Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.

On Sep 24, 5:59 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Arkalen wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:44 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Arkalen wrote:
On Sep 23, 4:16 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You wouldn't argue that there has been no progress in automobile
manufacture since the Model T Ford - since modern cars still
have nuts as their most common component, and these show little
sign of development since the early days. Why make the same
argument with the role of bacteria in ecosystems?

Because human technology doesn't work like evolution.
Human technology is part of the evolutionary process.
What do you mean by that ?

Humans are animals. We are part of nature. Evolution
includes us.

The "modal bacter" does not indicate a lack of progress.

By most metrics, bacteria probably contain most of the world's
important non-human biological technology. They actually
*represent* a lot of the progress and technological invention
that I am talking about.



The modern intelligence explosion should make the directionality
of evolution painfully obvious to everyone involved - or at
least I would have thought so.
There was no "modern intelligence explosion".
I refer to the "intelligence explosion" of I. J. Good - whereby smart
things invent smarter things, smarter things invent even smarter
things - and so on, for quite some time.

Oh. Well, that hasn't happened yet so talking of a "modern
intelligence explosion" is a bit premature, but once it happens it
might indeed be impressive.

By my reckoning, Good's intelligence explosion actually
started millions of years ago - though you have a good
point if you are saying it has yet to really get properly
in gear and become a "proper" explosion.

There was *one* species
that evolved human-level intelligence. And that species has since gone
on the dominate the whole planet, probably changing the environment
enough that it made the appearance of other such species impossible
(though of course that's talking on the million-year scale and we're
not there at all).
Maybe - though there /is/ the chimpanzee outreach program. We are
probably going to test our brain-enhancing techniques somehow.
That's quite possible. I was thinking of independent convergence but
given what you mean by "intelligence explosion" you're right.

It's interesting to speculate what creatures we might drag with
us for a while. Probably not many: the machine takeover will
be too rapid for much messing about with engineering of existing
species.



Today's technological explosion is every bit a part of evolution
as all the technological developments that went before it.

In a trivial sense of "it came up because of evolution" you're right.
If you mean technological evolution is a continuation of the process
of biological evolution, and that a technological invention is analog
to gastrulation then I disagree.

*Gastrulation?!?* You've lost me there.

Evolution is changes in heritable information over time.

Human technology is part of that - along with most other
aspects of our phenotype.

Our technology is getting to the point where it can impact the
evolution of species enough for it to become another kind of
biological evolution, but it's not quite large-scale enough for me to
say it's there.

Huh? Have you been to a hospital recently?

But if evolution is directional towards the appearance of
intelligence, why did it take so long ? And why did it create all
those other non-intelligent species around us ?
You seem very confused about what I am saying. Progress doesn't
imply *rapid* progress. In the case of brains, progress was slow
and gradual - at least until recently. I understand that today's
computing facilities are exploding in size.
I was assuming there that you thought evolution was specifically aimed
towards producing intelligence or whatever. Of course if it is it
doesn't mean that it will produce intelligence as early as possible,
but if it doesn't how is it different from undirected random walk
evolution ?
Of course if you don't believe that evolution aims specifically
towards some outcomes then what I said didn't apply.

Evolution /is/ "goal directed" these days, now that we are part of
it - and our plans have such a big influence over what lives and dies.

I think you overstate the case here. A *part* of evolution can be seen
now as goal directed if you focus on human input via genetic
engineering. In our eyes this is also progress (in a sense of the
term). But considering evolution *in toto* this is a drop in the
bucket, a blip on the screen, an ephemeral burp. The part does not
substitute for the whole. You are taking a very limited tiny corner of
the evolutionary landscape and projecting it outward way beyond
reason. If we vanished what good would glow in the dark genes do for
organisms trying to evade predators?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: evolution as "diffusion"
    ... >>> progress that leads up to a galactic ... cultural evolution with biological evolution. ... > selectively - i.e. through natural selection. ... already which make no mention of human technology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Direction of Evolution?
    ... It is widely believed that evolution is progressive. ... Yes, better adapted (but no species is better than another, just ... in progress? ... yields greater reproductive success than another existing variant, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... evolution was never the same again. ... is no less a product of evolution than a species that has gastrulation ... They weren't on the same ratcheting path to progress ... how does adding a little ratchet to the "evolution as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A New Species of Man? => Whom will we be the hoary ancestors ?
    ... >> Our conjecture is that a new species of human being is emerging, ... >> of our own breakneck progress in science and technology. ... >> reproduction technology has for some years provided intravenous ... evolution just as it has been doing for centuries. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolutionists and Bird Poop
    ... Intelligent life is not the goal of evolution, and there's no real indication that if evolution were replayed, any branch of the tree of life would have produced intelligent life. ... Once technology develops in ANY of these species, it becomes so evolutionarily advantageous that a tool-using species can quickly become the top predator in its world. ... Birds don't have forearms useful for grasping, so development of technology would most likely have been difficult. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading