Evolution is more than just information change over time. If Goddidit by incrementally altering the Design of organisms in a manner completely analogous to technological development, then by your reasoning that would be evolution.
With technological deveolpment there always needs to be intelligence defining the specifications and thus the selection criteria.
Asserting that "information evolves" doesn't alter the fact that the selection process is dissimilar to natural selection. Because it is artificial selection.
Jimbob - first off I've highlighted a phrase from your last post above, that I'd like to clarify with you. 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.
It's important jimbob that you understand this, because until you do you will continue to proffer erroneous arguments. Why erroneous? Because they fall outside the scope of what the likes of I, articulett and cyborg have been trying to convince you of. I'll risk using another, simple analogy to try to make the point (because that's what analogies are useful for); if you can follow this then we can, hopefully, put the whole concept of analogies behind us and move on: It's a little like me asserting that Jerry Seinfeld has dark coloured hair, and you arguing that I'm wrong, because he's actually only 175cm tall! The basis of your argument is on a completely different premise from mine, and cannot, therefore, form a basis for showing mine to be wrong. In fact, we could both be right, and we could both be wrong, but your argument doesn't help us establish which. Essentially, everything that I, articulett and cyborg have been saying is in the context of the analogy. If you cannot understand or accept an analogy for what it is, then, almost by definition, you will never be able to agree with us.
Now, are we agreed on what an analogy is, and why it can be very helpful to use them? I'll assume so, and move on.
OK, it seems to me jimbob that you're pretty much OK with the analogy so far as incremental change over time goes. In natural evolution it derives from essentially random mutations; in technology it derives from adaptations to existing designs. I think I've clearly shown, particularly through the story of Sam's and Ollie's electronics endeavours, that in technology, for the purpose of the analogy, such design changes could be considered essentially random. Ollie constructed his increasingly complex devices by following instructions for pre-determined 'mutations'; mutations that were derived from intent and forethought. Sam, however, did not, electing to make essentially random changes instead. They both, however, over the long term, ended up creating equally complex and useful devices; moreso, possibly, in the case of some of Sam's 'fortuitous' chance combinations!
So, your biggest problems seem to be with the notion of 'self-replication' and 'natural selection', and, more particularly, how the latter is necesarily dependent upon the former. OK, let's discuss these:
What, exactly, do you mean when you use the term 'self-replication'? I have read and understood articulett's numerous posts when she explains that the key point is that it's simply
information that is being copied, and that the entity by which that information is copied is simply a vehicle. What's important to realize is that the ability of such a vehicle to survive its environment is critical to the likelihood of the said information being copied, and I believe you do realize this. Now, this ties in with what I believe is the gist of your emphasis on 'self'. 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? Nature causes organisms to produce copies of themselves; Sam and Ollie both cause copies of their electronics devices to be copied (disregard 'selection' pressure for a moment; we'll come on to that soon). There is nothing inherently special about a process that causes something to be copied, especially when it's not a perfect copy, which is the case in both nature and technology. 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? Pending your answer to this question, I see no causal link between 'self-'replication and natural selection. In fact, I see no causal link between replication howsoever effected and natural selection. The selection process occurs sequentially to the replication process, and, just like the roulette ball cannot possibly 'know' what the last winning number was, whatever factors are at play during the 'selection' part of the evolutionary process they cannot possibly 'know' anything about the replication process, or that replication even occurs!
OK, let's move on to 'natural selection' specifically. I'll ask a similar question: what, exactly, do you mean when you use the term 'natural selection'? I believe that you use it to encompass the process by which any particular organism is allowed to proliferate through repetitive breeding purely by the application of the 'laws of nature'. Or, put another way, the process by which an organism is allowed to proliferate through repetitive breeding based upon inherent features and characteristics that equip it to survive the environment to which it is exposed better than competing organisms. Assuming this belief is correct, the essence of natural selection, therefore, is a measure of the effectiveness of an entity's ability to resist all of the factors that would otherwise reduce it's frequency of reproduction. Let's try to apply this description to Sam's electronics devices: the pertinent words are 'resist', 'factors', 'frequency' and 'reproduction'. Well, we've already addressed 'reproduction' (replication) above, and 'frequency' is simply a product of the degree of effectiveness of resistance to the environment, so we don't need to compare that directly. So we're left to consider Sam's electronics devices' ability to 'resist factors' that would lead to their demise. So, what do I mean by 'resist' and what are these 'factors'? Well, I've already identified some of the factors that come into play in nature, using the cheetah as an example, in a previous post, and I similarly identified some of the factors that apply with Sam's electronics devices. The problem I think you're having is with 'resistance', namely that natural resistance just seems to 'happen', whereas technological resistance is imposed by humans. 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? If you don't get this comparison, go along to your local car boot sale just before everybody packs up for the day and check out what's left over. I can guarantee it's likely to be the antelope with the limp, or the salmon that can't jump very high, or the bird with a broken wing. In the example of the cheetah and the school boy both take the path of least resistance, i.e. both 'select' based on what they determine offers the best propects. In the case of the cheetah it's the best prospects for lunch, or, in the case of the school boy, the best prospects for fun, or, in the case of a discerning businessman, the best prospects for improved productivity when he selects an office IT system, or, in the case of an actress, the best prospects for fame and fortune when she selects which parts to accept.
If there are any other aspects of the analogy that you're having trouble with that I've omitted to address I'm sure you'll bring them to my attention!
