Intelligent Evolution?

[six7s]

The beauty is that by selecting the organism, one is selecting the information it carries. Whthout self-replication that can't happen, there has to be an arbitary selection process, and that has to involve an intelligent agency somewhere

Has to involve an intelligent agency??? Are you sure that this is "conventional evolutionary theory"?

And who is your mysterious mathematician?

I ask because your posts routinely give mixed messages. For example, look no further than your recent obfuscation:

• one that implies that your are an IDiot
  

  There is nothing wrong in seeing the work of intelligence in systems that were designed using intelligence

• one that implies that you subscibe to the theory of evolution
  

  Of course an omniscient designer could have done all these, but why? And what designed the Designer?

And you can't have foot in both camps and pretend to have any credibility

Both Southwind and Six7s both have trumpeted their lack of understanding and knowledge; the trouble is that ...

The trouble is that we are inundated with self-professed experts that seem intent on deluding not only themselves but also others into believing in woo

 

[articulett]

The "do the math" obfuscation is a big one with creationists... Kleinman is always doing it... Behe too... as if it proves something or other. It's supposed to prove that something couldn't have evolved... but who cares what could and couldn't evolve-- we already know what did evolve... and we can look straight at the genomes and figured out what mutations coded for and when and why and how species diverged.

They always ask these insincere questions, they don't want the answer to that are supposed to infer something, but they really just muck up understanding more--theirs and everyone elses. I had thought Jimbob was just arrogant-- but now I think he's a creationist like mijo-- if it quacks like Behe--

 

[mijopaalmc]

Is an intelligent agent (i.e., an agent that is capable of anticipating the consequences of its actions and therefore modifying them to obtain a specific result) involved in biological evolution?

Is an intelligent agent, as defined above, involved in technological development?

Note intelligence is not necessarily a uniquely human attribute, but it nonetheless distinguish organisms from one another.

 

[President Bush]

Top down doesn't explain anything. Nothing is top down design.

Top down... as from the general to the more specific? Like reasoning deductively?

Couple posts back you were arguing the "analogy" as a deduction.

I think articulett is alluding to complex design inevitably deriving from simple design, and not the other way around, but I could be wrong. I'll let her answer for herself in due course.

Either way, I think, Mr President, for whatever reason, you seem intent on getting involved in word games. If so, may I respectfully suggest you invest in a crossword compendium.

To say "top down doesn't explain anything" while arguing your "analogy" in its mathematical sense...

Do you not see the irony of saying "top down doesn't explain anything" while reasoning from more general to the more specific, ie "from the top down"?

 

[President Bush]

I was arguing the analogy as a fact.

... technological development and natural selection surely cannot be one and the same, even by analogy, as selection is common to but only part of the evolutionary/development processes.

You two need to talk.

Figuring out how thing came to be by tracing the information backwards is very useful in understanding evolution... Because matter doesn't come to be organized into systems or designs or organisms from the top down... All design is from the bottom up. That's why we didn't don't have next years technology yet... that is why there was no internet worth mentioning 20 years ago. Molecular genetics is a literal map of what pieces of DNA were the keys to evolutionary junctions. We look at the design for the current organism and figure out how different bits and pieces of it came together and when. The highly conserved stuff like hox genes are in so many life forms-- they helped evolution of complex organisms really take off... they are responsible for a fly having a front, back, sides, heads, and tail end the same as they are for us. They spread widely because those organisms that had them turned out to be the best replicators. Just like flying machines that worked... became the prototype "mutation" that was widely copied... this design evolved in the environment over time based on increasing cost/benefit of the resulting products. All information must compete to survive and be replicated... hence there is no choice but for better replicators and more refined and efficient designs to come about. Why will computers never be the behemoths with slow processors of times past?

With the internet... there is nowhere to go but forward... and then things can branch off and begin their own evolution....

But... you seem to be one of those posters that is having a conversation with himself that no-one is really following. I'm not sure anyone except you is understanding your point or your questions.

I'd be happy to elaborate on anything I've said or asked which you haven't understood.

 

[President Bush]

You do not understand abstractions.

Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction

Oil can

 

[articulett]

Bush, we HAVE talked. It's you. Evolution is a 2 part process-- mutations (more or less random) and selection (more or less non-random) by the environment. But why don't you go back to your own little world where you imagine you are saying something important and useful and insightful. And you quoted me with southwind's name. And yes-- all design is bottom up-- to solve the riddle use deduction--top down-- don't look up and say "who could have created this wonder?"-- work your way backwards from the information that codes for the design. (For those slow with analogies:
Deduction is a tool--it works from the top backwards--it's a great way to understand the evolution of information and seeming design which always starts from the bottom and builds as information is replicated and honed by the environment).

But--I think we are on different planets. You, seem to be on your own. Southwind, cyborg, six7's, taffer, etc.-- we understand each other and the analogy just fine. I have no clue what your point is or how it is any more relevant that Jim's math about how long it would take for mice to evolve bioluminescence.

Nevermind... I suspect you are a chatbot. I've been had by a chatbot haven't I? Keep tweaking... you almost have coherence

ETA: More info. on the fruitfly as mentioned before for those who are actually interested in current development and can understand analogies.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iEWRTP0p6DJt8xGPrESLohY4vlDg

"positive selection"-- the mutation gets itself copied. It's the "fixed" and conserved part of the design... like, say, fixed wings on an airplane... black box recorder... etc.

 

[Southwind17]

To say "top down doesn't explain anything" while arguing your "analogy" in its mathematical sense...

I'm not sure who this comment is directed at, but I've certainly never attached a 'mathematical sense' to the analogy. In fact, I have no idea what 'mathematical sense' means in the context of an analogy. I recently explained what I understand by an analogy, and the range of contexts in which I see analogies being applied.

Do you not see the irony of saying "top down doesn't explain anything" while reasoning from more general to the more specific, ie "from the top down"?

Similarly, I'm not sure who this question is directed at. Regardless, I would say that reasoning from general to the more specific is "bottom up", but the term 'general to the more specific' is open to interpretation, and I might have applied an interpretation different from that intended by Mr President.

This was a 'very productive' post of yours, Mr President. Perhaps you could be a little clearer as to your intent and meaning in future, if you're genuinely interested in furthering the debate, that is.

 

[Southwind17]

You two need to talk.

I'd be happy to elaborate on anything I've said or asked which you haven't understood.

Well, you haven't asked anything, certainly not above, and all you've said (written, to be precise) is: "You two need to talk". So, I'm not sure there's really a great deal for you to elaborate on, but I don't understand why you are, as flattering as I find it, ascribing articulett's quotes to me, as articulett herself has already pointed out. I can only assume it shows a lack of concentration or attention to detail on your part. Yes, I'm sure that's what it is now.

 

[jimbob]

Has to involve an intelligent agency??? Are you sure that this is "conventional evolutionary theory"?

And who is your mysterious mathematician?

I am talking about the differences between intelligently driven technological development, and emeergent natural-selection that drives evolution. The difference is that one has intelligent input and requires intelligent input (technological development) and another doesn't.
How is it creationist to point out that evolution requires self-replication for natural selection to work. Without self-replication the selection is arbitary, and that arbitary selection criteria would have to be chosen by an intelligent agency.

it is such a tenet of conventional evolutionary theory that it is hard to find explicit papers referring to this, just as it is hard to find references to accepted facts in textbooks as "everyone knows".

Here is one from the UK's Medical research Council:

A critical event in the origin of life is thought to be the emergence of a molecule capable of self-replication as well as mutation, and hence evolution towards more efficient replication.

In fact it seems more commonly talked about in the fields of artificial life:

Von Neumann, is the mathematician I was talking about.
Here is an informatics course module from Indiana University.

5.2 Open-ended emergent evolution and natural selection
Perhaps the most important consequence of the requirement of memory-based descriptions in Von Neumann's self-reproduction scheme is its opening the possibility for open-ended emergent evolution. As Von Neumann [1966] discussed, if the description of the self-reproducing automata is changed (mutated), in a way as to not affect the basic functioning of (A + B + C) _ that is, if the semantic closure in not destroyed _ then, the new automaton (A + B + C)` will be slightly different from its parent. Von Neumann used a new automaton D to be included in the self-replicating organism, whose function does not disturb the basic performance of (A + B + C); if there is a mutation in the D part of the description, say D`, then the system (A + B + C + D) + PHI(A + B + C + D`) will produce (A + B + C + D`) + PHI(A + B + C + D`). Von Neumann [1966, page 86] further proposed that non-trivial self-reproduction should include this "ability to undergo inheritable mutations as well as the ability to make another organism like the original", to distinguish it from "naive" self-reproduction like growing crystals.

I ask because your posts routinely give mixed messages. For example, look no further than your recent obfuscation:

• 
  

  There is nothing wrong in seeing the work of intelligence in systems that were designed using intelligence

• one that implies that your are an IDiot
  

  Of course an omniscient designer could have done all these, but why? And what designed the Designer?

• one that implies that you subscibe to the theory of evolution
  

And you can't have foot in both camps and pretend to have any credibility

Looking at a jumbbo jet, I feel confident in saying it couldn't have evolved.

For one thing I see no means or reproduction. I also feel happy suggesting that that is a result of design by an intelligent agency.

Looking at a non GMO mouse, I see signatures that are typical of evolution, not of design. Evolution is the only creditible theory that explains the origin of mice.

Back to the GFP mouse

4⁷⁰⁰=2.7669029702758120146491942186875 x10 ⁴²¹
That is a big number.

However there are 2.5 billion odd sites available per mouse genome so divide that by 2.5x10⁹ and say ten billion mice so divide by another 10x10⁹

so approximating the first number to 2.5x10⁴²¹ and dividing by 2.5x10¹⁹ that leaves a probability of this particular jellyfish sequence arising by chance in a mouse genome at about 1 in 10⁴⁰¹ per generation.

The universe is only 14 billion years old. So we can multiply by 14 billion years by 5 generations per year to reduce the odds to say 1:10³⁹² over the life of the universe (and that is being generous as life on earth is younger thatn 4.5 billion years.

There is no practical chance that a fluorescent mouse could have evolved with the same GFP gene sequense as a jellyfish. That does not affect the theory of evolution because we know that it was genetically modified by an intelligent agency.

 

[Southwind17]

I think the reason we all seem to be going around in never-decreasing circles is that questions are being asked but not answered (and not answered for 'convenience' at times, I would suggest), and requests are being made but not responded to. Many of these questions and requests are fairly direct, so shouldn't be confused for general comment or rhetoric. Here are the pertinent questions and requests that I've asked and made more recently, mostly of jimbob. So, jimbob, care to address them directly, i.e. without resorting to your broken record?:

"That is just what happens"! So the dolphin and the cheetah 'just happen' to pursue prey until they land lucky? They don't apply some selective criteria in 'deciding' where to hunt, at what time, which prey to pursue, for how long, what dangers to look out for, etc?

Please respond.

Talk to the story jimbob. Show me where Sam's designs were altered with the aim of fixing the 'fault'. Show me where Sam consciously considered some of the features 'good' in his initial and subsequently failed designs. No doubt in one of his initial failures he happened to have the battery connected to the switch but not the bulb. Show me where he recognized that and consciously retained that arrangement whilst he messed around with the switch configuratioin only. SHOW ME!

Please show me.

Where is Sam's evolutionary algorithm? It does show how technological development works in reality - the story is real - both Ollie and Sam developed their technologies!

Please identify Sam's evolutionary algorithm to me.

I believe, with the help of Mr President, if not before, we've established that analogies apply at different levels. I like to think of 'close' analogies and 'loose' analogies, similar to close and loose fitting garments, if I may indeed borrow an analogy to help describe the range over which analogies could be argued to work! I would prefer not to try to be any more definitive than that, as if we proceed down a road where the strength of our respective arguments hangs on the precise meaning of a particular word, then from experience, I very much doubt that it's worth continuing the debate any further.

Now, where within that range does a 'complete analogy' lay? Well, the bottom line is that it doesn't, because 'complete' is an absolute; it allows no latitude. So how does that premise fit with an analogy? Well, not at all, is the answer, because an analogy, by any sensible definition, is an imperfect comparison. If it wasn't imperfect, then it would entirely match that which it is seeking to compare, and wouldn't be an analogy at all. There'd be absolutely no need for an analogy.

Now, are we agreed on what an analogy is, and why it can be very helpful to use them?

Please answer these last two questions.

What, exactly, do you mean when you use the term 'self-replication'?

Please answer this question.

I believe that by 'self'-replication you are alluding to the fact that in nature there is no 'external agent' that performs the replication process. In other words, an organism has to survive long enough to breed (or otherwise multiply) in order for replication to occur, whereas a machine can be replicated at any time by its designer. Assuming this belief is correct, though, what implication, exactly, do you consider it has on the validity of the analogy?

Please answer this question.

What, exactly, is it about Sam and Ollie being the mechanisms by which their electronics devices are copied that you seem unable to reconcile with an organism being the vehicle by which it gets itself copied? All we end up with is copies of something we had before. Where's the problem with that, and again, what implication, exactly, do you see that it has on the validity of the analogy that you seem so strongly averse to disregarding?

Please answer these two questions.

What, exactly, do you mean when you use the term 'natural selection'?

Please answer this question.

Well, when a cheetah is stalking a group of antelope patiently observing and waiting for some tell-tale sign of apparent weakness that inherently informs the cheetah that it might have just identified dinner, how, in principle, does that differ from a school boy at the bring-and-buy fare perusing all of the alternative novelties on offer just waiting for one to catch his eye because of something about it that informs him that he's likely to get the most enjoyment from it?

Please answer this question.

 

[Southwind17]

Looking at a jumbbo jet, I feel confident in saying it couldn't have evolved.

For one thing I see no means or reproduction. I also feel happy suggesting that that is a result of design by an intelligent agency.

Putting aside EVERYTHING ELSE jimbob, such as natural vs artificial selection, mutation, 'intelligent agents', etc., do you absolutely not agree that the repeated production by Boeing of the 747 over 30 years or so can be thought of as 'reproduction'? Again, putting aside EVERYTHING ELSE, what do you see as being absent from the process of repeatedly producing the 747 that is present in repeatedly producing the cheetah? If your answer is 'self-replication' (as I suspect it will be, as erroneous as that is, becasue you will not have put aside EVERYTHING ELSE, as I asked), please explain exactly the significance of the 'self' part of self-replication that makes it so important to the validity or otherwise of the analogy.

You "feel happy suggesting"! Gee, talk about hedging your bets jimbob! Keeping in mind how Sam & Ollie went about 'designing' their respective 747s, which side of the fence do you think you'd be inclined to fall on, if pushed, and why, exactly?

 

[President Bush]

Regardless, I would say that reasoning from general to the more specific is "bottom up", but the term 'general to the more specific' is open to interpretation, and I might have applied an interpretation different from that intended by Mr President.

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

 

[Southwind17]

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

Very interesting Mr President. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on the ins and outs of deduction and induction? For the time being though, this thread relates to comparisons between evolution and design, in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[President Bush]

Well, you haven't asked anything, certainly not above, and all you've said (written, to be precise) is: "You two need to talk". So, I'm not sure there's really a great deal for you to elaborate on, but I don't understand why you are, as flattering as I find it, ascribing articulett's quotes to me, as articulett herself has already pointed out. I can only assume it shows a lack of concentration or attention to detail on your part. Yes, I'm sure that's what it is now.

Sorry about copying and pasting your name in there instead of hers. My mistake.

What you two have come to define your "analogy" as differs very greatly. I'll illustrate again:

I was arguing the analogy as a fact.

... technological development and natural selection surely cannot be one and the same, even by analogy, as selection is common to but only part of the evolutionary/development processes.

jimbob has commented likewise (addressing what's her name):

If I understand Southwind's posts correctly, (s)he is arguing that the OP is a metaphor, unlike you, who seem to be arguing for equivalence.

Very interesting Mr President. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on the ins and outs of deduction and induction? For the time being though, this thread relates to comparisons between evolution and design, in case you hadn't noticed.

Relax... I doubt I'm the only one to find it funny that articulett says "top down doesn't explain anything" in an argument based in "tops down" reasoning.

 

[Southwind17]

What you two have come to define your "analogy" as differs very greatly.

jimbob has commented likewise (addressing what's her name)

If you want to engender some respect, Mr President, at least take the time to learn or look up the people's names who you're debating with.

Relax... I doubt I'm the only one to find it funny that articulett says "top down doesn't explain anything" in an argument based in "tops down" reasoning.

I guess you'll have to take up this 'apparent' discrepancy with articulett. I'm sure she'll have a very valid explanation. I stand by all I've written.

Oh, thank you for reminding me, Mr President, the OP most certainly IS NOT a metaphor, it's a good old analogy, jimbob, as much as you have an aversion to them!

 

[Belz...]

Yes... like cleaning off a hard drive that is making your computer run slow...

Genomes of smarter animals tend to be very pruned compared to lots of plants and "lower life forms"-- a lot of the junk DNA has been deleted... which is important, because even the code takes up space...and smaller cells means you can pack more efficient information in denser ways.


The eyes devolve for creatures whom lie under ground or in caves-- they are a liability... so when the genome mutates, the eyes don't hook up and the brain area hooked up to the eyes processes for other senses--giving those organisms (and their DNA) a survival advantage. It's all about cost benefit to the information being replicated...

Ah! So DNA bits do get deleted, sometimes.

Gosh, Articulett, you're really useful. Perhaps I can keep you in stasis, somewhere, so you're handy when I need to ask silly questions!

 

[President Bush]

I guess you'll have to take up this 'apparent' discrepancy with articulett. I'm sure she'll have a very valid explanation.

Yeah, she just made something up.

Deduction is a tool--it works from the top backwards.

 

[cyborg]

Anything can be 'explained' by any consistent mechanism.

The word you are looking for is, "justified" as in, "This explanation is justified by X".

E.g. "The explanation 'god did it' is justified by the fact that I saw him doing it!"
"The explanation 'evolution did it' is justified by the fact that I saw no-one doing it!"

 

[articulett]

Here's another analogy for chatbot bush not to get... I think even the other nutters understand this much... You don't put together a jigsaw puzzle from the top down... it's always from the bottom up... But if the puzzle is already done and you want to examine the components that went into it, then you take it apart piece by piece so that you can "deduce" it's components. You build up to a whole... and if you want to understand the pieces of that whole...how it got to be what it is--you use DEDUCTION to go from the whole to it's specific components.

But the slow... don't know they are the slow ones... and all the explaining in the world can't fix it, I suppose.

Nothing applies to nouns
Deduce is a verb... nouns are built from the bottom up... taking those things apart is something you do from the top down. Got it, yet Bush... or still enjoying your masturbatory self aggrandizement?