Intelligent Evolution?

You really cannot separate out a single process into its constituent dependencies can you?
 
This is the pure logic of what you are saying:

S = Self-Replication
P = Perfect copying
E = Evolution

This is what you are telling me:

S and P entails not E
S and not P entails E
not S and P entails not E
not S and not P entails not E

Therefore:

not E is entailed by (S and P) or (not S and P) or (not S and not P)
not E is entailed by (S and P) or (not S or (P and not P))
not E is entailed by (S and P) or (not S)
not E is entailed by P or (S or not S)
not E is entailed by P
E is entailed by not P

S does not determine E.

Self-replication is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
You're funny jimbob.

Tell me: does a photocopier 'choose' its imperfections in the copying process? Was it an intention of Xerox to build an "almost photocopier" that would select precisely how to not quite copy your document perfectly?

I really am beginning to think there is something broken in your brain that will not allow you to see how you are arbitrarily setting up an "self/non-self" copying dichotomy that does not entail any consequences for the copying result itself.

You had to use another dichotomy to do that: "imperfect/perfect".

But hey, it's not like I'm saying anything new here so why should I really expect you to accept that you're wrong by your own language this time around?
Click to expand...


Tell me: does a photocopier 'choose' its imperfections in the copying process? Was it an intention of Xerox to build an "almost photocopier" that would select precisely how to not quite copy your document perfectly?
Click to expand...
What is your point here?

The fact that photocopies are imperfect means that there is variation in photocopies. So what?

Where does choice come into it? Aomebae don't "choose" to reproduce. When they do reproduce, there are copying "errors" and thus variation; as a result some amoebae will be more likely to reproduce than others. Further evolution will only occur in the descendents of those that have reproduced,

Self-replication isn't important as a source of variation. It is important as the source of natural selection.

If one is talking about how "optimised" to an environment a system is, then the selection occurs on the variants of the system within that environment. If the copying is sepatate from that environment, then the selection process occurs in a different environment to the production.

The informatiion from the selection needs to get back to determine what is being copied. This information needs to be analysed, by a process that has to be set-up with intent.

If a system imperfectly self-replicates, then evolution will only occur on the descendents of the imperfect copies that actually reproduced. The descendents will evolve in a process entirely analogous to biological evolution.

Is your argument that there is no such thing as free will, so "intent" is illusiory?
 
Jimbob: putting aside any fundamental differences between self-replication and external-replication, in the natural environment, what do you see as the trigger for replication? In other words, from the moment a cheetah, for example, is born, what then determines whether it replicates or not? Let's take this step by step to identify the point in the evolutionary process where you're missing the point. Please try to be concise with your answer. Thanks
 
jimbob said:
The fact that photocopies are imperfect means that there is variation in photocopies. So what?
Click to expand...

You said that a "magical machine" would be required to "externally" copy information since the "selection" of what to and what not to copy for an "imperfect copy" would require "intent" to "design".

So I ask quite simply: is the photocopier a magical machine?

Where does choice come into it?
Click to expand...

Any point humans are involved in the discussion it would appear by your definitions.

Aomebae don't "choose" to reproduce. When they do reproduce, there are copying "errors" and thus variation; as a result some amoebae will be more likely to reproduce than others. Further evolution will only occur in the descendents of those that have reproduced,
Click to expand...

Does a photocopier "choose" to copy?

Self-replication isn't important as a source of variation.
Click to expand...

If you wish to argue this you are going to have to explain why my logic is wrong.

Is your argument that there is no such thing as free will, so "intent" is illusiory?
Click to expand...

My stance on free will is quite clear as anyone who has discussed it here will know: yes, this is exactly what I am saying.

Labels are not fundamental existents - they therefore do not entail any properties for the system.

Your insistence that the "self-replication" label represents a "fundamental" factor for evolution means that it must be an existent.

So either show me the atom of self-replication or demonstrate why my logic shows that according to your own definitions self-replication cannot be relevant.
 
Last edited:
Does this crow "intend" to bend the wire to retrieve food? Is she "intentionally" changing the design of the wire? How are her actions different than the chair design scenario? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0808_020808_crow.html
Did she evolve this inclination? Does it matter? Whether a mutation (or "imperfect copy " or "alteration in design") is intentional... semi-intentional... unintentional... or done to achieve some other aim, you can count on the environment to pick the winning information and ensure it's replication.

Imperfect copies and recombinations of information beget more efficient information processors/replicators, Jim. The genes of a crow ensured that crows who can manipulate information in their environment to meet their goals preferentially survived and passed on those clever genes... and the crow who successfully achieves a reward for tool usage will repeat (replicate imperfectly) the behavior and birds that have evolved imitation skills may do the same. Both forms of information have found a means of getting themselves replicated! Young chimps learn tool use from each other via imitation. Old chimps--especially old male chimps seem to be set in their old ways and have trouble learning new things. Bummer. So long as tool use allows for preferential survival, the skill will increase and be refined via genes-- this will happen more quickly when a creature as evolved the capacity to learn through imitation (another preferentially selected genetic bonus)-- like we humans have. Both the information coding for the behavior and the information about altering designs to achieve goals have evolved through natural selection... there is nowhere to go but "forward" with information. Use it or lose it.

The differences you are imagining are blinding you to the essential sameness jimbob. What cyborg is saying is correct. If you could lose your need to be right, you might learn something. It doesn't matter how the INFORMATION is "imperfectly replicated" (modified, copied, tweaked, recombined, etc.)-- it only matters that it gets itself replicated and the environment ensures that the "winning combinations" will... the information that has the best built in strategy for getting replicated. It's true of genes... it's true of chair blueprints.
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
This is the pure logic of what you are saying:

S = Self-Replication
P = Perfect copying
E = Evolution

This is what you are telling me:

S and P entails not E
S and not P entails E
not S and P entails not E
not S and not P entails not E

Therefore:

not E is entailed by (S and P) or (not S and P) or (not S and not P)
not E is entailed by (S and P) or (not S or (P and not P))
not E is entailed by (S and P) or (not S)
not E is entailed by P or (S or not S)
not E is entailed by P
E is entailed by not P

S does not determine E.

Self-replication is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

S and P entails not E
S and not P entails E
not S and P entails not E
not S and not P entails not E
Click to expand...

True:

Therefore
(NOT E) = (P OR (NOT S))
E = (S AND (NOT P))

Your statements here don't follow:

not E is entailed by (S and P) or (not S and P) or (not S and not P)
not E is entailed by (S and P) or (not S or (P and not P))
Click to expand...

This is the correct formulation:
(NOT E)= (S AND P) OR ((NOT S) AND (P OR (NOT P))
 
I'll use your derivation to make you happy:
¬E = SP + S'(P + P')

(' stands in for not this to avoid excess bracketing, i.e. A' = ¬(A))

If S = T and P = T
¬E = TT + F(T + F)
¬E = T + F(T)
¬E = T + F
¬E = T

S = F and P = T
¬E = FT + T(T + F)
¬E = F + T
¬E = T

Whether or not it's not evolution is not dependant on S since the truth of ¬E for S = T or S = F is the same.

These statements are equivalent:

¬X(Y + ¬Y)
¬X + (Y¬Y)

True:

Therefore
(NOT E) = (P OR (NOT S))
E = (S AND (NOT P))
Click to expand...

The point is jimbob that by the consequences of the negative entailments we can add:

E = ¬S(¬P)

with

E = S(¬P)

E = SP' + S'P
E = P' + (SS')
E = P' + T
E = P'

ETA: Your system contains a contradiction - it can prove any property you want it to show.
 
Last edited:
Do you disagree with my reasoning that

IF
(NOT E)=(S AND P) OR ((NOT S) AND(NOT P)) OR ((NOT S) AND P)

THEN
(NOT E)= (S AND P) OR ((NOT S) AND (P OR (NOT P))
THEN
(NOT E)= (S AND P) OR ((NOT S))

THEN

E= S AND (NOT P)

¬E = SP + S'(P + P')

If S = T and P = T
¬E = TT + F(T + F)
¬E = T + F(T)
¬E = T + F
¬E = T

S = F and P = T
¬E = FT + T(T + F)
¬E = F + T
¬E = T
Click to expand...

