Intelligent Evolution?

[quixotecoyote]

But you cannot quantify why this is so - you can only assert humans are special.

IDers think humans are special too. That's why they insist god designed them.

You are disagreeing that artificial selection is not how species originated.

Wow.

 

[Southwind17]

Then you're trying to prove something else, obviously.

And you're confused, obviously! Re-trace this thread; see if you can see where you lost the plot. If you can't, then I'll show you.

 

[Southwind17]

You're adding [SIZE=-1]reification [/SIZE]and anthropomorphism on top of bad analogies. You're going backwards.

Sorry, those words are too long for my plastic brain. Does survival of the fittest no longer hold true?

 

[cyborg]

You are disagreeing that artificial selection is not how species originated.

No: I'm pointing out the artificial/natural distinction is artifical.

Wow.

Yes I am constantly amazed by your inability to understand what I am actually saying.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No: I'm pointing out the artificial/natural distinction is artifical.



Yes I am constantly amazed by your inability to understand what I am actually saying.

Well, it's artificial in the sense that it's a created concept, but there's a clear difference between intervention and non-intervention that you're ignoring.

 

[quixotecoyote]

And you're confused, obviously! Re-trace this thread; see if you can see where you lost the plot. If you can't, then I'll show you.

I get what you're trying to do, but it doesn't work.

For design to be distinct from evolution, ALL aspects of design do not have to be different from ALL aspects of evolution.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Sorry, those words are too long for my plastic brain. Does survival of the fittest no longer hold true?

Leaving aside my dislike for the term because of an implied tautology, yes. survival of the fittest still holds.

My objection was that you were referring to nature as an entity capable of choice when it is neither an entity nor capable of choice.

 

[jimbob]

Evolution could take place in imperfectly replicating machines acting autonomously in an environment without any design decisions being made by intelligent actors.

However, that is not how machines are made. If machines could operate under the same constraints as living things, which I listed above, then they'd Evolve.

Good point, which I hadn't emphasised. I was speaking hypothetically, saying that there is nothing magical about biology.

Living systems are the only known replicators. And thus the only known examples of evolution.

 

[Southwind17]

Leaving aside my dislike for the term because of an implied tautology, yes. survival of the fittest still holds.

My objection was that you were referring to nature as an entity capable of choice when it is neither an entity nor capable of choice.

Cannot natural selection be considered 'choice'? Aren't you just struggling to detach yourself from the literal meaning of the word 'choice'?

 

[Southwind17]

Good point, which I hadn't emphasised. I was speaking hypothetically, saying that there is nothing magical about biology.

Living systems are the only known replicators. And thus the only known examples of evolution.

What does replication have to do with gradual change and increased complexity?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Cannot natural selection be considered 'choice'? Aren't you just struggling to detach yourself from the literal meaning of the word 'choice'?

Who you say that a coffee filter "chooses" not to let the coffee ground through?

Would you say that density gradient centrifugation "chooses" to let the densest particles collect at the bottom of the test tube?

 

[jimbob]

Re: Southwind post#310

Organisms tend to resemble thier parent(s), however there are slight differences. If these differences increase the average number of offspring that themselves reproduce, they will spread. If they decrease the average numner they will decline. Those organisms with traits that result in a more than one reproducing offspring per parent will be the ones that will in the liong term evolve. The organisms are sucessful at replication because of their traits, which their descendants will tend to have.

The population seed for the next generation is made up of those organisms with parents that have already demonstrated the suitability of their traits by reproducing.

Over time the slight differences that are beneficial will tend to get acquired whilst those that are not will tend to get eliminated.

The process is gradual, due to the fact that organisms tend to imperfectly resemble their parent(s). The change is present because those random changes that improve the average number of children per parent above one, will remain in the population, and further changes can act to further "optimise" the organism's descendents.

If the main anti-evolution proponents accept gradual change, then trying to fight a attle on this is pointless.

Post#292

So, if, as an 'engineer', I took a machine, in an early stage of its development (evolution!) and said: "OK, I'm gonna make a random change to one of its components, be that a change in length, width, weight, material composition, whatever, and see what effect that has, and if the effect is good or indifferent, as judged by its ability to serve a useful function, then I'll retain that change, but if the effect is bad then I'll reject that change and try another random change.", how does that differ from natural evolution?

That is an evolutionary algorithm, but not evolution as the selection criteria are predetermined as an intelligence is determining the benefit.

The same with selective breeding or more explicitly "artificial selection".

Artificial selection is not natural selection. There is a reason why they have different names.

Agreed, but that's because we're dealing with different technologies. If all a 'competent designer' had to play with were the organic materials and systems that define the mamalian eye, plus all the related and interacting body parts and functions, what do you think he might come up with, a video camcorder?! Now that IS a completely flawed analogy!

The octopus and squid got it right.

You're missing the point, and actually helping argue my case here. The prototype to which you refer (which was, undoubtedly, based largely upon previous aircraft, as we've previously established) was only one of many (very many!)that could have been produced. Each alternative prototype could be considered a mutation of the common 'ancestor' (or parts thereof). The particular prototype that you refer to failed and became 'extinct'. For every prototype that could have been produced and failed, a prototype could have been produced and succeeded, and gone on to 'breed' (at least one of those prototypes would, by chance, happen to have had extra plywood strengthening at the point of the break!). As I've previously pointed out, it is simply more time and cost effective to make prototypes that fail and are addressed at the point of failure than to make every conceivable prototype and retain those that just happen to work ( a la natural selection).

The point was that this failure provided the information to correct the fault. With an evolutionary approach the only information you would have is that some failed and some didn't.

Evolved systems often look completely different from designed systems. No halfway competent designer would design the mamalian eye as it has evolved. "Lets require a blind spot, and lets obscure the light-sensitive cells with blood vessels"

I can't believe you've posted the quote above AND THEN written what you have! You've CLEARLY missed my point YET AGAIN, the very point made in the quote!

Yes, the failure to which you refer did provide the information to correct the fault, BUT THAT WASN'T THE ONLY WAY THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN 'CORRECTED'! ALTERNATIVE PROTOTYPES WOULD HAVE ENSURED THAT THE FAULT NEVER EVEN OCCURRED (at least not in the prototypes that would have gone on to survive)!!!

This is whre I disagree with you.

Assume that one starts with two copies of the same design.

One performes an evolutionary algorithm, (not evolution) and imperfectly copies the prototype many times, removing those which fail.

Another performs classcal engineering.

Both initial prototypes fail. The classical approach would be to fix just the problem, the evolutionary algorithm is to randomly alter the design parameters and select the prototype with the best fitness score for the next iteration.

Eventually both approaches produce successful designs.

The product of the classical engineering approach will look far more similar to the initial design than the evolutionary algorithm because the only changes were to the parts causing the problem.

Yes it is possible that a succession of random changes would have produced a similar product, but (unlike discussions of ID, the odds really are agianst this). There is a strong probability that the evolutionary approach would produce a better result (in a lot more iterations). But it would not be so similar to the "parent". One would expect to see a multitude of differences between "generations", some beneficial, and others neutral. With a classical approach the alterations would be with the express intent to solve specific problems.

With an evolutionary approach the only information you would have is that some failed and some didn't.

And this is EXACTLY THE SAME as building multiple prototypes then observing which fail and which don't; exactly as I've described in the quote that YOU'VE POSTED above!!! PLEASE RE-READ IT CAREFULLY.

Evolved systems often look completely different from designed systems.

I don't think you really mean 'systems', rather 'organisms/machines', or similar, i.e. the outputs. The evolutionary system and mechanical design process (some, at least) look very different, 'LOOK' being the operative word, as right from the OP I've been referring to the CASUAL OBSERVER. I'm sure, from what I've read here, that the biology and mechanics that occur at the micro level 'behind the scenes' are completely different, BUT THE ITERATIVE PROCESS AND RESULTANT COMPLEXITY CAN BE VERY COMPARABLE.
[/QUOTE]

The complexity can obviously be comparable, both processes are iterative, but the way the processes work would introduce differences between subsequent "generations" that would be indicitive of which approach was being used.

A single "generation" might be sufficient to indicate this. Many generations would make it far easier to spot.

 

[cyborg]

Living systems are the only known replicators. And thus the only known examples of evolution.

Unless one is willing to consider the validity of a mathematical representation of a system of replication.

And if one is not then one has not grasped the point that this is all Evolutionary theory boils down to - it is a mathematical representation of a physical system.

Well, it's artificial in the sense that it's a created concept, but there's a clear difference between intervention and non-intervention that you're ignoring.

That distinction is also artificial.

Unless you wish to assert that artificially selecting the 'successful' cow instances entails that the DNA is aware of such intervention...

I feel that I could well be dealing with a lot of closet idealists.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Cannot natural selection be considered 'choice'? Aren't you just struggling to detach yourself from the literal meaning of the word 'choice'?

If you redefine choice to mean natural selection, then natural selection can mean choice. It is, however, equivocation.

 

[quixotecoyote]

That distinction is also artificial.

Unless you wish to assert that artificially selecting the 'successful' cow instances entails that the DNA is aware of such intervention...

DNA awareness?? Are you just dicking with me now?

Of course DNA will not be aware of anything in any instance. That is totally unrelated to the topic under discussion.

Designed systems can have properties that naturally evolved systems cannot. This has been gone over ad nauseum. That humans manipulate evolution in no way effects that.

 

[jimbob]

Designed systems can have properties that naturally evolved systems cannot. This has been gone over ad nauseum. That humans manipulate evolution in no way effects that.

And evolved systems have properties that designed systems wouldn't.

Artificial selection is not natural selection.

 

[cyborg]

DNA awareness?? Are you just dicking with me now?

No, never.

Of course DNA will not be aware of anything in any instance. That is totally unrelated to the topic under discussion.

No, it's entirely related because you guys are trying to pretend that, somehow, some special quality of an actor will have an impact on the physicality of the system.

The range of possibilities for a biological entity is a function of the possibilities afforded by the organic chemistry - NOT by the intelligence, or lack thereof, of what selected any particular design instance.

[quoet]Designed systems can have properties that naturally evolved systems cannot. [/quote]

No, they have properties that naturally evolved systems will not naturally exhibit. There is no 'cannot' about it.

This has been gone over ad nauseum.

And until you people actually understand what an abstraction this will continue.

That humans manipulate evolution in no way effects that.

I'd say evolution manipulates humans. But it's nice to know you think humans are somehow outside the system - because that's what the IDers think too.

Artificial selection is not natural selection.

They're just words jimbob. The artificial/natural distinction is artificial. Selection is selection - period. We use the distinction to identify particular instances of selection viz a viz their consequences on the trajectory through the DNA design space.

At the end of the day what you call artificial selection is just one more example of a species manipulating another's course of evolution for its own benefit - of which there are many. You would probably argue they're fundamentally different because of human intelligence. And again I would argue that type of thinking is giving ammo to the IDers, not mine. Their contention after all is that you can't explain certain things unless an intelligence was involved. My argument is quite simple: dumb can do anything smart can do.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, never.



No, it's entirely related because you guys are trying to pretend that, somehow, some special quality of an actor will have an impact on the physicality of the system.

The range of possibilities for a biological entity is a function of the possibilities afforded by the organic chemistry - NOT by the intelligence, or lack thereof, of what selected any particular design instance.

Designed systems can have properties that naturally evolved systems cannot.

No, they have properties that naturally evolved systems will not naturally exhibit. There is no 'cannot' about it.



And until you people actually understand what an abstraction this will continue.



I'd say evolution manipulates humans. But it's nice to know you think humans are somehow outside the system - because that's what the IDers think too.



They're just words jimbob. The artificial/natural distinction is artificial. Selection is selection - period. We use the distinction to identify particular instances of selection viz a viz their consequences on the trajectory through the DNA design space.

At the end of the day what you call artificial selection is just one more example of a species manipulating another's course of evolution for its own benefit - of which there are many. You would probably argue they're fundamentally different because of human intelligence. And again I would argue that type of thinking is giving ammo to the IDers, not mine. Their contention after all is that you can't explain certain things unless an intelligence was involved. My argument is quite simple: dumb can do anything smart can do.

Equivocation, semantics, and playing with terms.

Naming something an abstract doesn't free you from justifying it.

The bottom line is that evolution by itself will produce different results than a process of design. No matter how you dance, you can't escape that.

 

[cyborg]

Equivocation,

Clearly you don't understand what that is.

semantics

You try communicating with out it.

and playing with terms.

Nope. You don't get it.

Naming something an abstract doesn't free you from justifying it.

You still don't understand how this works.

The bottom line is that evolution by itself will produce different results than a process of design.

I don't believe in evolution anymore. You guys convinced me. Cats aren't dogs - how could you possibly tell me there's some sort of similarity here?

No matter how you dance, you can't escape that.

You don't even know what the dance is about. You're still stuck trying to reconsile telling me you're against ID all the while banging on about evolution as if it were some thing that biological entites stick to because they have to and NOT an observation about the consequences of a system with a particular configuration.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You don't even know what the dance is about. You're still stuck trying to reconsile telling me you're against ID all the while banging on about evolution as if it were some thing that biological entites stick to because they have to and NOT an observation about the consequences of a system with a particular configuration.

As long as biological entities reproduce imperfectly in environments with selection pressures, they DO have to 'stick' to evolution.

I'm just flummoxed at your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the difference between the process of a human designing and modifying an object and evolution. Either you honestly don't see the difference between the mutation and selection of various traits versus a design and quality control process or you're being willfully obtuse.

Either way I have have no arguments that can help you.