Intelligent Evolution?

[cyborg]

That's not an answer; you are just repeating your original assertion.

It's an answer - you just don't understand it.

How is lengthening the span of a bridge so that it will reach across a river "[h]aving no specific pattern, purpose, or objective"? Or "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution"? Or "[o]f or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance"? Or "[w]ithout a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematic"?

How is rolling a die like a writing desk?

Your insistence that you were "abstracting away" the difference doesn't change the fact a process that can incorporate information from individuals who are not copied into the next iteration and a process that cannot incorporate information from individuals who are not copied into the next iteration are fundamentally different is not really an explanation.

You didn't understand the explanation because you don't understand what abstraction is and do not understand how it works.

As ever you are reduced to asserting trivialities:

"A is not B"

Insightful.

 

[mijopaalmc]

cyborg-

It is quite clear the it is you who does not understand how abstraction is related to analogies. It is true that one can make a workable analogy by ignoring differences that are inessential to the analogy. However, the differences in information incorporation between technological development and biological evolution are essential to the analogy between the two processes that likens them to each other with respect to the possible changes to the information in each process. Any analogy that does not take what kind of information can be incorporated in successive iterations and how that information is incorporated is therefore invalid.

 

[articulett]

It's an answer - you just don't understand it.



How is rolling a die like a writing desk?



You didn't understand the explanation because you don't understand what abstraction is and do not understand how it works.

As ever you are reduced to asserting trivialities:

"A is not B"

Insightful.

But you have to savor the irony-- he spent pages on a thread saying that anything that could be related to a probability distribution in any way can be described as random... but now making adjustments to an objects specifications can not be perceived as random.

 

[cyborg]

Any analogy that does not take what kind of information can be incorporated in successive iterations and how that information is incorporated is therefore invalid.

It's too bad you've not been paying attention to all the information you've been given - you can't incorporate it into successive iterations of your argument.

To whit:

1) Information from "failures" does persist in biological domains through the phenomena of dominant and recessive genetics. (Such that "failing" genetic patterns can be re-expressed as genetic diseases).
2) As of yet there's been no real attempt to explain how failure analysis is used in technological design beyond the assertion that "biology can't do it" - but it is nebulously importantly useful to how one designs things.
3) Failure to appreciate the nature of the artificial barriers of genetic material transfer being asserted as the only valid mechanisms. (I.e. ignoring the physical aspects involved as far as the mechanics of cells, viruses et al actually work at a chemical level).

 

[articulett]

When Mijo mistakingly mentioned asserted that unexpressed information doesn't get passed on, I thought of this.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But you have to savor the irony-- he spent pages on a thread saying that anything that could be related to a probability distribution in any way can be described as random... but now making adjustments to an objects specifications can not be perceived as random.

Except that what I am saying here is completely consistent with my definition of "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution".

jimbob's example relating the area of a transistor to its on-resistance is a deterministic formula from the way he described it. Therefore, there can only be one result given a a specific condition.

 

[articulett]

When Mijo mistakingly asserted that unexpressed information doesn't get passed on, I thought of this.

 

[mijopaalmc]

When Mijo mistakingly mentioned asserted that unexpressed information doesn't get passed on, I thought of this.

Lying again, articulett?

I never said that unexpressed information was not passed on. I said that information from individuals who did not reproduce did not persist in the population. For instance, if a variant if wheat has a mutation that prevents it from producing seeds and a novel mutation that allows the seeds to resist digestion by animal, the latter (possibly advantageous) mutation will not persist in the population be the individual possessing cannot produce copies of itself.

 

[amb]

When Mijo mistakingly mentioned asserted that unexpressed information doesn't get passed on, I thought of this.

A picture paints a thousand words. How true is that?

Great image articulett. Thank you.

 

[articulett]

A picture paints a thousand words. How true is that?

Great image articulett. Thank you.

I didn't realize I posted it twice--but it's a great picture.

(When I was a genetic counselor I once had a hispanic couple that had a baby with thick white hair (it was an albino), and it was a bit difficult explaining to the father that the baby really was his... and that each of their future offspring had a 1/4 chance of also being an albino... though their albino children's children would be expected to have the coloring the albino would have had if their body was able to "read" the melanin gene. )

ETA: the light colored child is not an albino in the pic... just autosomal recessive carrying genes of both light skinned grandparents on either side.

 

[mijopaalmc]

A picture paints a thousand words. How true is that?

Great image articulett. Thank you.

But I didn't say what she said I said.

Would you like to respond to what I actually said?

I never said that unexpressed information was not passed on. I said that information from individuals who did not reproduce did not persist in the population. For instance, if a variant if wheat has a mutation that prevents it from producing seeds and a novel mutation that allows the seeds to resist digestion by animal, the latter (possibly advantageous) mutation will not persist in the population be the individual possessing cannot produce copies of itself.

 

[amb]

What you say is true mijo. But sometimes evolution takes a backward step for a time untill the advantageous mutation allows that creature that receives it to survive and produce more offspring than the bad mutation which will die out. So yes we are in agreement on that point.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What you say is true mijo. But sometimes evolution takes a backward step for a time untill the advantageous mutation allows that creature that receives it to survive and produce more offspring than the bad mutation which will die out. So yes we are in agreement on that point.

We are in agreement. However, my point was that the mutation of which you speak will not persist in the population in biological evolution unless it is reproduced. In technological evolution, on the other hand, the "mutation" tends to persist in some sort of intermediate form, because, while it is no longer reproduced in the general population of technologies, its blueprint (i.e., the information from which it was reproduced) usually still persists.

This seems to be a difference that in general eludes the supporters of the analogy. Do you understand it and how it is different than supporting intelligent design?

 

[Southwind17]

We are in agreement. However, my point was that the mutation of which you speak will not persist in the population in biological evolution unless it is reproduced. In technological evolution, on the other hand, the "mutation" tends to persist in some sort of intermediate form, because, while it is no longer reproduced in the general population of technologies, its blueprint (i.e., the information from which it was reproduced) usually still persists.

This seems to be a difference that in general eludes the supporters of the analogy. Do you understand it and how it is different than supporting intelligent design?

Would you care to offer up some examples of technological evolution whereby an indifferent variation to a design (mutation) persists, only to prove advantageous later, AND, that necessarily invalidates the analogy because the analogy necessarily relies on such concept for its validity. Please.

 

[Apathia]

I'd like to interrupt here again by repeating that I am a supporter of the Analogy made in this thread between biological evolution and human technological development.

I take the Analogy, as I do any analogy, in realtion to what it aims to help the listener understand, and if it does help in the particualr context.

As I supporter of the Anaolgy, I disagree with parties that have sometimes (but not all times throughout the thread) decalred it utterly useless and invalid. I get what is being said about the peculiarities of human behavior when it comes to the way we develop our tools, in contrast to the preceedure of biological evolution. I believe that underneath that is a bottom up selection process that isn't as simple as biological speciation but is evolutionary. The context in which the Anaolgy works for me is the Evolutionary Paradigm.

It took many years for me to let go of the fragments of Platonic Christianity I learned in my teens. Buddhist writings and meditation helped in that process, though I'm not formaly a Buddhist.
I was a Creationist during my college years, that after I began reading books about evolution written by scientists rather than Christain Apologists and Creationists. I saw the overwhelming evidence, and integrity urged me to change my mind. (Yes, integrity. I object to people telling me I have no moral compass, because I'm not a Theist. My compass is working very well, thank you.)

I also disagree with those in this thread who take the tilt (Again, no one has done this consistantly.) that the processes of Biological Evolution and human tech devolopment are identical. If so, we know longer have an analogy, just the same thing in a different context (the mere difference between an orange tree in Southern California and an orange tree in Florida.)
Of course, ultimately human intelligent activity arises from the bottom up. This is the similarity, but without the agknowledgement of the gross differences, we don't have an analogy.

So as supporter of the Analogy, I'm asking people not to be so absolutist and friged in their positions. Celebrate the Analogy. Celebrate the differences.

And if you're just arguing for the sake of the adenalin and testosterone,
Carry on!
Don't pay any attention to this wiesenheimer.

 

[jimbob]

Southwind,

The initial gatling gun became obsolete, and was replaced by gas-powered machine-guns, later the gatling gun concept was resurrected with either electrical or hydraulic cranking, and is used in automatic weapons with very high rates of fire.

Machine guns using this concept had fallen out of use, but other technological changes enabled the concept to be reused.

The ancient Chineese used rockets in war, but these were later superceded by guns. Rockets are now again being used in war.

I don't quite understand what you are asking for.

Do you agree that in general technological development, though not in your analogy, there are lamarckian elemments, and these are absent in biological evolution.

 

[President Bush]

This seems to be a difference that in general eludes the supporters of the analogy.

On purpose it seems. Straightforward disagreement over the utility of Southwind's analogy doesn't seem possible with most of its adherents.

The redefinition and reinterpretation of language, the personal attacks on critics of the analogy, the lack of humor, the elevation of ideology over experience and observation, the appeals to authority, the giggly wonderfulness of the system, the "oh, you don't get it. What it really means is..." are behaviors typical of cults.

That Sister Articulett and Brother Cyborg use the Internet to attempt to spread their message just like Marshall Applewhite of Heaven's Gate... ah, just another bad analogy I guess.

 

[Apathia]

The redefinition and reinterpretation of language, the personal attacks on critics of the analogy, the lack of humor, the elevation of ideology over experience and observation, the appeals to authority, the giggly wonderfulness of the system, the "oh, you don't get it. What it really means is..." are behaviors typical of cults.

Hey, you forgot the citations of Buddhism and Taoism!"

 

[Southwind17]

My point is that the increase in the ladder's length is not at all like darwinian evolution, ans there is no random mutation nor natural selection.

But it would be, if it wasn't for the simple fact that we have learned, as a species, how to short-circuit the random/natural selection approach (see below).

Back to the ladder:

I am picking fruit, and I find that I can't reach the highest branches. There are many different and valid solutions, but I decide to use a ladder - after all, I am already using one. here could be many discussions about how I come to be using a ladder to pick fruit, and why I am picking fruit, but that is my immediate aim. It doesn't take much thought to realise that a longer ladder would reach higher, so I decide to make one, and lo, it works. There was no random variation, I didn't try altering the rung-pitch, nor shortening the total length.

My immediate goal was a tool that enabled me to that reach the higher branches and the requirement was realised with a longer ladder.

OK, let's turn this on it's head slightly. You're a fruit picker, not a ladder maker. You don't know the first thing about carpentry. I, however, am a ladder maker, but not a fruit picker. I know nothing about fruit nor the trees they grow on, including the height. I just go about my business making ladders; ladders of varying lengths. You call me up one day and tell me that your ladder is the wrong length for your needs. I hang up and deliver another ladder right away. It could be longer, shorter or the same length than that you're currently using, but I'm not a fruit picker. I know nothing about fruit nor the trees they grow on, including the height, so I just throw a random ladder on the back of the truck and deliver it to you.

What happens next (we've covered this before, but I'll indulge you)? The new ladder's either better, worse or the same as the last. If it's better you pick more fruit than your buddies. They see what's happening and call me up and request longer ladders. Suddenly the 'longer ladder' mutation has taken hold and I concentrate on making longer ladders. Business is good. If it's worse or indifferent you call me up again and I deliver yet another random length ladder. Eventually, every fruit picker has the right length ladder. The right length ladder has been naturally selected because it suits the fruit pickers' purpose better than longer or shorter ladders, and that message is sent back to me, the ladder maker.

What happens in reality? We simply have the foresight to determine what will happen if I deliver a shorter, longer or same-length ladder. We might even use a tape measure to calculate the optimum length of ladder. Does this 'intent' invalidate the analogy? Of course not. It just shows that intent and forethought are convenient traits that humans have evolved the eliminate the need to rely on random changes tested and validated by natural selection.

Do you consider it misleading to say that there was intent behind the process of creating the longer ladder design?

Do you consider my explanation misleading?

 

[articulett]

Hey, you forgot the citations of Buddhism and Taoism!"

tee-hee...he's sounding as crazy as his (screename) namesake:


They're so cute when they're angry... but I still can't make sense of them.