Intelligent Evolution?

[Southwind17]

There is still intellignece directing the selection in this case.

"Sales fall, so the alteration is dropped and they go back to making the previous model and try a different randomly generated alteration."

What constitutes a fall in sales, is it weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly? What if the model still makes a profit? What if the price is altered?

For example.

OK - I have somewhat of a second wind; let's see how long it keeps me going

I thought the 'intelligence' you guys have a problem with is in the creative design process, and not the selection! Is there absolutely no 'intelligence' involved in natural selection? Is a cheetah acting completely unintelligently when 'determining' what prey to pursue, exactly how and for how long? Does a dolphin not apply some degree of intelligence when selecting and pursuing its prey? Have the prey of such creatures not evolved defence mechanisms that serve to counter such intelligence? I suppose you might argue that it's all based on instinct. Have you not ever made a decision in life based purely on instinct (like doing a bungee jump, for example, without having the rope and supporting structure scientifically tested for safety)? Many people make purchasing decision based largely, and sometimes wholly, on instinct.

Your specific questions are irrelevant, and you are, again, losing sight of what, exactly, the purpose of an analogy is. Do you honestly believe that these questions alone are going to prevent somebody from seeing the analogy and disputing that human design is completely incomparible with natural evolution?

But let me answer your questions, to demonstrate their irrelevance:

Why does the time period matter? Does nature infer a specific time period for testing the benefit or otherwise of a mutation? Of course not. The success or otherwise will be self-evident in the long term through its retention or elimination. The motor car is no different, whether the 'engineers' were to specify one month, six months or two years doesn't really matter. Long term survival derives from sustainable or increaing production levels driven by market (environmental) forces leading to profitability, otherwise losses ensue leading to reduced or abandoned production and ultimately extinction. One car maker might sustain losses for, say, six months; another for, say, two years, depending on many associated factors. And price is simply just another 'characteristic' of the motor car that influences it's likely rate of survival, no different in principle from whether it has a chrome plated or stainless steel exhaust pipe. Everything's a trade-off. Remember jimbob - ITS AN ANALOGY. THERE HAS TO BE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PROCESSES FOR AN ANALOGY EVEN TO EXIST. Are you claiming that there's no such thing as a good analogy in life? Perhaps you'd care to identify one so that we can compare and maybe see where you're struggling with mine.

 

[jimbob]

I thought the 'intelligence' you guys have a problem with is in the creative design process, and not the selection! Is there absolutely no 'intelligence' involved in natural selection? Is a cheetah acting completely unintelligently when 'determining' what prey to pursue, exactly how and for how long? Does a dolphin not apply some degree of intelligence when selecting and pursuing its prey? Have the prey of such creatures not evolved defence mechanisms that serve to counter such intelligence? I suppose you might argue that it's all based on instinct. Have you not ever made a decision in life based purely on instinct (like doing a bungee jump, for example, without having the rope and supporting structure scientifically tested for safety)? Many people make purchasing decision based largely, and sometimes wholly, on instinct.

Southwind, we use evolutionary algorithms at work. I have no problem with them. However the results of each generation needs to be selected. This is doen by using an algorithm to determine the "fitness score", and the fitness is defined in terms of the requirement specifications.

I was pointing oput that most human-led design has historically not used evolutionary algorithms, as they work best with computers automating the random parameter tweaks, assessing the fitness criteria, and performaing the selection.

(Human-led) intelligent design can do things that evolution can't, but which the ID proponents are (wrongly) claiming would be nescessary for (e.g.) mankind to develop.

There are "solutions" that evolution uses, which are not typical of an intelligence behind the design. I am not just talking about the obvious failures, like the mamalian retina, which would tend to get fixed in subsequent design overhauls, but also the reuse of design features elsewhere.

For example, eyes are highly advantageous, and sometimes there has been evolutionary pressure for more than one set of eyes to arise in the same organism. An intelligent approach would be to use the same eye design that is already available in this organism. Often however a seperate set of eyes evolve independently ans so there are two different types of eye within the same organism.

