Intelligent Evolution?

[Apathia]

Fishkr,

Just for clarity sake, when you say ET (Evolutionary Theory), you are including both the biological evolution and technological evolution, aren't you?
The position of Southwind17 is that to all intents and purposes they are the same story.

Mijo, Jim, and others who have given up posting in this thread isn't that biological evolution doesn't completely account for all of the forms of life, but that biological evolution and technological evolution are significantly different. Here's where the unfortunate dispute is.

Southwind's original analogy is the ongoing matter of dispute.
In brief it it addressed the ID crowd thus:

"We are not impressed by your insistance that the natural world exhibits evidence of 'intelligent design.' Look at how automobiles and aircraft have evolved without intelligent design. If you want to understand how biological evolution does not involve intelligence and design, you can get it by examining the evolution of human technology, as it involves no intelligence or design."

So what we should be asking Mijo to produce is evidence of intelligent design in human invention and engineering. He, Jimbob, and others have produced differences between bio and tech evolution, but these are seen by Southwind, Articulett, and Cyborg to be superfical and not getting to the root unity.

It's unfortunate that though the title of the thread is Intelligent Evolution, we don't have anyone in it actually arguing for Intelligent Design in Nature.
But the opposing parties accuse each other of giving the game away to ID.
Mijo says that making biological evolution and technological evolution identical says just what the ID crowd does as the basic assumption of ID.
Southwind17 says that by insisting upon the existance of intelligent design in human tool making, gives the ID crowd their basic assumption about intelligence. It would be interesting to see what an actually proponent of ID would say in the midst of this muddle. Of course, he'd twist any statement to the advantage of his ignorance.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Does that answer your question?

No, because "random" does not mean "varying". You are therefore not applying randomness simply by "varying the lengths", especially since you know you need a longer ladder.

Other than that, you story is extremely contrived to make design seem like evolution. Most people would measure the height of the branches they wanted to reach and the lengthen the ladder to fit that specification or better yet give the height to the carpenter so that he could build ladder of that height.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I just wanted to emphasize this because Apathia has correctly grasped what I am trying to say:

Mijo, Jim, and others who have given up posting in this thread isn't that biological evolution doesn't completely account for all of the forms of life, but that biological evolution and technological evolution are significantly different.

 

[amb]

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?

If the technological mutation was a bad idea, it will not persist. People won't buy whatever it is because of bad design or useless information contained thereof, and the blueprint will be destroyed. Just like evolution by natural selection, the bad mutation will not reproduce after it peters itself out after many generations. The only difference is the technological mutation disappears much quicker.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If the technological mutation was a bad idea, it will not persist. People won't buy whatever it is because of bad design or useless information contained thereof, and the blueprint will be destroyed. Just like evolution by natural selection, the bad mutation will not reproduce after it peters itself out after many generations. The only difference is the technological mutation disappears much quicker.

I was referring to this example (which could be elaborated on) that jimbob gave of his work with transistors:

I design transistors. A key parameter is their blocking voltage. As well as the transistor's active area (the switch) one needs other structures (edge-terminations) around the outside of the device.

The active area has a characteristic blocking voltage, and the edge-termination also has a characteristic blocking voltage. Both these can be altered.

We produce test structures consisting of only the edge-termination, and others with a very conservative edge termination. This way we can determine the blocking voltage entitlement of both parts of the structure. Neither of these test structures would be any good in any applications, so they are "failures" in that sense, but they provide invaluable information that allows us to alter the design of the actual device.

This sort of practice is common in engineering.

There is no analogous process in evolution.

Even though transistors made completely of edge termination or made with almost no edge termination are never released to the market (presumably because they would never sell), the engineers are able to glean important information (which jimbob might elaborate on) from modeling them, information which would be completely lost in biological evolution.

 

[Southwind17]

No, because "random" does not mean "varying". You are therefore not applying randomness simply by "varying the lengths", especially since you know you need a longer ladder.

I DO NOT KNOW I NEED A LONGER LADDER! Repeat: I DO NOT KNOW I NEED A LONGER LADDER.

READ CAREFULLY MIJO; TWICE IF NECESSARY (or even three times, which seems to be required here).

I select a ladder from those available BY RANDOM CHOICE. So far as the ladder's concerned in jimbob's analogy the length is the ONLY RELEVANT VARIABLE!

Other than that ...

Other than what? The fact that you seem to have trouble reading, thereby invalidating your responses?

... you story is extremely contrived to make design seem like evolution.

Contrived? It could hardly be more simple!

Most people would measure the height of the branches they wanted to reach and the lengthen the ladder to fit that specification or better yet give the height to the carpenter so that he could build ladder of that height.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. This actually shows that you're missing the point completely. What you describe here, as I described above (did you fail to read that part too?!) is the ALTERNATIVE to the random approach, i.e. the 'ID' approach. The fact that most people would do what you describe, which I accept, does not mean to say that the alternative, i.e. random selection with retention of improvements, is not a viable analogy.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Southwind17-

You have again missed the point in a grand fashion. No-one conducts business in the way that you fictional ladder maker and fruit picker do. You have constructed an incredibly contrived allegory which admittedly does share some characteristics with biological evolution, but it still possess the goal-direction (i.e., the wanting to reach the fruit in the first place) that biological evolution completely lacks.

 

[cyborg]

Most people would measure the height of the branches they wanted to reach and the lengthen the ladder to fit that specification or better yet give the height to the carpenter so that he could build ladder of that height.

Most people don't. Most people say:

"Morph the screen into something cool."

And expect you to know what that means.

 

[Belz...]

What makes you think "we" are required for some part of reality to be able to understand the information provided by some other part?

Yet something does "understand" what otherwise is meaningless data.

What 'understands' the data ?

Well, I suppose under certain definitions of "understand", a computer understands the programs it runs.

 

[articulett]

Apathia... it's nice of you to try and make peace, but both Mijo and Jimbob have a history of sounding amazingly like "intelligent design" proponents... I know it seems like they are just being sincere but obtuse... but others here have experienced this "crazy" with them before... the more you see it, the easier it is to understand it... it truly is exactly what Michael Behe does... they are keeping themselves and others from understanding because they cannot and do not understand natural selection.... though they pretend to be experts on the subject... but they show no interest in current studies... instead they just keep repeating their same points and this notion that they have expertise... where no one but they recognize this "expertise"...

 

[Belz...]

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).

Don't bacteria exchange genetic material on a regular basis ? Doesn't this kinda show that "failures" CAN be passed on ?

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately for you and Southwind17, jimbob is the one with the correct understanding. Mutations in biological evolution are random with respect to function (i.e., they do not occur for the benefit or detriment of the organism). Changes to the blueprint in technological development are not random with respect to function (i.e., they are usually made with the express purpose of fixing a perceived problem).

Does information get passed on and improved ? Yes. Well, gee, THAT was the analogy.

 

[Belz...]

Southwind17-

How is changing a ladder to make it longer so that it can reach the branches of a fruit tree "random" in any sense of the word?

How is changing a gene sequence because of a definite change in its environment, that is itself non-random but unpredictable, "random" ?

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17-

You have again missed the point in a grand fashion. No-one conducts business in the way that you fictional ladder maker and fruit picker do. You have constructed an incredibly contrived allegory which admittedly does share some characteristics with biological evolution, but it still possess the goal-direction (i.e., the wanting to reach the fruit in the first place) that biological evolution completely lacks.

First, how people 'conduct business' has absolutely nothing to do with the analogy. We moved away from the literal mechanics of commercialism a long time back mijo, in case you didn't notice (if we were ever there, that is). What I've constructed with the ladder analogy, as for the Sam & Ollie story, is a scenario that, whilst unrealistic in the current commercial world in which we live, can, nonetheless, be envisaged. In fact, it could be implemented and proven to be valid, if you had the time and inclination.

As for your belief that it still possesses goal direction, you're making the mistake of construing the fruit picker as the mutation instigator, i.e. the change agent for different ladder lengths, whereas the real instigator is the ladder maker. He doesn't make custom ladders to order no more than a newly conceived cheetah 'requests' custom made teeth, he simply makes and delivers the same length ladders with the occassional random change in length until such time as only optimum ladder lengths are demanded, and hence delivered. There is no communication whatsoever between the fruit picker and the ladder maker at the 'ordering' stage, just feedback from the fruit picker as to whether any ladder changes have benefited him or not. You simply need to apply a little imagination mijo.

 

[President Bush]

"We are not impressed by your insistance that the natural world exhibits evidence of 'intelligent design.' Look at how automobiles and aircraft have evolved without intelligent design. If you want to understand how biological evolution does not involve intelligence and design, you can get it by examining the evolution of human technology, as it involves no intelligence or design."

Fools rush into my head, and so I writehttp://books.google.com/books?id=oihDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq

 

[hammegk]

What 'understands' the data ?

At least you see the Question. I have no answer.

Well, I suppose under certain definitions of "understand", a computer understands the programs it runs.

I think not. Something that did understand coding a machine to perform its' function does not equal 'the machine understands'.

 

[Belz...]

Therefore data doesn't need to be understood. Thank you.

 

[hammegk]

If use and utility are required at some point by some thing, and data is needed, the data does need to be understood.

 

[six7s]

If use and utility are required at some point by some thing, and data is needed, the data does need to be understood.

What sort of thing do you have in mind?

 

[Apathia]

Fools rush into my head, and so I writehttp://books.google.com/books?id=oihDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq

Have you not read In Praise of Folly by Erasmus, where he says,

But again, the virtuosi may say that there was particularly added to man the knowledge of sciences, by whose help he might recompense himself in understanding for what nature cut him short in other things. As if this had the least face of truth, that Nature that was so solicitously watchful in the production of gnats, herbs, and flowers should have so slept when she made man, that he should have need to be helped by sciences