Re: No distinction between artificial and natural selection - John

John McKendry wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:36:00 -0700, Tim Tyler wrote:

Phenomena such as directed mutation, intelligent design, planning,
evaluation under simulation, storage of failed experiments (as well as
successful ones), deductive and inductive inference, etc are evidently
making a significant difference to the observed rate of change.

The correct way for academics to analyse these developments is at least
in part, within evolutionary theory - as developments of the mechanisms
of evolutionary change.

Not that evolution should attempt to take over the whole established
disciplines of engineering design, philosophy of science, anthropology,
history, etc - but it should not turn a blind eye either [...]

I realize the discussion has moved on beyond this post,
but I'm stuck here and could use some help. I would like
some concrete examples of each of the phenomena that you
list above, together with a description, for each example,
of how it has made a difference to the observed rate of
change. [...]

OK. First, let me emphasise that the topic is how
the mechanisms of cultural evolution differ from the
old fashioned kind of evolution that you learn about
in biology classes.

Directed mutation. Where has this been observed?
How was the mutation directed? [...]

When a programmer (a man in this case) writes a program, he
does not type letters into his computer at random - and then
select those that express the meaning he is trying to convey.

The changes to the heritable information (i.e. his program)
are made in a manner which is directed towards his desired end.

Obviously, this is faster than him typing letters at
random - and then deleting the ones he didn't want.

He doesn't create subroutines at random either. Nor are his
variable names created by an undirected process. Instead,
everything is under his control.

Intelligent design. Putting beta carotene into rice
grains would be my example. Do you have anything
better? Anything where a useful feature was actually
fabricated, and not just relocated from somewhere else?

The San-Francisco suspension bridge is an example of
intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not about ignoring the work of
those that came before you. That would be - stupid.

The nearest things in evolution are sexual selection
and the Baldwin effect (when these involve intelligent
agents) - but both of these are /much/ slower.

Planning. [...]

Planning is the evaluation of behavioural outcomes with the
future in mind. It needs a large and complex brain to work
very well - and perhaps a bit of relief from short-term
pressures. The bigger the brain, the better it can perform
projections. The change here (apart from brain size) is
programmable computer simulations of the world. Brains
are unreliable world simulators, outside a small social
area - but programmable computers can be made to simulate
anything, simulate it fast and simulate it reliably.

Evaluation under simulation. [...]

That's a reference to the impact of brains and computers.

Without brains, lineages gain fitness by trial and error in
the real world. That is expensive, time consuming and
wasteful. So instead, organisms attempt to evaluate
the consequences of their actions in a mental simulator
before actually performing them.

An abstract economic model of a mind looks something
like this:

1. In any situation, identify the possible actions.
2. For each action consider the possible consequences.
3. Take the action most likely to meet the goals.
4. Update the world model based on what actually happens.
5. Iterate.

[adapted from beneath http://selfawaresystems.com/]

Step 2 requires a simulation of the world, in order to
evaluate the consequences of the agent's actions.

Again, the main change here is programmable computer
simulations of the world, that take the place of
brains, and are /vastly/ more flexible.

Storage of failed experiments. Give me an example of a
stored failed experiment and how it contributes to the
observed rate of change.

E.g. the phlogiston theory of fire. That /is/ successful
at replicating in the history books, but doesn't appear
in the science books these days. A record of failures
can help accelerate evolution - because it avoids
known failures being wastefully tested over and over again.

Historical organisms record failures only using "shadows".
We have a fear of snakes as a result of ancestral failures,
but not as a result of messages from the ancestors in
question.

The absence of a signal can still convey information -
but remaining silent is an impoverished method of
communicating - compared to a detailed historical
record.

Deductive and inductive inference. I hate to keep
repeating "no idea what you're talking about", but
this is so vague that I'm completely bewildered.
I mean, these are hardly new tools in science; what is
it about modern-day deductive and inductive inference
that makes them so much more effective than the old kind?

Scientists do not have to test everything. Rather they can
work things out using inferential methods. If I pick
a number between one and three, and I tell you it is
not one, and not three, you can *deduce* that it is two.
You do not need to actually perform a test.

In the old kind of evolution, the only way a replicator gets
replicated is by going through the evaluation process and
getting a fitness assigned to it as a result of the test.

In the new kind of evolution, fitnesses can sometimes
be assigned /without/ testing, on the basis of existing
results.

Three copies of the gene are too many? One copy is not
enough? Let's go with two copies, then.

This example doesn't save many tests - but more complex
examples result in greater savings. Try playing
battleships, or minesweeper without using inferential
methods, and see how far you get. Sherlock Holmes
hardly needed to do any testing at all - making do with
even the slightest of clues, and using mostly his powers
of reasoning to home in on the correct solution.

Bypassing unnecessary testing by using inferential methods
speeds up evolution.

Since inferential methods can be used by organisms
they /can/ play a role in the old kind of evolution -
but only in a highly circuitous way - via sexual
selection, or the Baldwin effect.

Without specific actual instances, I have no way of
telling the difference between your opinions and an
amorphous pile of hooey.

Ah, my reputation has proceeded me, I see ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to
reply.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Shallow thoughts on evolution and creationism.
    ... Theory of Evolution is there to prove evolution occurs, ... What do you call the things that actually happen in reality? ... an inference. ... their time to perform experiments to support it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Shallow thoughts on evolution and creationism.
    ... Theory of Evolution is there to prove evolution occurs, ... That would be like thinking the Theory of Gravity is there to prove ... that would not affect the observed fact that things fall down. ... an inference. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Conversation with an Evolutionist Part 3
    ... What evidence can you offer that god exists? ... theists who also believe in evolution, and I prefer to remind you. ... But in fact inferences are what science is all ... That is indeed an inference which appears to be nothing more then ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Conversation with an Evolutionist Part 3
    ... theists who also believe in evolution, and I prefer to remind you. ... But in fact inferences are what science is all ... That is indeed an inference which appears to be nothing more then ... scientists that evolution takes place in much the same way one would ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Conversation with an Evolutionist Part 3
    ... What evidence can you offer that god exists? ... theists who also believe in evolution, and I prefer to remind you. ... But in fact inferences are what science is all ... That is indeed an inference which appears to be nothing more then ...
    (talk.origins)