<snip>
Why does the time period matter? Does nature infer a specific time period for testing the benefit or otherwise of a mutation? Of course not. The success or otherwise will be self-evident in the long term through its retention or elimination. The motor car is no different, whether the 'engineers' were to specify one month, six months or two years doesn't really matter. Long term survival derives from sustainable or increaing production levels driven by market (environmental) forces leading to profitability, otherwise losses ensue leading to reduced or abandoned production and ultimately extinction. One car maker might sustain losses for, say, six months; another for, say, two years, depending on many associated factors. And price is simply just another 'characteristic' of the motor car that influences it's likely rate of survival, no different in principle from whether it has a chrome plated or stainless steel exhaust pipe. Everything's a trade-off. Remember jimbob - ITS AN ANALOGY. THERE HAS TO BE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PROCESSES FOR AN ANALOGY EVEN TO EXIST. Are you claiming that there's no such thing as a good analogy in life? Perhaps you'd care to identify one so that we can compare and maybe see where you're struggling with mine.

But, Southwind my point is that if you actually start thinking how this would be implimented, then you can't avoid intelligence somewhere in the creation of the selection algorithm.

The motor car is no different, whether the 'engineers' were to specify one month, six months or two years doesn't really matter.

The time period needs to be specified, indeed the fact that the descision to manufacture or not is based on sales also needs to be defined.

If we were talking about some form of Van Neumann machine, then those that replicated would replicate, whilst those that didn't wouldn't. The replication period might be different, but there need be no intelligence in the selection, as only those which manage to replicate would replicate.

Except for both having optimisation occuring over time, I see no further use for the analogy.

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind, we use evolutionary algorithms at work. I have no problem with them. However the results of each generation needs to be selected. This is doen by using an algorithm to determine the "fitness score", and the fitness is defined in terms of the requirement specifications.

But we're not 'at work' (wherever that may be), are we! We're standing in the car showroom. Please stick to the conversation I had with TT, otherwise you'll head straight down the blind alley again. What's the difference between somebody selecting one particular car over another and a cheetah selecting one particular animal to pursue over another? In both cases, the 'predator' assesses what's best for its purposes, all things considered. Car buyer: what's the price; how fast is it, what colour is it; does it look the part, is it manual or automatic, etc.; cheetah: how big is it, how fast is it, how defensive is it, how nutritious is it, etc. Neither the car buyer nor the cheetah deploy algorithms in their decision making process. Now re-read my last conversation with TT to see why car manufacturerers also don't need to deploy algorithms in the design development process, but choose too simply to stay in business. It's the bit before TT gets wise to the idea of intent and forethought.

I was pointing oput that most human-led design has historically not used evolutionary algorithms, as they work best with computers automating the random parameter tweaks, assessing the fitness criteria, and performaing the selection.

So what exactly are you saying here jimbob?

(Human-led) intelligent design can do things that evolution can't, but which the ID proponents are (wrongly) claiming would be nescessary for (e.g.) mankind to develop.

Please comment on the conversation with TT and relate your generic comments to that particular example.

There are "solutions" that evolution uses, which are not typical of an intelligence behind the design. I am not just talking about the obvious failures, like the mamalian retina, which would tend to get fixed in subsequent design overhauls, but also the reuse of design features elsewhere.

I'm focusing on how design could be seen to work, not evolution, then doing the comparison.

For example, eyes are highly advantageous, and sometimes there has been evolutionary pressure for more than one set of eyes to arise in the same organism. An intelligent approach would be to use the same eye design that is already available in this organism. Often however a seperate set of eyes evolve independently ans so there are two different types of eye within the same organism.

Very interesting, but off the point.

But, Southwind my point is that if you actually start thinking how this would be implimented, then you can't avoid intelligence somewhere in the creation of the selection algorithm.

