• 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?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the basis of chemistry and biochemistry is inter-atom interactions?
Click to expand...

It is not. Why is it so hard for you to understand that you cannot talk about inter-atom interactions at the atom level?

Thus, the differences in the spatial arrangements of atoms and their connections with one another are just as important as the identity of the individual atoms.
Click to expand...

Yes. At the inter-atom level.
 
See, Cyborg-- they can't get it. They think that you can't describe the theory of evolution-- but it is they who cannot convey it, because they don't understand "how" "selection" "designs" (or "hones") the info. No matter how you say it... they think you are the confused one. And yet, I don't think they understand evolution well enough to have this discussion, much less convey it to anyone else.

ID and Jim Bob-- have you read The Selfish Gene? Compare and contrast a computer virus and a "naturally selected" virus. Would you say they have more similarities than differences? Do you think a computer virus could come about unintentionally?--do you think it could spread and change things hugely unintentionally? Do you think it could evolve? Remember, it's just code that gets copied via other machines. It does not self replicate--and the infected items are the expressions of the information it contains and the replicators--but they are not the information itself, correct? So what is the biggest way they are different than viruses like AIDS?

If someone was to liken a computer virus to regular virus-- would you be concerned about the ways they are different? HOW exactly are they different and why would they be relevant to the explanation of what a virus is? Most people are well served with the two analogies... that is why computer viruses are called "viruses" in fact! You teach people new information based on things they already know--and analogies are a great way to do so-- and the analogies you are so sure don't work-- do work... all the time! And there is nobody I've seen telling you guys you are clear or make them go "eureka"--you don't even sound like you understand each other!

What sort of evidence would you need to convince you that this analogy works and it's a quirk in your own understanding that keeps you from seeing how? I already know you are wrong, because I HAVE had people communicate to me that my explanation give them eureka moments. I know Steven Jones and Dawkins have done so for me and for many. The inability to find the analogy useful is a problem of you-- not the analogy. I am quite certain this analogy would work for more people than anything you guys are saying. But feel free to show me the experts who claim otherwise or explain it better or who have communicated the concept to masses in ways that make you go "eureka!"?
 
Last edited:
Viruses do replicate, they just need to hijack a host for the replication.

ETA:

If you noticed, I have stated that in principle computer viruses could evolve. If they have imperfect self-replication, then that is possible. I am not sure how close an anolgy to proper evolution the state of the art computer virus is at the moment.
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
Originally Posted by jimbob
This is saying that evolutionary algorithms can produce solutions that are unlike those that humans can design. Are you agreeing with this?
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm simply saying there's no fundamental difference to what is going on.
Click to expand...
So evolution can produce solutions that design can not, and there is no fundamental difference?

Conversely, design iterations can produce histories of changes that evolutionary algorithms alone wouldn't have produced, indeed given the odds, couldn't have produced.
Click to expand...
With an infinite amount of trials no odds can be overcome - unless you bind those outcomes to the rules of a universe that is.
Click to expand...

There are not an infinite number of trials available. There is a big limit of 14 billion odd lightyears of space in the observable universe, and 14 billion odd years. That is not infinite, but it is very big.
 
Articulett, are you claiming that before you pointed it out to people, they were unaware that technology is based on earlier technology, and that it develops?
 
Yes-- Jimbob...

So....

Why are computer viruses not good analogies for human viruses? You seem to think that "intention" or human forethought is essential to what evolves in technology... but you can understand that this isn't really true... a computer virus like a human virus can "escape"--make use of it's program and environment to replicate and change the world as we know it.

And other things will evolve in reaction to the changes made by such viruses.

What, is the big difference? Why is that analogy bad? Did you understand the nozzle analogy-- because for a lot of people, it allows them to go "eureka"-- and they use it to communicate evolution to others. I see no-one communicating like you do. I see no one going Eureka over whatever it is you are trying to convey-- something about the evolution of technology not being analogous to the evolution of the species-- but you've yet to state a cohesive reason why. Use the virus model and see if you can explain why.
 
So evolution can produce solutions that design can not, and there is no fundamental difference?
Click to expand...

Well you tell me jimbob: is there a fundamental difference between an intelligence using an evolutionary algorithm and nature? Because if not you cannot complain about what the more abstract form - the computer simulation - can demonstrate about all forms. If there is a fundamental difference you are going to have to tell me what it is.

Because it seems to me that when what you're evolving is algorithms you're going to get algorithms about algorithms. When that happens you can see what appears to be design: and this is because the possibilities the algorithm can afford are far more constrained. My design algorithm will produce design idioms. Those idioms will dictate the sort of construction the design takes. We can recognise them and categorise these design idioms - like bridges being suspension, cantilever, arch and so forth.

The functions of these idioms are completely natural - which is why we see design idioms in nature too. If you don't understand what is going on above you're going to be liable to think these design idioms mean that some intelligence like yourself was responsible.

There are not an infinite number of trials available.
Click to expand...
You don't need them to see the sort of things you say cannot possibly occur. You simply see them in a less exaggerated manner.
 
jimbob said:
Articulett, are you claiming that before you pointed it out to people, they were unaware that technology is based on earlier technology, and that it develops?
Click to expand...

No... I'm saying that if you want to understand how complexity comes about without forethought-- technology and the internet are damn good examples for the majority... most people can understand how a city evolves or technology evolves--and how Windows evolved-- and they can extrapolate the similarities. These things don't exist because some higher thing had a plan that they would-- and the same goes for life itself--

What humans see as free will and choice and intentional is very constricted by the universe and hour own "programming" in our DNA which has evolved... Really understanding how any complex thing evolves can help you decode how ANY other complex thing came to be. There are answers and they have nothing to do with some big plan--just what IS selected.

Humans design computer programs. And computer programs have bugs. But humans don't design the bugs. We just use the information about the bug to work around it, patch it, or eliminate it in the future...and sometimes we end up with a cool byproduct that someone else takes further. That's pretty much what is going on with genomes. Whether in viruses or cells or people. I am amazed that you see the differences (though are poor at elucidating them and have such a hard time and seeing the "eureka" of similarities.)
 
Is a lottery designed? It's a formula... that humans use and it produces winners with a degree of randomness... it's designed... but, like math, it's based on basic probabilities... it would work whether one knew how it worked or planned for it to work or not. In a world where some entity with the "right" combination gets lucky-- there will be those who have the right combination and be the lucky one. Whether we're running the program and deciding what "luck" is--or nature is running her own program and selecting the "lucky" survivors-- the "luck" sticks around to be passed on, refined, compound interest, and be built upon--even though the "winners" do not.

Money is a good analogy too--because it's really information--value--a meme... it represents something else--we talk of investing and making our money grow, but nothing tangible actually "grows"-- it's the information that we are talking about...what that money can buy or build... just like DNA is as good as the organism it builds.

When a virus evolves (either computer or human)--what is actually being passed on?) When a person gains wealth it's not like there's a cash pile in his basement getting bigger. It's not like he needs to even think or be aware of it's growth or shrinkage for it to do so. What is "it" that is really changing through time in these instances? How is developing wealth different than developing technology? Do you think you could trace the way our current monetary system came to be? Would you say it "evolved". What exactly "developed".

I feel like I'm beating my head on the wall. I don't think you can get it. But if you walk away with something, let it be this. We're talking about information--not the stuff produced-- the recipe not the dish it makes. Informations is what is being passed on to evolve through time. That is the same in genomes and in computer programs and in technology and language--who chooses what stays and what goes?-- the environment.
 
cyborg said:
It is not. Why is it so hard for you to understand that you cannot talk about inter-atom interactions at the atom level?
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand perfectly well that you don't want to talk about interatomic interactions because it flies in the face of your assertion that the carbon in steel is the same as carbon in glucose. However, when you insist that the interatomic interactions don't matter for what you are describing, you come up with a model of chemistry that cannot explain why methoxymethane (dimethyl ether) is a gas at standard temperature and pressure while ethanol, which contains the number and kind of atoms as methoxymethane, is a liquid at standard temperature and pressure. it also cannot explain why human can digest starch but not cellulose. In other words, you cannot ignore interatomic interactions and hope to come up with a coherent model for chemistry that has explanatory and predictive value.
 
