Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

deus ex machina: it's not just custom title.

I appreciate the fact that I'm smart enough to understand and be amused.

Humans make up answers when they don't understand something; they'd rather have a bad answer then to not understand.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No ID. I simply understand the species fallacy because I understand the continuum because I understand that species do not exist. Individuals do.

Species do not exist? Interesting. Explain.

Although it would be interesting for you to explain how you reconsile the 'ring species' problem with the notions you have about species.

That is a difficulty, I agree. However, whales and sea gulls are not interbreeding populations. Airplanes and automobiles share design elements all the time. There's far more clarity in type among organisms than amoung machines.

So how do I apply my Betamax tape to my VHS machine?

Inquiring minds need to know.

Thanks for equivocating. I clearly meant information regarding desgin.

I'm sure Mr Ameoba thinks he's autonomous but his organelles sure disagree.

Do you not understand what an organism is?

 

[cyborg]

Species do not exist? Interesting. Explain.

I did so.

Individuals exist. The groups arise from the properties of the individuals.

If you do not understand this then you will not be able to deal with 'ring species' because you are trying to assign a property to a group that is not shared by the individuals you wish to group.

Yet again this all goes back to what it means to abstract and I tell you with no small measure that you do not apparently appreciate what that is.

That is a difficulty, I agree. However, whales and sea gulls are not interbreeding populations. Airplanes and automobiles share design elements all the time.

So technology is inherently compatable?

Then why doesn't my damn Betamax accept VHS tapes ID?

WHY??!?!

There's far more clarity in type among organisms than amoung machines.

There is?

Well I guess it is clear that cats aren't dogs.

But I'm not sure if I would know a cat liver from a dog one though...

Thanks for equivocating. I clearly meant information regarding desgin.

There is no design to my Betamax or VHS?

Ahah! They evolved!

Do you not understand what an organism is?

No.

 

[articulett]

False. Evolution acts on the phenotype, not the "information." Genes which are completely unexpressed do not experience selective pressure.



I get Evolution, what I don't "get" is your instistence on using words in their common, incorrect, usage when discussing Evolution.



To communicate incorrectly.

How does it feel to deliberately promote a confused misunderstanding of Evolution?

The phenotype is the replicator. Replicators that survive and have reproductive advantages pass on the information that made them preferentially. All that really evolves is the information. A Wolf did not change into a dog-- Wolf genomes evolved into a variety of dog genomes because humans helped some of those genomes preferentially survive and reproduce-- which allowed them to evolve.

Unexpressed genes must ride along in successful genomes to get passed on into the future.
Perhaps they'll fill a niche later--but they can't if not passed on. Information that is passed on for whatever reasons drives evolution. Information that isn't replicated for whatever reasons, can't. A prototype for a flying human may have been born, but not reproduced.

Nothing really self replicates except the information. In life forms and viruses this information is encoded in nucleotides (these 4 chemicals make up the directions for all life forms)-- but humans have evolved ways to encode other information--music, language, writing, digital, paintings, stories, rhymes, blueprints, recipes-- and this information evolves based on what is replicated by humans...

At it's essence it isn't really different from spiders evolving various intricacies in web building.

Information is what organizes matter (atoms) into things (whether life forms or computers)-- that is what evolves and is honed... the things only appear to change via "snapshots" in time of what we see-- But a wolf didn't morph into a dog and the first airplane didn't morph into a 747. The information evolved per selection by the environment. The stuff that "didn't" work-- died out.

Have you read Douglas Adams? You have a very backwards (but human) way of looking at things. It's like looking at a "you are here" sign and assuming that the sign (or the maker of the sign) knows where you are. Magicians must be able to fool you very easily. You have an overconfidence in your understanding and a glaring inability to see what you are missing.

 

[articulett]

ID-- You have accused me of communicating ineffectively. I have pointed to numerous respected people in the field who are speaking of evolution in the exact same terms I am. This analogy is the basis behind The Selfish Gene and the idea of "memes". Dawkins refers to evolution as "descent with modification"-- It appears to be quite an effective way of communicating among many.

You, however, are arguing on the side of people like Mijo and Jimbob who have no evidence for being able to explain anything to anyone while having an excessive amount of hubris in regards to their understanding and ability to communicate it.

And yet your conclusion is that I am miscommunicating or using words incorrectly or in a misleading way. Check the evidence for yourself and quit reading to try and prove your own correctness to yourself.

Any expert on the subject would say that cyborg, Southwind, et. al. are much clearer than you, Mijo, and Jimbob. You all sound muddled and tangential like Behe. Really. You use words to miss the point and ask silly questions that infer your position but that don't clarify anything-- questions you don't really want the answers to. You ignore all the evidence that directly answers your questions-- and you don't even realize how irrelevant your questions are to the analogy. They are on par with jimbobs "how long would a mouse take to evolve bioluminescence"-- who knows and who cares and how is that relevant?... a mouse genome evolves to survive not be consumed because it's replicator is blinking neon-- such a genome would quickly die out-- not be refined and honed over time. Only when humans select for oddities like "fainting goats" do such genomes survive to be replicated... humans are selective forces in the environment.

Intelligence like "good" and fit-- are human terms-- evolution is about information being replicated, selected, and honed in an environment over time-- regardless of what human terms or semantics or specialness you want to to apply to the process based on whether human foresight is involved.

 

[articulett]

Clearly, you fail to understand the defintion of "species."




The ameoba would disagree, if it were able. Given only materials, it does the job of reproducing itself.

Nope, it's DNA copies itself which are directions for making similar replicating machines such as amoeba.

And it's not cyborg or anyone else that is having a problem understanding terminology here-- just you and Mijo and Jimbob.

You are over confident in what you think you understand and glaringly blind to your own ignorance. You are insulting people who could help you bridge this gap just like Mijo is in every post-- just like Mijo is in regards to randomness. Your inability to understand analogies is making you unable to see this fact. But mijo's blindness in regards to evolution being called random is the same as your blindness to this analogy. You are the like the guy with no memory insisting that he just woke up from a coma over and over and over.

 

[articulett]

A deliberately disengenous request, considering nothing at all is defined in that way. However, Evolutionary Biologist Ernst Mayr's defintion is apt:



Failing to interbreed is the cornerstone of the definition of species.



Organelles do not constitute organisms. False analogy.

Check your definition of organisms. Organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts were once autonomous organsims. Eukaryotes are more like communities of organsims than prokaryotes. You don't understand the continuum- as with species... you see a line that is really a continuum... as species differentiate they are increasingly less likely to have reproducitvely successful offspring (zebras and donkeys can interbreed, but the offspring is usually infertile though can sometimes be bred to the non-zebra parent type)-- This happens because the INFORMATION in the zygote doesn't match up as well-- the gametes have increasingly different information based on what alleles were selected in their ancestry over time... and so the information cannot combine as well-- it's like trying to play your mac software on you pc-- information systems evolve with the other evolving systems in their environment. This includes their food sources which are also evolving their own strategies.

Closely related species can produce hybrids like ligers (lions and tigers)-- the further apart they are, the harder it will be for the information to combine in ways that are conducive to the new combinations survival-- Good combinations beget evolution. Bad combinations die out causing species divergence. The fact that you didn't seem to know this ought to mean you shut up and listen and quit pretending you understand things when you clearly have not kept current on the topic and insult those who understand more than you.

People are trying to clue you in-- nobody has to, you know. And you, too, could learn something valuable... but like Mijo and jimbob you assume you already know everything there is to know on the topic and have no interest in learning more.

 

[articulett]

What you're describing is Evolution. Why would you say something as contradictory as "it didn't evolve?"

Information evolves-- not the things themselves. A creature is born the same creature it dies.

The only thing that can evolve is the information (in the case of life forms, it's the information in the genome in the case of airplanes it's the airplane designs.)

 

[articulett]

There are huge differences between things that Evolved and things that were designed. Those differences are so vast and numerous that living things require a special sort of explanation for their divsersity and complextiy, and that explanation is Evolution. I cannot pretend that the two processes are identical, as you do, because the differences between the process explain so much about the peculiarities of living things.

