Intelligent Evolution?

[amb]

I find this topic amusing. Intelligent evolution indeed. What will creationists think of next.
Every step of evolution can be verified and explained by anthropologists and science in general. You only need to visit your local library's section on origins and archeology.

Regards~Angelo

 

[Henners]

There's billions of possible existences in the cosmos, but only one of us.

That's us, all right. Common as muck.

 

[amb]

That's us, all right. Common as muck.

Muck is common? It may be here on Earth, out there? Who knows.

Perhaps the idea of ID is muck. In fact I'm sure it is.

 

[Henners]

Muck is common? It may be here on Earth, out there? Who knows.

Perhaps the idea of ID is muck. In fact I'm sure it is.

It might depend on your definition of muck. Whether organic matter is an essential ingredient, for example.

 

[amb]

It might depend on your definition of muck. Whether organic matter is an essential ingredient, for example.

Organic matter was essential for the start of life, 4 billion years ago thereabouts. But ID had nothing to do with it. The various essential elements some how came together to produce the first organic life form. Then evolution took over to produce the millions of life forms that have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to live out their lives. To have existence, if only for a brief time.

 

[Apathia]

I find this topic amusing. Intelligent evolution indeed. What will creationists think of next.
Every step of evolution can be verified and explained by anthropologists and science in general. You only need to visit your local library's section on origins and archeology.

Regards~Angelo

Hey Angelo! Welcome to the JREF Forums!
You've just steppted into a big pile of it sort of thread with lots of stuff being slung about. I did that when I was a New Blood. Went into an already blockbuster muddle of a thread started by Undercover Elelphant.

Never judge a thread by its title. One of the funny things about this one is that there's actually no advocate for Intelligent Evolution in it, just a way over extended argument about the efficacy of an analogy. It's quite ironic when you consider we skeptics are supposed to know the fallacy of arguments from analogy.

I suggest you do some back reading in the thread, from a least five or six pages, to get the drift of what it's actually about. I know reading from page one would be a difficult task, but at least read the original post by Southwind17, cause that's still what it's all about.

 

[Southwind17]

Hey Angelo! Welcome to the JREF Forums!
You've just steppted into a big pile of it sort of thread with lots of stuff being slung about. I did that when I was a New Blood. Went into an already blockbuster muddle of a thread started by Undercover Elelphant.

Never judge a thread by its title. One of the funny things about this one is that there's actually no advocate for Intelligent Evolution in it, just a way over extended argument about the efficacy of an analogy. It's quite ironic when you consider we skeptics are supposed to know the fallacy of arguments from analogy.

I suggest you do some back reading in the thread, from a least five ot sic pages, to get the drift of what it's actually about. I know reading from page one would be a difficult task, but at least read the original post by Southwind17, cause that's still what it's all about.

I would also recommend that you read Posts #1059 and #1200 which hypothesise the analogy in order to bridge some gaps that have emerged during the debate, and that the original analogy, because of the level at which it applies, sought not to address specifically. Sam, who appears in the story at Post #1059, has essentially now been replaced by an automaton. The automaton analogy is sometines abbreviated to 'the AA'. Please feel free to stick around, and good luck!

 

[Southwind17]

Show me how this thought is misguided.

cyborg has repeatedly argued that intelligence doesn't exist and has not been criticized by you or articulett.

Your claim that 'purpose' doesn't exist was made out of context. If the analogy doesn't have a purpose then how can we meaningfully debate its validity? 'Purpose' sets the whole framework in which the validity of the analogy may be tested.

Whilst you might feel that I'm being biased not criticizing Cyborg for making calims that you feel that you are also making, Cyborg has written nothing on this thread that I disagree with. That's not to say that I understand everything he has written, I most certainly don't, but you've written many things that I certainly do understand, and disagree with. I am, therefore, inclined to give Cyborg the benefit of any doubt that I might potentially have, actually more uncertainty than doubt, arising through my relative shallowness of understanding compared to the likes of Cyborg and articulett.

 

[President Bush]

I would also recommend that you read Posts #1059 and #1200 which hypothesise the analogy in order to bridge some gaps that have emerged during the debate, and that the original analogy, because of the level at which it applies, sought not to address specifically. Sam, who appears in the story at Post #1059, has essentially now been replaced by an automaton. The automaton analogy is sometines abbreviated to 'the AA'. Please feel free to stick around, and good luck!

If Post #1059 leaves you puzzled... try Post 1722.

Bon Appétit

 

[Southwind17]

The point being that there is no intelligence needed to determine the lifespan of an organism, whilst the analogy does need that. If the lifespan is infinite, the system stagnates. If it is fixed, firstly it is arbitary, and secondly it will only be optimised for particular "turnover" combinations, There is no room for high-value, low-turnover systems to "coevolve" with "low-value, high-turnover" systems in the analogy.

The lifecycle is an evolved feature, elephants and mayflies had a common ancestor, but their lifespans evolved to be vastly different.

All living organisms reproduce and all living organisms will die.

Your analogy misses both these vital features of life and ecosystems.

Where the analogy could be useful is in pointing out that humans design iteratively because human designers are not omniscient, and do make mistakes. Why an intelligent (omniscient) designer would use an iterative process and make still mistakes is a question that this analogy can usefully ask.

jimbob - you seem to wholly and inextricably tied up in this lifespan/reproductive timescale fallacy, and it's affecting your judgement. For the purpose of showing that the analogy will lead to complexity you CAN disregard the failures. Failures don't evolve! As for the successes, the reproductive timescale is neither pre-determined nor arbitrary. The 'sold' signal is analogous to biological mating as it serves as proof that the entity has 'survived' it's environment through the superiority of its characteristics and features. It matters not whether the average 'shelf-life' is, say one week for an iPod or one month for a motor car. The point is that a 'reproductive trigger' is pulled at some point as determined by the nature of the entity and the environment in which it exists. Every imagniable entity that the analogy could envisage has an equivalent biological counterpart, whether it be a mayfly, a badger or a sperm whale. As usual jimbob, you're getting hung up on detail and missing the forest!

In any event, why do you believe that reproductive timescale invalidates the analogy, even if it requires 'intelligent' determination? Why do you feel that the degree of intelligence needed to establish that a particular entity has failed to sell is of such significance that it invalidates the purpose of the analogy? Do you even understand and/or remember the purpose of the analogy?

 

[Southwind17]

If Post #1059 leaves you puzzled... try Post 1722.

Bon Appétit

Please note that Post #1722 is not actually written by me, as Mr President has portrayed it. Mr President has been warned about altering and misquoting people. Mr President, please refrain from this unethical and misleading practice.

 

[cyborg]

So would the abstraction scheme that you are applying to biological evolution and technological development also efface the differences between Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids if you applied it to fluids?

Does biological evolution and technological development form a dichtonomy like Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids?

 

[jimbob]

Analysis is used a lot in engineering,

And how exactly do you think this came to be?

Humanity evolved, if that is what you mean. Intelligence is an evolved trait. Other than that I don't understand what you are saying. Are you asking about the history of engineering, or the origin of intelligence or what?

but even if someone saw that some part of a design failed, and just tinkered with that part which failed without understanding, then this is unlike evolution.

A is not B. So sayeth jimbob.

Are you arguing with the statement that mutation is random? Or are you arguing that all variation in engineering is nondirected?

I am arguing that mutation is random, whilst directed tinkering is not. Are you saying that the two are the same?

Are you arguing that in biological evolution, only "suboptimised" parts of an organism will change?

Any part is subject to mutation, the poor "designs" are weeded out by Natural Selection

In Darwinian evolution there is random change regardless of the "degree of success" of the parent organism. If someone only tweaks the part that isn't working, then the source of variation within the system is not akin to that in biological evolution.

jimbob you must live a upotia of engineering development for which I am jealous.

What do you mean?

Hardly Utopia, more like a Dilbert cartoon, but even so, attempted fixes tend to alter what has failed rather than what has succeeded.

Do you agree that in biological evolution, variation occurs independently of any "perceived" need, and that Natural Selection is also a vital part of the evolutionary process?

The source of variation is important.

Only if you insist humans are agents of artificiality

So you see no difference between Lysenkoism and Darwinism?

At the moment, it is cooler outside my house than it was a month ago. It would not be useful to explain this by saying that this is because the Earth formed 4.5 GY ago, and this firmed an atmosphere which included chaotic weather systems. It would be more useful to talk about immediate causes, such as high pressure over the British Isles, and an Easterly aiflow.

You seem disinclined to talk about immediate causes.

 

[jimbob]

jimbob - you seem to wholly and inextricably tied up in this lifespan/reproductive timescale fallacy, and it's affecting your judgement. For the purpose of showing that the analogy will lead to complexity you CAN disregard the failures. Failures don't evolve! As for the successes, the reproductive timescale is neither pre-determined nor arbitrary. The 'sold' signal is analogous to biological mating as it serves as proof that the entity has 'survived' it's environment through the superiority of its characteristics and features. It matters not whether the average 'shelf-life' is, say one week for an iPod or one month for a motor car. The point is that a 'reproductive trigger' is pulled at some point as determined by the nature of the entity and the environment in which it exists. Every imagniable entity that the analogy could envisage has an equivalent biological counterpart, whether it be a mayfly, a badger or a sperm whale. As usual jimbob, you're getting hung up on detail and missing the forest!

In any event, why do you believe that reproductive timescale invalidates the analogy, even if it requires 'intelligent' determination? Why do you feel that the degree of intelligence needed to establish that a particular entity has failed to sell is of such significance that it invalidates the purpose of the analogy? Do you even understand and/or remember the purpose of the analogy?

I do remember the puropse of the analogy, but the analogy still needs inteligence to define the selection criteria; this will be spotted by ID proponents (indeed they have in similar situations) so it is counterproductive to ignore it.

Isn't it far better to say that this is how you don't need intelligence in designing a system, and then point out that selection takes care of itself if the "variant" imperfectly reproduces itself (as happens with life).

Don't you think that real examples are more powerful?

What is the benefit of using your analogy over the real example?

In arguing the general case about engineering, instead of the particular, automotan parable:

Firstly,

Why is a hypothetical story better at describing evolution that real examples of evolutionary approaches to engineering, where the selection is intelligently defined, but the variation is real, and both the problem and the solution are real?

Here is an example from NASA

NASA 'EVOLUTIONARY' SOFTWARE AUTOMATICALLY DESIGNS ANTENNA

NASA artificial intelligence (AI) software - working on a network of personal computers - has designed a satellite antenna scheduled to orbit Earth in 2005.

"The AI software examined millions of potential antenna designs before settling on a final one," said project lead Jason Lohn, a scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, located in California's Silicon Valley. "Through a process patterned after Darwin's 'survival of the fittest,' the strongest designs survive and the less capable do not."

The software started with random antenna designs and through the evolutionary process, refined them. The computer system took about 10 hours to complete the initial antenna design process. "We told the computer program what performance the antenna should have, and the computer simulated evolution, keeping the best antenna designs that approached what we asked for. Eventually, it zeroed in on something that met the desired specifications for the mission," Lohn said.

Secondly,

In engineering, where non-evolutionary approaches are used, what is helpful about pretending that the type of variation is the same as in mutation?

It might be akin to Lamarkian evolution, but nature works with Darwinian evolution. Why confuse the two?

Thirdly,

Many people have a naive understanding of what engineering involves, and it might include trial and error, and attempting to fix parts of designs that fail, and this is acutally closer to how engineering is than the analogy. This is not how evolution works, where changes happen, and if they confer a benefit, there will be a selective pressure in favour of these changes.

Fourthly,

Remember that IDers like the flip-side of the analogy, and claim that evolution is equivalent to technical development by intelligent agents, as opposed to the analogy which is claiming that neither technical development nor evolution require intelligence.

Technical development by evolutionary approaches requires a small amout of intellignece (or intent), but it is still required.

 

[cyborg]

Intelligence is an evolved trait. Other than that I don't understand what you are saying. Are you asking about the history of engineering, or the origin of intelligence or what?

I am asking you to think about the application and process of intelligence rather than simply to invoke it as is.

I am arguing that mutation is random, whilst directed tinkering is not. Are you saying that the two are the same?

How does one direct tinkering?

(I am asking you to think about the application and process of intelligence rather than simply to invoke it as is.)

I am arguing that mutation is random, whilst directed tinkering is not. Are you saying that the two are the same?

jimbob - do you not get yet that "similarity" is model dependant?

"Randomness" can always take the place of an unknown influence in a model even if that unknown influence is not "random".

Are you arguing that in biological evolution, only "suboptimised" parts of an organism will change?

Are you arguing that in technological advancement only the "suboptimised" parts of a design have changed?

(I do believe what is optimal is rather environmentally dependant - and since you don't know why your future environment is until you reach it...)

Do you agree that in biological evolution, variation occurs independently of any "perceived" need, and that Natural Selection is also a vital part of the evolutionary process?

Uh yes, duh.

Do you accept that what is natural is a moveable feast?

So you see no difference between Lysenkoism and Darwinism?

I understand the Lysenkoism can emerge Darwin like.

You seem disinclined to talk about immediate causes.

You seem disinclined to acknowledge the detail lost in the abstract.

 

[Southwind17]

I do remember the puropse of the analogy, but the analogy still needs inteligence to define the selection criteria; this will be spotted by ID proponents (indeed they have in similar situations) so it is counterproductive to ignore it.

A sensible definition of 'selection criteria' in the analogy has to be generic, something along the lines of: 'Better than the alternatives as determined by ability to survive the environment.' Note that the nature of the 'environment' and measure of 'survival' will vary according to the particular entity under consideration. In the case of consumer goods, for example, such as iPods and motorcars, the environment can be considered to be the marketplace, and 'survival' is measured by sales. A sale, of course, is both a signal of approval by the purchaser and preference over the competition. In other words, the item purchased is considered the best fit for purpose, all things considered (survival of the fittest!). The 'selection criteria' for each entity in the technological marketplace are no more intelligently defined than they are for those of the cheetah on the great plains. How an entity competes in the environment against the competition will determine the selection criteria, just like for the cheetah. Let's hope that this 'similarity', will be 'spotted' by 'ID proponents', and not the make-believe differentiator that you've conjured up in your mind!

Isn't it far better to say that this is how you don't need intelligence in designing a system ...

Not sure what you mean here.

... and then point out that selection takes care of itself if the "variant" imperfectly reproduces itself (as happens with life).

You mean like how selection 'takes care of itself' in the consumer goods example described above also, in addition to 'with life'?!

Don't you think that real examples are more powerful?

What real examples do you have in mind that you think won't be rejected out of hand by ID proponents?!

What is the benefit of using your analogy over the real example?

Er ... the fact that real examples don't wash with ID proponents?!

Don't forget that you don't see the value of the analogy because you haven't come to accept it yet, because you seem unable to imagine certain fundamental aspects of it, like the power of accumulated random variations over time, but instead you imagine fictitious aspects that aren't even present, like intelligently determined selection criteria, and fictitious aspects that you believe need to be present, like 'self-replication'. Until you appreciate the analogy in its true form you will inevitably continue to conclude that it has no purpose in countering ID proponents' thinking. The problem lies with you, though, jimbob, not the analogy. Sadly, you actually think very much like ID proponents do, even though you hold different beliefs.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Please note that Post #1722 is not actually written by me, as Mr President has portrayed it. Mr President has been warned about altering and misquoting people. Mr President, please refrain from this unethical and misleading practice.

He's not deliberately misattributing that post to you; he's just demonstrating that changing a couple detail of the post (e.g., electronics hobby sets to easy bake oven) may actually produce a "parable" that people no longer agree with in so far as the conclusions drawn from your "parable" seem nonsensical when drawn from his.

 

[Paulhoff]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/116

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Does biological evolution and technological development form a dichtonomy like Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids?

If you see the distinction of intelligent involvement in the process, then there is a fundamental dichotomy between technological development and biological evolution.

 

[cyborg]

If you see the distinction of intelligent involvement in the process, then there is a fundamental dichotomy between technological development and biological evolution.

Very well.

So would you prefer to separate things by technological development and non-technological development or biological evolution or non-biological evolution. We don't really need both "technological development" and "biological evolution" when one is the negation of the other.