Where's the intelligence in the example used in the conversation with TT, that's not equally apparant in nature?

The time period needs to be specified, indeed the fact that the descision to manufacture or not is based on sales also needs to be defined.

How is the time period specified in nature?

Except for both having optimisation occuring over time, I see no further use for the analogy.

You don't say!

 

[jimbob]

Firstly, I'd like to see a list of these differences.
Secondly, you do realise that the argument against ID is not that life is too complex to have been designed, but that it is not required to invoke an additional entity to explain that complexity, right?

Here is ImaginalDisc's list:

Design can overhaul, evolution cannot.

Design can plan for long-term development, evolution cannot.

Design can lift elements from one type of thing and apply them to another, evolution cannot.

Design can retain the plans of a form indefinately, evolution cannot.

Living things are produced by autonumous reproduction, machines are not.

Living things have heritable traits, machines do not.

Living things mutate, and those mutations are passed on. Machines neither mutate, nor pass on mutations.

 

[jimbob]

There is no intelligence needed for evolution, because all that happens is that replicators replicate, and any that fail to replicate, do not replicate.

This requires imperfect self-replication; with perfect self-replication, there would be no change between generations. Without self-replication there would be no natural-selection.

Those that do replicate, are by definition, variants that are able to replicate. That is the selection. If it doesn't replicate, there will be no further evolution for it. Without self-replication, something else has to decide what is selected to be copied. Somewhere along the line, the creation of the selection criteria will require an intelligent agency.


If a cheetah prevents a gazelle from breeding (by for example killing it) then that gazelle won't breed. If a car is sold or not, the hypothetical system (completely unlike any in real life) needs a seperate intervention to choose whether to copy that particular variant of car or not.

There is no way round it, without self-replication there is no natural selection. Without imperfect replication there is no variation. Evolution requires both variation and natural selection, thus evolution requires imperfect self-replication.

The evolutionary algorithm used in the hypothetical car factory has the variation sorted out, but it still needs something to stand in for the lack of self-replication.


Is there any use in an analogy that erroneously compares the evolutionary process to an unrealistic perocess of technological development, and simultaneously evokes* the arguments of many Intellignet Design proponents?

*some ID proponents explicitally invoke the same analogy, as they like the idea of an intelligence guiding evolution. Which is fine, because the inherent differences between evolution and design render the analogy useless as an argument about evolution.

 

[Southwind17]

There is no intelligence needed for evolution, because all that happens is that replicators replicate, and any that fail to replicate, do not replicate.

I don't think anybody is disagreeing with this, at least in principle, for the sake of the debate, although your and mijo's criticism that my analogy is over-simplified and hinges wholly on incremental change over time (which is wrong, because, as I've previously explained, there's more to the analogy than that), could equally be redirected at your assertion here, as there is much more involved in evolution than mere replicators replicating.

This requires imperfect self-replication; with perfect self-replication, there would be no change between generations. Without self-replication there would be no natural-selection.

I don't think anybody is disagreeing that imperfect replication is necessary for evolution. I do think you're getting unnecessarily hung up on self-replication, though, and that that's erroneously skewing the analogy for you. Yes, in nature self-replication has to be a key factor in evolution, but only insofar as there is no external agent (doesn't have to be intelligent) capable of effecting the replication 'artificially'. This is no different in my analogy though. Whilst admittedly there is an external agent, the decision of teh agent as to whether to go ahead and perform the replication isn't an arbitrary one. It is determined for him based on whether the latest alteration (mutation) to the design has proven itself to be beneficial or otherwise, just like a cheetah evolving an eye in the back of its head, for example. The agent doesn't set the specification and acceptance criteria and more than the cheetah does. If the car sells, the alterations are deemed beneficial; if the three-eyed cheetah survives, the mutation is likewise deemed beneficial. No difference.

