Right, but the functional mousetrap didn't gradually self-assemble, nor did
any of the precursor devices. Nor did the software in that example. You
just have a designer making changes to his design, or taking a design
concept from one area and producing it on a different scale for a different
context. The resulting systems may or may not be irreducibly complex, but
in any event they're designed. Software design seems like a purposeful
exercise in irreducible complexity: make the code so efficient that there
is nothing extraneous to the function the software is designed to perform.
If you get to that perfect stage of software design, removing anything from
the code will cause the system to collapse.
On 4/4/06, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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 15:13:43 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 04 2006 - 15:13:43 EDT