Intelligent Evolution?

[Southwind17]

Because in evolution, only successes reproduce. A trait that prevents an organism from reproducing, prevents that organism from reproducing. Only beneficial traits are selected for. No information is obtained from anything that fails to reproduce. There is nothing to stop a trait "failing" on many occasions.

In typical development, any failures are analysed. The performance in the field is also analysed and proposed solutions to the particular problem are tried.

An example: The early spitfire lacked a fuel injection system that made the engine cut out in negative g. The ME109 didn't. This disadvantaged the spitfire, so solutions to this problem were developed.

As well as this, experimental structures are often used to test particular aspects of a structure, to determine what the weak point is, or what the "entitlement" of a process/structure is. The structure can then be optimised in light of this information in a way that is completely random mutation.

Of course some development uses the power of the evolutionary approach, and do use a process analogous to mutation (evolutionary algorithms).

However, even in this situation, the selection of fit variants is according to the requirement specifications of the engineers, and not according to natural selection.

Evolutionary algorithms are useful in demonstrating the power of evolutionary approaches, but they still need to select against arbitary selection criteria, unlike natural selection, where any orginism that produces reproducing offspring has "succeded".

Do you see what I am getting at here, Belz?

I'm getting feelings of deja vu jimbob! Or are you just regurgitating your initial arguments and ignoring where the last 25% or so of this thread has taken us for the benefit of showing Belz where you've come from?

You'll find that technological failures rarely reproduce, either.

Precisely.

Interesting how you seem to have missed the rest of the post where he explains that the agents of technological development can glean information from failures while the agents of biological evolution can't.

You mean similar to how you keep missing the point that although they can glean such information that's not actually important to the validity of the analogy?!

 

[six7s]

I have a hunch that the direction might be somewhat out of kilter with 'mainstream' scepticism,

I don't know what that means.

As I have a hunch that I won't be able to explain it concisely in a way that will satisfy you, I suggest that you try Google: define "out of kilter"

 

[mijopaalmc]

You mean similar to how you keep missing the point that although they can glean such information that's not actually important to the validity of the analogy?!

Look, on your OP, you seemed to be interested in explaining biological evolution in contrast to intelligent design by, at least implicitly, comparing both to technological development. However, in your analogy, you have, or so you claim, "abstracted away" the differences among the three processes. Such an abstraction unfortunately makes it impossible to evaluate each process as a valid description of what goes on in the biological world, as validity (or lack thereof) of each model is based on its differences from (and not its similarities with) the other two models. Thus, you really can't achieve your goal of "countering Intelligent Design (ID) theory" because, in your eagerness to deal in abstract concepts, you have removed to basis making any distinctions.

 

[Southwind17]

Look, on your OP, you seemed to be interested in explaining biological evolution in contrast to intelligent design by, at least implicitly, comparing both to technological development. However, in your analogy, you have, or so you claim, "abstracted away" the differences among the three processes. Such an abstraction unfortunately makes it impossible to evaluate each process as a valid description of what goes on in the biological world, as validity (or lack thereof) of each model is based on its differences from (and not its similarities with) the other two models. Thus, you really can't achieve your goal of "countering Intelligent Design (ID) theory" because, in your eagerness to deal in abstract concepts, you have removed to basis making any distinctions.

I think you're getting your proverbials in a twist mijo. In the OP I was simply interested in demonstrating the simplicity of technological development vis-a-vis incremental change over time such that intelligence could essentially be abstracted away whilst still leading to increasingly, seemingly irreducibly, complex structures. There would be little merit in comparing Intelligent Design Theory with the general perception of technological development as both are essentially seen by most as one and the same, including the likes of you, jimbob and ID. Indeed, it is the manifest similarities between the two that give rise to Intelligent Design Theory. But when one analyzes technological development and realizes that intelligence can be legitimately abstracted away with no effect on the outcome (other than time, and hence commercialism), the whole basis of Intelligent Design Theory collapses.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Oh, so your oft-vaunted "plan" is no longer part of your beliefs ?