Those that do replicate, are by definition, variants that are able to replicate. That is the selection. If it doesn't replicate, there will be no further evolution for it. Without self-replication, something else has to decide what is selected to be copied. Somewhere along the line, the creation of the selection criteria will require an intelligent agency.

See above. No intelligence required, just observation of what the environment (market) dictates.

If a cheetah prevents a gazelle from breeding (by for example killing it) then that gazelle won't breed. If a car is sold or not, the hypothetical system (completely unlike any in real life) needs a seperate intervention to choose whether to copy that particular variant of car or not.

Again, see above. The external agent doesn't arbitrarily decide whether to replicate the car or not. The environment (market) decides. The external agent simply 'presses' the requisite production line button.

Is there any use in an analogy that erroneously compares the evolutionary process to an unrealistic perocess of technological development, and simultaneously evokes* the arguments of many Intellignet Design proponents?

I doubt it, but there's much use for one that does, such as mine.[/quote]

*some ID proponents explicitally invoke the same analogy, as they like the idea of an intelligence guiding evolution. Which is fine, because the inherent differences between evolution and design render the analogy useless as an argument about evolution.

No they don't. Like you, they fail to see the distinction that no intelligence is necessary for the analogy still to work!

 

[jimbob]

Southwind, please show me how you can have natural selection without self-replication.

Indeed, show me how you can have any other form of selection without either intelligence or following of some "rules", which are set by an intelligence.

In the example of the car factory,the rules include "make only those cars which sell", however there are other trules involved too.

With self-replication, there need be no rules for selection, as the dumb universe "decides".

 

[articulett]

Jimbob, you just cannot get it.

Information is all that "self replicates"-- information that is good at getting itself copied, sticks around. Organisms don't self replicate-- pieces of the genetics for making them do. You are hung up on the term "self replicate" which you don't even understand.

When humans tweak designs they are making imperfect copies...just like when nature makes a mutation. The environment chooses from among these copies which will survive to have it's information passed on in part or in whole-- which is exactly what happens in nature. Humans do not copy themselves. They copy half their information is assorted varieties and if one of these gametes meets up with another human gamete the recombined zygote can begin replication... but sperm don't copy sperm... it's only the information that gets copied... and information that has something that makes it more likely to get copied gets passed on preferentially.
This is the same with information contained in useful designs or manipulative language or clever computer viruses.

At it's very core, it's the same. It's you who are muddled and confused. You just never have really understood natural selection... part of it is due to your need to call it "probabilistic selection"-- i... it's also you who doesn't understand why the ID crowd uses the tornado/airplane analogy and why it is the opposite of what evolution actually is and it's YOU who don't understand why that inability to simply convey how selection confers seeming design and complexity is exactly what the ID proponents hope for. It's you who doesn't understand how the analogy shows the power of selection as opposed to the strawman nuttiness that "scientists think this all happened randomly".

In regards to information--humans are only processors, copiers, recombiners, and mutators of that which is already out there. They are selective forces... like animals programmed to do things by their genes which help their genes survive... Humans do things as programmed by genes and memes (cultural learning) that encourages the passing on of the same.

It's you. All your questions divert you from understanding... but perhaps you can't . It doesn't make you right-- it doesn't even mean you are saying anything of value. It just means that you are not able to follow the conversation and you aren't communicating anything to anyone about anything... and frustrating many people who are trying to help you understand.

I think it's fair to say that some people cannot understand how this analogy will work and they truly believe that it plays into creationist hands. However, we can also show via evidence that it does work for many and there is no evidence that creationists ever emphasize selection-- their technique always seems to be about making people sound as confused and muddled about it as you so that selection isn't understood for the simple but powerful force it is.

Apparently, nobody will ever be able to explain to you why the analogy works... and no one will ever be able to prove to you that creationists never ever emphasize or convey an understanding of selection nor will anyone be able to explain to you that that is what the analogy is about. Your tangential questions are not designed to help you understand, but to make people as confused about what selection is as you are. As mijo is. As Behe sounds.

