Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

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.

Oh, now I get it. Humans have REASONS for copying the information imperfectly which occasionally leads to results that makes the information more likely to be replicated and evolve--

Whereas genomes have no human reason for copying imperfectly which occasionally leads to results that makes the information more likely to be replicated and evolve.

Mutations that come about by human reason are so amazingly different than mutations that come about by environmental inputs that don't have reasoning ability! But of course. So, then-- you were artificially selected and designed by your parents, right? They must have had a reason for having sex which allowed bits and pieces of the information that made them to make you-- right?

Let's see... so humans had a reason to do rain dances-- it was thought that it made rain... and it worked often enough that they would tweak it and try to keep it going. Until we understood better and then we could use evolving information to get our water needs met... the stuff that didn't work or didn't work well died out...and the information that worked was copied and bits and pieces were added or recombined with occasional steps forward. That is like, so so different from how genomic information evolved that I can't fathom how I missed the difference. Yes--"reason" is magic. If you have a reason for copying things imperfectly or tweaking the information then that is just hugely different than when it happens via environmental inputs not aware of the ways they are honing information.

Well, why did you guys diverge off into "self replication" land and show such confusion between the information and what that information codes for? Why didn't Jim realize that mice wouldn't evolve bioluminescence without a reason to tweak the information that made them? So long as there is a REASON that humans can give for why they tweaked a design in the copying process, then the evolution of the information is special and hugely different than biological evolution, eh? Why did you diverge off into atoms and their various properties when it was supposedly just about that magical special quality called "reason"?

OH, And what to do about confabulation... ? Humans make up reasons that are wrong all the time for why they do what they do-- some even say "the devil made me do it... when it's just biologically evolved urges"-- Is reason enough to make it super special and different? Or does it have to be a real reason? What about lucky accidents? What if the reason doesn't alter the result as intended... then is it still special and super duper--like when humans brought cane toads to Australia to eat beetles and ended up creating a worst pestilence in the toad? Was that fiasco intelligently designed. Does human reason count as "intelligent" when the replication of information leads to disaster for humans? When people wear tin foil hats for a reason (to keep the government from infiltrating their minds for example) is that an example of "intelligent design"? That technology evolved for a reason, right?

So, lets see... the airplane evolved due to human reason...and trial and error...and when the information was honed... more people copied it and the information evolved...

And dogs evolved because the genomes of friendlier helpful wolves survived and replicated and mutated via human reasons (you protect my sheep; I'll make sure you stay warm this winter...etc.) And... eohippus turned into zebras because those that had more zebra like qualities in the African savannas preferentially survived and so they got to have more reproductive opportunities to pass on their information... but there was no human reason involved so it's completely different than the above-- Right? There's no way the analogy can work when the latter has no human reason involved and the former does.

So let me make sure I have this right. The analogy cannot possibly make sense (to Mijo) because if there is human intent behind human copying or honing of information then it's no longer "natural" selection"-- it's "intelligent design" which is completely different (except for the fact that it's driven by information being replicated imperfectly over time and honed by it's environment producing seeming miracles over time that affects other seeming miracles evolving over time.) And somehow showing the similarities between evolving information that has humans involved versus biological information that evolves irrespective of humans is "playing into the hands of creationists" (despite all evidence to the contrary.)

Got it. And here I've been listening to Dawkins and Eugenie Scott and Darwin and Sagan and Dennett, and I should have just been listening to you and Michael Behe because you are so full of that magical reason.

 

[articulett]

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.

Per your opinion. The evidence on this thread, my pm box and on other threads show otherwise. I learn from others... and I let them know... and they let me know when they've learned from me. I've never seen anyone say that you've clarified anything for them. Moreover, I aim to at least sound like the experts I'm learning from (and I link them for those who are actually curious)--and I'm interested in the topic. Per the people that matter, I'm competent. I have yet to see anyone say that of you.

You show no curiosity on new developments in a topic you pretend to be interested in... and no awareness that you haven't clarified the topic for anyone. I pass board exams on this subject. And I'm sure my students would pass any standardized exam on evolution better than you (not just the ones given by me)-- and on atomic theory too-- I still am shaking my head at your silliness about atoms in life forms being different than atoms in cars or other "things".

You have not kept abreast of current understanding on the topic--and you parrot Behe's claim (as does ID) that the cell is the replicator-- but it's information that is considered the replicator-- the gene or meme-- not the thing it builds. I welcome insults from the nutters. It makes me feel like I'm doing something right. I flatter myself by noting your responses to me are on par with your feelings towards Dawkins and Behe's blather of the same. I find that telling. Every time I hear the misnomer of the "cell as replicator" I know I've got someone infected with the "Darwin's Black Box" meme of Behe. And his information is amazingly successful and being passed on by the likes of you and stupefying self absorbed pedants. But most kids recognize it for the useless blather it is.

Self replication just means that the information has something within it--some trick...some feature that makes it get copied. That's it. It's not the cell-- it's the information that makes cells. Egg cells don't copy themselves. Their information has a chance to get copied. Viruses don't copy themselves...their information has a chance to get copied. Ideas can spawn copies of themselves too. Or not.

(Others may not see your deceit--but I WILL expose it for what it is. You make it so easy. And your hubris makes it fun.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

The fact that information is copied in both technological development and biological evolution is not the only salient detail of the two processes. How and why the information is copied is also essential to not only understanding each process but also explaining why intelligent design is not a sensible alternative to biological evolution. You seem not to want to admit that intelligent design proponents already see the natural world as being full of purpose therefore making it essential that the lack of purpose in biological evolution be emphasized. Comparing biological evolution to technological development only emphasizes the purpose inherent in technological development, unless you want to deny that changes in technological development are made for specific purposes, which may not always be achieved, but nonetheless provide the impetus for making the changes.

By the way, it is not a diversion to mention self-replication as being an essential difference between biological evolution and technological development, because nothing in technological development actually self-replicates. Your failure to recognize this casts severe doubt on your basic competence in biology.

 

[Taffer]

False. Brains evolved and are good at learning from the environment. They did not evolve "to" do anything. There is no pupose behind evolution.

Actually, there is a purpose 'behind' evolution. Think about it. The 'purpose' is to replicate. That is the driving force. Any adaptation which facilitates replication more so then another adaptation will grow in frequency until eventually being fixed.

 

[articulett]

I wish you could write in English. What the heck is "ervs?"

Do you get a kick out of abusing English and Science when you teach, too?

I'm sorry... you keep pretending to be scientifically literate:


ERV Endogenous Retrovirus

Most people current on the topic know; I didn't realize you were so out of date with all the pedantry and such. It's just one form of many forms of lateral transfer of info. Lateral transfer is everywhere: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1142490 It's amazing what you can learn when you don't assume you already know more than everyone else.

And the only person who has accused me of abusing English or denigrated my teaching is you and Mijo. I'll consider the source and adjust accordingly.

 

[Taffer]

Firstly, I did not accuse you of deliberately promoting Intelligent Design. Secondly, you're still ignoring the differences between the intention to create change in designers, and an intention-less system of Evolution.

Again, you are attributing a special case to human intervention. You are claiming that human-derived selection is somehow different from natural selection because of "intention", whatever that is supposed to mean. But please think about it for a second. The very nature of selection is that it is a driving force. Humans just change the 'direction' of that driving force, but do not change the nature of the force itself.

 

[Taffer]

Despite the fact that living things do not take inovations from one species and apply to another, as it ruotinely done with machines, for example?

Define "species", and then explain horizontal gene transfer.

Oh, and despite the fact that machines are not self-replicating?

You are forgetting that we are not comparing a machine to a living entity, we are comparing the informational design of the machine as being similar to the informational design of living beings.

Silly me, I also forgot to point out that machines plans are parsed and edited by intelligent designers who make deliberate choices, which is also a glaring distinction.

Please define "intelligent" and "deliberate choice".

Hmmm, I seem to recall typing up a list of inherent differences you have failed to address.

You will have to excuse me for missing those and coming late to the party. However, you are going to have to start defining terms if you throw them around.

 

[Taffer]

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

False. Firstly, heterozygosity at neutral loci is far higher then would be expected if this heterozygosity was not maintained by selection. Secondly, miRNA^WP.

 

[Taffer]

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.

What, then, is the large, ongoing, debate over the definition of "species" about?

By your definition, many bacteria and ring species are not, in fact, species. Perhaps you could clarify this?

Organelles do not constitute organisms. False analogy.

Please define "organism".

 

[Taffer]

A spurious accusation. I am using the word "species" as it is used in Evolutionary Biololgy. You are using it any damned way you please to avoid being shown to be wrong.

I know I am posting without the possibility of you replying in between, but you will have to show that your definition of species works in every single case.

Hint: it doesn't.

That is correct. Innovations in drag research can be applied equally to airplanes and automobiles. Developments in drag efficency in penguins cannot be applied to dolphins.

It is the information that is important, not the specific technology. Drag innovations most certainly are applied to both penguins and dolphins. They arose through different lineages, and are applied in slightly different ways, but the 'intent' (if you will) is the same; to reduce drag.

I don't see the point of your question. Factories are not autonomous, but organisms are.

Mitochondria are thought to once have been autonomous.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Would anyone here try to explain the totality of carbon chemistry or organic chemistry by claiming that the only thing that matters about carbon is the fact that in its isolated atomic state it has six protons and six electrons?

 

[Taffer]

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.

Please define "intelligent", and then explain how there is no pre-defined goal in natural selection; the goal to be able to replicate more effectively.

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.

Not quite. When it comes to artificial selection, imperfect replication is often utilized to produce new breeds. If a new breed is considered adequate per the selection criteria (such as, it's pretty enough), it will reproduce more often because it is selected for. This is exactly the same as a new trait arising in nature and being selected for because it enables more efficient reproduction in an ecological niche.

And your definition is not quite accurate either. I would define natural selection as "the phenomenon wherein alleles which facilitate more efficient replication of themselves, and others in an organism's genome, will be more likely to be replicated, and thus increase in frequency in a population." This is not a tautology.

 

[Taffer]

Would anyone here try to explain the totality of carbon chemistry or organic chemistry by claiming that the only thing that matters about carbon is the fact that in its isolated atomic state it has six protons and six electrons?

How is that what we are doing?

 

[Taffer]

articulett-

The fact that information is copied in both technological development and biological evolution is not the only salient detail of the two processes. How and why the information is copied is also essential to not only understanding each process but also explaining why intelligent design is not a sensible alternative to biological evolution. You seem not to want to admit that intelligent design proponents already see the natural world as being full of purpose therefore making it essential that the lack of purpose in biological evolution be emphasized. Comparing biological evolution to technological development only emphasizes the purpose inherent in technological development, unless you want to deny that changes in technological development are made for specific purposes, which may not always be achieved, but nonetheless provide the impetus for making the changes.

By the way, it is not a diversion to mention self-replication as being an essential difference between biological evolution and technological development, because nothing in technological development actually self-replicates. Your failure to recognize this casts severe doubt on your basic competence in biology.

But, there is a purpose in biological evolution; to be able to more effectively replicate.

There is, however, no direction.

 

[Taffer]

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.

Firstly, I'd like to see a list of these differences.
Secondly, you do realise that the argument against ID is not that life is too complex to have been designed, but that it is not required to invoke an additional entity to explain that complexity, right?

 

[articulett]

Here's another analogy I thought of that everyone who understands analogies can appreciate: I am amused that teens wearing reform school uniforms with hideous piercings think that I should be eager for their fashion advice.

I enjoy irony.

 

[Taffer]

Species do not exist? Interesting. Explain.

Actually, he's right ID. In nature there exists a continuum of relatedness between individuals. "species" is a human-constructed definition.

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.

And yet airplanes and toaster ovens share nothing in common.

Do you not understand what an organism is?

Not even biologists have a fully functional definition for life, ID.

 

[Taffer]

Here's another analogy I thought of that everyone who understands analogies can appreciate: I am amused that teens wearing reform school uniforms with hideous piercings think that I should be eager for their fashion advice.

I enjoy irony.

 

[Taffer]

One final point, re: Humans direct the nature of technological changes which nature does not. What about behives? Or nests? Or tools used by animals? Did these evolve?

Additionally, I would argue that up until the point that we understood a particular technological trait, say aerodynamics, it most certainly was trial and error. Even after we understood it, trial and error was used; someone would have a good idea, and test it. If it worked, it would be used, and if it didn't it would not.

 

[articulett]

But, there is a purpose in biological evolution; to be able to more effectively replicate.

There is, however, no direction.

I'd say there is "direction" or bias driven by environmental constraints... every living thing must evolve strategies to survive and convert energy into fuel until it gets to copy at least some of it's info.-- replication evolves "towards" the creation of more efficient replicators--

The internet evolves to store and amass and hone and replicate more intricate and interwoven information-- is that a "direction" or "purpose"? We do the best we can to describe what is going on via our language (which is also evolving). But it's hard to undo human egocentrism and to unlearn wrong information.

Human "intent" biases information in a "direction"-- but that just makes it, in essence, a part of natural selection honing information over time in a direction. Predators hone the direction of prey and disasters put huge constraints by leaving a much smaller pool of replicators, etc.