There being a spirit was never part of my plan. My plan is base on the fact that the commonly used (opposite) terms, used to describe our world, tells a commonly thought story. Showing me what I don't know has slowed it, not stopped it.

Just out of curiosity: if months of arguing with JREFs didn't change your mind, what did ?

No JREFs changed my mind... your relentless intelligence... helped... some... I guess. I suffered from tunnel vision by staying in the one thread, I didn't not see that this is your game, and it is no game to you. Some people here used long posting as a threat, for me it is a last ditch weapon. I still think that I stumbled on to a point, and that I can make a game of this yet. Reading (and understanding) all those books would take years, but I think I can shorten the time by reading the stuff of the people who read the book, and get responses in real time. To me it almost seems like an evolutionary step.

 

[Belz...]

Interesting how you seem to have missed the rest of the post where he explains that the agents of technological development can glean information from failures while the agents of biological evolution can't.

I didn't miss that part. It's an ANALOGY. Gosh, it's hard to get that through to some people.

 

[Belz...]

There being a spirit was never part of my plan. My plan is base on the fact that the commonly used (opposite) terms, used to describe our world, tells a commonly thought story. Showing me what I don't know has slowed it, not stopped it.

So you still believe there's a "plan" by "energy" ?

No JREFs changed my mind... your relentless intelligence... helped... some... I guess. I suffered from tunnel vision by staying in the one thread, I didn't not see that this is your game, and it is no game to you. Some people here used long posting as a threat, for me it is a last ditch weapon. I still think that I stumbled on to a point, and that I can make a game of this yet. Reading (and understanding) all those books would take years, but I think I can shorten the time by reading the stuff of the people who read the book, and get responses in real time. To me it almost seems like an evolutionary step.

Yeah... sure, whatever.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I didn't miss that part. It's an ANALOGY. Gosh, it's hard to get that through to some people.

So remind me again: How is a raven like a writing desk?

 

[jimbob]

My point is that it is a bad annalogy, as the mechanisms are typically different, and if you look at different iterations, evolved systems and developed systems would have signatures that could be used to spot what process had created them.

In other words, even if you look at the two processes as just black boxes, with feedback, what comes out would be different in both cases.

Animals have evolved additional eyes, but have evolved them from scratch again. This is something that would be very unusual with competent design, as it would be less effort to reuse the previous design of eye. This "signature", whilst not being completely reliable, is probably an even stronger arguument against design than the many examples of "bad" design, (e.g. the mamalian retina) as evolution succeeds in "doing it the hard way" (or what would be "hard" for a non-omniscient designer. Omniscient designers shouldn't have got the retina wrong).

 

[Southwind17]

My point is that it is a bad annalogy, as the mechanisms are typically different, and if you look at different iterations, evolved systems and developed systems would have signatures that could be used to spot what process had created them.

Which 'mechanisms' are you referring to jimbob, and what do you mean by 'typically'? If you're referring to the mechanisms by which organisms and machines are biologically/physically brought into existence (putting aside the concepts of replication, mutation/variation and selection) then we know and acknowledge that they're different. That will be the same for any analogy though, by definition.

Also, excuse my ignorance, but could you please explain what you mean by 'different iterations' and 'signatures', and describe the 'signatures' that derive from, say, the cheetah and the motor car.

In other words, even if you look at the two processes as just black boxes, with feedback, what comes out would be different in both cases.

Don't follow jimbob. Could you please clarify?

Animals have evolved additional eyes, but have evolved them from scratch again. This is something that would be very unusual with competent design, as it would be less effort to reuse the previous design of eye.

If I read you right this is what I mean when I refer to intent and forethought just being a 'convenient tool'. Remove the 'tool' and the job still gets done, just more inefficiently, and hence over a longer timeframe, i.e. 'the hard way', as you put it.

This "signature", whilst not being completely reliable, is probably an even stronger arguument against design than the many examples of "bad" design, (e.g. the mamalian retina) as evolution succeeds in "doing it the hard way" (or what would be "hard" for a non-omniscient designer. Omniscient designers shouldn't have got the retina wrong).

Again, what 'signature'?

 

[mijopaalmc]

So exactly how useful is an analogy that obscures the differences between biological evolution and technological development in order to highlight the single property of "change over time with retention of 'what works'"?

In other words:

Is the property of property of "change over time with retention of 'what works'" so important that we should risk confusing people by emphasizing it in a discussion of biological evolution to the detriment of all other properties if evolution?

 

[articulett]

I didn't miss that part. It's an ANALOGY. Gosh, it's hard to get that through to some people.

In any case, nature does "learn" from failures. It learns "this doesn't work" or this mutation makes this critter an easy source of prey or this combination doesn't leave as many offspring...

A design (or genome) needs to make something before anything can be "learned" and then the environment selects which information shall stick around in the future. Even if it wasn't just an analogy, Mijo et. al. go overboard and twist their thinking in order to see differences that aren't really as different as they think while ignoring some that, at it's core, it's the same-- Information that is selected by the environment codes for things that appear to evolve over time... but it's the information that evolves. A species is born the same species that it dies... only it's information can live on to code for evolving creatures in the future.

 

[articulett]

Again, what 'signature'?

Yeah, and how is the signature of artificially selected dogs different than naturally selection wolves? Sure, stuff coded as a recipe is different than stuff coded as a blueprint or stuff coded as a genome-- but they are just forms of info. that build stuff that appears to evolve (become more efficient, speciate, etc. based on the environment selecting the information.)

How is the signature of the AIDS virus different than the signature of a computer virus? When people say something "took on a life of it's own" aren't they saying that the information evolved in ways they did not foresee? Jim sees intent as special and magical I guess. I see at as an evolved trait of humans--thus part of the environment.

And if anyone wants to know about ID-- you would think they'd watch the Dover trial (streaming) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

ID suggest that if things look designed--they probably are-- top down-- it is about things becoming assembled fully formed and they mention this repeatedly. Your analogy shows that even "intelligent designs" of humans have evolved-- the information assembled from the bottom up over time. If they can't see how that addresses ID's canard and they aren't curious about the facts and what is ID really says and how your analogy undoes their inferences--then they are the dumber that the ID-ists in th film. If the ID crowd was using your analogy, you'd think we'd have heard about it by now. They aren't. The naysayers just don't understand what the analogy is, what natural selection is, or how ID proponents argue. But they could get a clue-- if they weren't so sure they already new. There's no excuse for them not to watch the above video so that they can have an informed opinion if they want anyone to take them seriously.

 

[six7s]

So exactly how useful is an analogy that obscures the differences between biological evolution and technological development in order to highlight the single property of "change over time with retention of 'what works'"?

In other words:

You can phrase it any way you like... whatever way you spin it, your input is pointless

"So exactly how useful is an analogy..."?

Why ask?

Please note that when you ask questions and you don't understand the answers:

• it does NOT mean the answers are wrong

• it could simply be an indication that you don't understand the questions, let alone the answers

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

As I have a hunch that I won't be able to explain it concisely in a way that will satisfy you, I suggest that you try Google: define "out of kilter"

I understand "out of kilter" just fine, what is "main stream scepticism"?

 

[mijopaalmc]

You can phrase it any way you like... whatever way you spin it, your input is pointless

"So exactly how useful is an analogy..."?

Why ask?

Please note that when you ask questions and you don't understand the answers:

• it does NOT mean the answers are wrong

• it could simply be an indication that you don't understand the questions, let alone the answers

Why do you think that I don't understand the analogy?

I don't have to agree with the validity of the analogy to understand it. I understand that the analogy is based on the abstraction of biological evolution and technological development to "change over time with retention of 'what work'". I even agree that biological evolution and technological development can be abstracted in such a way. However, I disagree that using the analogy as a pedagogical tool is useful, because, in order to fully explain biological evolution (which is necessary if you hope successfully teach biological evolution), you need to include a long list of caveats.

 

[six7s]

Why do you think that I don't understand the analogy?

I suspect that the above is a rhetorical question, phrased simply to serve as an intro to yet another self-serving tangent

However, I disagree that using the analogy as a pedagogical tool is useful... blah, blah, blah...

Yes mijo... I suspect that everyone is aware of your stance. Incessant repetition does not make it any more or less valid. Furthermore, it does not undermine the reality where, for others less blinkered than you, the analogy is a useful tool

In a similar vein, your approach (a persistence in raising and focusing on irrelevant aspects of the analogy AND then qualifying your tangents with yet more incoherent waffle) does not, I think you'll find, feature as a technique espoused by any leading pedagogical theorists

 

[President Bush]

... the analogy is a useful tool

What advantage does this tool provide you?

 

[Southwind17]

So exactly how useful is an analogy that obscures the differences between biological evolution and technological development in order to highlight the single property of "change over time with retention of 'what works'"?

First, I don't believe it 'obscures' the differences. It disregards certain differences, as EVERY analogy does. Second, the 'single property' that it seeks to highlight is not simply 'change over time with retention of what works', but rather 'combination of elementary ingredients with incremental or gradual change over time leading to seemingly irreducibly complex machines'. We've now established the fact that 'intelligence' is not even needed either! I can see a huge, fundamental difference between what you erroneously see as the purpose of the analogy and what I, and many others, see as the purpose. You only see what you want to see.

In other words:

Is the property of property of "change over time with retention of 'what works'" so important that we should risk confusing people by emphasizing it in a discussion of biological evolution to the detriment of all other properties if evolution?

Assuming you can now appreciate what the true purpose of the analogy is you should also see the true importance of it. And which people, exactly, are we risking confusing, other than three obvious candidates who subscribe to this thread? And even with them, the problem isn't one of confusion, but rather blind unacceptance of ideas that conflict with their own. I'm happy to risk alienating that category of person.

Why do you think that I don't understand the analogy?

see above!

I don't have to agree with the validity of the analogy to understand it.

No, but you have to understand it to agree with it! I think you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope mijo!

I understand that the analogy is based on the abstraction of biological evolution and technological development to "change over time with retention of 'what work'".

Yes, but that's only the half of it!

I even agree that biological evolution and technological development can be abstracted in such a way.

Well you would - that's the easy part.

However, I disagree that using the analogy as a pedagogical tool is useful, because, in order to fully explain biological evolution (which is necessary if you hope successfully teach biological evolution), you need to include a long list of caveats.

The highlighting above identifies your problem. You misunderstand the purpose of the analogy. In fact, you swing from one extreme to the other, missing out the important middle part! Who's suggesting the analogy's purpose is to fully explain biological evolution and to teach biological evolution? It's simply a useful aid to explaining and, if you like, teaching biological evolution. Any analogy cannot hope to be anything more, by definition.

What advantage does this tool provide you?

It provides exactly the same advantage that any other good analogy in another situation provides - it aids understanding of a concept that might be difficult for some to grasp. A child might observe an ant carrying a small piece of bread and not think very much of it, but if, by analogy, that child comes to realize that it's the equivalent of a man carrying a small car, it generates a whole different perception, which provides a much better insight. Is that helpful to you, Mr President?

 

[quixotecoyote]

It provides exactly the same advantage that any other good analogy in another situation provides - it aids understanding of a concept that might be difficult for some to grasp. A child might observe an ant carrying a small piece of bread and not think very much of it, but if, by analogy, that child comes to realize that it's the equivalent of a man carrying a small car, it generates a whole different perception, which provides a much better insight. Is that helpful to you, Mr President?

And of course if there was an organization dedicated to trying to enlarge ants to serve as beasts of burden, using a different analogy that didn't obscure the issue of the cube root law would clearly be unacceptable as using arguments easily mistakable for the ideas of idiots is no reason to discard them.