Re: David Dryden - Searching All of Sequence Space (repost of Sean

On May 13, 12:53 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Seanpit" <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But where in the proposed evolutionary sequence does the difference
arise? I agree that French is qualitatively different from Latin, but
where in language history did this difference arise? Your claim of
qualitative difference, as I understand it, requires that there be no
gradual transition possible between functions, and if there is the
difference would not be qualitative. Is that a correct impression?

That's not correct.  Qualitative difference can be achieve with very
small modifications.  And, this does in fact happen at low levels of
functional complexity.  The realization of a lactase enzyme, which was
not in the genome beforehand, can be realized by a single point
mutation to the ebg sequence which did not have the lactase ability
beforehand.  That's a qualitative difference which was and can be
produced very gradually.  It is just that such small changes are less
and less likely to produce qualitative differences at higher and
higher levels of functional complexity.

Please expand on this.  It seems to me that the Latin language is at
a fairly high level of functional complexity.  Many, many small
changes to Latin were required to produce the qualitative change
of Latin into French.  And yet it happened.

Why is this language analogy a bad one?  Is it simply that this
particular qualitative change took place by drift - because
French is not superior to Latin?  Are you arguing that if
French were indeed superior to Latin, then it would be very
unlikely for neutral drift to happen to find it.  Latin would
evolve neutrally to Spanish, Portugese, and Italian, but it
would be very unlikely to find exactly the right combination
of words which gives the French language its superiority.
Is that how you repair the analogy?

There are a couple of problems here. First off, human language
systems are arbitrarily defined. They are not directly depedent upon
producing physical structures that must work in the physical world.

Another problem is that a gradual change in assigned meaning of a
single word in a human language system is like the evolution of a
short protein sequence in a biosystem. Such evolution is quite easy
in both systems since the complexity of single words and even small
phrases isn't significant. Gradually, the fundamental building-block
basis of an entire language system can be changed in this manner -
from Latin to French and back again if you like.

This does not mean that such changes explain how higher level systems,
like how to build a skyscrapper or the space shuttle, or a basic
electric motor, ,or even the works of Shakespeare, can be based on
mindless non-directed processes of mutation and selection - even given
a practical eternity of time. It would be great if this could
happen. We wouldn't need human designers for anything because
everything that we would ever want could simply be evolved for us -
from great works of art and literature to fantastic buildings,
vehicles and solutions to all medical problems.

This is why it is much much easier to go from Latin to French than to
build a simple electric motor or write a short yet meaningful sonnet
of just a few dozen words.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages