Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes

nightlight wrote:
My argument is not about or based on short times available
for evolution.

Meaning that you do accept standard timeframes?

Of course. Anything that has empirical support is fine within its
uncertainty margins (provided you state them). That wasn't my argument.
The argument was about the sufficiency, at the mathematical and the
empirical level, of the "random" mutations in replicating the observed
rates and quality (complexity) of evolutionary novelties.

I have presented empirical support for the sufficiency of known
*mutation rates* to be able to generate the evolutionary novelty of a
human being from its common ancestor with chimpanzees. If you want
evidence that all known mutation is *random wrt need* and that the
types of mutations that produced the novelty of a human being do not
differ in anyway from the types of mutation that have been repeatedly
and experimentally demonstrated to be generated at random wrt need,
there is a massive amount of experimentation that shows that.

But, as long as you posit a hypothetical director of mutation that
appears to be acting within this apparent randomness wrt need, such an
hypothesis is untestable and logically possible.

You are
welcome to point out what data and what calculations show that "random"
mutations can replicate the observed rates of novelty.

I have presented empirical evidence that, at both the level of the
entire genome and (to the extent of our current knowlege) at the level
of specific genes, the known *rate* of mutation and fixation can
account, easily, for the entirety of the difference between chimps and
humans.

If you have some evidence for a type of mutation that is *non-random*
wrt need, I sure would like you to present it. All the empirical
*evidence* I have seen says that mutation, of every single type seen in
nature, is random wrt need.

The experiment that first demonstrated this (the Luria/Delbruck
experiment) is very simple and convincing. At the time there was a
question of whether or not the resistant bacteria seen were due to a
rare response to the selective agent (that is, the selective agent
*caused* the resistance) or was due to rare lucky mutants that occurred
at random in the population *before* the selective agent was added. If
it were the latter, if you took a large population and divided part of
it into much smaller pools and let these small pools grow up to the
same size as the original pool, some of these smaller pools would, by
chance, have mutants and would be rich in resistant colonies and others
would, by chance, be poor in colonies. In fact, you would expect a
Poisson distribution (which is what you get when you randomly sample a
large population with a small number of rare types) of mutants. If,
OTOH, the selecting agent were inducing resistance as a rare response,
there should be no significant difference between the pools. In fact,
you get a Poisson distribution with rare "jack-pots".

And every other experiment done in the last half century (in all kinds
of organisms) has further demonstrated that mutation is random wrt
need. If your claim is that mutation is NOT random wrt need, you need
to present some evidence that such an event is possible and observable.

Note that you
can't avoid the mathematical modeling part due, at the very least, to
the quantum dice curtain which doesn't allow you to see the precise
mechanism behind the individual choices (QT only lets you have
probabilities of various choices and no theory or present observation
will let you peak behind the QT curtain). In practice and at the
present technological level the domain of ignorance of the precise
detail of individual choices is much larger than what the final quantum
curtain prescribes.

The (approximately) "constant rate" of DNA change is an
empirical fact. It tells you absolutely nothing about
the presence or absence of any guidance (or anticipation,
foresight...) in the generation of those DNA changes
(which are then subject to natural selection).

You mean does science exclude the possiblity of
theistic evolution?

That's not what I meant and it has no relation to what I said. If you
are looking at a sequence of say, presumed coin tosses, just counting,
say totals for heads and tails doesn't tell you whether the sequence
was from genuine "random" coin tosses or from hand put outcomes.

If you can't tell the difference between "random" and "hand-put"
outcomes, there is no difference. That makes your hypothetical agent
one that works in a way that is indistinguishable from pure chance
mutation and subsequent selection. That is theistic or theistically
guided evolution that is indistinguishable from what you would expect
by natural mechanisms alone.

You
can eliminate (in the probabilistic sense) the latter by comparing the
prediction of "random" model (binomial distribution for genuine coin
tosses) with the observed frequencies of various subsequences (e.g.
counts of 01 vs 00 etc). Your RM argument seems to be that since you
don't see any pattern by just eyeballing the sequence of 0's and 1's,
then it must be due to random coin tosses.

I am not just "eyeballing" the sequences of A, T, G, and C. At every
level of analysis, from total genome to single genes or sequences (to
the extent that the two genomes have been compared) there is little or
no evidence that one need even *require* the faster rate of fixation of
mutations that natural selection provides over neutral fixation, which
means that the amount of genome change in these species due to
non-conservative selection is small, so small it is hard to find even
when you look for it. And one sees no evidence of any special kind of
mutation that has not been experimentally observed to happen (meaning
in time-frames much smaller than 5 million years) being required.

My argument is that, since
you're not allowed to watch the tossing but only to see the results (in
biology, due to quantum and technological indeterminisms), you need a
mathematical model for the generator, such as binomial distribution for
coin tosses. Then you need to compare whether its predictions match
(and how well) the empirical counts you can obtain from the actual
sequence.

That is exactly what the evidence says: no special form of mutation and
no special rate of mutation fixation or mutation generation is required
to explain the difference between humans and chimps at *any* level of
analysis of the genomes.

That was not done for RM conjecture in ND theory. Just
declaring it so and applying Lysenkoist methods to academically destroy
anyone doubting the RM conjecture merely emphasizes its fundamental
hollowness and sterility.

No. Nothing can exclude the possibility of an unspecified
and unobservable appearing to act via naturalistic methods.

Well, if logic, facts and imagination fail you, there is always that
strawman of 'supernatural' to fall on.

I am not the one proposing something supernatural. I am specifically
stating that no special rate of mutation, no special rate of mutation
fixation, and no special type of mutation is required to explain any of
the observed differences in genomes seen between chimps and humans
regardless of the level of analysis (total genome or single gene). In
fact, one does not even need to invoke the much faster rate of fixation
for positive selection (at least in most of the genes that have
compared). [Positive selection does not increase the rate of mutation,
of course. It only increases the liklihood and rate of fixation of a
mutation.]

One can propose a magical entity as the cause for
*anything*. But what you have to do is demonstrate
that such a magical entity is *necessary*.

Again the same strawman. You're the only one bringing in the magic. I
am asking you to show results that confirm "random" nature of
mutations, specifically the predictions of adaptation/innovation rates
based on "random" model and their comparison to empirical frequencies.

To the extent that you consider humans to be "innovations" relative to
their common ancestor with chimps, I have done so. All the innovations
of humans can be easily accounted for by known mutation rates and
fixation rates at all levels of analysis of the respective chimp and
human genomes. No special type or radically different rate of mutation
is required to produce this difference. Of course, you may not
consider humans to be an "innovation" relative to chimps or our common
ancestor.

As to the random nature of the mutations, all I can do is state that
one does not *need* to introduce the idea of non-random mutation to
explain the result and that experimental evidence of mutations indicate
that they are random wrt need. If there is non-random mutation
occurring in the evolution of humans, it is indistinguishable from the
expectations that one would have if random mutation occurring by any
measure brought to bear. But how can I (or anyone) rule out non-random
mutation that looks exactly like (is indistinguishable from) what would
happen if mutation were random? And that, specifically, shows no sign
of the expectations of non-random mutation?

The difference between the two would imply the degree of likelihood of
the "random" mutation model of observed evolution rates (micro and
macro). If you don't have any, then the question is open whether the
mutations are random or not (which is my position here).

In the case they're not "random" (poor predictions), there are plenty
of alternative models (some of which I pointed out before e.g.
subquantum complexity between the current "elementary" particles,
10^-16 cm, down to Planckian scale objects, 10^-33 cm). In fact you
don't even need subquantum complexity, since you already know that
there _are_ natural processes guiding non-random, even purposeful and
anticipatory, generation of genetic novelty (e.g. brain of a molecular
biologist, or for that matter even the brain and senses of any animal
looking for a mate).

Is the above word-salad supposed to be taken seriously?

There is no magic or supernatural elements (assuming you exclude the
existence of "mind stuff" which, even though it exists, is presently
not modeled by the natural science of matter-energy transformations) in
any of them.

I am not proposing any magic or supernatural elements. I am
specifically saying that the *observed* genomic differences (and hence
the phenotypic difference) between chimps and humans can be explained
entirely by known natural processes (mutation random wrt need)
occurring at known rates over the available time frame of 5 million
years. I am not the one claiming that some special process or rate is
required; you are. Yet you cannot seem to point to any feature of the
difference between these two species which requires the special process
or rate.

I see no reason, much less a proof, that those must be the
sole examples of such purposeful natural processes. I don't even see
how would one express such exception in a precise scientific
mathematical language so one can model it.

Yet the neo-Darwinist RM dogma claims it is so, that those exceptions

What exceptions?

(which it can't even describe in a precise mathematical language) are
the only exceptions to RM conjecture.

What exceptions?

Why is it so? My guess is that
such intelligent, purposeful processes exist at all levels, at least
from the ecoweb scale down to the biochemical reaction webs within
cells (including the "junk" DNA which I think is a key part of a highly
intelligent neural network which models and evaluates internally the
possible transformations of DNA and their phenotopic consequences
before committing its best pick to the much more costly physical
implementation/offspring).

Evidence? If I remove your brain, that affects your "intelligent
neural network". If I remove a lot of the "junk" (and the fugu has
done so in nature), I see "no effect". If I introduce more "junk"
(ferns), I see "no effect". [The above is an overstatement. There are
non-coding sequences that are important. But, by definition, they are
not "junk". There is dispensible DNA. That would be "junk".]

After all, the linguists use similar methods as
evolutionary molecular biologists to study the
evolution and relations among natural languages
(which are created and transformed by intelligent/
purposeful agents).

Yes. There is a lot of similarity in the two processes.
A difference, of course, is that the intelligent/purposeful
agent involved in the evolution of languages are not
undetectable or magical.

That little strawman is quite busy in the debate here. Just because
your imagination fails to come up with anything else besides magic for
a given phenomenon, it doesn't mean that everyone else must also be
assuming magic as the "answer".

I am not saying that the agent involved in the evolution of languages
is undetectable and magical. Quite the opposite. But the putative
designer of humans (as opposed to chimps) from their common ancestor
does seem rather unnecessary and undetectable in that he/she/it/they
seem to be working entirely within the type and rate constraints of
random mutation and fixation of a fraction of those mutations.

There is nothing magical or grossly undetectable in the examples above
of natural processes, that we all know to exist and which intelligently
and purposefully guide DNA transformations from generation to
generation.

You have empirical evidence of mutation being an intelligently guided
process? Do tell. What is your evidence?

There is also nothing mathematically or computationally
special about the intelligent networks which act as intelligent agents
behind those DNA transformations. Such networks exist at all scales,
above and below human brain. They all interact in some way with
genomes, hence they build (as we do at our own level) their own
internal models of genomes and their envirnments.

Your case would definitely be helped if you could tell us the "some
way" in which these undetectable hypothetical intelligent networks
interact with genomes. Be specific.

The most natural
position is to assume that they all exert in some way their
anticipatory influences on the genome, each one affecting the aspects
of DNA relevant for its own intearactions with it and the related
punishments/rewards. The ND conjecture -- that only one particular
network (the brain of 'molecular biologist') can guide mutations, and
all others are somehow excluded (despite interactions) so that except
for that one unique case, the mutations must be "random" -- is
strained, unnatural and ambiguous (e.g. how do you give precise
mathematical characterization or model this single odd exception).

Well, discovering this disembodied intelligence that vaguely exists
somehow in "junk" and directs future evolution would certainly help.
How does the fugu survive without this disembodied intelligence?

Note also that molecular physics, which is an applied quantum
mechanics, is subject to quantum dice behind the curtain. No
theoretical result or existent experiment gives any clue what (if
anything) is behind the quantum indeterminism i.e. how do quantum
outcomes get picked. There are also plenty of technological and
mathematical modeling unknowns in molecular biology e.g. what does the
"junk" DNA do and how does it do it?

The algorithms that *real* scientists use to discover "junk" DNA that
actually has some sequence-specific functional utility is entirely
based on evolutionary conservation of such sequences.

How do biochemical reaction webs
which include the "junk" DNA work, what do they model, what do they
"think"? Just because you can sequence it, it doesn't mean you know or
understand how it works, how it affect phenotype and by which chain of
reactions.

Vitalism and mystical magic is what you seem to be proposing.

The present level of knowledge in the molecular biology is not much
better than that of a caveman looking at a computer -- he can figure
out that by pressing this or that key he can get some light dots on the
screen or that pulling the cord darkens the screen and other such
superficial correlations.

The present level of knowledge of molecular biology is much, much, much
greater than your knowledge of this field.

But he has no clue (or even a language to
conceptualize what the question is) about the underlying processes that
make such correlations happen or the (perfectly natural) intelligent
agency (modern technology & science) that designed it and built it. For
him it's a magic, yet we know that no magic is needed. Assigning magic
to phenomena you may not understand, as you repeatedly do, is a
primitive form of thinking which short-circuits any further query by
attaching to the puzzling the empty label "magic" as an sedative.
Scientific thinking is to look at it as a puzzle or an open question, a
challenge to ones imagination.

I am not the one proposing magic here. You are. I am proposing merely
the extension of known processes at known rates. You are proposing
mystical Kabbalah like information written into genomic detritus and
viral invaders.

Languages, unlike organisms, do not self-reproduce.

Neither do ecosystems (or species).

Right. Organisms are not ecosystems nor species. But the latter are
composed of the former.

But the elements/building blocks of
languages do reproduce, just as the building blocks of ecosystems or
species (organisms) reproduce.

They do not reproduce in the absence of the humans that produce
language. Language is manufactured. It does not reproduce
independently of humans.

For example, you add suffix "ed" to
verbs to form past participle.

Sometimes. Sometimes this is showed to be incorrect. ;-) BTW, most
asian languages do not have this way of indicating past tense. They
also lack plurals.

The pattern "ed" is thus reproducing
itself (in its particular realm).

No. It is being reproduced by human's mimicking each other. The
pattern specifically does not reproduce itself.

Numerous forms of pattern
reproduction exist at every level (e.g. semantic, grammatical,
phonetic) of natural and artificial (mathematical, scientific)
languages, propagating via analogies. There is an even more elemental
reproduction (analogous to cellular reproduction) of patterns -- every
time someone learns or uses such patterns the pattern has managed to
reproduce. How many times have patterns DNA or "is" or "the" reproduced
in this post? Of course, this reproduction uses humans, books and
computers, instead of atoms and fields, as its substratum, but that is
a matter of network implementation. The basic mathematical properties
of such networks with adaptible (to punishments & rewards) links are
deduced independently of the implementation for the links, nodes and
punishments/rewards.

They are manufactured by a known intelligent agent.

Known? Really. That's like the cavemen with computer saying he "knows"
how it works and to demonstrate that he "knows", he shows how when he
hits a key the light pattern pops up, just as he predicted it would. As
far as he knows he "knows" it. Similarly, with humans generating
languages -- for example, there is no scientific model at present which
tells you anything about the mind-stuff (what is it like to be some
arrangement of atoms and fields? what is redness like? what is it like
to get an idea?). We don't know whether the mind-stuff is an
epiphenomenon or a causal agent (which can affect the matter-energy
transformations).

Your mind-stuff is empircally a product of the biochemistry of your
brain. It does not exist as a disembodied entity in its own right. I
won't even suggest the way to demonstrate that this is so. Too
gruesome.

I am not talking about telekinesis but about quantum
dice. We don't know how it picks its quantum outcomes when "brain"
thinks (perhaps the mind-stuff does the job as von Neumann and Wigner
conjectured). Hence, you don't know the "intelligent agent" behind
language much better than the cavemen knows the one behind the
computer. Just as he can predict pattern from a button pressed we can
roughly predict neurological and behavioral effects of stimulation of
certain brain regions. In both cases there is also some "little" stuff
going on that is sort of mysterious, but that probably doesn't matter
much. We got these handful of correlations, so we both "know" the
agent. We can also name it as a "proof" that we know it. Yeah, sure.
(The same goes for "knowing" how evolution works.)

I have explicitly pointed out that no DNA configuration is
so deviant from configurations held in common by both
chimps and humans that any search of some hypothetical
total sequence space of possible sequences ever is likely
to have occurred. *All* that is needed is *modification*
of the subset of total sequence space that existed in
the common ancestor.

You should read more carefully before responding.

I do.

I was not talking
about space of all possible arrangements of a given numbers of atoms
but about all arrangements reachable by a single (or by some number n)
mutagenic event from a given initial state. That space (labeled as M in
the first post) is huge, too. To test "random" mutation conjecture
behind evolution, for single or for some n>1 mutations, you still need
to have combinatorial or probabilistic model of that "n-mutation
neighborhood" space and compare its predictions with the empirically
observed frequencies of favorable novelties at the distance of
n-mutations from the same initial state.

No I don't. All I need to do is demonstrate that known rates of change
and fixation are sufficient to produce the genomic difference we
actually observe from a common ancestor. And that no single site
requires a rate of change that is faster than is possible given the
time available. I can, in fact, do that for chimps and humans. But,
of course, I am proposing that any differences seen are due to
differential modification of pre-existing ancestral sequences rather
than by generation of a sequence from some random sequence in both
humans and chimps. IOW, I am proposing "descent with modification"
rather than "creating a 747 by means of a tornado" as you seem to be
doing.

The ID conjecture is that the empirical frequencies of favorable
novelties (being offered to natural selection to weed out) are much
greater than what a "random" mutation model would predict.

And, for the changes that produced the differences between humans and
chimps, they are empirically wrong. Which is why they use arguments
about bacterial flagella. But, of course, they are wrong there to.
The *phenotype* of rotary motility of the bacteria flagella can, both
in principle and experimentally, be generated from a reasonable
expectation of what the closest ancetral species lacking the
*phenotype* could have looked like.

The
neo-Darwinian conjecture is that the observed empirical frequencies are
exactly what the "random" mutation model would predict. Neither side
can at present work out the math and computations of the model to prove
their case (due to our present limited computational and modeling
capabilities).

I have just demonstrated that the difference in genome between human
and chimp is quite well within observed rates of mutation and fixation
at both the genomic and individual smaller sequence level. That I
chose not to use bogus calculations based on "747 in a tornado" models
and used empirical observations instead makes my results that much
stronger. You can disprove the idea that a gene cannot be generated
by the "747 in a tornado" process all you want. Since that is not the
process of "descent with modification", all such calculations merely
disprove what evolution never claimed.

The ND priesthood had not won this argument but has
merely bullied the alternatives out of academia through Lysenkoist
style censorship, economic and professional intimidation. The side
which has to reach for these kinds of "scientific" methods in order to
cling on just a bit longer, is as a rule the weaker one on the
substance (recall USSR and its communism).

Paranoid fantasy is a sure sign of kookdom. If you have evidence,
present it. If you have nothing but a WAG based on silly assumptions,
it is hardly a conspiracy that keeps your ideas merely laughed at.

The underlying assumption of these arguments is a
specific non-evolutionary mechanism that involves
inventing a sequence from total sequence space rather
than modifying a sequence from an ancestor.

Your sloppy reading again. The space M of possible DNA configurations
is the space at distance n mutagenic events from the original sequence,
where n=1,2... It is not a space of all possible configurations of
given numbers of atoms (which would be much bigger).

Again, the empirical evidence says that the difference in sequence
space that *has been* reached by humans and chimps after divergence
from their common ancestor is just about what you would expect given
the known rates of mutation and neutral fixation, without even needing
to plead the faster rate of selection. What reason do we have for
saying that some other unknown process is necessary?

Given that such calculations are utter nonsense wrt
to modelling how evolution *actually* claims to work (and,
from direct, observable *evidence*, actually did so in
the case of chimps and humans), what is the use of
presenting these ignorant "747 forming in a tornado"
calculations? Evolution works by descent with modification.

You're getting quite a mileage out of that strawman. Read again in the
1st post what the 'total space of configurations' and M mean.

Understand that you *are* saying that one cannot reach the difference
between humans and chimp genomes in the time available by any known
natural mechanism. You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Empirically wrong.
Ignorantly wrong. You are *necessarily* implying that the difference
between the starting point sequence and the current sequence is so
great that you cannot get from the ancestor to the current organisms.
The evidence says otherwise based on a comparison of two species that
evolved independently of each other after divergence. There is no
place in the genome where one must posit an ancestral genome so
different that the current genome cannot be reached. Most (if not all)
of the current genome can be reached by the slower selectively neutral
process rather than even needing to invoke selection. So whatever
values you give to the number of changes required, you simply cannot
assume that they are more than is possible by known mechanisms and
rates when the evidence says otherwise. Yet that is what you seem to
be doing. My only guess is that you are so wedded to the idea that a
large number of changes are needed that you cannot comprehend that this
assumption is demonstrably and empirically wrong; the difference
between humans and chimps does not involve a large and certainly not an
impossibly large number of changes or an impossibly high rate of change
and fixation.

Anyone can always claim that mutations occcurred by a
God producing them, just as you can claim that Lady
Luck is responsible for the cards you received.

There are quantitative criteria to distinguish whether the deck and
shuffling are stacked or fair. This is no different than testing a
quality of random number generator by applying random number tests. The
idea is to use presumed model of the random generator (such as binomial
or multinomial distribution) and produce its predictions for the
empirical counts obtained from the sequence. That lets you decide
whether the "random" model is valid and how valid.

And that is exactly what you can do and has been done in comparisons of
human and chimp genomes. You can look for shorter stretches of
sequence which exhibit rates of change either significantly faster than
the mean rate of change or significantly slower than the mean rate of
change. The fact is that most of what you find is the latter (most
selection is conservative) and that the amount of the former is quite
small (and mostly due to things like deletions or insertions that
produce a large change in one fell swoop). Places where there has been
significantly more rapid change is where you would look for changes
that were *selected for* in one lineage and not the other.

But you seem to be claiming that the rate of such mutations
is too slow to be happening in the absence of a God (or
that you could not have gotten those cards in the absence
of Lady Luck).

No, I am only claiming that no one has computed whether "random"
mutations are too slow to generate the observed rates and quality of
evolutionary novelties. I am saying that this is an unsolved problem
which has, at least given sufficient computational and modeling
resources, a precise answer.

And I will repeat. The evidence I am presenting *specifically* says
that the rate of random mutation and fixation (largely neutral) is
quite clearly not too slow to produce any of the novelties that
distinguish humans from chimps at either the whole genome or individual
gene level.

All I am doing is pointing out that there is no *need* for
such an outside agent.

You can "point out" whatever you want. That doesn't show that the
"random" mutations are just right. To show that there is no need for
any other but "random" mutations, you need to make prediction from the
random mutation statistical/combinatorial model of DNA mutations and
compare them with the observed frequencies.

No I don't. I need to predict whether the observed amount of change in
these two species from the time since divergence is consistent with the
rates that are known from experiment. It is. And I don't even need to
invoke selection.

As to "outside agent" that's your strawman again. "Outside" of what?
Outside of backward & forward light cones of a DNA molecule (which is
the space-time region which can propagate interactions at maximum light
speed)? Well that would cover the entire visible universe.

Until ID presents a testable idea that would require the
*necessity* of the action by some outside agent, my thesis
that such an agent is *unnecessary* because *all* of
the observed differences between humans and chimps are
consistent with known rates and types of mutation from
ancestral sequences, it remains ignored by and irrelevant
to science because it fails the razor test.

I described a test. It is the same kind of test you would use to test
"random" generator for any other sequence, such as that of coin tosses.
Make prediction from that RM model of DNA and lets see whether it
matches the empirical frequencies of the evolutionary novelties being
submitted to the natural selection.

What is the evolutionary novelty that I should be looking for when I
compare chimps and humans? Do you have evidence of some gene that is
present in one species and not the other? I don't. Evidence that the
difference between the two involves any "novelty" at all?

There is plenty of unknown, from
quantum dice to present limitations of technology and mathematics, for
entire universe of intelligent agents to fit in and causally interface
to the DNA mutations.


And that is relevant to the modification of pre-existing
useful sequences how? That is an interesting model of
the "747 in a tornado" explanation.

Shadow boxing again...

There have been many, many, many empirical tests of the
idea that mutation occurs *independently* of need for
the mutation. In every case, from the Luria/Delbruck
experiments on, the finding is that mutation occurs
*independently* of the need for that mutation.

I responded to LD and similar experiments in the previous post:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/748587b6e86a28c8?hl=en&;

These experiments have nothing to do with question of "random" mutation
vs guided (anticipatory, intelligent,...) mutation.

That is *exactly* what the experiments explore. And they do
demonstrate that mutation is random wrt need.

Namely, the same
kind of statistical behaviour can be observed for technological
innovations which clearly do have intelligent agents behind (see my
previous post for details on LD).

So your argument is that the bacteria in the smaller pools actually
have some pools that are more intelligent than others and thus respond
quicker to produce the needed mutations? Or is it that the smaller
pools have some bacteria that have greater ESP and predict the need
better?

Generally, any kind of statistical
phenomena and patterns you can observe in the technological evolution
(or of science, languages, cultures, etc) where the intelligent agents
are clearly behind, cannot be claimed as a proof that the similar or
analogous statistical phenomena and patterns imply "random" mutations
in the biological evolution.

.

Loading