Intelligent Evolution?

[ImaginalDisc]

I read them. I understand them. I feel your pain.

Per my sig, the least competent are the most likely to overestimate their knowledge. I think a brief scan of this thread would have most people in agreement as to who such people are. The ones not in agreement, would be those people.

Confirmation bias not withstanding, of course.

 

[cyborg]

What we are arguing is that the analogy between the development of machines and the Evolution of living things is incredibly weak because design can plan, Evolution cannot, living things have inheritance, machines do not, and a litany of other inherent differences of origin, which have lead to inherent differences in form and function you fail to acknowledge.

Words.

ID and mijo are wasting an inordinate amount of time pissing about whether or not a particular word is correct with no thought whatsoever as to the actual systems being discussed.

 

[articulett]

Confirmation bias not withstanding, of course.

Confirmation bias would be inherent in the poll, as the most competent would be more likely to assess themselves accurately or underestimate themselves and the least competent would be the furthest from any objective judgment or opinion of the group--and most likely to overestimate their abilities.

Confirmation bias with standing-- we all have it-- some worse than others-- often the ones least likely to think they have such... as the study and Randi's demos and MDC show.

 

[articulett]

Words.

Exactly. Words used to miss the point in both cases--causing confusion rather than clarity.

Selection streamlines the process--hones the results--make the RESULTS non-random, often complex, and seemingly designed (whether intentionally so or not).

All you need is a selection mechanism-- and having some stuff survive and pass on genes preferentially and some stuff survive and have their designs honed preferentially and some strategies survive and modified preferentially is what the process is about. It causes the evolution of information. It is the de-randomizer.

(When you can't sum up the point of the few people supposedly arguing on your side... then you might want to reconsider whether the lack of clarity is coming from your side.)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Words.

Parsing may help. I have been consistent, in pointing out the flaws to the analogy. You have flitted about talking about irrelevancies after you were unable to build a case for the analogy.

 

[cyborg]

Parsing may help. I have been consistent, in pointing out the flaws to the analogy. You have flitted about talking about irrelevancies after you were unable to build a case for the analogy.

Words.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Words.

For pity's sake, it's ""

If you're going to act like a child on the internet, at least use smilies.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Exactly. Words used to miss the point in both cases--causing confusion rather than clarity.

Selection streamlines the process--hones the results--make the RESULTS non-random, often complex, and seemingly designed (whether intentionally so or not).

Selection does not streamline the process - it is the process.

All you need is a selection mechanism-- and having some stuff survive and pass on genes preferentially and some stuff survive and have their designs honed preferentially and some strategies survive and modified preferentially is what the process is about. It causes the evolution of information. It is the de-randomizer.

(When you can't sum up the point of the few people supposedly arguing on your side... then you might want to reconsider whether the lack of clarity is coming from your side.)

I've been arguing my case. While jimbob is spot on, mj is not understanding randomness. What mj has to do with me, I have no idea. Mind attacking my arguments directly, if you can?

 

[Southwind17]

Parsing may help. I have been consistent, in pointing out the flaws to the analogy. You have flitted about talking about irrelevancies after you were unable to build a case for the analogy.

No, you've been consistently repetitive in pointing out irrelevencies to the analogy. This might be where cyborg and I disagree slightly - words can be important!

I have logically and convincingly contested your assertions regarding the so-called flaws on at least three occasions, and I'm still awaiting a valid retort, which I expect will now be forthcoming, although the 'vailidity' part will, I suspect, be suspect!

 

[articulett]

I'm saying it's the same-- and the same misunderstanding.

Information modified via selection over time is not "random" and IS responsible for the technologies people past would find "miraculous"-- as well as the life forms present people find miraculous... until the understand the power of selection of information over time via the environment and the exponential growth and building upon of successes.

As Steven Jones says--natural selection has the power to do miracles (more directed selection brings them even sooner).

 

[articulett]

The bottom line in both arguments is that the way Southwind, Cyborg etc. are wording things clarifies evolution for many. The way you and your cohorts word things seems to render selection impotent... it de-emphasizes it's power and makes your explanations cumbersome for many.

In both cases, the matter is the same as it always will be--the only change is in how it comes together--how it is organized...and that is based on information refined and honed in the environment over time.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No, you've been consistently repetitive in pointing out irrelevencies to the analogy.

The problem here is that the things that you consider irrelevant to the analogy are in fact not irrelevant. Just as you can't describe why carbon-14 is radioactive while carbon-12 is not by saying that all carbon is the same because it has six protons, you can't explain why evolution by natural selection is a valid hypothesis for the origin of the species while intelligent design is not by "abstracting" technological development and biological evolution to "change over time with retention of 'what works'". The fact that carbon-14 has eight neutron while carbon-12 has six is essential to understanding why carbon-14 undergoes radio active decay while carbon twelve. Similarly, the fact that both technological development and intelligent are driven by intelligent agents that can plan for the long-term and learn from their mistakes while biological evolution is driven by mindless agents which don't care whether the agents upon which they act and thus don't plan for any length of time.

 

[jimbob]

Having said all that, I don't think I would categorize jimbob as one of those to whom you allude. Whilst he clearly sits in the opposition camp I can at least follow most of what he writes, which seems generally logical, albeit it sometimes flawed. Actually, 'flawed' might be a disingenuous word. I think jimbob is generally only guilty of failing to see my point, but that could also be down to my less-than-perfect ability to argue and debate. I'll happily give jimbob the benefit of any doubt, for the time being, as I reckon he could come around to our way of thinking.

On that note I'll now respond to his last post:

Thanks for the information jimbob, which leads me to believe that my analogy does not rely on the invocation (non-religious meaning) of an evolutionary algorithm. I see design with intent and/or forethought simply as circumventing the alternative option in the primary interests of time and cost savings, that alternative, default option being the making of entirely random design changes with no specification and then trialing them 'in the field' (or 'dumb universe', if you like) to see what survives and what doesn't.

I don't really agree, although it is a subtle point.

Why do you not agree? You sound doubtful of your position - perhaps you could be conviced through further discussion?

If you just allowed random changes without any selection you would not get evolution, just random changes.

If you selected everything to copy, then you could run out of universe before anything interesting would happen.

If you used a constantly changing set of selection criteria nothing would evolve because there would be no cumulitive selection pressure.

If you used an arbitary choosing method (e.g. a set of dice then there also would not be any cumulative selection pressure). You might get something akin to genetic drift, but no "optimisation".​

So you need to have a consistant set of selection criteria for a number of generations.

Looking to see what is "interesting" obviously requires an intelligence.

This is the point that to get anything akin to evolution.

If you don't have self-replication, then something else has to perform the replication. Something has to choose what is to be copied. To get something akin to evolution but without self-replication this choice has to be intelligent, or according to an intelligently defined set of criteria; dice rolling won't work.

Most importantly:

How does one decide whether something has "survived", unless it is either "survived for a length of time, or 'incidents'" (arbitarily defined with intent) or if it has survived to produce as many copies of itself as it can.

The best example for this analogy might be fighter aircraft.

Do you decide to choose those which survive one dogfight, ten , one hundred? Does the machine itself choose? (those hawks which have bred, have bred)...

When you get to computers, what do you choose as the selection criteria?

This is an interesting question, but I suppose you could ask the same of natural evolution. I don't know how many iPods there are now on the planet, but I doubt that any reasonable person would argue that the iPod hasn't 'survived' or isn't a 'successful' design. I suppose the sales statistics form the measure of success in this instance. The Sinclair C5 (remember that one), in contrast, was a 'commercial disaster', to quote Wikipedia, and as a result soon became 'extinct'. Again, I suspect the measure of its failure was its inability to generate sales targets.

In either case, although the sales targets might well be construed as artificial selection, they're not really. Apple or James Sinclair could, at least in theory, simply have developed their respective products and put them on the market with no criteria for 'success'. Whether they became 'successful' or otherwise would, in any event, have become apparent sooner or later by whatever measures would have been deemed appropriate (running out of money to continue production, super-profits, competition?!), and the production would either continue (replication - survival of the fittest) or cease (extinction) (or, of course, evolve to something better!).

To what extent can the dolphin, for example, be considered a survivor? Would you not have considered the dodo a survivor, had you been asking the question, say, 1,000 years before its extinction? 'Survival' seems to me a somewhat arbitrary or relative term when applying it across multiple generations. The Spitfire was a highly successful fighter aircraft, but is now extinct. I would guess it could be concluded that it 'out-survived' its counterparts, but by what measure?

Extinction is the ultimate fate of everything.

One of the (subtle) points about evolution is that you can not cosider any oganism an evolutionary success until it has produced breeding copies. That is the only criteria by which to judge evolutionary success; how many breeding copies per parent.

If something sells or fails to sell, you still have access to the blueprints, you can make more should you wish to. If an organism dies with no offspring, then it is extinct. Commercial success is defined by intelligent agents.

You can say that a dolphin is/was highly streamlined, just as you can say that an ipod is a marvel of marketing and electronics.

Design could be argued to be a short-circuit of evolutionary algorithms, but not of evolution.

OK, in the context of what's already been argued on this thread by me, cyborg and artuculett, in particular, please offer that argument.

I would argue that for evolution as in the "Theory of Evolution" it is necessary and sufficient for there to be imperfect self replication. Everything else would follow from that (with a bit of Malthus throwing up the inevitible natural selection). I would say that intelligent selection is not evolution but an evolutionary approach because the direction of change is defined and controlled by intelligent agencies be they farmers or designers.

Even there, going back to the TV with the CRT vs LCD example.

Imagine an evolutionary approach to creating a 14" TV display in the 1980's.

One random variation uses an LCD screen. It is far worse than a CRT display. There is no way that would get selected, unless an intelligence decided that it was worth pursuing because it had potential.

I think you might be inadvertently alluding to the widely rejected hypothesis of saltation with this example (incidentally, the piston engine/jet engine analogy counter argument also falls victim to it), or at best confusing two entirely different 'products' with separate evolutionary histories that just happen to perform essentially the same function. The bow and arrow and AK47 might be a good example to make the point, or the cheetah and wolf, if you prefer a biological comparison.

The basic evolution/design analogy need not go so far as the LCD screen to work; it can stop at the CRT and still hold true (a conventional CRT TV could equally have been used for my OP example, but I guess it demonstrates fewer incremental changes compared to the motor car). I think you're still looking for exceptions that 'buck' the analogy rather than examples that follow it, and falling victim to the preconception that the two cannot be likened in the process, as certain other posters have.

Salation might be rejected for evolution, but I am arguing that product development is not evolution.

Using the evolutionary analogy, the LCD and the CRT are competing for the same "ecological niche". Something will not evolve to fill an already full ecological niche, as it would be outcompeted.

Any offspring of any leopards are not going to be able to compete with lions in a niche that suits lions. Should all lions vanish, then it is possible that a leopard's descendants will evolve to fill that vacant niche (maybe a hyena's descendant etc). A cheetah's descendant wouldn't, as they are so specialised as to be on a one way street (with a dead end).

With technology, there are many cases where new technologies have shown enough potential to be developed to a stage where they can supplant an existing technology (anyone want a walkman now?)

Because I am regarding this thread as a discussion of the validityu of analogies for unfderstanding biological evolution I think that it is important to highlight the differences.

Ignoring the differences and proclaiming (human led) intelligent design as fuly equivalent to evolution might be superficially attractive, but could lead to confusion and will be taken up by proponents of (deistic) intelligent design

I also think that the main point can be made with equal vigour and with no chance of confusion by using the word "development" instead of "evolution".

 

[articulett]

Selection does not streamline the process - it is the process.

Nope--it's called "evolution by natural selection"-- what evolves is the information--incrementally... which codes for objects which interact with the environment.

Selection is the "force" that drives the process, but evolution is a two part process-- this is true for the evolution of life (genomes are just information for how to build objects that interact with the environment to bring about better objects if preferentially selected)--and the evolution of technology. All the stuff that will make our future technology exists today... all the matter... and all of the matter in todays technology existed a thousand years ago. What has changed?... the steady progress of information over time!--how has it increased-- by copying and sharing and refining and honing the information that works to build better objects which makes more humans copy and advance the ideas.

Energy plus evolving information over time = evolution--complexity--the appearance of design. And there is no hard line. Nobody designed dogs--and yet they preferentially survived because of humans--and no one designed today's internet either--it has evolved at the various inputs from humans. Information that is good at getting itself copied (for whatever reasons) drive evolution.

Just because you find it confusing-- or you think you have a better way of addressing the OP--doesn't make it so. Mijo is just as convinced that he is making sense in calling evolution random. And Jimbob would go for the mealy mouthed "proabalistic" which explains nothing (he wants it called "probabilistic selection" rather than non random selection just like he thinks the word "development" is better than evolution--every one else thinks its goofy and unclear...kind of like your verbiage. You have a problem with Southwinds analogy that seems entirely based on your failure to understand the striking similarities between the two. Your problems with the analogy show a flaw in your understanding--NOT a flaw in the analogy.

Why don't you go and use your verbiage and see if it works on anyone--you all sound like you are failing to understand exactly what evolves during evolutionary processes and why "replication" does not need to be "self replication". Eyes don't replicate themselves. Sperm don't replicate themselves. Viruses don't replicate themselves. Information thats good at getting replicated replicates itself via what it creates.

The atoms are the same. What arranges them with increasing complexity over time? Information-- in both cases. The information that gets itself copied the most creates seeming miracles--intentionally and not so intentionally with random inputs and serendipity guiding the process as well as the environment. The same process crates seeming disasters too... aids, global warming, cults...

 

[jimbob]

Articulett,

Why do you think I am being imprecise or unlcear in describing natural selection as probabilistic, where the number of offsping per parent can be described by a poisson distribution, and different traits alter the value of lambda?

For a stable poppulation the number of offspring per parent would be described by a poisson distribution with a lambda of 1. For a trait with a 1% selective advantage the lambda would be 1.01.

How is that mealy mouthed, goofy, or imprecise? Anyone with the requisite numeracy (in the UK this is early in A/S-level biology or maths) could understand the implications of that.

What similarities have I missed between evolution and technological development? What objection have you to describing technological development as "development".

Both are iterative processes and thus over time the the iterations will show more "optimisation". Both have their direction set by an intelligent agent; in both cases the iterations are chosen as a result of intellignce defining the specifications; in both cases deliberate experiments are performed where failures are analysed, and further modifications are performed based on these analyses; in neither is the selection based on natural selection selecting the breeding stock; in both cases, complex designs are common with simple "design errors" that will never get fixed; etc...

ETA: The similarities are accepted by everyone, and many creationists (ID proponents) accept the idea of incremental change. The problem is in the differences where equating something that relies on intelligence with evolution allows ID proponents to equate evolution with something that relies on intelligence.

If using a different word doesn't stop the similarities being discussed, yet makes it clear the two processes are different, then surely that is advantageous.

Or are you arguing that technological development is actually the same as biological evolution?

 

[Southwind17]

The problem here is that the things that you consider irrelevant to the analogy are in fact not irrelevant. Just as you can't describe why carbon-14 is radioactive while carbon-12 is not by saying that all carbon is the same because it has six protons, you can't explain why evolution by natural selection is a valid hypothesis for the origin of the species while intelligent design is not by "abstracting" technological development and biological evolution to "change over time with retention of 'what works'". The fact that carbon-14 has eight neutron while carbon-12 has six is essential to understanding why carbon-14 undergoes radio active decay while carbon twelve. Similarly, the fact that both technological development and intelligent are driven by intelligent agents that can plan for the long-term and learn from their mistakes while biological evolution is driven by mindless agents which don't care whether the agents upon which they act and thus don't plan for any length of time.

Hey, I think you might be getting the gist of 'analogies', at last, albeit it truly poor ones, I suspect (I'm not a chemist, I wouldn't know about carbon this and carbon that). Otherwise, same old same old.

Don't you get it when I explain why technological development in a commercial environment necessarily has to be 'driven by intelligent agents that can plan for the long-term and learn from their mistakes' (to use your words), but that if you remove the commercial driver then it wouldn't have to work that way? Can you not see that random changes could be made by the intelligent agents instead, who could then let the market (environment) dictate whether such changes are better or worse? The only difference is that this approach is uncommercial and impractical, but conceivable nonetheless. It would still, given time, lead to fantastic, functional 'designs' that appear irreducibly complex.

Having debated this for as long as we have I'm actually struggling to think of a more simple notion of anything. I really don't understand why you're finding it so difficult. Try to visualize it in your mind - an engineer in a white coat putting on a blindfold then sticking a pin into a drawing board to determine what part of the widget he'll change next, then another pin to determine how, and by how much. Then he makes the changes and takes the widget to the local Sunday market to see whether it sells more than last week. If it sells the same or more, he retains the changes and makes some more random changes; if it doesn't he goes back to last week's widget and tries some different random changes. Before he knows it (about 10 million years, in my estimation), he's selling mass-produced motor cars.

OK, that might be a simplification, but if you can't see it simplistically then what possible chance is there of convincing you when we look at the real world? I think you might be too smart for your own good!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Why don't you go and use your verbiage and see if it works on anyone--you all sound like you are failing to understand exactly what evolves during evolutionary processes and why "replication" does not need to be "self replication". Eyes don't replicate themselves. Sperm don't replicate themselves. Viruses don't replicate themselves. Information thats good at getting replicated replicates itself via what it creates.

I have actually. I've tutored over a score of students in the fundamentals of Evolution and other elements of biology for college classes. They've all passed their classes, done well, thanked me, and paid me for my time. (I ask only a very small sum. I just find that people take things more seriously when they pay.) I've repeatedly been thanked for making clear the unique characteristics of Evolution and how it differs from all other processes. My system works quite a bit better than groundless analogies to entirely unlike things, such as machines.

 

[Southwind17]

They've all passed their classes, done well, thanked me, and paid me for my time. (I ask only a very small sum. I just find that people take things more seriously when they pay.)

Passed their 'classes' or 'exams'? I never took 'classes', just 'exams'.

I've repeatedly been thanked for making clear the unique characteristics of Evolution and how it differs from all other processes.

Gee, that's a very convenient coincidence. It's almost as though you were anticipating needing it as ammunition in the event that somebody, in the future, might go and do something so silly as to draw an analogy with another process. Even more of a coincidence when you consider that said analogies would be so 'groundless' that I doubt they would even have been in your contemplation! What are the odds of that, I wonder

My system works quite a bit better than groundless analogies to entirely unlike things, such as machines.

How do you know? Have you benchmarked your 'system' against analogous methods? I suspect articulett might have something to say on this. articulett - a 'score' of students - that's about one class, isn't it? Aren't you a teacher? Bet you can't match that?!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Passed their 'classes' or 'exams'? I never took 'classes', just 'exams'.

I am not familiar with an education system which does not involve classes.

Gee, that's a very convenient coincidence. It's almost as though you were anticipating needing it as ammunition in the event that somebody, in the future, might go and do something so silly as to draw an analogy with another process. Even more of a coincidence when you consider that said analogies would be so 'groundless' that I doubt they would even have been in your contemplation! What are the odds of that, I wonder

It happens all the time, sadly. People are sadly miseducated about Evolution when they arrive in basic biology classes in Univeristy. One of the most frequent misunderstandings is a Lamarkian view, and the other is the misconception that Natural Selection makes choices.

How do you know? Have you benchmarked your 'system' against analogous methods? I suspect articulett might have something to say on this. articulett - a 'score' of students - that's about one class, isn't it? Aren't you a teacher? Bet you can't match that?!

I just related a personal anecdote because articulett has degenerated into a shrieking harpy, making relentless irrelevant attacks without addressing the heart of the matter - the validity of the analogy. You, articulett, and cyborg have failed to address the distinctions between Evolution and design.

 

[Southwind17]

I am not familiar with an education system which does not involve classes.

Have you not heard of the Open University, or 'distance learning'? Actually, that's an aside, just to show the shallowness of your depth of thought before retorting, which I think is at least half the problem here in getting you to see alternative points of view.

More to the point, however, I'm certainly not familiar with an education system where one 'passes' classes. As I wrote, I 'passed' exams, but I only 'attended' classes. I seem to remember that many dufuses also 'attended' classes (well, some of the time!), but failed to pass 'exams'. Do you see the distinction now, and appreciate the inference?

It happens all the time, sadly. People are sadly miseducated about Evolution when they arrive in basic biology classes in Univeristy.

I'm puzzled as to what sort of 'miseducation' a university student is likely to have received when they attend 'basic' biology classes. What sort of university are you referring to here? And when you say 'people', do you mean everybody, or only some?

One of the most frequent misunderstandings is a Lamarkian view, and the other is the misconception that Natural Selection makes choices.

That's interesting. I don't recall being taught evolution at school, but I'm pretty sure I could adequately explain why Jean-Baptiste was wrong. I reckon I could also adequately explain why natural selection doesn't choose, but I could also explain why it could be considered to 'choose' (note the punctuation!), and I'd probably use an analogy to press the point.

Incidentally (well, maybe not), here's an extract from Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker' discussing cladistic taxonomy:

"On the face of it, we might expect the classification of languages to exhibit the property of perfect nesting. Languages ... evolve in a rather animal-like way."

Now, I'm no linguistics expert, but I'd bet $1,000 to a pinch of the proverbial that, at the detailed level, biological evolution and the 'evolution' of language bear absolutely no relationship. By definition, they cannot. That does not, however, prevent Dawkins from not only using the word 'evolution' to describe the development of language, be he absolutely likens the two processes, even without an analogy. Now ID, perhaps you'd care to review this thread, in particular your own posts, and see which of the objections to the biological evolution/design development analogy also don't 'seem' to fit with the language analogy too. You might, then, care to drop Dawkins a line explaining how naive and 'miseducated' he is in adopting the 'E' word for that usage. Alternatively, you might wish to open your mind. Sadly, however, I somehow doubt you'll do either, but resort to a well-worn, irrelevant, futile response on here instead.