 

[articulett]

Don't answer Southwind... they don't want to understand the analogy. Just like creationists who try to poke holes in evolution... they are trying to undermine your analogy and then pretend they explain things better. It's the same deranged nothingness. They don't understand the analogy; they don't want to understand the analogy; and they want to make themselves and others think it's because the analogy is bad-- and not because their understanding is lacking. They are known obfuscators who confuse more than they clarify in every post as far as I can tell. They ask tangential questions to keep you drawn in-- but they cannot engage in actual dialogue. They are having a contest in their own heads that we are not privy to that they must win at all costs. They both imagine they have this understanding about natural selection that is beyond the experts, but to those who actually understand it, they just sound muddled and Behe-esque like they just aren't saying anything useful at all. And they don't even communicate with each other. Like religionists who can't get their story straight, they blow smoke and use semantics to pretend that they are saying something of value and hide the fact that it's you who actually are. I don't know if it's on purpose-- I just know that I've never seen this type change. They want to "win"-- not discuss or learn. But you never know what it is they think they are winning.

 

[jimbob]

Articulett, why do you think I am "hung up" on the term "self-replicate"?

True I have used it a lot in this thread, but withourt self-replication, there can be no analogous process to natural selection, indeed an ugly way of looking at it is that self-replication allows dumb self-selection.

If one is talking about memes, then they would "self-replicate" within the minds that constitute their environment.

 

[Paulhoff]

The beat goes on, the beat goes on

Paul

 

[articulett]

Articulett, why do you think I am "hung up" on the term "self-replicate"?

True I have used it a lot in this thread, but withourt self-replication, there can be no analogous process to natural selection, indeed an ugly way of looking at it is that self-replication allows dumb self-selection.

If one is talking about memes, then they would "self-replicate" within the minds that constitute their environment.

Because information that gets itself copied does self replicate. The only thing replicating is the information-- the genes are getting themselves copied by coding for better copiers. That is the same for good ideas. Or virulent ideas. They are getting themselves copied because of their nature... what they cause their replicators to do. Just as genes cause their own copying based on what they code for or how they ride along in successful genomes... airplane designs cause their own replication because replicators copy things that help them do what they want to do. When a chain letter tells you to copy it and you will get a reward and a punishment for not copying it...it is coding for it's "own replication". That is all that is meant by "self replication".

And when humans tweak designs--that is analogous to nature making an imperfect copy. It can't be tested to see if it goes on until it actually builds something that is tested in the environment. And animal that dies before it is born cannot pass on the information in it's genome. And a blueprint that never gets made into an airplane cannot be tested in it's environment either... and so can't be passed on.

You are seeing differences that aren't there. But even if there were differences-- it doesn't invalidate the analogy.

The analogy is about how complex seeming miraculous designs come about readily-- but not randomly. They are built over time by information that is good at getting itself copied via an environment. Animals don't evolve-- the information that makes the animals is what evolves. It's the information that gets itself replicated that drives evolution. This is true of airplanes too... and technology. Airplanes don't evolve... but the designs that make them do. Based on what? How the airplanes they code for perform in the environment... the same way as genomes evolve!

I can't make it any clearer. And everyone has tried. And your point is that the analogy can't work and will confuse creationists, but the only one it really seems to confuse is you--and you have never been able to convey natural selection well as far as I can tell. Plus you think you convey it better than Dawkins et. al. which no one but Mijo agrees with. And he argues exactly like Behe almost word for word--and who has Behe conveyed any understanding of anything to. Who thinks Behe understands natural selection or wouldn't argue similarly against the analogy. Not anybody who has read him, that's for sure.

All of IDs objections don't matter to the analogy... moreover, they aren't correct-- in nature, DNA is arranged all the time in all different ways and evolving systems evolve together as well... All of evolution is at it's essence, just information that is good at getting itself copied, tweaked, added to, recombined, etc. over time. INFORMATION-- not the things the information builds. Genomes--not creatures; designs not airplanes; recipes not the food itself; sheet music...not the song. Software data--not the program itself. We see the later as snapshots in time--but what is evolving is what codes for what we see (or hear or understand).