True

But what about the other two cases:

S = F and P = F
¬E = FF + T(T + F)
¬E = T + T(T)
¬E = T

S = T and P = F
¬E = TF + F(T + F)
¬E = F + F(T)
¬E = F


It is still the same as stating:
(NOT E) = (P OR (NOT S))
E = (S AND (NOT P))
 
jimbob said:
If the "variation" arises as a result of a deliberate process, in technological development, where someone has produced alterations in response to previous failures, then the type of "variation" is different to the type of variation arising from mutation.
Click to expand...

For the purpose of the analogy, the origin of the variation is irrelevant. I'm getting tired of repeating that.

Why is that false?
Click to expand...

Because there are alternatives, such as stagnation. In a theoretical environment where there are no selection pressures, any and all mutations are go. Mutation does not bring about selection (unless you consider the viable lifeforms to be pressures in and of themselves).

What else, other than (perfect or imperfect) self-replication is needed for natural selection?
Click to expand...

Actual selection.

I am arguing that imperfect self-replication leads to evolution.
Click to expand...

You mean, natural, biological evolution ?
 
Belz... said:
Photocopiers evolve.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd say that the information for building photocopiers evolved-- giving the appearance of photocopiers evolving...

Just as genomes evolve over time giving the appearance of species evolving-- but every animal is born and dies the same species it was born... it is only the recombination and honing of that information in the environment over time that gives rise to the impression of animals morphing into new species-- just as photocopiers morph into more efficient and "evolved" copying machines.

And it's, of course the same with the information to build airplanes or chairs. The information in genomes and in designs don't "self replicate"-- they get themselves replicated... DNA needs to get in a gamete and form a zygote to become part of an evolving system. A virus needs a cell to replicate. The information for building planes needs to successfully and predictably produce planes that fly in order for humans to copy (replicate) the design and the design so that the design can evolve. Airplanes don't technically evolve-- the information that makes them evolves-- based on how the product coded for performs it it's environment. It appears via snapshots in time that airplanes have evolved-- it's the information for making airplanes that has actually done the evolving.

I'm just clarifying because Jim keeps confusing the evolution of information with the the thing the information codes for. He confuses the genome for the butterfly it codes for... the blueprint for the airplane itself... Parts of the former (the "directions") can live on indefinitely and evolve-- based on how the latter (the product they code for) performs in the environment of replicators. When life forms do as they are programmed to do via their genes-- they can't help but be replicators as well as "environmental selection inputs" honing the other evolving systems in their environment.

Jim may or may not know why he types what he types... the reasons he gives may or may not be correct. But he is assimilating information in the form of words and replicating it by posting it. Others read that information and use it, replicate it, tweak it, ignore it, etc. I see myself as using his information to understand what he's missing in his understanding of natural selection... I want people to be able to understand the analogy and share it with others... I like understanding the best way to convey information about evolution... So his "information" can't help but effect my evolving explanation as well as my understanding of his blind spot. His information also has a chance to evolve in itself--if it was useful, furthered understanding, or had some sort something that inspired other readers to want to copy it or borrow pieces of it. From my perspective, his explanation is just the right kind of pedantic muddledness to be of use to creationists trying to obfuscate understanding of evolution. I can't imagine any other reason to pass it on (replicate it). It doesn't clarify anything; it isn't useful; it' not crisp or memorable. It doesn't further any goals or understanding. It's one of the new combinations and/or mutations of information that isn't likely to be selected in this environment. But humans generate information constantly and some such information is selected and replicated and honed by other humans. I can try to come up with ways to get "my information" replicated or with reasons why I think my words should be replicated-- or posit what I imagine I'm accomplishing by posting her and why I do so... but as far as evolving information systems are concerned, it's irrelevant. The stories that humans tell themselves about intent and reasons they replicate, recombine, and tweak information is irrelevant. The fact that some information is preferentially copied over others is all that matters to the analogy... it's the very essence of how natural selection gives the appearance of design...

Why was this information chosen over all others... why was this built upon... why are most chairs about 2 feet off the ground? Did someone plan it? Does it have meaning? Why was this general direction about chair height chosen preferentially to be the dominant model over all potential chair heights? The same tools we use to understand how complicated creatures such as ourselves came to be-- are the same tools we can use to understand How the other objects in our world came to be. After all, the atoms that make them up have existed for eons. But why no chairs until now? Follow the information and the replication of that information backwards. All complexity comes about from the bottom up. When we use human inventions as examples of "intelligent design"-- we are ignoring the information that needed to be assimilated over time for that product to emerge... there IS no top down design--no design in a vacuum. We have no actual model for "intelligent design" on our planet, since even our most intelligent design didn't poof into existence. Anything attributed to intelligent design that did not go through the iterative-information-selected-by-the-environment-over-time process would HAVE to be supernatural. We have no natural explanations for "assembled" matter springing into existence without an evolving information source. Even non complex things like rocks are matter formed by input from their environment over time.

It's probably too esoteric for most. But I feel like the explanation in the analogy is a good tool for understanding all sorts of complex evolving systems... and it also makes an "intelligent designer" so unlikely and unnecessary. Just as technology continues to increase in efficiency and not go backwards (the behemoth computers of yesteryear are firmly in the past)--understanding of our world goes forward to.

... It's humbling and exciting to be a part of that process.
 
articulett said:
It doesn't matter how the INFORMATION is "imperfectly replicated" (modified, copied, tweaked, recombined, etc.)-- it only matters that it gets itself replicated and the environment ensures that the "winning combinations" will... the information that has the best built in strategy for getting replicated. It's true of genes... it's true of chair blueprints.
Click to expand...

Forgetting the analogy completely, and talking about evolutionary algorithms or evolution itself.

What is wrong with saying:

Random "mutations" can be either helpful, neutral, or harmful, by leading to advantageous traits, neutral traits (including mutations that do not cause any changes), or harmful traits. This gives the potential for "good" information to occur, but for improvement, the "bad" traits need to be culled in preference to the "good ones".​

If you don't have random variations but have variation as a direct consequence of some analytical process, then I would argue that that is a top-down design methodology, where the complexity of the resulting "design" is limited to the abalysis capability of the "designer".

If I understand your posts articulett, you are arguing that top-down design can never happen, I am arguing that it can, but only to produce relatively simple systems, i.e. not much more complex than microprocessors if the designers are human.

Evolutionary systems are not limited in this way.
 
I have been arguing the wrong thing with you jimbob - that which is "natural".

You are arguing that a natural consequence of self-imperfect-reproduction and selection is evolution.

I am arguing a natural consequence of imperfect-reproduction and selection is evolution.

I am talking about many different types of "nature" - adding "self" as a concept only applies in certain "natures".

Here's the basic thing that we are not seemingly able to get past here jimbob:

If we stop thinking of cells as being a "self" that reproduces are we unable to explain the whole system as being evolutionary?
 
Southwind17 said:
Jimbob: putting aside any fundamental differences between self-replication and external-replication, in the natural environment, what do you see as the trigger for replication? In other words, from the moment a cheetah, for example, is born, what then determines whether it replicates or not? Let's take this step by step to identify the point in the evolutionary process where you're missing the point. Please try to be concise with your answer. Thanks
Click to expand...


Conception.

I will expand.

I think of it as a bit like the duck-shooting game at the fair. At conception the cheetah is set of on the path to reproduce (reach the other end of the booth) but on the way the environment is shooting at the same cheetah. The closer to the end, the better the chance of reaching the end, and what "natural selection" is doing, is stopping the reproduction.

For the analogy to convey the chances of a cheetah zygote reproducing, the universe should probably "use" a machine gun (whether "evolved" or not). ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom