Re: Direction in evolution, from Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

Far be it from me to get into a heated debate with a lawyer :-). However, the
mousetrap example as I stated it didn't progress through stages of engineering
design -- at least initially. The first man who put together a dead fall did
not have anything like the design of the mousetrap in mind -- he just saw a
means of getting a meal without having to wrestle an animal to the ground or
spear it. People made improvements through the ages, and until recently in the
scheme of human history did not envision anything like the modern mousetrap.
Also look at another post in this thread about developing software by evolution
(I believe it was by Brent Foster). Here the development proceeds from initial
design to final implementation by means of trial and error because not all the
implications of the requirements are forseeable, nor are all the features
customers may ask for.

--- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> Without getting into a heated debated about the mousetrap analogy -- Bill, I
> don't think this answers it, since you're assuming an intelligence that
> arranges the parts of the trap to work a certain way. I don't think the
> mousetrap analogy is designed to argue that engineered designs never
> progress through stages of engineering.
>
> On 4/3/06, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > The mousetrap isn't even a good example of something that could not have
> > evolved. Imagine a cave man who comes on an animal which has been killed
> > by a
> > falling tree. After enjoying a good meal, he realizes that he can arrange
> > a
> > log to fall on an animal, so he rigs a log with a vine rope and he stands
> > ready
> > to pull the rope, causing the log to fall on an animal walking under the
> > log.
> > Eventually he (or someone else) realizes he can use bait to cause the
> > animal --
> > in the process of trying to get the bait -- to trip the dead fall. Fast
> > forward
> > a few thousand years and you get a bunch of derived devices: bear traps,
> > mouse
> > traps, etc. Am I stretching things by saying this is evolution? Maybe, but
> > the
> > trap has moved from a primitive dead fall to a spring-loaded modern trap
> > by a
> > number of stages, by trial and error. And all the intermediate stages,
> > though
> > they are missing some of the features of the modern trap, are functional.
> >
> > --- Brent Foster <bdffoster@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Irreducible complexity seems to assume purpose and directionality. To
> > say
> > > that a mousetrap will not function if any of its parts are removed
> > assumes
> > > that its purpose was catching mice. It will still "function" perfectly
> > well
> > > as a paper weight. And again, to say that the constituent parts are
> > useless
> > > by themselves assumes that their purpose is catching mice. If the
> > environment
> > > doesn't require catching mice, then springs, levers, boards and whatnot
> > could
> > > be selected for other uses (uses can be mistakenly interpretted as
> > purpose).
> > > Random recombinations of the parts would result in countless structures
> > that
> > > appear useless. But when the environment changes to one that favors mice
> > > catching, the one that catches mice is selected. Talk about carying an
> > > analogy to a ridiculous extreme!
> > > Brent
> > >
> > > ---- David Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > =============
> > > There's a lot of confusion regarding directionality and randomness
> > versus
> > > organization in evolution, not merely relating to antievolutionary
> > arguments
> > > but even within evolutionary biology involving folks as well-known as
> > Steve
> > > Gould. It may help to distinguish between the question "Are there
> > > directions in evolution?" and "Can these be called progress?"
> > >
> > > First, what is random? It can be used mathematically (things describable
> > > probabilistically, such as flipping a coin) or less formally to include
> > > things that do not fit that mathematical description but that cannot be
> > > humanly predicted in detail (e.g., long-term weather). However, it is
> > also
> > > used metaphysically to mean unguided or purposeless. Many people have
> > tried
> > > to claim that scientific evidence of one of the first two implies the
> > third,
> > > whether they wish to reject purpose or to reject the science. However,
> > most
> > > religions and even superstitions hold that supernatural influences
> > affect or
> > > control items in the first two categories. I'm using it hereafter as a
> > > physical descriptor for things humanly unpredictable while acknowledging
> > > that God is sovereign over what happens.
> > >
> > > Human perception of randomness is inaccurate. Random things are actually
> > > less simple than organized things. For example, it is very easy to make
> > a
> > > short description of the following numeric sequence:
> > > 0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
> > >
> > > can be described as "repeat 01 over and over"
> > > However, the following sequence is most easily described by quoting it:
> > > 78457841656128561765432657643721654578431587438156842613587436
> > >
> > > Thus, in evolution, it would be very orderly to have the planet entirely
> > > populated by clones of a single type of organism. In fact, there is much
> > > more variation in the DNA and in the organisms-much more random. The
> > > construction of an organism from raw materials does impose a certain
> > order,
> > > but it uses energy to do so, and this energy is no longer as available
> > for
> > > useful work, so thermodynamics is upheld.
> > >
> > > Also, the organization within organisms is determined by "Whatever works
> > in
> > > the environment.", aka natural selection. This is a strongly non-random
> > > factor affecting evolution, but the environment may be largely
> > determined by
> > > random factors and ordinary actions of natural law. For example, imagine
> > a
> > > computer program that randomly generated mazes and another that used
> > random
> > > processes to solve the mazes. The results of the second program are
> > tightly
> > > constrained by the first, but the overall system relies on mathematical
> > > randomness.
> > > Something else that can make randomness look non-random is the
> > interaction
> > > of random variation with a constraint. A studied example of this comes
> > from
> > > muricid snails. Many today are big and spiny and popular with
> > collectors.
> > > The oldest known ones are small and smooth. Has the group evolved
> > > directionally? Not necessarily, just on this information. There are also
> > > small and/or smooth ones today. You can't have fewer than zero spines,
> > so
> > > random variation starting from one extreme of small and smooth would
> > > gradually fill a range of size and spininess. The average size and
> > > spininess would grow over time and then level off as the range of
> > > possibiities became exhausted. During some periods of time, this is what
> > we
> > > see happening. However, at other points (in time and space), there are
> > > distinct increases in average size and /or spininess, probably
> > reflecting
> > > predation as an agent of natural selection.
> > >
> > > Another problem is exactly how one quantifies the degree of complexity
> > or
> > > variability in organisms. The particular example involving Gould I have
> > in
> > > mind comes from the question of comparing the Cambrian radiation with
> > later
> > > diversity. If we look at arthropods, today there are butterflies,
> > worm-like
> > > or sac-like parasites, barnacles, lobsters, fleas, crabs, centipedes,
> > > spiders, etc. That's a lot of variation in form. However, all living
> > forms
> > > fit into just four basic groups according to the number, type, and
> > > sequence of appendages (antennae, mouthparts, legs, etc.) and major
> > > divisions of the body; a fifth category died out with the end-Permian
> > > extinction. In the Cambrian, there are a number of more or less
> > shrimp-like
> > > things that don't fit into any of the five post-Cambrian groups, not to
> > > mention some things that are not quite true arthropods but rather are
> > > transitions between modern phyla. Similar issues arise for other
> > animals.
> > > Which shows greater diversity? Depends on how you measure it.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, there are several well-supported trends in evolution. The
> > > next problem comes in trying to equate such trends with progress. All
> > > purportedly evolution-based moral or social systems make such a claim.
> > > However, as Prince Caspian pointed out, we must distinguish between
> > Progress
> > > and Going Bad. Likewise, Bob Thaves, in a Frank and Ernest cartoon,
> > noted
> > > the compatibility of evolution and the Peter Principle (things progress
> > > until they reach a position beyond their capabilities and are then stuck
> > in
> > > a position of incompetence. It was based on observations of promotion in
> > > business, government, academia, etc.). Equating evolution with progress
> > or
> > > thinking that organisms are in some way trying to evolve in a particular
> > > direction is what is rejected in modern definitions of evolution as
> > > ateleological, without goals. Think of another area of science. Gravity
> > > does not have goals. Something on the floor is not more advanced than
> > > something on a shelf. Even much scientific literature still makes such
> > > claims about evolution, and it is fundamental to Marxism,
> > evolution-invoking
> > > eugenics, etc. The silliness of invoking evolution as progress, however,
> > > can quickly be seen by considering multiple evolutionary trends.
> > Numerous
> > > vertebrates have reduced the number of digits for stronger feet and
> > faster
> > > running. Thus, we can make evolutionary progress by cutting off most of
> > our
> > > fingers and toes. Many parasites or sessile animals have evolved by
> > > reducing the nervous system and muscles; parasites often simplify the
> > > digestive system as well. This also is why "if evolution is true, why
> > are
> > > there still monkeys" is wrong.
> > >
> > > Even if one equates evolution with progress as a philosophical
> > assumption,
> > > it still remains necessary to justify which direction is claimed to be
> > more
> > > advanced. In practice, "more like me" is defined as advancement.
> > However,
> > > if someone not too much like me makes such a claim, it is not in my
> > > evolutionary advantage to support it. I might, however, gain
> > evolutionary
> > > advantage by fooling some people into thinking that more like me is
>
=== message truncated ===

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Tue Apr 4 14:45:26 2006