as you. Just as woo never seems on the same page as other woo because they are sure that they are NOT woo...so too is your pedantry and nothingness on par with theirs. You argued that no-one was saying that atoms were different in living matter versus non-living... but Mijo, the creationist, was arguing just that.)

Why is it garbled? I'd agree that ImaginalDisc has put it more succinctly than me, but other people can understand my posts. You said that in two lines I summed up pretty much of evolution when listing the similarities:

Both evolution and design are iterative processes and both lead to systems that are "more suited" over time. That might be a "pretty good summation of evolution form your viewpoint, but it isn't even the beginning as that is accepted by "classical" ID proponents, (though probably not "perfect Creationists").
Hidden for size:

I have read and considered each point you have made. What frustrates you, I venture to guess, is that I do not agree with any of them.



Design can overhaul, evolution cannot.

Design can plan for long-term development, evolution cannot.

Design can lift elements from one type of thing and apply them to another, evolution cannot.

Design can retain the plans of a form indefinately, evolution cannot.

Living things are produced by autonumous reproduction, machines are not.

Living things have heritable traits, machines do not.

Living things mutate, and those mutations are passed on. Machines neither mutate, nor pass on mutations.

I could go on for some time. At each point, you have dismissed these differences as irrelevant, or generalized the terms into useless vaugeness, whereas the peculiar contraints of living things, the struggle to survive, and the pressures of impersonal, unguided selection, are the very essence of Evolution. Without these elements, living things would not exist, whereas machines and design do not need any of these traits.



Unfortunately living things and the proccess of Evolution are not at all absract. Living things are not patterns and ideas scribbled onto blueprints and patterns to be fabricated by intelligent actors with an understanding of the intended results; living things are breathing, eating, killing entities continuously reproducing themselves and giving rise to new forms entirely without any abstraction. The Theory of Evolution is a description of the origin and properties of the very visceral living things in the natural world and it is, to date, the most compelling, most accurate, and most parsimonious explanation for these diverse and contradictory organisms.

As machines lack all the elements Evolution seeks to explain, I fail to see any reason for using machines an analogy to teach it.

Intelligent Evolution is an oxymoron. If one states that evolution could involve intelligent direction, then how is that different from accepting "microevolution" and directed "macroevolution" (terms which are meaningless).

 

[mijopaalmc]

You argued that no-one was saying that atoms were different in living matter versus non-living... but Mijo, the creationist, was arguing just that.

And, articulett wonders why people call her a liar?

Perhaps, because it is because she deliberately and brazenly lies. I never said "that atoms were different in living matter versus non-living". I said that their chemical properties, which are essential to their chemistry, are different. Again, the fact that carbon has six protons is not particularly helpful its diverse chemistry. For instance, the carbon in steel is most likely nucleophilic because carbon is more electronegative than iron, making the carbon electron-rich. The carbons in glucose, on the other hand, are electrophilic because they are bonded to more electronegative oxygen or are bonded to are carbonyl carbon. Most of the biochemistry of carbohydrate metabolism is based on the fact that carbonyl carbon (i.e., the carbon that is double bonded to oxygen) in carbohydrates can under go nucleophilic attack or that the alpha-hydrogens can be relatively easily abstracted. These reactions simply cannot happen to nucleophilic carbons. The different chemical properties of carbon can literally not be described simply by appealing to carbon's six protons.

 

[cyborg]

What does this mean, of coure words dont alter the facts of evolution, but they do alter the understanding

Yes. Now if you could realise this perhaps you would realise your understanding is faulty and it's because of your word prejudice, not because of the meaning of anything I've said.

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was non-supernatural, and a demonstration of structure arising without a central plan.

And yet the prhase "invisible hand" invokes imagery of a anthropomorphic force... much like a god.

Well, that's an argument for the ID crowd if you ask me - and I'm feeling facetious so it is.

Or that it is very difficult to tell when you are trying to score a cheap shot and when you actually have something to say.

Isn't this Humpty Dumpty's argument in Alice?

Yes. Which is why it is important to know what the words mean. Since you guys are more interested in ensuring that the words are ringfenced into domains you feel safe about rather than discussing the meaning you are going to continue to tak past us.

Words might be physically patterns on surfaces or vibrations in air. But these convey meaning, and in attempts at communication, it is good to use the same agreed on terms for words, and not to use eccentric defintions.

The only eccentric definitions here are yours because they are all over the place.

Evolution is not design because if we relate it in anyway the ID crowd get an argument but talking about "invisible hands" is fine because we all know that's not a "real" invisible hand so that's not something the ID crow could use.

Perhaps if you could stop worrying for a few seconds about how you could be misinterpreted in order to satisfy a political agenda we could make some progression and you could start being more consistent yes?

Political agendas care about words. Scientific ones do not.

 

[cyborg]

If one states that evolution could involve intelligent direction, then how is that different from accepting "microevolution" and directed "macroevolution" (terms which are meaningless).

Nothing jimbob if the meanings are equivalent. A rational person would accept that rather than get uppity about the words.

The point is, and always has been, that the burden of proving that an extra entity is a contingent necessity to explain a phenomena which is already adequately explained without that entity is upon the shoulders of those positing it.

This is why the "painting needs a painter" argument is so horrbily flawed: there are so many silent presumptions already placed in it. It presumes the a priori meaning of a painting without a painter, it ignores the difference between the extraction of meaning by an observer and the imposition of meaning by one and so on...

By pretending that there is absolutely no possibility of cross-over YOU WILL sound like a faith-head because the pure logic doesn't allow that. Again the epistemology of science DEMANDS that the explanation is smallest but pure LOGIC does not - it just demands that it is consistent in whatever framework you construct.

It is as consistent to claim that every single change in the heritage of the universe was by a force that wanted it that way as it is to claim it is by a force that did not care. You need to accept this is the case.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

http://www.knowledgecontext.org/Reading/book.htm

The difference: biology stores the information necessary for evolution in genes and technology stores it in human brains. Scientist Richard Dawkins coined the term “memes” for a “unit of cultural transmission.” Memes could include ideas, designs, practices, or even musical melodies. They spread by word of mouth, through books, in classrooms, and on television. They spread imperfectly, with some individuals perceiving a variation of the original meme. Survival of the fittest selects which memes will be repeated to friends and which will sell on the media. The meme we get retains part or all of the information from the original meme.

http://www.def-logic.com/articles/evolution_of_technology.html

Dawkins's idea suggests that humankind is really co-evolving with its artifacts; genes that can't cope with that new reality will not survive into future millennia.

What happens to life - to artificial life - when our unit of evolutionary observation becomes the replicator? By framing life and its evolution in the context of replicators and networks of replicators, Dawkins has forced all of biology to reexamine its assumptions of the fundamental mechanics of living things. Is technology just what our genes want, or is it a cultural conspiracy of our genes and memes? Does human DNA control the technosphere we've created and live in and around? What does it mean to say that nerve gas and microprocessors are extensions of selfish genes? These questions - as much as the genetic underpinning of embryology and neurophysiology - are the sorts of questions that evolutionists must now address, posits Dawkins.

So essential is Dawkins's work to redefining life that he might have fairly titled one of his books On the Origin of Replicators and expected it to revolutionize science in the most radical fashion since Darwin. But Dawkins is not the sort to run the risk of parodying Darwin in this way, because of his respect for the principles of natural selection. Already, however, this transforming view is proving to be an extraordinarily robust meme that is rapidly replicating in human minds.

When Dawkins spoke at the first artificial life conference in Los Alamos, New Mexico, in 1987, he delivered a paper on "The Evolution of Evolvability." This essay argues that evolvability is a trait that can be (and has been) selected for in evolution. The ability to be genetically responsive to the environment through such a mechanism as, say, sex, has an enormous impact on one's evolutionary fitness. Dawkins's paper has become essential reading in the artificial life community. His multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary fluency in fields ranging from ethology to software has made him someone who is closely watched not only by fans of his popular books but especially by his scientific peers, who range from Stephen Jay Gould to Marvin Minsky to Roger Penrose.

Now 54, Dawkins has few students of his own. Dawkins likes tossing around a semi-serious idea of awarding prize money to spur innovation and ingenuity in artificial life. (A decade ago, when his Biomorph program came out, he offered US$1,000 of his own money to anyone who could find the exact image of a chalice, or Holy Grail, he had come across in his own explorations. To Dawkins's surprise, a Caltech software jock claimed the prize within a year.) Dawkins detailed his new idea in an exchange of e-mail: "My prize would be for a visually appealing world in which the life-forms have a visible, and preferably 3-D, morphology on the computer screen. They must evolve adaptations not just to 'inanimate' factors like the weather (which would produce essentially predictable, not emergent evolution) but to other evolving life forms (which is a recipe for emergent properties)."

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml

Dawkins predicted computer viruses before they even existed. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...aA8SpRu5KsYG2k5QA&sig2=VgJk6xV5heI0w6Yh_rsWqg

I think it's you who does not understand Dawkins, Dennett, Ken Miller, Steven Jones and the very many fine teachers of evolution who use technology as an analogy with memes on par with genes, ID.

You have quoted someone else characterizing Dawkins. Please quote Dawkins.

 

[jimbob]

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was non-supernatural, and a demonstration of structure arising without a central plan.

And yet the prhase "invisible hand" invokes imagery of a anthropomorphic force... much like a god.

Well, that's an argument for the ID crowd if you ask me - and I'm feeling facetious so it is

Yes it does, which is why I did not say it was a good analogy for evolution, but a better example than evolution to explain the development of technology. It is not any type of demonstration of evolution.

Or that it is very difficult to tell when you are trying to score a cheap shot and when you actually have something to say.

Isn't this Humpty Dumpty's argument in Alice?

Yes. Which is why it is important to know what the words mean. Since you guys are more interested in ensuring that the words are ringfenced into domains you feel safe about rather than discussing the meaning you are going to continue to tak past us.

Words might be physically patterns on surfaces or vibrations in air. But these convey meaning, and in attempts at communication, it is good to use the same agreed on terms for words, and not to use eccentric defintions.

The only eccentric definitions here are yours because they are all over the place.

Why is it eccentric, when talking about the theory of evolution to point out that this does not apply to engineered producte which
off the top of my head :

a) Do not imperfectly self-replicate.
b) Used experimnets to determine and model the behaviour of the systems and subsystems
c) Were designed with intelligent application of theories derived from observations and experiments, including observing evolved systems (e.g. birds).
d) Were altered in the light of failures and not just successes.
e) Were altered in the light of what people thought ther people were doing or designing
​

Evolution is not design because if we relate it in anyway the ID crowd get an argument but talking about "invisible hands" is fine because we all know that's not a "real" invisible hand so that's not something the ID crow could use.

Perhaps if you could stop worrying for a few seconds about how you could be misinterpreted in order to satisfy a political agenda we could make some progression and you could start being more consistent yes?

Political agendas care about words. Scientific ones do not.

No, Design is not Evolution, as described in the theory of evolution for the reasons above.

Perhaps if you could stop worrying for a few seconds about how you could be misinterpreted in order to satisfy a political agenda

Why should I promote misunderstanding? It is not being misinterpereted, it is promoting a superficially attractive, incorrect concept.

If one states that evolution could involve intelligent direction, then how is that different from accepting "microevolution" and directed "macroevolution" (terms which are meaningless).

Nothing jimbob if the meanings are equivalent. A rational person would accept that rather than get uppity about the words.

But why imply that there is a difference if there is not?

As far as I understand it, these terms are only used by advocates of intelligent design.

"Microevolution" means any evolution that even they can't deny.

"Macroevolution" means any evolution with a "big change" that invokes "irreducible complexity". Obviously, as more fossils come to light, the IDers have to reassign more cases to "microevolution".

The point is, and always has been, that the burden of proving that an extra entity is a contingent necessity to explain a phenomena which is already adequately explained without that entity is upon the shoulders of those positing it.

This is why the "painting needs a painter" argument is so horrbily flawed: there are so many silent presumptions already placed in it. It presumes the a priori meaning of a painting without a painter, it ignores the difference between the extraction of meaning by an observer and the imposition of meaning by one and so on...

