Intelligent Evolution?

[Worm]

Some light relief in the Intelligent Design debate...

'Overcompensating' comic strip

 

[Herzblut]

Having a longer neck doesn't help if you're not in a position to use it.

If you don't develop a longer neck you certainly don't get an opportunity to test it.

Given enough time the right mutations and being in the right place to use it organisms will evolve to occupy a niche.


The giraffe fulfilled these criteria.

So, what kind of selection pressure favored giraffes with long necks?

The entire sentence.

I asked whether you identify your computer simulations of evolution with biological evolution itself.

 

[Southwind17]

I am arguing that the analogy in particular is an example of an evolutionary algorithm, of which there are real examples that show the power of the evolutionary approach (random mutation and goal-driven selection). These are fine to demonstrate the power of the evolutinary approach, but because there is no self-replication, they do not demonstrate evolution as it happens in biolgical organisms.

The difference is that with self-replication there is naturally selection for the best replicator, this is natural selection. Without self-replication, the selection criteria have to be defined, so there is an explicit or an implicit "goal", which is lacking in biological evolution. The giraffe doesn't have a long neck in order to eat the highest leaves, itr has a long neck because proto-giraffes with longer necks reproduced, whilst those with shorter necks didn't. Do you see the subtle difference?

It's much more than 'subtle' jimbob, but please, point out to me why in the Sam & Ollie story and the ladder analogy (I've I've described it) Sam's replication of his latest device and the ladder maker's replication of a particular length ladder are not tantamount to self-replication. Both Sam and the ladder maker receive feedback from the environment into which their products are introduced ONLY INSOFAR AS WHETHER THE LATEST DEVICE/LADDER IS BETTER THAN THE LAST OR NOT (survival of the fittest). There's no intent on either Sam's part or the ladder maker's. They both receive instructions to replicate what they last made (or not to replicate, if no instruction is received). It's absolutely no different from the giraffe with the longer neck surviving the giraffe with the shorter neck. An instruction is effectively 'issued' to the long-necked giraffe to replicate, whereas no such instruction is 'issued' in the case of the short-necked giraffe. Where, EXACTLY, jimbob, do you see a difference (and please don't mention the words 'intent', 'forethought', 'goal-driven' and the like without showing exactly where they appear in both the Sam & Ollie story and the ladder analogy). I'm actually ASTOUNDED that both you and mijo have continued for so long to see something that isn't there!

I am arguing that every evolutionary algorithm in engineering requires a goal or set of specification criteria to work, this goal is not needed in biological evolution. There are ID websites, which claim that biological evolution is like technical development (indeed they like using the word evolutionin the context of technology to muddy the waters), and point out the need for a goal in technical development, so they say that biological evolution is akin to the intelligently guided process of technical "evolution" and not akin to Darwinian evoluton.

Do you think it's possible that your aversion (and rightly so) of this likening of goal-driven technological development to biological evolution by ID proponents is somehow creating a mental barrier in your mind that's completely preventing you from entertaining any other notion that technological development and biological evolution can be considered analogous, even if on a fundamentally different basis, namely with the absence of 'intelligence' from technological development, or do you consider that technological development necessarily must be goal-driven, notwithstanding that neither Sam nor the ladder maker have goals in mind when they develop their products? It seems likely to me jimbob.

Now we could try to pretend that they are wrong and there is no intelligence involved or intent needed in engineering ...

But they are not wrong at this level jimbob. No pretense is necessary, another factor that's possibly skewing your judgement. ID proponents see intent, foresight and goal-drive as constituting intelligence. Whether they actually do constitute intelligence or not I'm not qualified to say, but I'd be happy to accept that they do, for the purpose of this debate. Why? Because in the scenarios that I have created with the Sam & Ollie story and my adaptation of your very own ladder analogy I have shown that no intent or forethought are present, and that there is no goal, notwithstanding that both you and mijo seem unable to see how that can possibly be (incidentally, if you persist in doing so I'll set out a simple demonstration that you can try yourselves at home that prove that intent, forethought and goals are unnecessary). In fact, I believe I also described how your beloved Spitfire (and rightly so!) would have evolved through random changes instead of intent and forethought and still resulted in what we saw (or something similar, possibly better, even!), but for the fact that we'd need to hang around for a few million years maybe to see it happen!

Actually, there's a thought to use against the ID argument. If technological development and biological evolution are so similar, why has it only taken a century or so for mere mortal humans to develop sophisticated fighter aircraft and the like, whereas it's taken how many million years for 'god' (that would be that omnipotent but elusive being!) to arrange for the evolution of, well, 'sophisticated' slugs, snails and the like, oh, and humans, of course!

... but it won't convince many people, and will be misleading ...

And rightly so, because it's potentially wrong to dispute it; certainly unnecessary and naive if you want to win the argument.

... or we could poiointout that biological evolution is unlike technical "development" in important ways.

That's right jimbob; ways which have so far swayed the ID proponents not one iota, because the arguments don't challenge the notion that 'intelligence' DOES NOT need to be present in technological development for complexity to arise. Don't you see jimbob - until you convincingly remove 'intelligence' from the ID mixing pot it doesn't matter to ID proponents what else you throw in or take out!

I would prefer to show real examples of evolutionary algorithms that have been used to develop systems, some of which are not amenable to conventional design techniques, and say "these needed a goal, but if something reproduces itself imperfectly, there is selection for those variants that do reproduce. The full power of this algorithm is then optimising towards reproduction. Reproduction is the only 'goal' in biological evolution."

So you'd prefer this would you? Think about that for a second jimbob. Has this argument not been tried? I'm sure it has. Where has it got us? I'll let you answer that one.

 

[Southwind17]

Which word don't you understand?

I agree the analogy doesn't go far. The "products" of biological evolution replicate themselves and development is driven by external selection of certain random errors in the construction plan. Technical products don't produce themselves. Their lifecycle is determined by production, logistics and retail branches of the industrie and finally by the consumer. The producer has production and development clearly separated into different processes. Technical development does not happen by accidental errors in the production cycle.

Herzblut - IT'S AN ANALOGY! Which word don't you understand? Wait, let me guess, 'analogy'?

Remember, the OP was posted simply as an idea for demonstrating that seeming irreducible complexity within technology can develop from exceedingly humble beginnings, and with far less than god-like human interaction, thereby eliminating, or at least hugely diluting, the need to introduce a fictitious power-being into the equation. As the debate has developed, however, it's certainly become blatantly apparent to me that the similarities with biological evolution are more apparent than I first realized, provided, allow me to repeat that, provided that one understands the artificiality of intent and forethought (intelligence). Most of the aspects that you refer to above, such as production, logistics and retail branches are either products of 'intelligence' and/or ancilliary to the thrust of the analogy.

It seems to me that people are either capable of assimilating analogies and appreciating that analogies work at different levels or they're not. If people can't assimilate and appreciate analogies then there's nothing to be gained from debating the details within the analogy.

 

[Southwind17]

I agree that humans can take evolutionary approaches to problems.

Could you please expand on this mijo so that we can be sure exactly what you're acknowledging here, at to what degree(s). Are you proposing an alternative to technological development as a good analogy for biological evolution?

However, these approaches are not the sum total of how technological development progresses.

Your response to the above will, no doubt, enlighten us.

The fact that goal direction and systematic (rather than random) changes can be incorporated into technological development makes it different in its essence from biological evolution which cannot incorporate goal direction and systematic changes can be incorporated.

Yes, it does make it different, I agree, but that of itself doesn't invalidate the analogy. It's been explained ad nauseum that analogies, by definition, are different from what they set out to describe. What would happen, though, if the goal direction and systematic changes to which you refer above were replaced with randomness and retention of improvements?

 

[Southwind17]

So, what kind of selection pressure favored giraffes with long necks?

Would it happen to be the ability to reach otherwise unattainable critical food supplies in times of scarcity, thereby ensuring survival, by any chance?!

 

[Southwind17]

I asked whether you identify your computer simulations of evolution with biological evolution itself.

That's an interesting interpretation of what you first wrote:

A life simulation is life itself, your definition of the world is the world?

Ever thought of going into politics?!

 

[Belz...]

You are still missing that the kind and method of the information passing are what differ between the two processes and therefore render the analogy invalid.

Mijo. Please read this slowly:

The analogy is about information being passed along and replicated. It's NOT about HOW it does it.

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE HOW.

So please stop trying to make a point that doesn't exist.

 

[Belz...]

I know what the analogy in the OP is about; I read the first line. My point is that the analogy doesn't go what it claims to do because it fails to acknowledge that technological development is an intelligently directed process, unlike biological evolution.

Really ? Or is intelligence an information directed process ?

 

[cyborg]

So, what kind of selection pressure favored giraffes with long necks?

Food accessable on tall trees it would seem.

I asked whether you identify your computer simulations of evolution with biological evolution itself.

Well duh - that's kinda the point.

 

[amb]

Would you like to see my recipe for Creationist Fricasee?

Take one Creationist:

First, remove liver, spleen, brains and balls (if applicable), discard in a very small recepticle.

For best results, throw the rest away and use more evolved material for cooking.

You realize of course that Darwin was wrong.
Apes evolved from creationists.
After watching the film Jesus Camp again last night, I'm convinced I'm right.

 

[Herzblut]

Herzblut - IT'S AN ANALOGY! Which word don't you understand? Wait, let me guess, 'analogy'?

No, 'an'.

Remember, the OP was posted simply as an idea for demonstrating that seeming irreducible complexity within technology can develop from exceedingly humble beginnings, and with far less than god-like human interaction, thereby eliminating, or at least hugely diluting, the need to introduce a fictitious power-being into the equation.

Right. Just: is there anybody denying this? It is immediately clear that humans can manufacture emergent products. Like ..eh.. a chess game! If one of the pieces is missing, it's no longer a chess game ("irreducible complexity").

The creationists argument goes "it's highly improbable a chess game emerges by chance", or sth like that, doesn't it?

I think your analogy doesn't address the "by chance" aspect of the argument properly because technology simply isn't developing by chance.

It seems to me that people are either capable of assimilating analogies and appreciating that analogies work at different levels or they're not.

I'm sorry, I understand how analogies work, I just don't think yours is working particuarly well.

 

[cyborg]

Like ..eh.. a chess game! If one of the pieces is missing, it's no longer a chess game ("irreducible complexity").

The creationists argument goes "it's highly improbable a chess game emerges by chance", or sth like that, doesn't it?

Add, "does not know chess has evolved as a game," to list of misconceptions about common items.

I think your analogy doesn't address the "by chance" aspect of the argument properly because technology simply isn't developing by chance.

What part of free market economics don't you understand?

 

[President Bush]

If technological development and biological evolution are so similar, why has it only taken a century or so for mere mortal humans to develop sophisticated fighter aircraft and the like

Play Jeopardy music.

 

[Southwind17]

Remember, the OP was posted simply as an idea for demonstrating that seeming irreducible complexity within technology can develop from exceedingly humble beginnings, and with far less than god-like human interaction, thereby eliminating, or at least hugely diluting, the need to introduce a fictitious power-being into the equation.

Right. Just: is there anybody denying this?

Well here's one person, for example:

The analogy is awfully misleading as you described. And it gives the utterly wrong impression of a directed evolution geared to higher complexity.

It is immediately clear that humans can manufacture emergent products. Like ..eh.. a chess game! If one of the pieces is missing, it's no longer a chess game ("irreducible complexity").

Gee, talk about selecting an obscure example!

The creationists argument goes "it's highly improbable a chess game emerges by chance", or sth like that, doesn't it?

When ID proponents start using a game of chess as justification for ID I think the waters will have turned as muddy as they possibly can. I can't think of many better examples than a mid-game chess board for displaying an arrangement that's seemingly random. Show a non-chess player such a chess board and ask them to try to make sense of it!

I think your analogy doesn't address the "by chance" aspect of the argument properly because technology simply isn't developing by chance.

Have you read the Sam & Ollie story, or my version of the ladder analogy that jimbob kindly introduced? If so, as I've very recently requested of jimbob, please point out the intent on the part of Sam and the ladder maker.

I'm sorry, I understand how analogies work, I just don't think yours is working particuarly well.

I remain to be convinced.

 

[Belz...]

I think your analogy doesn't address the "by chance" aspect of the argument properly because technology simply isn't developing by chance.

Doesn't it ? Well, from your 'intelligence' point of view, I suppose you're right.

 

[hammegk]

What sort of thing do you have in mind?

Unknown, but "it" appears to exhibit bottom-up "intentful actions" (a consideration previously raised in this thread). Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM might offer a glimpse at not-random, and un-determined, actions.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo. Please read this slowly:

The analogy is about information being passed along and replicated. It's NOT about HOW it does it.

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE HOW.

So please stop trying to make a point that doesn't exist.

Got it.

Making yogurt and making wine are essentially the same process because they are both fermentation processes. Now you should be able to make yogurt and wine.

 

[jimbob]

Musings:

I'm thinking that what may be at the core of this argument, at least on the Tech side, is one of "dimension gap". When speaking about Darwin we understand the time scale involved, the context. We understand that it is a long process. When thinking about technology we tend to fixate on the results, or if not, ignore most of the context.

When thinking about technology people tend to think of individuals as agents of change. Thomas Edison. Wilbur and Frank Loyd Wright . . . . . . our natural tendency to reduce complexity to a soundbyte leads us to look for heroes, and the heroes themselves are often motivated to help propagate this idea. Tech Evo and Design are likey to be opaque to any outsider. Why should it be otherwise? It's good marketing to condense a cumbersome process into one that fits the human need for ego gratification.

As I said before, Evolutionary Algorithms are a great demonstration of the power of the "evolutionary approach", it is just that to work in engineering the selection criteria are chosen so as to direct the "evolution" of the design towards meeting the specifications. This direction is not the same as in real evolution where there are many different "solutions" to the problem of "reproduce".

If we say "evolution is akin to technical development", I think that many people would immediately think of something akin to the Manhattan Project: The goal was known from the start. There were many failures, some of them fatal, but people were able to learn from these failures and avoid them in future. This doesn't happen in biological evolution. As mutation is random, if a deletereous mutation occured in one individual, it has the same probability of happening to that gene in a different individual as before (assuming something hasn't altered the probability of it mutating). The chances of the identical mutations occuring in two different individuals is very small, but it still exists. If I throw a thousand-sided die and get 678, there is a 1:1000 chance that the next person will throw 678, of course, before throwing the first die, the chance that both dice throws will give 678 is 1:1million, after the first dice throw it is up to to 1:1000...

Again some mutations are deleterious in some situations and not in others, there are many congenital anaemias, but they tend to be more common in the maleria belt, because of the imcreased resistance to maleria they sometimes confer.

We can't do this for Giraffes. No credit is given for the invention of the long neck, because the phenomenon, viewed properly, is a process. There is no long necked giraffe hero. 4 dimensional giraffe reality is a continuum of animals with different necks. And technology is exactly the same.

But not. It is not self-replicating. Or. . .

The first thing an inventor or engineer or designer does when presented with a problem to solve, (amateurs are are exempted from this stricture, and this is why we cringe when people find out that you make "new" stuff for a living and they want to show you the shiny new wheel they've just re-invented) is to look back in time. Look back into the tech genome. It's called "prior art".

What you see when you look there usually shocks the **** out of you. Didn't some Old Testament dude have something to say about novelty? Well it's true. The first patent I filed in the mid 80's was for a product idea that I thought had no existing market category when I began the process, and ended up including a reference to prior art almost 100 years old.

Another anectodote to ponder: As any R&D guy or inventor will tell you, and speak of as a "given", and the occurance of related litigation would be regarded as support of its veracity, is that, "If you're thinking about an idea somebody else is thinking about the same thing". What they fail to mention is that it's often "somebody else" in each county of each state of each nation in the increasingly globalized universe. No complaints. As the bar is raised, the field gets bigger. But still it gives one pause.

Agreed, but I would say that this is because the "variation" is not random; the type of the problem, and the state of the art "known solution space" are constraining the type of answers that are developed.

In designing a lift, one would not randomly select cable thicknesses, but a calculation plus safety margin would determine the type of cable thickness. That is not any way akin to random variation as occurs in Darwinian Eolution. I would go further and say that many, if not most design parameter values are typically determined by calculation (recently they could be chosen by Evolutionary Algorithm too).

Back to the self-replicating issue: Without putting a Lamarckian label on anything, who's to say we won't see a Darwinesque leap into an identifiable memetic solution to the replication of ideas and therefore Tech Evolution? In which case such a process might be as "bottom up" as Darwin?

I am not arguing that it is couldn't be described as bottom-up.

Suppose there is a brainstrorm to solve a particular problem, the ideas that occur to people will be shaped by their experiences and by the nature of the problem, so would not be random "thoughts" (whatever they are). In the ladder example the "framing" of the problem tends to lead predispose people towards certain obvious solutions:

"The ladder is too short to reach the top of the apple trees"

The idea that immediately springs to my mind, is to lengthen the ladder.​

"The top of the apple tree is too high for us to reach with the ladder"

This is more likely to lead to a different solution to this problem: growing the apples on dwarfing rootstocks so that ladders aren't needed; this is what tends to happen nowdays, as it reduces labour costs, though is less good for mixed livestock grazing amongst these trees.​

However I would say that neither of those solutions were random, the ideas were a result of responses to the "intellectual environment" surrounding the problem.

Another, different type of example:

I work in semiconductor device development, and often need to optimise processes to achieve particular device characteristics. These processes often tend to be smoothly varying, so evolutionary techniques are not needed as much as in nonlinear systems (e.g. ecosystems).

A typical way to determine the optimum process parameters is to map out the response of the desired characteristic against the input parameters. Once this map has been created, one can then choose the area of interest and remap with finer resolution, and determine the process capability for these parameter conditions.

This approach isn't particularly "intrelligent", but nor is it akin to any random variation.

Seriously, if you think back to Lamarck's day, he was observing iterative change but had no means to understand the mechanism. Darwins genius was to grasp the cause/effect BEFORE he had any knowledge of DNA. Now we understand that powerful aspects of culture and environmet can be observed to evolve, but we can't exactly identify the mechanism. doesn't this sound familiar?

The point about Lamarck is that he hadn't had the blindingly simple insight to realise that the complexity could arise from selection, he posited that it came from a directed variation, (we could call it "guided mutation" if that anachronism would have meant anything to him before genetics).


Darwinion evolution doesn't need "guided mutation", as the direction comes from natrual selection; Lamarcks theory doesn't need natural selection, as the direction comes from the "directed variation", it also happens to be wrong. In culture, especially technical development, I would say that alot of the variation is guided, but there is also selection (natural or otherwise).

 

[jimbob]

Mijo. Please read this slowly:

The analogy is about information being passed along and replicated. It's NOT about HOW it does it.

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE HOW.

So please stop trying to make a point that doesn't exist.

The "How" is about hte mechanism.


If it is not about the "How" just the results of evolution, then it doesn't matter that we evolved from hominids and not are not descended from adam.


What is left in a discussion of the process of evolution if you don't care about the mechanism?