• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Evolution?

Sounds more like an analogy of the, respective, operations of US and Japanese automakers. :)

How does arguing against the idea of erasing the distinction between genius and trial and error, necessarily, cause one to be arguing for "God"?

It doesn't. It shows that human design is not really very 'intelligent', in the final analysis, and can, therefore, be considered analogous with evolution without fear of falling foul of the ID proponents. In fact, it serves to contradict the ID proponents. That was the whole point of the OP.
 
So, Southwind17, do engineers make changes to their designs without respect to how those changes will effect the designs?

Can engineers make changes to their designs with respect to how the changes will effect their designs?
 
So, Southwind17, do engineers make changes to their designs without respect to how those changes will effect the designs?

Can engineers make changes to their designs with respect to how the changes will effect their designs?

Talk to the story above mijo. SHOW IT CAN'T WORK!!!
 
In the story #1059, the rule is "take the product to school for x days and try to sell it, if it sellls try to copy it".

This is an externally-applied rule-based system.

There are no rules in natural selection. If an organism fails to reproduce, it doesn't reproduce.
 
In the story #1059, the rule is "take the product to school for x days and try to sell it, if it sellls try to copy it".

This is an externally-applied rule-based system.

There are no rules in natural selection. If an organism fails to reproduce, it doesn't reproduce.

Except the rule in natural selection is "if the organism cant' efficiently access the resoruces it needs to survive in its environment, it will not reproduce."
 
That isn't an externally-applied rule, that is just what happens.

Articulett,

I assume that when you are saying that "information evolves" you are invoking memes?

Assuming, for a moment that memes exist, then in technological development, these would have to be the (cultural) information to make a particular artefact.

The information in these memes would behave in a totally different fashion to information in genes.

Origin:
New genes occur by random mutation

The "memes" would often occur as a result of planned experimentation to answer particular questions, e.g. "how thichk does this steel cable need to be to hold a 4000kg mass under 2g acceleration?". Sometimes they might be the result of an evolutionary algorithm.

Selection
Genes are "implimented" and carried within organisms. If these organisms reproduce, and pass a gene on, it has been passed on (or been "selected" by natural selection).

The "memes", however they are deveolped, which is usually not as a result of random algorithms, are implimented in variants, and the suitability of these variants is assessed either according to an explicit set of rules, or according soem criteria developed by intelligent agencies.

Further obvious differences
If an organism that carries a gene, fails to reproduce, that gene is not passed on by that organism.

If a design failse because of a particular failure mechanism, then the design is often altered with the express aim of fixing that fault. Features which are considered "good" even of a failing design, could be kkept.

It is obvious what the descendants of an organism are. A design can be reused in many places.

Designed systems have signatures that are different from evolved ones. Why redesign an working eye? An extra set of eyes would need to evolve separately.
 
It doesn't. It shows that human design is not really very 'intelligent', in the final analysis, and can, therefore, be considered analogous with evolution without fear of falling foul of the ID proponents. In fact, it serves to contradict the ID proponents. That was the whole point of the OP.

So technological design is not "intelligent" and if God designed us using the same method, that would still be evolution? And this is supposed to ba a counter to the ID claim. It is, as skeptic wiki points out, against "perfect creation"

In short, Behe has said quite enough that in ordinary circumstances creationists would denounce him as an Evil Atheist Liar Who Hates God. The reason that they embrace him as an authority is that he is the first person in decades to come up with an original argument against the theory of evolution.

This story shows an (ineffective) evolutionary algorithm working. It does not show how technological development works in reality, even when it does use evolutionary algorithms.


The issue isn't with the analogy of random mutation, but with how the selection is performed.

Show me an example of selection which does not require either rules or intelligence, and I will show you an example of self-replication.

"The market decides" The rule is that one chooses to make copies of those variants that sell within a certain period.


I think I have answered every point you have raised in your story about the time traveller, just elsewhere in the thread. If I have missed any, please repeat them, but I suspect the are going to fall into ways of avoiding "specifications" or rules without requiring self-replication.
 
Wow do you keep missing it Jimbob-- the mutation itself is responsible for it's own replication--! It doesn't matter how it got there. In the butterfly, the mutation got itself copied-- by butterflies that survived. The mutation that finally made an airplane work got ITSELF copied... by humans... because they wanted airplanes that fly.

It doesn't matter how the imperfect copy comes about--whether it's random or trial and error or intended... it only matters if it makes the new information something that has a "trick" for getting passed on.


The information --the golden mutation--the "lucky lotto winner"-- gets replicated exponentially because of characteristics about it. When a chain letter says "send this to 10 people" that is information that causes that piece of information to get replicated.

I don't care if you call it a gene or a meme or a blueprint-- IT's information that gets ITSELF replicated by qualities inherent in it. It makes replicators copy it. The butterfly mutation doesn't copy itself... it needs to be passed on, form a zygote, have that butterfly grow up and reproduce, before it gets copied again and again. The butterfly is the replicator of the "golden mutation".

The human is the replicator of the design that formed the first "flying machine".

Damn you are so slow. Until you get this, it's just so not worth talking about with you. You are just missing the boat entirely.
 
They found when they added the word "repeat" to shampoo bottle directions: "lather, rinse, repeat they sold twice as much shampoo. The word repeat thus got itself copied on more shampoo bottles because more shampoo was sold.

That is the essence what is meant by "self replication"-- the information itself causes ITSELF to be copied. That's what drive evolution... the environment selects. Humans are just replicators and tweaker of information like butterflies. The information still has to get copied to evolve... and make "widgets" whose designs evolve or butterflies whose genomes evolve.

The intent is irrelevant to the basics of evolution-- evolution is driven by information that is good at getting itself copied (and tweaked and added to and recombined, etc.). There are lots of "clever" ways for information to get replicated in an environment that includes humans. Do you wonder why penis enhancement spam proliferates?

If you don't get it now, I give up. Information doesn't really copy itself...it finds a cell or a brain or a computer or another gamete that does the replicating. This is true for DNA and it's true for all other codes of information. Intention is irrelevant to the analogy... it's part of the environment...

All seeming design is bottom up and can be understood in this manner. Top down doesn't really make any sense at all. God would be the tornado in a junkyard making a 747-- not evolution... evolution is a 4 billion year old planet where humans eventually arise and develop language and technologies and eventually build a machine that flies and that design evolves into other flying machines like 747s.
 
Last edited:
Sounds more like an analogy of the, respective, operations of US and Japanese automakers. :)

How does arguing against the idea of erasing the distinction between genius and trial and error, necessarily, cause one to be arguing for "God"?


It doesn't. It shows that human design is not really very 'intelligent', in the final analysis, and can, therefore, be considered analogous with evolution without fear of falling foul of the ID proponents. In fact, it serves to contradict the ID proponents. That was the whole point of the OP.


I apologize. It was cyborg who said arguing against the analogy - ie arguing against the idea of erasing the distinction between genius and trial and error - to be equivalent to making a "God" argument:


If no one arguing against the "analogy" is arguing for "God"...


Oh, they are. They just don't get why.


Looking up the term analogy I found this:


Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.


It becomes more interesting further down that same page:


With respect to the terms source and target there are two distinct traditions of usage:

The logical and mathematical tradition speaks of an arrow, homomorphism, mapping, or morphism from what is typically the more complex domain or source to what is typically the less complex codomain or target, using all of these words in the sense of mathematical category theory.

The tradition that appears to be more common in cognitive psychology, literary theory, and specializations within philosophy outside of logic, speaks of a mapping from what is typically the more familiar area of experience, the source, to what is typically the more problematic area of experience, the target.


I believe cyborg quite clearly intends to speak of these things in the first or mathematical sense.

Your "analogy" in this sense would be an actual deduction, stating as a premise some heretofore unknown universal proposition: ie your "analogy" isn't just... well, biologically analogous. It's true!

:yikes:
 
In the story #1059, the rule is "take the product to school for x days and try to sell it, if it sellls try to copy it".

This is an externally-applied rule-based system.

There are no rules in natural selection. If an organism fails to reproduce, it doesn't reproduce.

Oh jimbob, even if you were right, please tell me you have more to offer in your defence of not accepting the analogy than this! Even mijo seems to be coming around to the idea now:

Except the rule in natural selection is "if the organism cant' efficiently access the resoruces it needs to survive in its environment, it will not reproduce."

But you stubbornly choose to look for tenuous 'reasons' why there are key differences, because you're afraid to let go of your misplaced beliefs because you erroneously think that it will expose you to the IDers:

That isn't an externally-applied rule, that is just what happens.

"That is just what happens"! So the dolphin and the cheetah 'just happen' to pursue prey until they land lucky? They don't apply some selective criteria in 'deciding' where to hunt, at what time, which prey to pursue, for how long, what dangers to look out for, etc? It's no different from my boys going to school each day: Get up, get dressed, have breakfast, brush teeth, go to school, have lessons, have lunch, have more lessons, come home, etc. THAT IS JUST WHAT HAPPENS, I'm sure they'd have you believe!

Further obvious differences

If a design failse because of a particular failure mechanism, then the design is often altered with the express aim of fixing that fault. Features which are considered "good" even of a failing design, could be kkept.

Talk to the story jimbob. Show me where Sam's designs were altered with the aim of fixing the 'fault'. Show me where Sam consciously considered some of the features 'good' in his initial and subsequently failed designs. No doubt in one of his initial failures he happened to have the battery connected to the switch but not the bulb. Show me where he recognized that and consciously retained that arrangement whilst he messed around with the switch configuratioin only. SHOW ME!

