Intelligent Evolution?

[cyborg]

It isn't just sequentially, it is cumulatively. If a technological designer finds that his mutation, while conceptually good fails due to some unforseen parameter, he can keep the mutation he made while adding in another to fix the shortcoming.

So are we going to define failure in nature as, "does not survive," and failure in technology as, "almost done?"

Because nature is only ever "almost done" with its designs.

And it also begs the question of just how the designer is supposed to know his design is "conceptually good" if it "fails".

One reason mimicing biological evolution will never produce anything resembling what we have in technology is it learns nothing from design B.

Wayne: do you seriously contend that there is nothing in nature that resembles what we have in technology?

And there I was thinking squids constructed turbulent flow propulsion systems long before any intelligence did. I must be wrong.

Nothing in nature resembles anything we have in technology? From what I can see there is a whole load of stuff that does in fact. And I'm not even surprised by this: there are a few basic, simple design concepts and patterns that get applied over and over again. Most of our more complex designs are merely extensions of simpler systems that can be decomposed into such patterns.

It can't mutate a defunct design, and instead goes back A.

Er no Wayne - it always has to be forward from what you have now. There is no backwards.

When it produces the next mutation, it applies to our successful design A, and gets C', while technological innovation can, if there is potential, apply that mutation directly to B to get C (note the C and C' to denote the designs are not the same).

Again I have to wonder by what metric "potential" is noted in "failed" designs.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier with my point about wholesale changes that can happen in a design. Note that the above example was 6 mutations. To try out 6 different mutations there are 63 possibilities to test (i.e just mutation 1, or mutation 1 and mutation 3, or any combination of the 6).

Going from one product generation to the next almost every part on 1000+ part products can be "mutated" by the designer. The number of major alterations done to a product when making the "Next-Gen" is large

For biological type alogorithm the number of combinations of those alterations, not including those that a designer would never even try, grows exponentially.

Which is why we end up with surprisingly complex systems that inspite of our inability to decompose them in a way we'd like to understand them still fulfil their design criteria.

Not doing it the way a designer would do it does not mean **** unless the design is significantly better able to reach a design in a given design space. All indications from the world of human design are that for simpler design tasks there is a significant benefit but with increasing system complexity that benefit over an evolutionary mechanism is diminished rapidly.

 

[jimbob]

And this time, instead of forgetting about intelligence being irrelevant to the analogy, you forget that there is no such thing as "self-replication", and that it's ALSO irrelevant to the analogy, from an information standpoint.

So what do you call asexual reproduction, if not imperfect self-replication?
Mutation acts on the "blueprint", selection acts on the organism in the environment, and evolution acts on the entire system.

Not all technological "mutations" are beneficial, even when they seem to be.

And?

The presence of bad designs does not mean that design wasn't performed by an intelligent agency.

Do you really think photocopiers evolved?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I thought this article provided an interesting distinction between biological evolution and technological development, in particular genetic engineering:

Reining In Ripening

So if so much is known about the tomato, why do so many on grocery store shelves taste banal compared with their garden-picked counterparts?

Simple genetics, Klee says. A common tomato found on many produce shelves has a debilitating, naturally occurring mutation in a transcription factor required to activate the ethylene biosynthesis needed for ripening. The mutation occurs in one of two genes for the transcription factor. So the ripening signal is never more than half as strong as that of a normal fruit. Softening is slowed down for easier shipping, but so is flavor biosynthesis. "These tomatoes never have a chance to taste good," Klee says. The signal is simply too weak.

[...]

Of course, all this flavor genetic engineering could be a moot point: Even though genetically engineered legumes like soybeans are commonplace in the U.S., most companies are simply not interested in investing in genetically engineered fresh vegetables, Klee says. In fact, he points out, one of the first genetically engineered products on the market was actually a tomato called Flavr Savr, which used antisense technology to block polygalacturonase, which slowed down softening while leaving the other features of ripening alone. But this product was taken off the shelves in the early 2000s due to strong negative public reaction.

 

[Southwind17]

I thought this article provided an interesting distinction between biological evolution and technological development, in particular genetic engineering:

Reining In Ripening

So 'technological development', as we've been discussing it in this thread, is now synonymous with genetic engineering is it? Get real mijo!

 

[mijopaalmc]

So 'technological development', as we've been discussing it in this thread, is now synonymous with genetic engineering is it? Get real mijo!

The changes that take place during technological development or genetic engineering are performed for the specific reasons as delineated in the article distinguish technological development from biological evolution.

Or are you seriously asserting that the mutations that cause sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis actually occurred to make heterozygotes immune to malaria or cholera, respectively?

 

[Southwind17]

The changes that take place during technological development or genetic engineering are performed for the specific reasons as delineated in the article distinguish technological development from biological evolution.

The article relates to genetic engineering, which bears no relationship to technological development in the context that it has been debated in this thread.

Or are you seriously asserting that the mutations that cause sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis actually occurred to make heterozygotes immune to malaria or cholera, respectively?

I haven't got a clue what you're going on about here. It seems way off topic to me.

Get back with the program mijo (that's assuming you were ever with it!).

 

[Belz...]

So what do you call asexual reproduction, if not imperfect self-replication?

Imperfect replication. Exactly how does it "self"-replicate ?

The presence of bad designs does not mean that design wasn't performed by an intelligent agency.

That's an interesting double negative. What is it supposed to mean ?

Do you really think photocopiers evolved?

Did they change over time ?

 

[Belz...]

The changes that take place during technological development or genetic engineering are performed for the specific reasons as delineated in the article distinguish technological development from biological evolution.

Speaker #1: "You know, soccer is kinda like hockey in that-"
Speaker #2: "Of COURSE NOT! They don't use sticks in soccer!"

 

[President Bush]

delete

 

[jimbob]

Imperfect replication. Exactly how does it "self"-replicate ?



That's an interesting double negative. What is it supposed to mean ?



Did they change over time ?

Speaker #1: "You know, soccer is kinda like hockey in that-"
Speaker #2: "Of COURSE NOT! They don't use sticks in soccer!"

So is it just an anlogy, or is it the same as evolution?

Evolution is more than simply change over time.

ETA:

Behe accepts change over time, by that definition ID is evolution, as some IDers are claiming

 

[Southwind17]

Post #1698 jimbob. Slipped your mind has it?

 

[Belz...]

So is it just an anlogy, or is it the same as evolution?

Whoever said it was "the same" ? It's very similar from an information standpoint. I do believe this was the whole point of the OP. But Southwind can correct me, if needed.

Evolution is more than simply change over time.

Indeed. They are also selected over time. And what seems like an improvement at first may end up being a dead-end.

 

[Southwind17]

Whoever said it was "the same" ? It's very similar from an information standpoint. I do believe this was the whole point of the OP. But Southwind can correct me, if needed.

No correction necessary. The two processes can be considered fundamentally the same. It's the micro-mechanics that differ, obviously, but they don't affect the point or purpose of the OP.

Indeed. They are also selected over time. And what seems like an improvement at first may end up being a dead-end.

jimbob's really struggling to reconcile the similarities and differences Belz, especially the 'differentiating' notion of self-replication, which he doesn't even seem able to explain, and natural/artificial selection, which he now seems to be ignoring completely!

 

[President Bush]

Whoever said it was "the same" ?

Can't you two keep up? articulett did.

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

Sorry, Bush... I thought you had got it. I don't really think that those who haven't got it CAN get it. However, Southwind, I recently heard a Dawkins speech from the Atheist Alliance, and he makes a very similar analogy.

Yes... it's identical... in that the information that is best at getting itself copied is the the stuff that ends up in future designs (or genomes).

 

[articulett]

I'd join in, but the smart ones are doing fine-- and I've had this same nonsensical conversation with 3 of the same 4 "apologist/blowhards" before... so I know that progress is futile.

But, the repartee is still fun to watch.

 

[President Bush]

whoops

 

[Belz...]

Can't you two keep up? articulett did.

Apparently, you can't:

Yes... it's identical... in that the information that is best at getting itself copied is the the stuff that ends up in future designs (or genomes).

Which is exactly what I said.

 

[President Bush]

 

[articulett]

Speaker #1: "You know, soccer is kinda like hockey in that-"
Speaker #2: "Of COURSE NOT! They don't use sticks in soccer!"

Yes.

That's exactly what it's like. (except for the parts that are different )

(It's too bad they suck at analogies--they can't get the humor or a clue.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes.

That's exactly what it's like. (except for the parts that are different )

(It's too bad they suck at analogies--they can't get the humor or a clue.)

The point you continually and completely miss is that if there are big enough differences (e.g., soccer's being played on turf or grass vs. hockey's being played on ice, soccer's being played with a ball vs. hockey's being played with pucks, etc.) the analogy doesn't work anymore. That is what we are trying to get across the differences between biological evolution and technological development make an analogy between the two hopelessly confusing, especially when you are trying to explain the difference between the process of selection in biological evolution and the process of selection in technological development, as you need to combat the idea of a Intelligent Designer.