Only information evolves-- not things. Information codes for how atoms are assembled to make "things". The process is the same in that both are driven by information being selected and honed based on the environment it finds itself in.

Information that survives and is replicated (intentionally or not) becomes part of future information systems-- building increasingly "complex" things-- like the internet. We call the tweaking of this information over time--evolution. It is ONLY the information that is evolving-- though in our brain we see "things" morphing over snapshots of time.

A human brain giving birth to a tweaked or recombined idea is not different at it's core than an animal giving birth to a creature that is the forbearer of a new species. Until the new information interacts with it's environment, we don't know whether it will evolve or not. An idea in your head cannot evolve over time-- but a design that can be put through trial and error processes in the environment can. The same for recipes or books or mathematical processes or airplane designs.

Information that gets copied drives evolution. There is no one in charge. Just specialization--a heart does what a heart is supposed to do... a cop does what a cop is supposed to do... a drone does what a drone is supposed to do... and in the process complex systems evolve in parallel via all sorts of environmental inputs.

Information drives itself; humans just process it and take it the next step forward--usually nowhere--but one step forward every once in a while is all evolution needs so that the information lives on long after the progenitors of such information and whatever goals they may or may not have imagined.

 

[jimbob]

Selective breeding works upon already existing variation within a population. It simply changes the fitness of particular alleles.

It also uses fortuitous mutations.

Many evolutionary algorithms also use a cross-breeding algorithm, as well as a mutation algorithm.

Artificial selection is directed towards a predefined goal. It is the same (just more explicit in evolutionary algorithms). One doesn't know the form of the final design, but one knows beforehand what it will do, because the selection criteria have been defined by an intelligent agent.

Natural selection occurs because only those replicators which actually produce replicating copies replicate. This is tautalogical. There is no need to invoke intelligence, whilst with artificial selection, there is. Without imperfect self-replication, artificial selection (of some type) is needed.

 

[jimbob]

Articulett, does information "evolve" in the same way in technologies as in organisms?

I say it doesn't.

Even the designers of failed attempts at human-poweered flight managed to find room to put the human in.

If the designs "evolved" analogously to biological evolution, one would expect some (maybe most) designs to actually be unable to even fit a human in. One would expect to see later failed mutations of successful aircraft designs with the same error. At least at the prototype stage.

However design involves intelligence and forethought, so that doesn't happen. Some designs might be uncomfortable, or otherwise unsuitable, but the will still have a "pilot/passanger-shaped space".

Do you disagree with the statement that:

His [Van Neumann's] insight that open-ended evolution requires the separation of a universal constructor (a cellular automaton) from its own description (the tape), which needs to be copied separately is all the more remarkable because it preceded the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule as a genetic information store in biological systems. The ability to achieve open-ended evolution lies in the fact that errors (mutations) in the copying of the description can lead to viable variants of the automaton, which can then evolve via Natural Selection.

?

If intelligence is guiding the selection, you are left witr an evolutionary algorithm. You still might get evolutionas well, but the guided eviolution towards a goal is not evolution. because imperfect self-replication is nescesary and sufficient for natural-selection and evolution.

 

[articulett]

What you're describing is Evolution. Why would you say something as contradictory as "it didn't evolve?"

Do you understand yet? The "it" that evolves is the information-- not the thing itself.

The last common ancestor of all humans is "responsible" for all humans and their technologies today... they all evolved from his spawning... If not for him--then the world would be entirely different... maybe with people or people-ish creatures with their inventions or cultures or whatever-- but not this world where everything seems to "fit" together because it evolved together. Baby steps that increase information replication and copying beget increasing complexity and intermingling evolving systems... the only way to keep things from falling apart due to entropy is by energy input... this input organizes matter... increasingly so... as soon as you can code for order and replicate that code... you have evolution which begets more and better information processors, recombiners, honers, selectors, etc. A seed that starts to become a tree will go on to produce tons of branches, twigs, and so forth until it can't... it's information directs it to organize matter that way... same with the tree of life-- same with language and technology....

Things don't evolve (it's metaphorical when we say they do)--atoms don't change-- the way they come together and organize themselves is what changes--all the matter that will be the things of the future are here today... the information to build them just hasn't amassed yet... it is being selected and honed by the environment as I type this.

I don't know how to break your habit of confusing the code for the thing it codes for. The recipe is not the cake. The blueprint is not the house. The genome is not the animal. The script is not the movie. The sheet music is not the song. The former is what evolves. Over time and in our minds it "appears" to be the latter. But what is being copied and tweaked is the former and pieces therein.

Until you can show that you understand this, your input is on par with Mijo's and others who seem to miss this over and over and over and over. Until you show the ability to differentiate you cannot understand the analogy and your blather about it is as obfuscating as anything Behe might say on the topic.

 

[cyborg]

I say it doesn't.

Really jimbob, ya think there may be some differences eh?

but one knows beforehand what it will do, because the selection criteria have been defined by an intelligent agent.

Dear Lord, though your plan may be mysterious unto us mere mortals we trust in your Infinite Plan.

Amen.

Natural selection occurs because only those replicators which actually produce replicating copies replicate. This is tautalogical.

That's not a tautology. A tautology would be:

"Either they replicate or they don't."

The conclusion from natural selection is that in the world of replicators producing replicators those that replicate best are seen the most. That's not a tautology: there are other possibilities. It could be the case that the worst replicators would be seen the most.

You want to say it couldn't be the case don't you? Ah well...

There is no need to invoke intelligence, whilst with artificial selection, there is.

Does the intelligence of your parents make your existence the product of artificial selection?

If the designs "evolved" analogously to biological evolution, one would expect some (maybe most) designs to actually be unable to even fit a human in.

Freck jimbob you really, REALLY, REALLY need to get a grip on the realities of human design because that sort of **** is a frequent occurrence.

 

[articulett]

If information created by humans (designs, recipes, information, stories, jokes, etc.) don't have what it takes to get copied by humans, then it can't evolve. And humans, if nothing else, are imperfect copiers, recombiners, information processors.

 

[articulett]

When you decide to tweak a recipe or substitute an item-- is that not an imperfect replication of the information that produces a result that can be selected for or against in the environment?

If it works wonders and people all over copy the recipe and hone it... is this not analogous to a mutation that makes a critter less visible to predators-- which then allows it to survive and get that information replicated preferentially over imperfect replications that don't confer such an advantage.

Information that can get itself replicated drives evolution.

All information in code (whether language or genetic) can be copied imperfectly leading to serendipitous moments in evolution--

We never see all the losers-- just the winners stick around to evolve...

And when you are close up to the information honing, as cyborg noted, it's a painful trial and error process all too often...

We notice hits and say "wow, a miracle--how intelligent", but it's because we are blinded to the many failures prior to the "miracle" step... and the serendipitous nature of many a lucky tweak (imperfect copying, recombination, deletion, etc.)

 

[articulett]

I'll be glad to clarify the analogy for anyone who actually wants it clarified, I will not go about answering insincere questions that the askers don't really want answered... the questions are clearly "designed" to infer a position or conclusion based on ignorance. I think it's pretty repulsive to pretend to be an expert in something you don't really seem to have an actual curiosity in and very disingenuous to use it to obfuscate understanding while pretending to clarify. The more humble OP understands how selection drives evolution and is responsible for seeming design far better than the pedants who weighed in to say the analogy is bad.

Just because you really truly believe that the analogy can't work or is subject to abuse by creationist doesn't make it so. In fact there's a wealth of information and links and smart people informing you that the evidence contradicts your "predictions". The problem is you and your faith in your knowledge. When someone has so much faith, no amount of evidence is enough to get them to say, "I was wrong" or even "I see your point".

The OP asks, "does the analogy work"?-- the majority seems to think so-- the experts on the topic seem to think so... the analogy isn't going away--rather, it's getting itself copied and honed... it's evolving...

Is there anything left to discuss with the faithers who think otherwise? I can't imagine what the point in that would be. If you aren't interested in understanding the analogy, then why keep inputting your objections and question and digressions? If you want people to read and care about your words, why wouldn't you do the same for theirs? What's your point in essence? And isn't there ample evidence to prove that your opinion doesn't matter to the analogy and whether people find it useful?

The fact that a few people find "human input" in evolving systems so very different than other environmental inputs is not a failure of the analogy--rather, it's a reflection of human minds that evolved to feel like human intelligence is a "special" force.

The only thing "self replicating" is the information. Cells don't copy themselves... they copy the information to make another cell. Some copy half the information to make a gamete which combines with another gamete which builds an organism. Viruses are just information that depend on foreign cells to copy their information. The simpletons keep confusing what exactly is being replicated. It's the information that builds the thing-- NOT THE THING ITSELF.

IN BOTH CASES. It's the information that undergoes "mutations" or "imperfect replications"-- which may or may not affect how the thing it CODES FOR interacts with the environment-- which then determines whether the INFORMATION sticks around to replicate or not.

The self absorbed cannot understand that the "self-replication" they are hung up on refers only to the information's ability to get itself copied-- not the thing it codes for.

They can't get it. They are the colorblind blind person who doesn't know the deficiency is in them.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If information created by humans (designs, recipes, information, stories, jokes, etc.) don't have what it takes to get copied by humans, then it can't evolve. And humans, if nothing else, are imperfect copiers, recombiners, information processors.

Ironically, this is exactly what distinguishes technologies from organisms. Technologies require an autonomous agent to reproduce; organisms do not. In fact, organisms are the autonomous agent that reproduce organism. Again, humans' reproducing technology doesn't simultaneously reproduce the humans, so humans and technology do not form a closed self-reproducing system. Cell, however, do. This is the key difference between biological evolution and technological development that you refuse to accept, which is especially disturbing since you claim to teach biology.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What is X, where did I introduce it, and how does that require a god?

Intent.

So there is no rhyme or reason to the changes that engineers make to their designs, especially after it fails?

 

[articulett]

Human intent is just another selector--an environmental input deciding selecting whether information "selected") is copied, recombined, honed, modified, or not.

Information evolves base on selection by the environment-- information that can't get copied--can't evolve. Nobody replicates unsuccessful airplane designs... nothing gets tweaked to evolve... only the designs that are best get copied and honed--just as nothing can replicate the information contained in animals that are wiped out by meteors...only survivors can be environmental agents determining which genomic information is passed on.

If information can get copied by any means... say a chain letter promising rewards to those who pass it on and destruction to those who don't-- then it can evolve... and will again and again in various forms until or unless it
doesn't get passed on.

Every question asked by the naysayers just show how very much they fail to understand this very simple concept that even troubled teens can intuit. You guys get in the way of your own understanding... but I just hope it doesn't get in the way of anyone else's. Fortunately, your notions seem destined to die as most useless information does.

I aim to communicate and share information by those who teach me-- Knowing where to go for information is the first step towards getting it... assuming you know it all, is a dead end to finding out more.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Human intent is just another selector--an environmental input deciding selecting whether information "selected") is copied, recombined, honed, modified, or not.

Information evolves base on selection by the environment-- information that can't get copied--can't evolve. Nobody replicates unsuccessful airplane designs... nothing gets tweaked to evolve... only the designs that are best get copied and honed--just as nothing can replicate the information contained in animals that are wiped out by meteors...only survivors can be environmental agents determining which genomic information is passed on.

If information can get copied by any means... say a chain letter promising rewards to those who pass it on and destruction to those who don't-- then it can evolve... and will again and again in various forms until or unless it
doesn't get passed on.

Every question asked by the naysayers just show how very much they fail to understand this very simple concept that even troubled teens can intuit. You guys get in the way of your own understanding... but I just hope it doesn't get in the way of anyone else's. Fortunately, your notions seem destined to die as most useless information does.

I aim to communicate and share information by those who teach me-- Knowing where to go for information is the first step towards getting it... assuming you know it all, is a dead end.

You miss the point yet again (why am I not surprised?). The changes in the design of a technology are made specifically to correct earlier flaw or otherwise improve the design. The mutations in a biological organism just happen without respect to how the mutation will effect the organism.

How can you not understand this difference?

By the way, you fail miserably at communicating with people who don't already agree with you or who don't benefit from agreeing with you as your students do.