This story shows an (ineffective) evolutionary algorithm working. It does not show how technological development works in reality, even when it does use evolutionary algorithms.

Where is Sam's evolutionary algorithm? It does show how technological development works in reality - the story is real - both Ollie and Sam developed their technologies!

The issue isn't with the analogy of random mutation, but with how the selection is performed.

Show me an example of selection which does not require either rules or intelligence, and I will show you an example of self-replication.

I've done exactly that above with the cheetah and dolphin, indeed I believe it shows both rules and intelligence!

"The market decides" The rule is that one chooses to make copies of those variants that sell within a certain period.

And in nature "the environment decides" the rules that apply to make copies of those variants that survive for a minimum period. No difference jimbob - the market is the environment.
 
Your "analogy" in this sense would be an actual deduction, stating as a premise some heretofore unknown universal proposition: ie your "analogy" isn't just... well, biologically analogous. It's true!

:yikes:

Eureka!

Information that is good at getting itself copied drives evolution.
 
Your "analogy" in this sense would be an actual deduction, stating as a premise some heretofore unknown universal proposition: ie your "analogy" isn't just... well, biologically analogous. It's true!

:yikes:


Eureka!

Information that is good at getting itself copied drives evolution.


I'll quote Southwind17 from the first post on this thread:


Technological development, to my mind, is closely analogous to natural selection.


articulett are you saying that you believe technological development is natural selection?
 
I'll quote Southwind17 from the first post on this thread:

Technological development, to my mind, is closely analogous to natural selection.


articulett are you saying that you believe technological development is natural selection?


On reflection, Mr President, I think I meant to write 'natural evolution', and not 'natural selection'. I don't believe that has had any influence whatsoever, though, over the way the thread developed, but I think it might impact on the question you are now asking.

I'll let articulett give her answer, but technological development and natural selection surely cannot be one and the same, even by analogy, as selection is common to but only part of the evolutionary/development processes. It's technological development and natural evolution that can be considered analagous. I'm guessing, though, that you're asking articulett whether she considers technological development to be a 'natural' process given that it's undertaken by 'natural' beings.
 
On reflection, Mr President, I think I meant to write 'natural evolution', and not 'natural selection'. I don't believe that has had any influence whatsoever, though, over the way the thread developed, but I think it might impact on the question you are now asking.

I'll let articulett give her answer, but technological development and natural selection surely cannot be one and the same, even by analogy, as selection is common to but only part of the evolutionary/development processes. It's technological development and natural evolution that can be considered analagous. I'm guessing, though, that you're asking articulett whether she considers technological development to be a 'natural' process given that it's undertaken by 'natural' beings.


Do you intend the meaning of the term "analagous" in any particular way? Earlier I listed two ways of regarding what an analogy "is":

Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

It becomes more interesting further down that same page:

...

With respect to the terms source and target there are two distinct traditions of usage:

The logical and mathematical tradition speaks of an arrow, homomorphism, mapping, or morphism from what is typically the more complex domain or source to what is typically the less complex codomain or target, using all of these words in the sense of mathematical category theory.

The tradition that appears to be more common in cognitive psychology, literary theory, and specializations within philosophy outside of logic, speaks of a mapping from what is typically the more familiar area of experience, the source, to what is typically the more problematic area of experience, the target.
 
Do you intend the meaning of the term "analagous" in any particular way? Earlier I listed two ways of regarding what an analogy "is":

No. I've never had any specific meaning of the word 'analogous' in mind throughout this thread, and I wouldn't wish to go down the road of trying to define it. I've always used the word 'analogous' in a fairly loose sense (essentially meaning 'capable of being closely likened to'), and nobody has sought to invoke a particular meaning before now. I don't believe that potential differences between what people might have meant and perceived when using the word has had any significant bearing on people's respective positions in the debate.
 
No. I've never had any specific meaning of the word 'analogous' in mind throughout this thread, and I wouldn't wish to go down the road of trying to define it. I've always used the word 'analogous' in a fairly loose sense (essentially meaning 'capable of being closely likened to'), and nobody has sought to invoke a particular meaning before now. I don't believe that potential differences between what people might have meant and perceived when using the word has had any significant bearing on people's respective positions in the debate.


I believe cyborg has made it quite clear that with the "analogy" he intends to mathematically convey the two processes (selection/evolution and technological development) to be structurally identical.
 
Ignoring their relevance to the analogy for the moment:

Are there differences between biological evolution and technological development?

Between replication and self-replication?

Between artificial selection and natural selection?
 
Last edited:
Ignoring their relevance to the analogy for the moment:

Are there differences between biological evolution and technological development?

Between replication and self-replication?

Between artificial selection and natural selection?

Of course there are, particularly if you consider the micro-processes involved. I think such micro-differences have partially obscured the analogy for certain participants in this thread.
 

Back
Top Bottom