Why make it easier for them?

I have said that if the OP talked about technologies developing, then that would make a point against "perfect creation" as there obviously has been change.

By pretending that there is absolutely no possibility of cross-over YOU WILL sound like a faith-head because the pure logic doesn't allow that. Again the epistemology of science DEMANDS that the explanation is smallest but pure LOGIC does not - it just demands that it is consistent in whatever framework you construct.

It is as consistent to claim that every single change in the heritage of the universe was by a force that wanted it that way as it is to claim it is by a force that did not care. You need to accept this is the case.

But the signatures are different for the reasons above.

Evolution couldn't have produced aircraft (except breeding ones).

Evolutionary algorithms could produce aircraft.

Evolutionary algorithms alone would have produced a different "history" of developments, as there would be no assessment for why failures occur, and as well as improvements there would be more "neutral" feature changes between iterations.

(Of course given an infinite number of times this would happen, but we are not talking about an infinite timescale).

Competent designers with the current level of human knowledge couldn't have designed a mouse.

Competent designers with the current level of human knowledge wouldn't have designed a mamalian eye; or if they did, they would have corrected the design flaws. Ditto for many other evolved features.

 

[cyborg]

Yes it does, which is why I did not say it was a good analogy for evolution, but a better example than evolution to explain the development of technology. It is not any type of demonstration of evolution.

Ah. Your examples are better.

Got it.

...list...

Why bother responding? You aren't listening.

No, Design is not Evolution, as described in the theory of evolution for the reasons above.

Words.

As far as I understand it, these terms are only used by advocates of intelligent design.

Then you are demonstrating again that your understanding is lacking.

You. Are. Wrong.

Don't worry: I thought this was the case too. The ID crowd latched onto these terms and perverted them to their own ends but they were originally coined by card-carrying evolutionary scientists.

These words will cease having the power to undermine evolution when you stop giving it to them. You are playing their word games. Stop it and start listening to what I am saying not the words I am using.

Why make it easier for them?

I am not. I reduce the problem to the underlying question begging. They want to pretend there is something new and different here: there is not. It is the same old problem: first show god.

But the signatures are different for the reasons above.

You cannot compare the signatures - they simply exist in different worlds where there is no relation between one and the other.

Evolution couldn't have produced aircraft (except breeding ones).

Evolutionary algorithms could produce aircraft.

Now we're getting closer... You are implictly invoking the specific design constraints of carbon-based biological systems to a system beyond it but the application of the concept is system agnostic.

Evolutionary algorithms alone would have produced a different "history" of developments,

Be strict jimbob - they could have had the same history. You have to acknowledge this before you can start explaining why they likely wouldn't.

and as well as improvements there would be more "neutral" feature changes between iterations.

Man - you really are ignorant about human design.

Human design is positvely full to the brim with design changes that are purposefully designed with no functionality in mind whatsoever! It's called fashion.

(Of course given an infinite number of times this would happen, but we are not talking about an infinite timescale).

I am. That is how I reason about the consequences of the full-range of possibilities afforded. That is how I relate the signature patterns of the design/evolution dichtonomy in order to reason about them both at the same time.

Competent designers with the current level of human knowledge wouldn't have designed a mamalian eye; or if they did, they would have corrected the design flaws.

They would have? That's presuming a lot about human designs that frankly I do not see borne out on a day-to-day basis.

The big three:

1) Cost of flaw correction?
2) Benefit of flaw correction?
3) Ability to correct flaw?

Human design is chock full of poorly thought-out, ill-reasoned, untested designs that barely work.

Lots don't get fixed because it would cost too much to fix a design - sometimes that means scrapping and redoing, other times it means living with it.

Some don't get fixed because there's not enough benefit to do so - it's good enough so who cares about your esoteric notions of perfection?

And sometimes we just don't have a friggin' clue if we could even make a design that doesn't appear ugly and hacky to us.

 

[articulett]

Once upon a time (almost 14 billion years ago) there was a big bang--at that moment matter, energy, and time began progressing...some of the matter became planet earth over time (about 4 billion years ago), and it's main energy source was the sun. The energy formed physical laws which affected the matter and changed it...this was primitive information... some of the information started to be able to copy itself by using matter to copy it... this was the beginning of life... the information that was best at copying kept getting better by organizing matter so that it could best copy it...and so matter became increasingly complex and organized--in order to copy the information. Nobody had to think about it... it's just that information that could get copied did so, and imperfect copying meant occaisionally there were improvements and energy could be utilized to make even better copiers of the information. All over information was getting copied and organisms developed and affected other organisms and one organization system engulfed another and this became eukaryotic cells... and these formed colonies and some of these colonies became organisms and some communities of organism evolved and these became organs in bigger organisms which grew to become organisms in communities of organisms which grew to become biomes...and the organisms developed their own means of information copying called brains which interacted with the environment to form instincts and eventually very complicated brains capable of copying information via imitation evolved to further the instincts of the information copying organisms and eventually there were humans and the human brain was great at creating information copying systems-- it developed language and math and science and art and stories and books and directions and recipes as information copying systems to help it meat the instincts that were encoded in it via the genetic information that evolved... that's right the information got so good at copying itself that it made an super processor of information--the human brain... now information could spawn readily--all it had to do was have a sticking factor with humans-- the human brain...and subsequently human technology became super super information copiers...all via evolution and natural selection of the best copiers as decided by the environment the copy vectors occupied. Soon the super information copying brain spawned information copying machines that could copy and distribute information even better than brains (but not as good as genomes which, afterall, had eons to develop and perfect their copy generating capabilities.)

We call this increasing increasing ability to copy information, evolution... the better information is at making itself amenable to being copied, the faster it spreads, mutates, is added to becomes part of other evolving systems, recombines, and organizes matter. Information uses matter to get itself copied... and it just gets better at it... it's does especially well by hijacking the instincts of humans who have evolved a desire to "know", share knowledge, and take knowledge further because organisms who did so were better copiers of their genomes which "designed" them that way.

Nothing needs to be conscious to copy information... the division of cells is unconscious...as is the entire reproductive process for plants and the vast majority of animals. Genomes just need to ensure that matter does whatever it needs to do to get copied. Humans copy and distribute and amass and affect information all the time-- they don't need to be conscious of doing so to do so... they just need to follow the drives their genomes have coded in them...drives that evolved to interact with the environment to spread info.

Evolution is simply information using matter to get itself copied so that it can change over time--

It is the same for life as it is for not life if you think of the information unit the thing that is "blindly" directing it all even as it makes humans feel that they are the source of the direction. Humans evolved to feel like they are doing things for themselves...and they are...but they are doing so because that is the best way to get information copied and information has been evolving copiers ever since the first copier of information.

It's a cool thing to understand. Unfortunately, most people may not have developed or evolved a brain where they can understand such complexity yet... but just as most brains can understand higher math with time and practice... most humans can understand how complexity and seeming design emerge from the evolution of information processing matter over time.

 

[jimbob]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3073289#post3073289

I am glad that you are beginning to implicitly accept the need for self-replication:

some of the information started to be able to copy itself by using matter to copy it

Indeed, imperfect self-replication:

Nobody had to think about it... it's just that information that could get copied did so, and imperfect copying meant occaisionally there were improvements and energy could be utilized to make even better copiers of the information.

Unfortunately you then leave the theory of evolution and stretch analogies too far:

. that's right the information got so good at copying itself that it made an super processor of information--the human brain... now information could spawn readily--all it had to do was have a sticking factor with humans-- the human brain...and subsequently human technology became super super information copiers...all via evolution and natural selection of the best copiers as decided by the environment the copy vectors occupied. Soon the super information copying brain spawned information copying machines that could copy and distribute information even better than brains (but not as good as genomes which, afterall, had eons to develop and perfect their copy generating capabilities.)

We call this increasing increasing ability to copy information, evolution... the better information is at making itself amenable to being copied, the faster it spreads, mutates, is added to becomes part of other evolving systems, recombines, and organizes matter. Information uses matter to get itself copied... and it just gets better at it... it's does especially well by hijacking the instincts of humans who have evolved a desire to "know", share knowledge, and take knowledge further because organisms who did so were better copiers of their genomes which "designed" them that way.

The blueprints of a 747 hijacked the human brain?

Humans are the products of evolution, their designs aren't

 

[Southwind17]

You all probably realize that when it comes to evolution, compared to most if not all of you guys posting here I'm a relative lay-person, hence the nature of the OP, and my contributions. I'll make no apologies, however, for trying to bring the debate back in line with the relative unsophistication of the OP, if only for my own selfish purposes, as I'm probably insufficiently knowledgable and qualified to contribute significantly at the detailed 'atomic' level to which this debate has descended (please don't interpret that as derogatory). But please don't allow my contributions to hinder the continuance of the more detailed, 'scientific' debate, even if it might, arguably, be detracting from the legitimacy of the analogy.

I'd like to ask ID, Jimbob, Mijo, et al, a question, but particularly Jimbob, for obvious reasons:

When R J Mitchell designed the Supermarine Spitfire during the Second World War why didn't he 'simply' jump, in one huge leap, straight to the Eurofighter? Today's fighter aircraft designers are no more intelligent than he was - we sure haven't evolved more 'capable' brains over the last half-century to enable the Eurofighter to come about. So, what's happened over the ensuing 60 years or so that has led to the emergence of the Eurofighter in the beginning of the 21st century that precluded its production towards the end of the 20th century?

 

[jimbob]

You all probably realize that when it comes to evolution, compared to most if not all of you guys posting here I'm a relative lay-person, hence the nature of the OP, and my contributions. I'll make no apologies, however, for trying to bring the debate back in line with the relative unsophistication of the OP, if only for my own selfish purposes, as I'm probably insufficiently knowledgable and qualified to contribute significantly at the detailed 'atomic' level to which this debate has descended (please don't interpret that as derogatory). But please don't allow my contributions to hinder the continuance of the more detailed, 'scientific' debate, even if it might, arguably, be detracting from the legitimacy of the analogy.

I'd like to ask ID, Jimbob, Mijo, et al, a question, but particularly Jimbob, for obvious reasons:

When R J Mitchell designed the Supermarine Spitfire during the Second World War why didn't he 'simply' jump, in one huge leap, straight to the Eurofighter? Today's fighter aircraft designers are no more intelligent than he was - we sure haven't evolved more 'capable' brains over the last half-century to enable the Eurofighter to come about. So, what's happened over the ensuing 60 years or so that has led to the emergence of the Eurofighter in the beginning of the 21st century that precluded its production towards the end of the 20th century?

That is a perfectly reasonable question. None of us are arguing against the development of knowledge. We are just arguing that this is not evolution. Your OP would work as well from your POV with the word "development" instead of "evolution".

Mitchell did not have the engineering knowledge or infrastructure to make a eurofighter, because it hadn't been developed.

I will talk about biologcal systems because that is the least controversial. I will also talk about asexual reproduction because that simplifies the matter.

Daughters are imperfect copies of their mothers. If one of the random differences makes a daugnter organism produce more breeding offspring, then this trait will survive and spread. If it reduces the number of offspring, then this trait will die out.

Over many generations, collections of advantageous traits will tend to accumulate, leading to an organism that is well adaptred to that environment.

If the enironment changes then those that are best suited to that environment will survive and the process of "optimisation" will occur again.

All the changes are random, they are slight variations of the parent. There is only one selection criterion in natural selection. Are breeding offspring produced? (An infertile super-tiger is still an evolutionary dead end).

There is no room in the theory of evolution for assessing a mutation and saying "that failed to breed, but if we changed this too, then it would be great..."

ETA: Self-replication is needed, as the only way of assessing whether an organism produces reproducing offspring, is if the organism and its offspring either reproduce or not.

In engineering the changes are not random, data was obtained from failures. Deliberate changes are made with the intention of correcting weaknesses. Selection of designs is by an intelligent agency against particular criteria... see ImaginalDisc's fine summary for more differences.

Does that answer youer question?

 

[Southwind17]

That is a perfectly reasonable question. None of us are arguing against the development of knowledge. We are just arguing that this is not evolution. Your OP would work as well from your POV with the word "development" instead of "evolution".

Mitchell did not have the engineering knowledge or infrastructure to make a eurofighter, because it hadn't been developed.

I will talk about biologcal systems because that is the least controversial. I will also talk about asexual reproduction because that simplifies the matter.

Does that answer youer question?

Actually Jimbob, no, it doesn't, largely because you elected to seek to answer my question in biological and asexual terms, for some reason(!):

I was hoping for a straight forward 'engineering' explanation, as you seem to have a particular interest in the Spitfire. As I asked:

When R J Mitchell designed the Supermarine Spitfire during the Second World War why didn't he 'simply' jump, in one huge leap, straight to the Eurofighter? Today's fighter aircraft designers are no more intelligent than he was - we sure haven't evolved more 'capable' brains over the last half-century to enable the Eurofighter to come about. So, what's happened over the ensuing 60 years or so that has led to the emergence of the Eurofighter in the beginning of the 21st century that precluded its production towards the end of the 20th century?

So, let's say we start by limiting this part of the discussion to engineering and you explaining exactly what you mean by 'development of knowledge'. Then if you could move onto describing how the 'development' of 'engineering knowledge' and 'infrastructure' occurred please. Perhaps then, finally, in the context of your explanation and description you could highlight the difference(s) between 'development' and 'evolution' as you see it from, and this is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO THE DISCUSSION, a lay-person perspective, i.e. in terms which our time traveller can relate to, namely relating to what he has been shown at the automobile museum and aquarium.

 

[articulett]

You are being very clear, Southwind. I don't know if they CAN understanding.

Information that is best at getting itself copied is what drives evolution. It doesn't matter if it's through life forms it creates or by using human brains. Complexity and seeming design evolves whenever you have the algorithm of information begetting further avenues of spreading that information. It's the information expressed in the environment that allows the information to be honed via trial and error-- whether it's guided by one human or no humans or due to the input of billions of humans, the process is the same.

Stuff that works becomes the basis of future stuff that works better by out-competing the stuff that doesn't work as well in the environment.

Information evolves based on how well it "grows" and reproduces in the environment it finds itself in. This is true of viruses, Google, the internet, language, governments, currency exchange, and Airplanes. It's not really survival of the fittest... more like "survival of the best survivors" or "survival of the most replicated information"

Humans are just good vectors for growing information and passing it on so that it can evolve.

If you want to understand how airplanes came to be... you need to look at the blueprints of what came just before and work your way backwards. That is the basic way we've figured out how life came to be.

Understanding how today's complex technologies came to be is very useful for understanding how the complexities of life came to be-- for those who remain ignorant, "magic" seems to be the only answer.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No.

Televisions, airplanes, and Ipods are not organisms that reproduce, passing on hertiable traits. Analogies between the development of machines and evolution of organisms are only useful when you contrast, seeing how incredibly different the two processes are.

They are not organisms that reproduce, true - but they are reproduced, and only have minor variations according to what is most useful (according to demand).

The developments are analogous. Demand is analogous to utility. Crystal Pepsi and Betamax are analogous with evolutionary dead ends. Typewriters, VHS, vinyl, 8-tracks and elevator operators are analogous with traits that died out, supplanted by superior traits. The Internet is analogous with an evolutionary development that quickly rose to dominance, like dinosaurs or Homo Sapiens.

 

[articulett]

The importance of understanding this helps people understand how faith can hijack the primitive fears and drives of humans to replicate itself...

Just as sexually transmitted viruses hijack human drives not prone to a lot of rational control...

I think what you are understanding, Southwind, is extremely important information to convey to other humans so we can gain understanding of how where we are heading is shaped by what has come before. We can take steps to ensure the progress is in a beneficial one for the aims of humans and not just the information with good tricks for being spread.

Don't let people who sort of sound like they are saying something demean you. From the point of view of many, what you are communicating is what many great minds are coming to realize. You ARE clearer than them to the majority. Their belief that your analogy confuses more than it clarifies is not born out by the facts.