"Ami Chopine" writes
in message <002401bfc72a$3fae88e0$3f8df4d0@vh2>:
<snip>
>
> Intelligence placed the chip, a genetic algorithm, and a mutation and
> selection process together in a manner to achieve the desired result. The
> selection process is made to work on every generation. Certain things were
> done to filter out any influence intellegence might have in the process
> (this is made clear in the article) Then, except to keep the mutation and
> selection software going, they stood back and watched what happened. The
> process of natural evolution was documented very well. But it says nothing
> about how the original equipment got there, or other processes which may
> have shaped the diversity of life. Indeed, no diversity occured, but only
> the astoundingly efficient ability to determine the difference between two
> tones. This also can make no comment on whether purpose in selection exists
> in nature, as there was only an intellegent, purposeful selection here.
I'm now having trouble figuring what you like and don't like
about this experiment. I guess you agree that mutation and
selection can result in astoundingly efficient abilities, but
that first there must be something to mutate?
<snip>
> > At what point does complexity not naturally emerge from
> > that kind of arrangement? I maintain that complexity *always*
> > emerges from that.
>
> The only systems I'm aware of that has enormous complexity where
> its origins and development is unknown is the world ecosystem
> and its individual parts. Every other complex system in existance
> had intelligent purpose involved at some level.
You rule out the economy and the ecosystem as potentially
having intelligent agents. Okay, how about the weather system?
That's something vastly complex without intelligent
design, right?
BTW, notice the parallels between the ecosytem, the economy
and the weather? Huge, complex, predictable in the short term
but ultimately chaotic, etc..
<snip>
> Tedd:
> > Wouldn't you have seen purpose before you knew about the mutation?
> > Virus and bacteria want to live and infect hosts and beating an
> > antibiotic is very important to them and they've found a way to
> > do it. That seems to fit the definition of purpose to me.
>
> They found nothing. They got lucky with a mutation. They didn't
> even percieve that the mutation was desirable. Only natural
> selection killed all those who didn't have it. They don't want
> anything, in the same sense that you and I do. They float around
> and if food or a means of reproduction comes to them, the proper
> responses are activated. There is no purpose to their actions,
> only IF THEN reactions. IF there is food, THEN eat it. IF you
> get too big, THEN divide.
You're right, but if you didn't know the details of biological
evolution, it would appear that virus & bacteria had purpose,
right?
> Purpose by my definition, inolves the willful manipulation of enviroment to
> achieve desired ends. It requires an ability to comprehend, plan, and enact
> in order to be effective.
Without knowing the details of biological evolution, how would
you be able to say whether or not virii and bacteria have purpose?
Likewise, without knowing the details of past biological evolution
how can you say with any confidence that there is purpose in
the history of life? Why do you think that because you "see"
purpose, without knowing what details are there, that it somehow
makes it more likely that there *aren't* biological mechanisms
that will show purpose to be another illusion?
Human perception of purpose is deeply flawed, we know that
already. Why do you think people who have disasters happen
to them consistently think the gods are angry with them, despite
the simple fact of statistics that lousy things happens to some
people somewhere all the times?
> Your contention is not based on purpose as I define it. We
> cannot dismiss this purpose in the evolution of life.
Although we can not dismiss it, I'd also like to know why
we should put any confidence whatsoever in it.
> As I said
> before, except for the unknown of life, every complex system
> had purpose involved.
See the weather system, above.
> Since the origins and genetic development
> of life is unknown then we must be aware of underlying assumptions
> and not give them the status of fact. Whether we like it or
> not, such assumptions affect science and are not, themselves,
> scientific.
>
> The phycisists go by an assumption that has never been proven.
> It is simply that the solar system is not the unique center of
> the universe.
(How can you have a center in a spatially infinite universe?)
> It is, actually, an unscientific assumption, since
> it is beyond our present ability to test. It does solve some
> problems, as previous theories based on a heliocentric universe
> were becoming unwieldy and defying common sense.
>
> I suggest that the assumption of no purpose in the development
> of life is unwieldy and defies common sense.
Many assumptions of purpose in nature have been shown to be very
wrong when they seemed obvious. Therefore all other assumptions
of purpose in nature should be downgraded in confidence. That
seems to be the logical and necessary thing to do.
[ evolution of flight ]
> > Of course this is speculation, but I think it serves to refute
> > your claim that a whole lot of events must happen at once
> > to make flight possible.
>
> There are intermediates that were in other ways more clumsy than
> either the fast runner or the animal in flight, so that the next
> mutation would need to be before they were killed off.
Not necessarily. Many intermediates I can think of have
clear advantages.
> What about behavioral modifications?
Not always relevant to every step, but if so, these are a
part of the necessary step-wise chain of required mutations.
> Any innovation in nature that
> happens step by step rely on the appearance of beneficial
> mutations in a timely manner. Not only that, the mutations
> involve bodily changes which cannot affect other parts of the
> body adversely.
That's the definition of "beneficial", you're stating the
same thing.
> And certain steps would, indeed, require more
> than one gene to be mutated or created for the entire step to
> be succesful.
Which steps? I've heard this asserted but never substantiated.
> > > Ami:
> > > Only to those who have faith in chance. It is an underlying
> > > philosophical assumption, not a tested fact or theory.
> >
> > I took your original objection to state that there were too many
> > coincidences that must be invoked to explain flight (which I've
> > shown need not be the case) -- not that the evolution of flight
> > has some kind of philosophical nature to it. I don't see
> > that faith in chance is required, only that selection and
> > mutation are logically capable of a great deal of change.
> >
> Yes, that is my objection, that there are too many coincidences.
> Too many beneficial mutations occuring in a timely manner.
Okay, why don't you postulate a rate for beneficial mutations
and we can see if there really are too many coincidences or not
enough time?
> The reason why intellegent selection or mutation seems unnecessary
> to you is your basic underlying assumption that all things must
> happen naturalistically.
Not necessarily.
> You have faith that the right mutations
> occur with great frequency.
No. I believe that beneficial mutations occur once in a great
while. That's enough. Do you realize we're dealing with
millions of years and billions of organisms? Now why is that
a serious problem with known rates of mutation?
> The fossil record is not proof of
> this, it is only proof of gradual change. We do not know what
> the engine was that powered that evolution.
Again, what formula or argument do you use to demonstrate that
the gradual change is not enough?
> > > The only task natural selection takes into account is survival
> > > long enough to reproduce. Obviously single celled creatures do
> > > that very well. How did they gain new abilities?
> >
> > It seems there is no barrier to prevent it.
Why isn't antibiotic resistance a new ability?
> There is no barrier to prevent a mountain to get up and move.
> There is no barrier to prevent my computer from writing this
> letter itself. There is no barrier to prevent an object moving
> in a direction to change direction or speed.
There are very obvious barriers to each of these. The difference
with life is that it is already constantly changing, constantly
trying new directions, new approaches. This is a fact. Some
tiny percentage of the time, life succeeds in creating a new
ability, a new lifeform. This is a fact.
With these facts, logically, life will keep on changing, keep
on trying new directions, new approaches and occasionally
succeeding. This is logically true, unless there is a barrier.
Where's the barrier?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 26 2000 - 13:34:21 EDT