Oh, I understand perfectly well that you don't want to talk about interatomic interactions
Click to expand...

NO MIJO! NO! This is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying that WE CANNOT talk about the interactomic at the atomic level. We do not have the language to discuss it.

it flies in the face of your assertion that the carbon in steel is the same as carbon in glucose.
Click to expand...

You do not understand my assertion.

However, when you insist that the interatomic interactions don't matter for what you are describing, you come up with a model of chemistry that cannot explain why
Click to expand...

Yes you do. That's why you need to extend the model. That adds abstractions.

In other words, you cannot ignore interatomic interactions and hope to come up with a coherent model for chemistry that has explanatory and predictive value.
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring them: they simply don't exist at the atom level.

C is an atom. O is an atom. H is an atom.

H2O is not an atom.

CO2 is not an atom.

C6H6O6 is not an atom.

O + O -> Oxygen Molecule

H + O + H -> Water

O + C + O -> Carbon Dioxide

12 Water + 6 Carbon Dioxide ---photon--> 1 Glucose + 6 Oxygen Molecule + 6 Water

... some time passes ...

DNA -> 'DNA

... some more time passes ...

cyborg -> mijopaalmc

You now have the floor.
 
They are impervious. And what is their entire point? That Southwind's analogy doesn't work? It does. The nozzle example is well known. If someone likens evolution to the 747 in the junkyard you can point out that it is quite different... that, in fact, the 747 itself "evolved"....that all planes are based on the first plane-- that evolution is about furthering that which "works best" in the environment it finds itself in.

They think it's confusing... but it's because they don't understand. It truly is not confusing to the majority. That is why people like Dawkins, Jones, Ridley, et. al. use it. That is why AI models itself on it... that is what biomimicry is about. Understanding it unlocks further understanding. But Mijo cannot understand (of course he insists that evolution is random), and I don't think that others who don't comprehend at this point ever will. And yet the internet and the world is full of people who can and do see the similarities and teach others using such analogies. I'm not sure anything would work on a hard core creationist since not anything seems to be able to break the impenetrable shield of the non-creationists who think they understand evolution, but can't seem to convey a cohesive understanding of how the complexity we see came about.
 
articulett said:
They are impervious. And what is their entire point? That Southwind's analogy doesn't work? It does. The nozzle example is well known. If someone likens evolution to the 747 in the junkyard you can point out that it is quite different... that, in fact, the 747 itself "evolved"....that all planes are based on the first plane-- that evolution is about furthering that which "works best" in the environment it finds itself in.

They think it's confusing... but it's because they don't understand. It truly is not confusing to the majority. That is why people like Dawkins, Jones, Ridley, et. al. use it. That is why AI models itself on it... that is what biomimicry is about. Understanding it unlocks further understanding. But Mijo cannot understand (of course he insists that evolution is random), and I don't think that others who don't comprehend at this point ever will. And yet the internet and the world is full of people who can and do see the similarities and teach others using such analogies. I'm not sure anything would work on a hard core creationist since not anything seems to be able to break the impenetrable shield of the non-creationists who think they understand evolution, but can't seem to convey a cohesive understanding of how the complexity we see came about.
Click to expand...



What you lack in understanding you make up for in arrogance. I suppose it evens out.
 
Has anyone shown an example of Intelligent Evolution yet?

Paul

:) :) :)
 
We can't even start to get there until people understand how to talk on different levels.
 
Well, one should start on the first level and that is an example of Intelligent Evolution.

Paul

:) :) :)

Not a hard thing to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom