Darwinism IS Design

lucaspa · #1 29th December 2003, 11:28 PM

In another thread All4Jesus posted this from a webarticle:

"Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine." It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, "We're deliciously complex at the molecular level...We don't understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There's still a metaphysical, magical element." He went on to say, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life...the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed."2 As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, "There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me."

Rememger, Myers is not a biologist. He's a computer scientist.

The system was "designed". Designed by natural selection. This is what trips people up all the time.

Natural selection is a process (algorithm) to give design. When creationists say "designed" they have an implied prepositional phrase there: "by an intelligence". It used to be thought that an intelligence was the only way to get design. However, now we know that natural (Darwinian) selection is also a way to get design. I submit that Darwinian selection is the only way to get design. That what "intelligence" does is use Darwinian selection in its mind.

What we need to remind Myers about, as a computer scientist, is genetic algorithms. I bet he has used some of these for designing computer programs. Genetic algorithms are Darwinian selection. What the programmer does is pick the environment. Then he turns Darwinian selection loose to design a program for that environment. Usually programmers use genetic algorithms when the design problem is too TOUGH for them! That is, Darwinian selection is smarter than people.

Also often, Darwinian selection produces designs that the humans can't figure out how they work!
A recent proof of the ability of Darwinian selection to design and be inteligent is the use of Darwinian selection to make new inventions that can get patents:
24. Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out www.genetic-programming.com

The humans on the project didn't tell the Patent Office that the invention was made by Darwinian selection and they issued the patent thinking the inventor was human. So Darwinian selection passes the Turing test on being able to convince a human that it is also human (and thus intelligent).

jbarcher · #2 29th December 2003, 11:56 PM

Question: how is natural selection design?

And it appears....that you suggest chance occurances to produce design?

I'm new to this. But attack me if you please.

seebs · #3 30th December 2003, 12:34 AM

If you do genetic algorithms or similar work, you end up with things that *look* designed, but which we know weren't. Or, alternatively, we can call natural selection a kind of design.

Bushido216 · #4 30th December 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by sweetsoulsong

Question: how is natural selection design?

And it appears....that you suggest chance occurances to produce design?

I'm new to this. But attack me if you please.

It's not design in the form of an intended result, but it's design in the form of having a result.

jbarcher · #5 30th December 2003, 02:04 AM

(I only have 3 hp. Thanks for sparing my life!

)

So uh...this comes about from "non-intention" but ends up as if it was intended?

rmills · #6 30th December 2003, 10:54 AM

Gene Myers has a point that modern science would like to skip. Why? Because it puts implication where modern scientists do not want to go. The fact is that genetics are way to huge a concept for modern science to wrap its mind around. Sorry, this theory ended with the word theory. Until it is proven to be fact, only then does it become science. Fruit flys wont hack it for the bottom line "truth" behind Darwinism.

I have to add that a computer scientist is far more capable of understanding genetics than a geneticist. It should come as no surprise to modern science that off topic scientists allow for a designer easier than genetic scientists. The full directive for a genetic scientist is to test theory in genetics. A computer scientist will tend to base his understanding of genetic code on observed fact.

TheSleepWalker · #7 30th December 2003, 04:17 PM

Sorry, this theory ended with the word theory. Until it is proven to be fact, only then does it become science.

Sorry but a theory is based on observable facts. I think you are confusing theories with hypothesis. As an exemple, gravity is a fact and can be observed, but it is still "just" a theory. Theories are the base of scientific method and can be falsified by other theories.

I have to add that a computer scientist is far more capable of understanding genetics than a geneticist.

I will not comment this one but I think it speaks by itself.

Talcos Stormweaver · #8 30th December 2003, 04:58 PM

Well, to give my opinion:

Yes, Evolution is design, however, it is not in the use of the word that the creationist theories prepose. The process of natural selection is by no means random. Although the diversification of a population through mutations is random in itself, the selection of which is favorable or not is based on the enviromental causes provided. For a simple example:

We have a world of white, black, and (mutant) grey/blue flowers. Now, the grey/blue color is given by a series of mutations which does make them seperate from the white and the black flowers (although they are still of the same species). Now, Mr. Enviroment comes in and kills off the white and the black flowers. The reason why the grey/blue flowers survived is because Mr. Enviroment only wanted to get rid of the non-grey/blue flowers. Thus, as the days pass, we have only grey/blue flowers. If the enviroment continues to pressure the species, we may eventually have a completely different species entirely (if we take things in the long scale terms).

The point is that natural selection in and of itself is not random chance. Enviromental factors become set in such a way that it is a better world for some, and not so much for others. The variety given is random, and in some cases may traditionally be harmful. However, it is the enviroment which inevitably gives the advantage to variant which has the best chance of surviving.

Good, I hope my simplistic explaination suits you.

Bushido216 · #9 30th December 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by sweetsoulsong

(I only have 3 hp. Thanks for sparing my life! )

So uh...this comes about from "non-intention" but ends up as if it was intended?

No.

Natural Selection takes what it has (mutations and changes) and uses what it has to come up with the best possible result for the population. It designs populations given what it has. Remember, mutations are random, and Natural Selection takes those mutations which are beneficial to the organism in the here and now and tacks them on.

lucaspa · #10 31st December 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by sweetsoulsong

Question: how is natural selection design?

And it appears....that you suggest chance occurances to produce design?

I'm new to this. But attack me if you please.

I'm not going to "attack" you. I'm going to walk you thru the reasoning.

Here is natural selection:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

I've highlighted parts of it. Notice it is a deductive argument.
1. Variation among organisms.
2. Not all the variations/organisms can survive because there are too many individuals for the environment to sustain. So there is competition for survival.
3. Thus, the individuals with variations that do best in the competition will survive.
4. These individuals will have offspring which will have the variations.

Notice that 1 and 2 are the premises of the deduction, but they are supported by massive amounts of facts. 3 is the conclusion and 4 is also a fact.

So, what you have is that the environment sets a design problem for the population. Each individual is a potential solution to that design problem. Each individual is a design. There is a competition among the designs/indviduals and the best designs win. Those designs are preserved by inheritance and then you start the whole process over again in a new generation. An important part is that Darwinian selection is cumulative.

Now, you are hung up on the "chance". The variatios are random. Pay attention here: they are random with respect to the needs of the individual and the population. That is, in a climate turning colder, just as many deer will be born with shorter fur than longer fur. The length of fur is "random".

However, selection is NOT random. It is pure determinism. Only the individual deer with longer fur will be able to survive the cold weather. The shorter furred individuals will die or be weaker and won't have as many offspring. So in the next generation more of the deer will be descended from the longer furred deer and will thus have longer fur.

Now, among that generation some will have even longer fur, and those in turn will be selected. And thus, bit by bit, you get design built up.

Humans do the same thing but do it in their heads. That is, we throw up imaginary variations/designs in our heads and then test them against the "environment" of what we want to happen. Those variations that do better we keep and modify further.

As an example, look how a baby learns to talk. A baby starts out by making random sounds. Sooner or later it hits upon sounds, like "daddy" or "mommy" that get a very positive reaction from the environment. Those sounds are then selected and new variations on the sounds are made. Those new variations are again selected by the environment -- those giving a positive reaction are kept, those getting a negative or no reaction are discarded. Eventually this results in the design of sentences.