Selected information over time gives the appearance of design and increasing complexity--whether foresight is involved in any way or not.

And even as I type this, I know that you will never say, "Oh, I get it now!" You truly have a belief that because you think this analogy doesn't work and plays into creationist hands that others shouldn't use it. But others can and do use it-- all the time. Because it works. And creationists never emphasize what a powerful shaper selection is--and they muddle understanding of "self replication" as well. Like your muddledness, their goal is to make something relatively simple-- very difficult to understand.

 

[Paulhoff]

Put your right foot in, pull your right foot out.

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, articulett, what marks the boundaries of biology as a domain of knowledge if not self-replication?

 

[Paulhoff]

And shake it all about

Paul

 

[articulett]

I'm going to try this analogy again because I keep tricking myself into thinking jimbob can get it.

Butterflies are replicators. They don't copy themselves... they have cells that copy their genetic information into gametes. The information for making butterflies (the blueprint) is called a genome. When butterflies do what butterflies do, they create gametes that come together and make butterfly genomes which make butterflies.

One day the butterflies made a little butterfly that had a combination or mutation in it's genome that gave it a survival advantage-- a big one-- this just happened in the process of butterflies doing what butterflies do. All the male butterflies that didn't have this advantage died off--but not this butterfly--he multiplied and passed on the mutation to his descendants...so soon the mutation was found in all the butterflies--because those without the mutation didn't survive to reproduce or left a lot fewer descendants.

So, the information that caused this change happened as a result of recombination/imperfect replication. We'll call it the golden mutation. This mutation had a trick for getting itself copied in the future. If a genome didn't have the golden mutation, it wasn't likely to live and pass on it's non-mutated genome. But if the butterfly had the "golden mutation" it lived and passed on the golden mutation. The mutation made it possible to get itself copied widely in the future. It had a trick for getting itself replicated. That is what is meant by self replication. Yes, it helped the rest of the genome attached to it replicate...and yes, it helped the butterflies live on-- but the important part of the story is that it had a way of making itself be part of future evolving genomes.

Now onto the airplanes. Humans go about doing what humans do and in the process, humans have been trying to make flying machines... and they combine and test and try all sorts of information and one day the Wright Brothers hit upon a golden mutation. They figure out the correct design for making an airplane that flies. They tweaked and imperfectly copied and recombined prior designs in the process of doing what humans do just as the butterflies did when they were making the zygotes that lead to the eventual golden mutation.

The golden mutation is the part of the design that made the whole thing work-- the whole thing worth copying... It was the information that made itself get copied along with the rest of the airplane design and so that airplane genomes (blueprints) could become a part of an evolving system. The information became something that encouraged others to copy it... nobody copies designs of airplanes that don't fly. Humans are replicators of information when they go about doing what humans do... just as the butterflies are replicators of information when they go about doing what butterflies do. Information that has something that makes it get copied drives evolution "forward"-- golden mutations, if you will... So information is always coding for more and better information processors--or dying out. If you are information-- you are either part of evolving systems or you die out.

Why is the tornado/747 analogy wrong? because we know that it takes time and selection for information to build complex forms of matter-- like airplanes or animals--
Humans can speed up or bias the direction of the information--but only information that has a means of being copied, remembered, recombined, added to, etc. will go forward to produce new technologies or creatures or systems or "the next big thing".

 

[Southwind17]

Geee, any Intelligent Evolution around here.

Here's some:

The beat goes on, the beat goes on

... and some more:

Put your right foot in, pull your right foot out.

... a little more maybe?:

And shake it all about

So, this comment:

Oh, you are just so deep.

Oh yes you are.....

... seems a little shallow now, doesn't it.

Kids and party games eh - they just love 'em!

 

[Southwind17]

Jimbob - you seem to have conveniently omitted to answer directly many of the questions and points raised in my Post #1043. It might be helpful to the debate if you were to revisit them and offer us your answers and views.

In the meantime:

Southwind, please show me how you can have natural selection without self-replication.

Well, notwithstanding articulett's repeated observation regarding your blatant confusion over what self-replication actually means, I'd be inclined to say that you can't, but I'd prefer to simply call it 'replication'. I don't believe the 'self' part is important to the analogy, which only derives from the fact that in order to replicate the replicator must have survived its environment for a period of time sufficient to breed. That's no different for the motor car in the showroom. I don't believe there's anything inherent in the 'self' part of the process that's essential to the analogy. The motot car, like the wild animal, is subject to external pressures of survival and extinction, and if it survives, reflected in sufficient sales, or whatever other measure you might see fit, then it is replicated. Articulett's last offering to try to get you to see the light couldn't have been more succinctly and, dare I say, articulately put.

Indeed, show me how you can have any other form of selection without either intelligence or following of some "rules", which are set by an intelligence.

I've asked you to revisit my previous post above, but I might pre-empt part of that by asking you here, again: Is the cheetah or the dolphin completely devoid of intelligence when it goes hunting for prey? Does the cheetah or the dolphin not follow certain 'rules' when selecting an area to go hunting in, or which particular prey to pursue, or, in the case of the cheetah, when to give up the chase?

In the example of the car factory,the rules include "make only those cars which sell", however there are other trules involved too.

And in the 'cheetah factory' the rules include: pursue only those prey that are able to be caught and killed (I haven't seen many lions or elephants being taken down by a cheetah, have you, but I'm sure they'd make a great meal!), only pursue prey at full speed for so long; preserve energy for a further attempt if unsuccessful within a set period of time, etc. I'm sure there are many other 'rules' that apply to the cheetah's quest to survive and replicate too.

With self-replication, there need be no rules for selection, as the dumb universe "decides".

You see jimbob, you've used the word 'rules' to try to draw a comparison. Clearly, rules don't exist in the wild in the same sense that they do in the human world, so you've essentially introduced an analogy. Unfortunately for you, your analogy, as shown above, is completely flawed.

 

[Southwind17]

I have seven year old twin boys. About six months ago they came to me and asked if they could have an increase to their allowance (spending money). I told them ‘no’, but suggested a way that they could maybe make a little extra. I offered to buy each of them a junior electronics set, and suggested that they could make useful things and sell them to their mates. I explained that if they made a modest profit on each item they sold they could then buy more electronics components and make even better things. This appealed to them, so I bought the electronics sets and left them to it in their respective playrooms.

After a few days Ollie came to me with a handful of loose change and explained that it was the proceeds from his sales. He asked if I could buy some more electronics components for him with it. He even handed to me a list of what components he wanted! So, I went ahead and bought them for him. A few days later a similar thing happened, but he had even more cash this time, and an even longer list of required components. This pattern continued, and it seemed that Ollie was building himself a little electronics empire. Meantime, Sam was nowhere to be seen.

This continued for about six months, after which I decided to sit the boys down and find out how they’d been doing. Ollie proceeded to explain that he’d started by following the instruction booklet and made the first, basic project. It was a simple torch (bulb, battery, switch, wires). He explained that his mates at school had been impressed and one of them had bought it from him. He’d come home and made more torches for his mates, who had willingly handed over their cash. Ollie explained that after a while he’d decided to have a go at the next, slightly more complex project in the instruction booklet. This project expanded on the torch idea by incorporating a small motorized fan to keep cool during the hot weather. He’d taken it to school to discover that it was even more popular than the simple torch. His mates obviously found the torch with a fan to be more beneficial than just a simple torch, and, indeed, more ‘beneficial’ than buying lollies instead! Of course, Ollie stopped making the simple torch and concentrated on the torch with the fan; nobody was interested in the simple torch any longer. He jokingly explained to us how he’d considered the simple torch to have gone ‘extinct’, obviously drawing an analogy to the dinosaurs he was then learning about. This pattern had continued and he was now making all sorts of weird and wonderful devices with the new and more diverse components he was finding himself able to buy.

Meanwhile, whilst Ollie was explaining all of this, Sam was looking increasingly puzzled. I asked him what was wrong. He explained that there hadn’t even been an instruction booklet included in his electronics set. He hadn’t even known he should have had one. So I asked him how he’d gone about making something. Sam explained that he’d simply connected wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion, and that he’d taken his ‘creations’ to school to try to sell them. Understandably, nobody was interested; they served no useful purpose. Then Sam explained that one day, purely by chance, he’d happened to connect up a battery with a switch and a light bulb in a particular order and the bulb had lit. He’d taken it to school and his mates had apparently now shown great interest, so much so that one of them bought it from him. So, like Ollie, Sam proceeded to make simple torches by copying what he’d made and sell them to his mates. Obviously, his mates also saw a benefit in what he was making and elected to spend their money on his electronics projects over lollies and football cards. Sam then went on to explain that after a while he’d decided to experiment a little by randomly connecting additional components and wires to his simple torch and trying to sell the new ‘devices’. Unfortunately, these proved to be no more popular then the simple torch. Indeed, some of them proved to be less popular than the simple torch, as the extra components and wires just got in the way and made the torch more difficult to use. Sam jokingly commented that most of his new ‘devices’ had gone extinct almost immediately. I thought it was good that he could still see a funny side to all of this. However, Sam explained that after a few weeks he had, again by chance, just happened to connect some extra wire and a motorized fan to his simple torch. When he’d taken that to school all the boys suddenly showed renewed interest, as they had with Ollie’s torch/fan combination.

The more Sam explained the pattern of his progress the more it became apparent that it had followed essentially the same as Ollie’s, except, understandably, at a much slower rate of development. Ollie had followed the instruction booklet but Sam had simply put components together haphazardly. It also transpired that Sam’s random assembly of components had, in fact, resulted in some devices or variants to devices that didn’t appear in the booklet. Ollie found this most interesting, as it gave him ideas for how he could adapt some of his designs to incorporate some of the discoveries that Sam had made purely by chance.

So, we concluded the discussion with both Sam and Ollie realizing that they were, in fact, both developing essentially the same electronics devices. The only difference was that Sam, because of the absence of intent and forethought, was simply making random changes to his designs and, therefore, taking far longer to develop them than Ollie was. Needless to say, Ollie has now relinquished his electronics booklet to Sam; Ollie has already progressed beyond it and has no further need for it.

What this story clearly demonstrates is:

1. Intent and forethought are not necessary for seemingly intelligent human design to develop.
2. Natural selection and artificial selection are closely comparable. The ability of any particular ‘species/design’ to thrive is determined by its 'predisposition' to be preferentially selected over the competition, which is driven by how well equipped it is to perform in any particular environment given its particular characteristics and features. No intentional and thoughtful external agent is necessary; the environment, whatever that may comprise, is the agent in both cases.
3. Self-replication has no greater inherent qualities than simple copying. Whether such replication is effected naturally or artificially doesn't matter. What does matter is whether the environment is such that survival is able to prevail over extinction thereby enabling replication (copying) simply to occur.

 

[President Bush]

So, we concluded the discussion with both Sam and Ollie realizing that they were, in fact, both developing essentially the same electronics devices. The only difference was that Sam, because of the absence of intent and forethought, was simply making random changes to his designs and, therefore, taking far longer to develop them than Ollie was.

Sounds more like an analogy of the, respective, operations of US and Japanese automakers.

How does arguing against the idea of erasing the distinction between genius and trial and error, necessarily, cause one to be arguing for "God"?