Intelligent Evolution?

[jimbob]

Southwind and Articulett,

We are arguing that design and evolution are fundamentally different processes.
Are you arguing that they are essentially the same?

Articulett, did I misunderstand you, or were you arguing that the fluorescent mouse evolved its fluorescence? (ETA post#741)

That mouse is a highly visible example of the difference between "evolution" and "engineering" as there is negligible probability of a mouse evolving fluorescence with the same genes as a jellyfish.

The OP (fails to) attack a position that is not held by proponents of ID. It supports the confusion of evolution and design. It uses very similar language to ID proponents. It misses out the fundamental features of evolution. Furthermore, it seems to show a lack of understanding about how design is actually performed.

To get the analogy to almost work evolutionary algorithms are implicitly invoked, but the fundamental difference between them and evolution itself is missed.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Patience my dear friend. I've promised I will do, so I will.

You know ID, you really should engage your brain before you type, and not be a slave to impulse, which has become the downfall of many an otherwise rational and thoughtful proponent.

This is not a refutation of my points. This has gone on for 17 pages and you've thus far failed to address any criticism of your analogy.

ETA:

Oh my goodness. Make that twenty pages of smokescreen.

ETA:

Ok, I had to dig through this thread again, but here's the list of distinctions between machines and living things which invalidate your analogy.

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.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think that it is important to point out here that not understanding and not agreeing are two different things. ImaginalDisc, jimbob, and I all understand the analogy in the OP is based on the fact that biological evolution and technological development share the characteristic of "change over time with retention of 'what works'"; we just disagree that that one single similarity warrants ignoring or dismissing all the differences between the two processes as irrelevant, especially since intelligent design advocates latch on to the exact same abstract similarity to promote understanding intelligent design.

 

[jimbob]

We all know and accept that design 'can' do all of the things that mijo claimed, if you allow it to, and that evolution can't, but, as I've said before (it feels like a million times now), if we can identify just one complex human design where mijo's list doesn't apply, then the analogy works for that example, and it only needs to work for one example to make the case.

No, that doesn't invalidate ImaginalDisc's argument.

If I say that I can swim, and you photograph me walking, that doesn't invalidate my claim.

If I say that crocodiles can swin but not walk, and you show me a walking crocodile, then that claim is invalidated.

We are saying that evolution can't do things that design can, not that design always does these things.

Let's go right back to the OP and pretend for a minute that, instead of choosing the motor car, and writing somewhat generically, I'd chosen another complex human design. For the purpose of this debate let's not be specific just yet; let's just call it the 'Widget'. Now, in the context of what I've written recently and time and again before regarding how technology could be developed by unintelligent robots through random changes and environmental selection, let's analyse mijo's list and see to what extent it applies in the case of the historical development of the Widget:

Has the design been overhauled? No, it occurred through a long series of gradual changes.

Did the design plan for long-term development? No, the robots simply made random changes (mutations), put it out in the market and watched to see the sales pattern (selection). If sales fell, the last change to the design was dropped (i.e. that particular 'mutation' failed to survive); if the sales remained the same or improved the change was retained. Incidentally, there was a point, you know, when the Widget almost became 'extinct' because of competitive pressure from the 'Bodgit', but a lucky random design change (mutation) set the Widget down a slightly different path that saved it!

Has the design lifted elements from other designs, such as the Bodgit, and applied them to the Widget? No, all changes have been randomly introduced.

Has the design retained the plans of the form of the Widget indefinitely? No, evidently. The Widget has changed almost beyond recognition over time, and the old plans have been disposed of. They're of no use now, you see!

Is the Widget produced by autonomous reproduction? Yes, the production line just goes on and on, churning them out 24/7.

This is an inefficient evolutionary algorithm.

Did the design plan for long-term development? No, the robots simply made random changes (mutations), put it out in the market and watched to see the sales pattern (selection). If sales fell, the last change to the design was dropped (i.e. that particular 'mutation' failed to survive); if the sales remained the same or improved the change was retained. Incidentally, there was a point, you know, when the Widget almost became 'extinct' because of competitive pressure from the 'Bodgit', but a lucky random design change (mutation) set the Widget down a slightly different path that saved it!

There is an implicit algorithm for the selection in the above statement.

Over what time do sales need to fall? Over a second? Over a minute? Over a decade? What constitutes a fall? How is this analysed?

Do you know why this algorithm is also an inefficient algorithm?

Does the Widget have heritable traits? Of course it does. It looks very like the previous model, which itself looked very like the one before that, which looked very like the one before that, right back to the original, basic version.

Has the Widget 'mutated', and passed on those 'mutations'? Of course it has, in essence. See the explanation above regarding planning for the long term.

There you go jimbob. mijo's list fails to apply in ALL respects regarding the Widget. All we need to do now is identify at least one real-life Widget. Would you like me to give you a list jimbob?!

It fails because the selection algorithm needed to be intelligently implimented, or if that was developed using an evolutionary algorithm then the specifications for the original evolutionary algorithm needed to be defined by an intelligent agent.

I'm sure that even you jimbob, if you really try hard, could identify species with evolved characteristics that far surpass a fluorescent mouse. How many generations did it take sea creatures to evolve wings and fly (oh come now, flying sea creatures! Who's leg are you trying to pull?!).

The point is not just that the mouse fluoresces, but that it fluoresces with identical gene sequence to jellyfish. That is impossible to any practical level of definition. It is even more obvious when you look at the mouse's parents.

What about with a bit of human intervention and gene-splicing?

Oh yes jimbob, this is an excellent comparison with technological development, such as the motor car. Well done, you're really homing in on the gist of the OP now!

Jimbob, I honestly don't think I can make this any clearer for you. If you continue to do any of the following I will simply refer you back to this post, if I do anything, as it will demonstrate that you have not read and/or understood this post properly, in which case there's nothing more I can do to help you:

I have just shown some features that one might could only expect from a process of intelligent design. (Design can deliberately copy features from other designs).

A GMO seems a perfectly valid example in a discussion about evolution and inteligent design.

Claim that mijo's list invalidates the analogy.
Claim that technological development necessarily involves intent and/or forethought
Claim that technological development necessarily has to have an intelligent agent to determine what changes to make.
Claim that technological development necessarily has to have an intelligent agent to select what works and what doesn't.

But your extremely hypothetical example, unlike any development anywhere (you are using an ineficient evolutinary algorithm) still has implicit inteligent intent in the selection of your selection criteria. Of course an evolutionary algorithm doesn't need intelligence to make the changes, but selection is vital. This selection is ultimately driven by intelligence unless there is imperfect self-replication.

 

[articulett]

Another bottom line to all this is that a living organism never evaluates it own design (until humans that is) and has said, gee this is a very poor design, I will changed the genes to make this design better. In real evolution, change does not happen regardless of the organism’s desire.

Paul

Cars don't look at their designs and say "gee this is a poor design" either.

The designs evolve irrespective of the whims of the thing they are designing--the only criteria is how the "design" performs in the environment.

Quit confuse the information (genome/blueprint) for the thing it produced (life form/widget).

 

[articulett]

Don't be obtuse. Machines have designers who make choices about what should and should not be retained. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Don't be obtuse, genomes create products in environments which decide what is and isn't retained from said genomes.

Widget designs create widgets in environments which decide what is and isn't retained from said widget designs.

 

[jimbob]

Isn't the question in the OP whether "intelligent Evolution" is a good or a bad anaalogy.

I say that all the points in the OP can be made without muddling it with evolution.

I do not see who the OP is aimed at, as everyone I can think of knows that technology develops over time.

I would prefer to ask whether The Designer is omniscient, and if so why are there mistakes? And Who Designed The Designer ( I presume that it would also be "too complex to evolve" if we are). Non of these are earth-shatteringly orignal, but they are not incorrect and woun't confuse anyone.

One trouble is that lamarkian thinking is superficially attractive, and possibly more common in popular culture than darwinian.

 

[jimbob]

Cars don't look at their designs and say "gee this is a poor design" either.

The designs evolve irrespective of the whims of the thing they are designing--the only criteria is how the "design" performs in the environment.

Quit confuse the information (genome/blueprint) for the thing it produced (life form/widget).

How is this assessed?

Don't be obtuse, genomes create products in environments which decide what is and isn't retained from said genomes.

Widget designs create widgets in environments which decide what is and isn't retained from said widget designs.

How is the retention decided upon? Either intelligently, or using an algorithm according to intelligently defined specifications? Or in some other fashion?

The differences in the process of design and evolution is one reason that I dislike the analgy of "memes", when people forget that it is just an analogy.

 

[articulett]

I have done so. Nothing you or Articulett (Cyborg ran off, it would seem) have posted addresses this, or any other, fundamental difference between design and Evolution.

Ran off?-- or tired of beating his head on the wall when he is well aware that it's the same old nutters who cannot learn no matter how it is explained. Everyone else seems to understand. The experts in the field and many lay people talk about the evolution of things or of information (creationist strategies and the like...see Eugenie Scott)-- Today, I heard a great analogy on a documentary about the evolution of the "Worlds Most Dangerous Gang"-- I think all the kids could tell that it had nothing to do with intelligence and readily extrapolate it to the spread of a virus without the confusion that boggles down the few and the pedantical. I don't know much about you--but I know enough about Jim-bob and Mijo to know they have never explained anything well to anyone on this forum. The more they talk, the less others understand of their position. And if you are of their ilk, I would imagine that says something unflattering of you and makes dialogue impossible--as you are overly certain of your rightness and haven't a clue as to what your missing.

Your claim is that the analogy will confuse. Sure it will-- people like you and the few others here arguing so vehemently while continually confusing the information for the thing it produces. And a creationist. But face it, for the majority it works. That's why the experts use it. That's why, the creationists do not. Their strategy is to make it all garbled sounding like you so that people can't extract the simplicity... --how selection makes miracles over time. That's what Darwin's theory is all about. Southwind clarifies. Even if his choice of "intelligent evolution" was not the best wording--his analogy is spot on.

The only thing actually evolving is the information... the only thing replicating is the information... until you understand that-- you can not ever understand the analogy. But that has nothing to do with whether it's useful or not to the majority...and everything to do with a blind spot in your thinking that appears to be unfixable--and sadly so.

 

[Paulhoff]

Cars don't look at their designs and say "gee this is a poor design" either.

Cars are not alive, damn, go figure.

Paul

 

[articulett]

That would be nice.

Machines do not autonomously reproduce.

Machines are not selected by forces without intelligent involvement.

Machines have no heritable traits.

Those are three of the most salient points you have failed to address.

But the information that makes them is replicated (eyes don't autonomously reproduce...neither do sperm or viruses or insertions, btw.)

Machines evolved in an environment to be selected for or against by the humans... just as anthills evolved in an environment of ants... they evolve together. Dandilions evolved to have their seeds spread by wind... that doesn't mean the wind designed the dandelions or that forethought was needed for the design to emerge. A coral reef is like a city or factory-- there are lots of inputs-- but the evolution of one drives the others as they go about doing what they are programmed to do--the same with people and the languages they evolve, the culture that share, and the machines they hone through time--usually without anyone or anything being "in charge"-- just somebody happening to take the next step like the one in a million sperm that gets to the egg.

Yes--good ideas are heritable. Recipes that are good get passed on. Math that works is passed on-such things stick around to be refined and honed-- presto replication-- information that makes it to the future to be refined, honed, replicated, used, built upon, or rendered obsolete. LIKE DNA.

 

[articulett]

Cars are not alive, damn, go figure.

Paul

Exactly. Animals are. Nothing that is designed looks at it's information and attempts to modify it. organisms are not in control of their genomes--they can only spread them or not. And airplanes don't choose their design. Chain letters don't care if they are spreadable. Widgets don't care if their information is utilized in the future or not. It's just that if the information is good at getting itself copied-- for whatever reasons--it exists to evolve in the future.

 

[articulett]

The title is what the thead is about, no matter what has been written on it by others.

Intelligent Evolution, no matter how many thousands of words you use, is only but a back door method of trying to get a so-called god into evolution.

It is you at is laughable in thinking that you are just so smart and that we wouldn't see it for what it truely is.

Paul



You just don't like that someone can come in and with just a few words cut to the heart of it all.

It actually isn't paulhoff. He's showing that you can address creationist strawman like evolution being akin to a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747 by showing that such an analogy is NOT like evolution. Evolution is about incremental changes over time leading to the appearance of design. Todays 747 did not suddenly come into being. It is built on years of airplane designs being refined and improved based on how such designs performed in the environment. And that is how creature evolve too. Their genomes design creatures which are set about to compete in the environment and the genomes that are copied the most live into the future to evolve. The organisms they pass through don't evolve. They die the same species they were born as. And airplanes don't evolve either-- the first plane didn't literally become todays airplanes. It's the INFORMATION that evolves. In the former it's the information in the genome... in the latter it's the information regarding the design of airplanes... In BOTH cases-- information evolves based on how well it is replicated and built upon in the environment. Airplanes designs are replicated in human minds--humans find them useful... cow genomes are replicated because humans allow them to preferentially survive... dandelions genomes are replicated because the wind blows their little fluff filled seeds all over the place... chain letters are copied because they manipulate the minds of humans... etc. See? You can understand evolution as being directed (not literally or purposefully) based on how information (coded for in any way) can get itself copied in whatever environment it finds itself in.

But it is clear that some people cannot understand this analogy. You might be one of those people. But it's also clear that most people can. As long as you remember it's the information that replicates and evolves in both cases, I think you can understand how the analogy applies and is useful. I've been told that the literal mindedness of some people with autism or Aspergers Syndrome can make analogies impossible for them. And in my own experience some Engineers and Physicists seem not to be aware of their blindspot in this area. But I think most people can and do get it.

Creationists would never use it, because they are all about irreducibly complex things "poofing" into being fully formed... that is why they aim to obfuscate the understanding of how the selection of information via environmental inputs gives the amazing appearance of design to the human (pattern seeking) mind. There are no big top down miracles. Even the airplanes of today that would be utter miracles from the gods if they poofed into existence a mere 100 years ago-- are not real miracles... just the slow and steady refinement of the first airplane design based on subsequent tweaks to the design tested in an environment of humans.

 

[articulett]

Now there's a contradiction if ever I saw one. If I hadn't read your posts how, then, would I be able to comment on them?

One key difference between your debating style (if we can stretch to using that word: 'debating') and mine, is that I respond directly to what you write, whereas you don't; seeking to divert to remote and irrelevant associations, at best, but usually simply repeating well-worn, debunked verbiage, basically because you have certain notions so deeply etched in your mind that you have become incapable of seeing the flaws in them, even when spelled out to you.

Many a person has come to this conclusion when reading his posts. I try to warn newcomers lest he scare them away. Sometimes using the ignore button makes the whole thread seem smarter. I don't think there is any post where is clear. Really. Ever. To me, it is exactly like Behe at the Dover trial--it sounds like it should make sense... or mean something--but it just doesn't. The more he talks the less you understand his point. To be safe, just look at how Behe or other semi-intelligent creationists or apologists feel about a topic and assume that's his view too. And assume it's unchangeable. You can't go wrong. I'll sum up his point for this thread. "Your analogy will never work". That's already been demonstrated amply false given the many fine people who use similar analogies and who are far more aware of creationists obfuscating techniques than he is.

 

[articulett]

Wonderful!

Could you reply to my three salient points? They're just a few of the numerous differences in origin, and thus form and function, between machines and living things which invalidate your comparison.

Steven Pinker:

"Our powers of analogy allow us to apply ancient neural structures to newfound subject matter, to discover hidden laws and systems in nature, and not least, to amplify the expressive power of language itself."

He also says that an analogy need not be the same in every detail to be useful-- so long as it captures the essence. Southwind's analogy does. Your continual confusion between the replicator and the replicated (information) makes it so you can't understand that the essence of both are the same. We can use one, to understand the other... or rather, most people can. You can't. I think it's because you don't understand biological evolution as well as you think. Did you read The Selfish Gene?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Now there's a contradiction if ever I saw one. If I hadn't read your posts how, then, would I be able to comment on them?

One key difference between your debating style (if we can stretch to using that word: 'debating') and mine, is that I respond directly to what you write, whereas you don't; seeking to divert to remote and irrelevant associations, at best, but usually simply repeating well-worn, debunked verbiage, basically because you have certain notions so deeply etched in your mind that you have become incapable of seeing the flaws in them, even when spelled out to you.

I have responded directly to what you wrote, even though I haven't broken down your posts line by line as they don't need that treatment because the premise, which usually appears in the first sentence, is wrong. I have told you that you cannot dismiss the differences between biological evolution and technological development as irrelevant because intelligent design proponents us the similarities between technological development and intelligent design to prop up their ailing beliefs. Saying the only thing that is important in understanding biological evolution is the concept of change over time with retention of "what works", which is an aspect that intelligent design proponents have incorporated into the explanation of intelligent design, does not explain why intelligent design is a bad explanation for life as it exists today. In fact it makes biological evolution and intelligent indistinguishable from each other as far as their scientifically verifiable content is concerned as it provides an identical description for the observables of each process.

 

[articulett]

This is not a refutation of my points. This has gone on for 17 pages and you've thus far failed to address any criticism of your analogy.

ETA:

Oh my goodness. Make that twenty pages of smokescreen.

ETA:

Ok, I had to dig through this thread again, but here's the list of distinctions between machines and living things which invalidate your analogy.


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.

Give examples using information... and what you mean by "long term development"-- you are using words but not saying anything and confusing the information with the thing it produces (as always.) Moreover, you are getting caught up in tangentials and missing the essence. Both involve information producing "objects" that are then tested in the environment resulting is some INFORMATION being copied and going forward in time, and some not...

You are not produced by autonumous reproduction. The information that made you was copied from parts of your parental genomes-- you were not copied from your mom or your dad--just the directions for making a person with given genetic traits. Information mutates...whether in genomes, written language, a secret whispered in your ear, part of a chain letter, or the design of a space shuttle.

Nobody needs to address the differences when you haven't even understood the core similarity. Moreover, analogies are not meant to be identical-- and you just aren't saying anything with your "exceptions"-- be specific... speak in terms of the information that codes for what is produced-- not the product itself. I suspect that there's an analog for everyone of your issues between design and evolution-- not that ANY is necessary for the analogy to be robust.

Nobody needs to convince you. There is already plenty of evidence on this thread and elsewhere that the analogy works fine for most people. Also there's also evidence that you cannot distinguish information from what the information codes for no matter how carefully explained. What is the use of wasting time when your entire goal is to satisfy yourself that the analogy can't work? It already has. It just can't work for you (and Mijo and Jim-Bob... and Paulhoff)-- Big deal. Not every analogy works for everyone. And you guys suck at analogies. You probably also suck at metaphors and similies. I'm sure you have other fine qualities. But Southwind is a new member, and to the majority, he is clearer than his rivals on this issue.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Steven Pinker:

"Our powers of analogy allow us to apply ancient neural structures to newfound subject matter, to discover hidden laws and systems in nature, and not least, to amplify the expressive power of language itself."

He also says that an analogy need not be the same in every detail to be useful-- so long as it captures the essence. Southwind's analogy does. Your continual confusion between the replicator and the replicated (information) makes it so you can't understand that the essence of both are the same. We can use one, to understand the other... or rather, most people can. You can't. I think it's because you don't understand biological evolution as well as you think. Did you read The Selfish Gene?

Here's an explanation of the fallacy of weak analogy:

Exposition:

This is a very common fallacy, but "False Analogy", its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points about analogy:

1. No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy.
2. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following nonsense riddle:
   
   
   How is a raven like a writing desk?​
   
   The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever solutions to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance:
   
   
   Because Poe wrote on both.​

Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premisses, it is not solely determined by that strength.

Notice how the analogy not being perfect does not excuse it from being. The point is that, in the analogy of biological evolution and technological development, there are many more points of non-correspondence than there are points of correspondence, making an analogy based solely on the concept of change over time with retention of "what works" incredibly weak as it requires you to ignore the multitude of differences between the two processes.

 

[Paulhoff]

But it is clear that some people cannot understand this analogy. You might be one of those people.

Oh please, I am not one of those people.

The word “Intelligent” or any word that is related to that word, should never be used in the description of Evolution.

Paul

 

[articulett]

Oh please, I am not one of those people.

The word “Intelligent” or any word that is related to that word, should never be used in the description of Evolution.

Paul

Yes... perhaps it wasn't the best word choice for the title. But the analogy is about how bottom up evolution builds things that seem miraculous when you don't have a clue about the process. Understanding the process, removes the need for a designer with a long term plan.

So long as there is a mechanism in place for copying information.... say a brain looking for food or sex or whatever... and an environment that preferentially selects... you have everything you need for the evolution of information to occur.

This is true whether the information is coded in genomes, pictures, stories, designs, language, blueprints, recipes, computer bits-- or anything else.

It is the information that replicates and evolves-- not the product it codes for. When we say species evolve-- we mean that their genomes change affecting morphological changes (a morphing of matter over time-- this happens with technology too.)

The common ancestor wolf is to all breeds today as the first airplane is to all airplane designs today.

or-- ancestor wolf:St. Bernard as first plane:747