Intelligent Evolution?

[jimbob]

When the phenotype is the genotype there is no difference - I explained this before.

Why not?

You can still randomly alter the phenotype/genotype, and select the next generation from the best population, as in a darwinian analogue, or you could direct the changes in a certain direction, and not really bother with selection, as proposed by Lamarck.

Only one works in biology, but conceptually both could.

Anyway surely in technical develop,ent the genotype analogue is the blueprint, whilst the phenotype analgue is the actual product.

I develop a transistor and find that the first iteration has too low a blocking voltage, an a resistance that is lower than I need. My next iteration will be to raise both, either by increasing the length of the drift-region or by reducing its conductivity. In an evolutionary approach, the next iteration is just as likely to be worse as better, the worse ones just would not get selected.

 

[cyborg]

You can still randomly alter the phenotype/genotype, and select the next generation from the best population, as in a darwinian analogue, or you could direct the changes in a certain direction, and not really bother with selection, as proposed by Lamarck.

Direction is determined by selection.

Anyway surely in technical develop,ent the genotype analogue is the blueprint, whilst the phenotype analgue is the actual product.

The blueprint itself is a physical object. Its pheotype is its genotype. When the physical blueprint changes so does the thing it abstractly represents.

In an evolutionary approach, the next iteration is just as likely to be worse as better, the worse ones just would not get selected.

Yes.

If you're evolving keys.

I'm talking about evolving locksmiths.

 

[articulett]

Direction is determined by selection.



The blueprint itself is a physical object. Its pheotype is its genotype. When the physical blueprint changes so does the thing it abstractly represents.



Yes.

If you're evolving keys.

I'm talking about evolving locksmiths.

Brilliant.

He can't get it.

But it is brilliant.

How do locksmiths evolve, Jim? Who is in charge... surely keys and encryption and locksmithing are evolving, right?... how?... and how is the process the same as evolution of organisms and how is it different? How does it so happen that there just happens to be keys that just happen to fit into the locks that I need at the moment I need them on my person? Who's in charge of this brilliant system. How did this "intelligent design" come to be? And from an information perspective-- how is it different than evolving genomes--?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, the emergence of intelligence might affect the processing of information in fundamentally different ways, but those fundamental differences, in the final analysis, simply translate into efficiency. They don't result in outputs that we wouldn't otherwise see, given time.

And you miss the point once again.

The analogy compares the processes of biological evolution and technological development and their results not just the results. Since the processes are not fundamentally the same, the analogy is invalid.

In many contexts both a triangle and square being convex polygons is all that matters. I think we're all agreed that analogies never compare exactly, by definition. The degree of mapping comes down to exactly what it is that's being compared.

Really? Could you give an example of such a time?

 

[articulett]

Don't you guys think it's funny that in this thread Mijo pretends to be concerned with creationist misinterpretation but in any thread where anyone says evolution is not random, he has to run in and say, "evolution is random"-- even though he's well aware that IS a major creationist canard... and that this analogy actually addresses that canard.

So who exactly is the audience Mijo is concerned about... and if he can't explain evolution coherently, what makes him think others are doing it "wrong"?

Irony.
(which reminds me... I have some ironing to do...)

 

[amb]

Articulett, are you saying that technical development is more like Darwinian evolution than Lamarckian evolution?

I hope that you do understand the difference between the two theories.

As similar as the two are, Lamarckian evolution became extinct as Darwinian evolution has the most imformation, therefore it survived.
Same as a worm placed in a y-shaped tube with an electric shock on one side and food on the other. After many trials and error the worm learns which tube contains the food and which has the electric shock, and passes on the imformation to it's offspring who go on to survive and produce more offspring with the right imformation. The worm that failed to learn which tube had the food perishes. So yes, I would say that technical development works the same way as Darwinian evolution.

 

[cyborg]

How do locksmiths evolve, Jim? Who is in charge... surely keys and encryption and locksmithing are evolving, right?... how?... and how is the process the same as evolution of organisms and how is it different?

The locksmith is prone to believe the keys are formed by his skill - not that his skill is formed by keys.

That would just be keys making other keys with no locksmith involved -and we all agree that is just ludicrous right? Where is the grand locksmith?!?

 

[amb]

Cyborg, that sounds a little like Paley's watch. The locksmith makes the keys from material that took billions years to evolve. Complexity breeds complexity, on Earth any way. It may be different in some far off galaxy somewhere. But here that's the way nature works.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Don't you guys think it's funny that in this thread articulett pretends to be concerned with creationist misinterpretation but in any thread where anyone says evolution is random, she has to run in and say, "evolution is not random"-- even though she's well aware that she is promoting a very common canard that "random" means "unbiased", "unconstrained", "acausal", or "equiprobable"... and that this analogy actually fails to address that canard?

 

[jimbob]

Oh... Mijo and Jimbob...

70 minutes later:

I have jimbob on ignore. I know the difference. It's irrelevent. What is relevent is Darwins theory-- that which is selected. I think it's mijo's and jimbobs desire to call this random that makes them totally ignorant.

It seems a little poor to address someone and then say you ignore what they are saying.

I would also like to see articulett explaining what the difference between Lamarckian and Darwinina evoluiton is; and why Lamarck is a poorer model for technological development than darwinian evolution.

I know why lamarckian evolution is a poor model for biological evolution (because it doesn't work that way).

 

[Southwind17]

Really? Could you give an example of such a time?

Schooner racing is analogous to Dhow racing. Both types of boat use the power of the wind to propel the vessels through the water, which acts on sails rigged on masts. Both Schooners and Dhows can be considered identical for all intents and purposes, including their method and mechanics of propulsion, except for one aspect: schooners are rigged with square sails (square-sail) and dhows with triangular (lateen). This difference, however, makes absolutely no difference to the analogy. Both sail shapes are convex polygons serving exactly the same purpose and functioning in essentially the same way.

How's that?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Schooner racing is analogous to Dhow racing. Both types of boat use the power of the wind to propel the vessels through the water, which acts on sails rigged on masts. Both Schooners and Dhows can be considered identical for all intents and purposes, including their method and mechanics of propulsion, except for one aspect: schooners are rigged with square sails (square-sail) and dhows with triangular (lateen). This difference, however, makes absolutely no difference to the analogy. Both sail shapes are convex polygons serving exactly the same purpose and functioning in essentially the same way.

How's that?

Rather weak, actually. The shape of the sail not mattering to the functioning of dhows and schooners still doesn't make a square a four-sided triangle and a triangle a three-sided square.

 

[articulett]

Cyborg, that sounds a little like Paley's watch. The locksmith makes the keys from material that took billions years to evolve. Complexity breeds complexity, on Earth any way. It may be different in some far off galaxy somewhere. But here that's the way nature works.

He knows.

they drive each other's evolution is the point. There is no overall designer.... each evolving system in an environment interacts with other evolving systems so that it all looks so amazingly well desgined and pre-planned-- but it's just like the ant colonies... There's no one in charge... it's just an illusion of sorts... or rather a perspective-- of the humans involved in the information copying, tweaking, and recombining. They feel as if they are "creating something from scratch"-- but they are really just tweaking what is known in a new way (mutating it) and then testing it in the environment... if it works.. you keep the information you learned around for copying... if not, you toss it out and try again. It's exactly what nature is doing. Mutants are made... the "best" are selected for copying... or you could say that the ones that end up being copied are the "best"--the ones that can evolve. Mijo is lost in his "goal" of proving the analogy "wrong" and so Cyborg is teasing him.

Mijo always must define evolution as random so it's easy to draw him into loops of verbiage to get him to squawk out the familiar phrases to prove his points in his head.

 

[cyborg]

Rather weak, actually. The shape of the sail not mattering to the functioning of dhows and schooners still doesn't make a square a four-sided triangle and a triangle a three-sided square.

And a three-pronged spoon is not a zero-pronged fork.

More insights from mijo after these messages.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And a three-pronged spoon is not a zero-pronged fork.

More insights from mijo after these messages.

Yet your analogy insists that the differences between biological evolution and technological development don't matter. You have essentially said that a square is a four-sided triangle and a triangle a three-sided square, because the only thing that matters is their convexity.

 

[cyborg]

Yet your analogy insists that the differences between biological evolution and technological development don't matter. You have essentially said that a square is a four-sided triangle and a triangle a three-sided square, because the only thing that matters is their convexity.

No.

You're talking spoons and forks and I'm talking cutlery.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No.

You're talking spoons and forks and I'm talking cutlery.

I understand that, but the fact that spoons and forks are cutlery is not their only relevant charateristis.

 

[articulett]

You amuse me, cyborg.

It cannot penetrate the intended audience, but it makes me laugh. If you can't converse with them, then you may as well use them to entertain others. Skeptics are resourceful!

 

[cyborg]

I understand that, but the fact that spoons and forks are cutlery is not their only relevant charateristis.

Relevant with respect to what?

 

[articulett]

Relevant with respect to what?

with randomness, course!