• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Evolution?

cyborg said:
jimbob doesn't seem to have grasped is that his argument for non-fluorescing mice equally applies to fluorescing jellyfish.

That is to say jimbob is arguing fluorescing jellyfish shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

The argument that I am presenting is that the same 700 letter GFP sequence has functionally zero chance of evolving independently in both mice and jellyfish.

Of course this assumes that there are many sequences that would provide fluorescence.

Suppose half the GFP sequence is functional and the other half is unimportant. There is an appreciable chance of the functional letters could coevolve, as there would be selection for the functional letters (of course there are probably other sets fluorescent proteins that would be coded for, and which a chance mutation could have sent the evloutionary pathway in a different direction).


There would be sequntial selection for the letters for which there is selective pressure, the other letters are just "noise".

Anyway, if half the letters are functional, and that all fluorescent proteins need to contain these functional letters, then that leaves 350 + letters in the sequence which are not selected for.

That still gives 5.260e+210 possible options. That is still 1 in 1.22e+114 for 1 mutation per atom per second over the lifetime of the visible universe.

There is still functionally zero chance that the two sequences evolved independently.
 
There is still functionally zero chance that the two sequences evolved independently.
Click to expand...

jimbob: the "functionally zero" argument still applies to jellyfish. You are using the same damn argument IDers use to say it couldn't happen to jellyfish in the first place.

You can't have it both ways - if it's "functionally zero" in mice and hence "can't happen" then it's "functionally zero" in jellyfish and "can't happen". Otherwise you have to accept that it could develop in mice and that probabilistic arguments alone cannot be an argument for the intervention of a designer in inserting a particular piece of genetic code into anything.

ANY SEQUENCE OF A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH HAS A FUNCTIONALLY ZERO PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE USING THE MODEL YOU OUTLINE.

Congratulations: you are arguing that life is designed.

Can we get past this now? Would anyone care to address the precise argument I outlined? Or are we just going to spin round on these rather unsophisticated arguments that are ineffectual at providing any of the strong differentiations that you seek?
 
jimbob said:
If you don't have self-replication, then an external agency performs the copying. The copying has to be instigated by something. If the copying doesn't have to be instigated by anything external, then, by definition you have self-replication.

If the copying has to be instigated by an external agency, then selection is a result of this external agency. The selection can itself be dumb, but somewhere along the line an intelligent agency will have to impliment the initial selection criteria.
Click to expand...

And such implementation by the 'intelligent agency' need only arise through the pulling of a trigger no different in principle from the triggers that lead to reproduction in the natural world. The 'self' part of 'self-replication' is irrelevant to the analogy, the purpose of which IS NOT to show that natural evolution and design technology are essentially the same per se, but to show that complexity in design, like complexity in nature, does not rely on intelligence. You seem to have conveniently overlooked my Post #1200 jimbob!
 
cyborg said:
jimbob: the "functionally zero" argument still applies to jellyfish.

[...]

Congratulations: you are arguing that life is designed.
Click to expand...

Really? How exactly is he doing that?
  1. The jellyfishes' environment selected biolumenescent jellyfish.
  2. The mice's environment selected for nonbiolumenescent mice.

    • Moreover, the mouse's environment will continue to select nonbiolumenescent mice as long as it continues to select nocturnal mice and predators that locate mice by sight.

By your own definition of evolution, it would be extremely unlikely for mice to evolve a biolumenescent protein as it would be extremely disadvantageous to them. Thus, finding a mouse with a biolumenescent protein gene implies that the gene got into the mouse some other way that by natural selection.
 
By your own definition of evolution, it would be extremely unlikely for mice to evolve a biolumenescent protein as it would be extremely disadvantageous to them. Thus, finding a mouse with a biolumenescent protein gene implies that the gene got into the mouse some other way that by natural selection.
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't believe I have, or did, argue otherwise.

But that is not the argument jimbob is making: for one thing the requirement of selective pressures was pointed out earlier.
 
cyborg said:
Teh ting bout uman etxrtacion ov maening is tat errs aer corected by unterpretateon.
Click to expand...


cyborg... I have read Hamlet. I have heard all 29,551 words of Hamlet spoken onstage. I have quoted a few of these words from Hamlet at times in my life. Those 4,042 lines of Hamlet are a friend of mine.

cyborg, you're no Prince Hamlet!
 
cyborg said:
Is there any point talking to you at all?
Click to expand...

I really do think he's a chatbot. Seriously.

Chatbots run on algorithms where they select key words from a phrase and then parse the lexicon for similar phrases where they can insert bits of data from one into the other and see how long they can keep a conversation going while adding data to their information databases. There are some pretty good ones... You can do a google search. But they tend to respond tangentially and insert nonsense and non sequitars... sometimes they will claim it'd due to speaking a foreign language... but their responses have no depth and they seem to ignore huge chunks of the conversation. But they are evolving forms of AI... they are interesting.

Here's a few links:

http://mlab.uiah.fi/~lsaarine/bots/chapter1.html
http://www.a-i.com/show_tree.asp?id...em_num=580&item_name=Session+79944+Nov.+01,++...
http://underground-online.troybrophy.com/iu/archive/issue8/impostor/

It's interesting because they, too, are information processors that add, copy, hone, and assemble information based on the environment they're in. In many cases they highlight your point... humans can extract meaning even when the meaning isn't there which "corrects" the information and hones it further. When you converse with a chatbot unknowingly, you refine their communication skills while really focusing in on what you are trying to convey. To a human it would matter whether the entity he is communicating with is another person-- but the information doesn't care-- it just keeps volleying and replicating and evolving blindly going back and forth between human and AI until it can no more.

I think I could create a creationist chatbot... not the program... but I could help with the algorithm... (the thing that is interesting about chatbots is that they don't respond to people talking about them, because they don't understand such nuance...)
 
Last edited:
I am not arguing that fluorescent jellyfish cant exist, but that the same sequence can't (maybe, I should say "wouldn't as opposed to "can't") evolve independently in jellyfish and mice.

jimbob said:
The argument that I am presenting is that the same 700 letter GFP sequence has functionally zero chance of evolving independently in both mice and jellyfish.

Of course this assumes that there are many sequences that would provide fluorescence.

...
Click to expand...

It is not the functional parts of the gene sequence, which are selected for (although there would me many other proteins that have similar characteristics, that would be equally likely to be selected for) but the non-functioning parts, for which there are no selective pressures, so the miniscule odds work for that part.

The original point of this was that in one generation a mouse became fluorescent, with the exact GFP gene sequence as a jellyfish. This is something which intelligence can do that couldn't wouldn't happen in evolution.
 
I am not arguing that fluorescent jellyfish cant exist, but that the same sequence can't (maybe, I should say "wouldn't as opposed to "can't") evolve independently in jellyfish and mice.
Click to expand...

jimbob: I don't think you get how independence in probabilities work.

Since there is no dependence between mice and jellyfish you CANNOT say it CANNOT evolve independently: the existence or not in one DOES NOT affect IN ANY WAY the existence or not in the other.

So if you argue for "functionally zero" in one you argue for it in the other.

The original point of this was that in one generation a mouse became fluorescent, with the exact GFP gene sequence as a jellyfish. This is something which intelligence can do that couldn't wouldn't happen in evolution.
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

You still don't understand what an abstraction is so I don't know if pointing out that things of this type do occur in evolution is wasting my breath or not.

It's called horizontal gene transfer.

But please, do stick to a specific example of where horizontal gene transfer cannot happen by "natural" mechanisms due to particular confounding factors as an example of what "intelligence can do that nature cannot".

And whilst we're at it let us point out that evolution cannot make me insert a spoon into a wall. Ya hear that evolution? FEAR MY INTELLIGENCE AS I SPOON THE WALL!

(Is there any point pointing out what abstraction means again jimbob? Is there really? Do you understand the notion of classes of things?)
 
What Cyborg said.

Jimbob... human intelligence IS a byproduct of evolution. It's not separate. Human "intelligence" has become part of the environment that selects, assimilates, and replicates information --information that sticks around to be built upon after the current information processors are long gone. You speak of intelligence like it's something outside the system--

It's as if you are saying that flies would not have evolved web defending mechanisms had spiders not evolved web building. True, but so what. Spiders DID evolve web building. And Humans did evolve "intelligence". Human intelligence is an environmental influence that hones information as "naturally" as spider webs. Evolving systems serve as environmental inputs for each other. All evolving systems--from life forms to everything else are maximizing information storage, recombination, replication, and "tweaking" of information... what we observe is increasing complexity and seeming design and a sense of an emerging picture... in life forms, ecosystems, languages, technology, cultures, etc.

You see differences that aren't there and seem to miss the continuum entirely --along with the very basic understanding of what biological evolution actually is-- and why it's strikingly analogous to technological evolution when you understand what it means to be a code or bit of information that ensures it's own replication by properties inherent in it.

What happened with the mice is, in essence, a lateral gene transfer-- and it has happened in evolution plenty of times with no human input whatsoever. Lots of seemingly miraculous things will happen with evolution-- just like lots of people will get very rich so long as there are lots of lotteries. You are looking at the lottery winners after the fact and concluding that there is something amazing about a certain person in particular having won. It would be amazing if it was predicted before the fact. But after the fact it is not. The fact that humans evolved and used their "intelligence" to insert a glowing gene in a mouse... is not amazing after the fact. It's not amazing that a human might wonder if nature could manage this feat without humans. But neither the feat itself nor your imaginations about "what if" are relevant. Humans find meaning in processed information of various sorts-- even design and patterns. They evolved to do so. They also evolved to think of human intelligence as something special and wondrous and "outside nature". They evolved to "notice the hits"-- and it's very easy to do because when it comes to evolution-- the misses disappear... they don't code for anything... all we see are the systems composed of information that was selected again and again over time that drove the evolution of other systems that shared it's environment over time. It seems to fit together "amazingly well". But that's because natural selection builds miraculous things.
 
Last edited:
aack... why do I bother. Jimbob is the worst at tricking me into thinking that he might get it... even though I should know better by now. I can be a slow learner. Damn.

Let me try again:

Yes, Jim-- because the mouse is unlikely to ever become bioluminescent without human tweaking, intelligence must be special and all systems involving human input must be inherently different than biological evolution --and no one should ever try to show them as being analogous lest a creationist use the conjecture for evil aims... so say you, the expert on evolution, natural selection, information coding, intelligence, and creationist plots.

(Isn't that the point you are trying to make?)
(Did I sum it up correctly?)
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
Is there any point talking to you at all?
Click to expand...


Sorry... not everyone is as witty as yourself. And weren't we talking about Hamlet?


President Bush said:
cyborg said:
What number can intelligence produce that dumb luck cannot?
Click to expand...
What might William Shakespeare write than an infinite number of monkeys couldn't?
Click to expand...


cyborg said:
Teh ting bout uman etxrtacion ov maening is tat errs aer corected by unterpretateon.
Click to expand...


I don't think all of your monkeys are typing.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
What Cyborg said.

Jimbob... human intelligence IS a byproduct of evolution. It's not separate. Human "intelligence" has become part of the environment that selects, assimilates, and replicates information --information that sticks around to be built upon after the current information processors are long gone. You speak of intelligence like it's something outside the system--

It's as if you are saying that flies would not have evolved web defending mechanisms had spiders not evolved web building. True, but so what. Spiders DID evolve web building. And Humans did evolve "intelligence". Human intelligence is an environmental influence that hones information as "naturally" as spider webs. Evolving systems serve as environmental inputs for each other. All evolving systems--from life forms to everything else are maximizing information storage, recombination, replication, and "tweaking" of information... what we observe is increasing complexity and seeming design and a sense of an emerging picture... in life forms, ecosystems, languages, technology, cultures, etc.

You see differences that aren't there and seem to miss the continuum entirely --along with the very basic understanding of what biological evolution actually is-- and why it's strikingly analogous to technological evolution when you understand what it means to be a code or bit of information that ensures it's own replication by properties inherent in it.

What happened with the mice is, in essence, a lateral gene transfer-- and it has happened in evolution plenty of times with no human input whatsoever. Lots of seemingly miraculous things will happen with evolution-- just like lots of people will get very rich so long as there are lots of lotteries. You are looking at the lottery winners after the fact and concluding that there is something amazing about a certain person in particular having won. It would be amazing if it was predicted before the fact. But after the fact it is not. The fact that humans evolved and used their "intelligence" to insert a glowing gene in a mouse... is not amazing after the fact. It's not amazing that a human might wonder if nature could manage this feat without humans. But neither the feat itself nor your imaginations about "what if" are relevant. Humans find meaning in processed information of various sorts-- even design and patterns. They evolved to do so. They also evolved to think of human intelligence as something special and wondrous and "outside nature". They evolved to "notice the hits"-- and it's very easy to do because when it comes to evolution-- the misses disappear... they don't code for anything... all we see are the systems composed of information that was selected again and again over time that drove the evolution of other systems that shared it's environment over time. It seems to fit together "amazingly well". But that's because natural selection builds miraculous things.
Click to expand...

As correct as this is, I'm actually suggesting that intelligence is completely unnecessary to effect technological complex design, and that 'intelligence' is just a feature that we humans have evolved to such a level of sophistication that we can deploy it as a tool 'for convenience'. My Post #1200 is testament to this suggestion, which I'm STILL waiting for jimbob to respond to!
 
Southwind17 said:
... I'm actually suggesting that intelligence is completely unnecessary to effect technological complex design, and that 'intelligence' is just a feature that we humans have evolved to such a level of sophistication that we can deploy it as a tool 'for convenience'.
Click to expand...


Deployed... intelligently?
 
I'm not kidding when I say Pres. Bush is probably a chatbot or (chatterbot). Really. They are all over the web... it's kind of fun for hackers to see how far they can go... how much conversation they inspire... how well their bots can simulate conversation and pass.

As for technology without an intelligence... yes indeed... life IS exactly that... and the last article I link goes into detail. Just as the internet will evolve, branch off or die out-- that is true of all information... there is nowhere to go but "forward"-- The tree of information forever grows up and branches off. Humans and there inventions are a result of that process... but even without humans... information that can get itself copied will always evolve towards increasing "complexity" "design" "anti-entropy" etc. because there is no other path. We can't go "backward on our technological design. There's only a method for "improving" (increasing information replication) in whatever environment the information finds itself.

I mean, that part isn't necessary for anyone to understand. Your analogy is just fine in that it conveys what evolution is-- it conveys how selection hones over time and shows what is wrong with the tornado/747 analogy. But it is also good on a much more depthful level-- it builds the foundation for understanding the evolution of "complex systems" in general--how they work-- the algorithms involved-- the self replicating nature of information bits that are good at getting THEMSELVES copied. Plus to understand science, you have to find a way to remove yourself--humanity--your perspective from the equation. Just as you need to understand that the earth only looks flat because of our perspective, you need to understand that intelligence only seems super duper special, because we humans have it, define it, exaggerate it, and find it useful for us--as we evolved to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom