Some random discussion on evolution...

[pitabread]

The trickier proposition is making a design superior, by introducing random errors.

Interestingly enough this is where evolution has an advantage over deliberate design, because it can more readily explore a greater number of possibilities.

I think this was mentioned earlier, but the evolved antenna is a great example of this:

Whereas the current practice of designing antennas by hand is severely limited because it is both time and labor intensive and requires a significant amount of domain knowledge, evolutionary algorithms can be used to search the design space and automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed. (my emphasis)​

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

 

[Speedwell]

Buy high and sell low...? that's certainly a novel strategy! And I would definitely question that your stocks are more likely to keep improving by it- unless you are buying and selling enough to manipulate the entire market..
But I'm no guru & I'm sure there are whole other forums for this sort of thing!

I do take your point, and by that analogy- I do agree that the selection process is not random- I think we all agree that a superior design will tend to out compete and hence be reproduced in greater numbers than an inferior one. That's precisely why there are more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Ford Pintos. The trickier proposition is making a design superior, by introducing random errors.

I don't see the similarity between "introducing random errors" and constructing a bell-curve distribution of variants.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you agree that the process is not random, yet you were perfectly happy to claim the book was going to be titled, "Origin of the Species by Random Mistakes", and that you should ask your hedge fund manager who uses darts to pick your stock portfolio "if he's relying on pure blind fluke to pick your stock portfolio..."

For someone who claims to understand that it isn't random, you sure seem to like pretending that it is.

What's going on?

natural selection is not random no, but that's not in question. Natural selection can originate nothing- it can only filter and reduce from what has already been originated for it to select from

i.e. the title itself is paradoxical, the entire creative/origination power of the theory rests on random variation- or mutation/ copying mistakes in the modern synthesis.



The 'stock picker' represented the mutation (of the portfolio) process- not the selection process (which is the client) - yes it's a bit confusing- that's why I keep telling people to quit using analogies but nobody listens

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't see the similarity between "introducing random errors" and constructing a bell-curve distribution of variants.

where does the variation come from?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Interestingly enough this is where evolution has an advantage over deliberate design, because it can more readily explore a greater number of possibilities.

I think this was mentioned earlier, but the evolved antenna is a great example of this:

Whereas the current practice of designing antennas by hand is severely limited because it is both time and labor intensive and requires a significant amount of domain knowledge, evolutionary algorithms can be used to search the design space and automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed. (my emphasis)​

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

okay, but this was an example of deliberate design, with a specific desired goal in mind, right? as opposed to Darwinian evolution which is not supposed to have any goals

I have used the same strategy, specifically to calculate the optimum positions of accelerator brake and steering to get a car round any given track as quickly as possible- without spinning out- which may be analogous to fatal mutations in a species right?

So using random variations and selecting for successively faster times, eventually achieved something pretty near optimal- , the interesting thing was that the most efficient way to reproduce and implement the final outcome- was by the same process- only retaining just those random numbers which did lead to improvements.. so that the fatal errors are removed

i.e. anyone studying the software, would see apparently totally random - yet apparently extremely lucky mutations, that just happen to arrive at a very particular goal, without any direct sign of it being pre-determined..

just something to ponder

 

[pitabread]

okay, but this was an example of deliberate design, with a specific desired goal in mind, right? as opposed to Darwinian evolution which is not supposed to have any goals

Usually in these discussions people dismiss the power of evolution as a process to produce successful outcomes. This is an example that evolutionary process can produce better designs than a deliberately planned design.

And I would say that life does have a goal: reproductive success.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Usually in these discussions people dismiss the power of evolution as a process to produce successful outcomes. This is an example that evolutionary process can produce better designs than a deliberately planned design.

absolutely I agree, and gave you my own example- and we can have deliberately planned evolution also, right?

I would argue that it does not represent Darwinian biological evolution though for various reasons. For one: each improved antenna is not required to fall in love with, and marry a similarly improved antenna in order to preserve it's advantages into the next generation without them being immediately diluted..

And I would say that life does have a goal: reproductive success.

Yes but here's a key issue- imho, everything we do has a goal, even everything we type here, be it for our own amusement, or in my case of course, for payment by covert creationist institutions

point being; it's an extremely difficult bias to remove from our thought experiments, and the Darwinian algorithm I believe requires, ironically, a good dose of that anthropomorphism to work as a thought experiment.

 

[pitabread]

I would argue that it does not represent Darwinian biological evolution though for various reasons. For one: each improved antenna is not required to fall in love with, and marry a similarly improved antenna in order to preserve it's advantages into the next generation without them being immediately diluted..

It doesn't insofar as non-biological "organisms" lack both self-replication and any sort of genetic code, I'll grant that. But it's not meant as a perfect analogy of biological evolution; simply a demonstration of the power of evolutionary processes.

Insofar as biological organisms go, they do have the advantage of natural evolution; being able to reproduce and transmit genetic material from parent to offspring is a key distinction of living versus non-living things.

Yes but here's a key issue- imho, everything we do has a goal, even everything we type here, be it for our own amusement, or in my case of course, for payment by covert creationist institutions

point being; it's an extremely difficult bias to remove from our thought experiments, and the Darwinian algorithm I believe requires, ironically, a good dose of that anthropomorphism to work as a thought experiment.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the goal of life ultimately being reproductive success.

I'm also not using evolutionary algorithms as a thought experiment. They are real things that exist and have been used to produce solutions to problems in engineering, computer science, etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It doesn't insofar as non-biological "organisms" lack both self-replication and any sort of genetic code, I'll grant that. But it's not meant as a perfect analogy of biological evolution; simply a demonstration of the power of evolutionary processes.

Insofar as biological organisms go, they do have the advantage of natural evolution; being able to reproduce and transmit genetic material from parent to offspring is a key distinction of living versus non-living things.

well to analyse this a bit more

we have individual 'designs'- built according to digital plans, superior ones tend to outperform inferior ones, and hence they are selected to be reproduced in greater numbers in successive generations- true?

But am I talking about biology or automobiles? I don't know either, so the algorithm is identical thus far would you not agree?

So why would a manufacturer not follow the success of Darwinian evolution, save a fortune in R+D , and simply introduce random mutations to the design of each new generation, and let the public select the best ones? what would happen, and why is life different?

I'm not sure what this has to do with the goal of life ultimately being reproductive success.

goal suggests anticipation, I know you don't mean to, but it changes everything
what may be an advantage with anticipation, is worthless without it.

say you are emptying your pockets- you retain the loose change and discard the candy wrappers- not because there is any immediate advantage, but for an anticipated, accumulated advantage.

remove that anticipation, and you do the exact opposite, discard the heavy uncomfortable change and ignore the wrappers which are no burden

And this is what Darwinism is dealing with, if the advantage is not immediate and significant, it is not acted upon- it cannot anticipate any future benefits- that makes things much tougher

I'm also not using evolutionary algorithms as a thought experiment. They are real things that exist and have been used to produce solutions to problems in engineering, computer science, etc.

which is different from how it works in life right? we can't observe or model macro evolution, we can only try to imagine it- our minds allow it to work

 

[pitabread]

So why would a manufacturer not follow the success of Darwinian evolution, save a fortune in R+D , and simply introduce random mutations to the design of each new generation, and let the public select the best ones? what would happen, and why is life different?

Some manufacturers do use evolutionary approaches in the design process in varying capacities.

But there are other factors to consider when it comes to mass-produced products. One of the drawbacks of the evolutionary approach is it may not produce outputs that are feasible in a mass-production scenario.

And this is what Darwinism is dealing with, if the advantage is not immediate and significant, it is not acted upon- it cannot anticipate any future benefits- that makes things much tougher

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

which is different from how it works in life right? we can't observe or model macro evolution, we can only try to imagine it- our minds allow it to work

In the sense of macro evolution being the formation of distinct breeding populations (e.g. speciation) we can and have observed that.

In the case of evolutionary time frames well beyond our own life spans, sure we can't necessarily observe that. But that's where things like modeling, simulation, and other things comes into play. It can allow us to explore things that we otherwise cannot do in a practical fashion.

Scientists can even are recreate ancestral genomes to directly explore evolutionary pathways to determine how specific biological features evolved. How cool is that?

There's also the fact that life has left traces of its past history in various respects (e.g. genetics, fossils, geographical distribution, etc), which further gives us evidence of how life evolved over time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Some manufacturers do use evolutionary approaches in the design process in varying capacities.

But there are other factors to consider when it comes to mass-produced products. One of the drawbacks of the evolutionary approach is it may not produce outputs that are feasible in a mass-production scenario.



I have no idea what you are trying to say here.



In the sense of macro evolution being the formation of distinct breeding populations (e.g. speciation) we can and have observed that.

In the case of evolutionary time frames well beyond our own life spans, sure we can't necessarily observe that. But that's where things like modeling, simulation, and other things comes into play. It can allow us to explore things that we otherwise cannot do in a practical fashion.

Scientists can even are recreate ancestral genomes to directly explore evolutionary pathways to determine how specific biological features evolved. How cool is that?

There's also the fact that life has left traces of its past history in various respects (e.g. genetics, fossils, geographical distribution, etc), which further gives us evidence of how life evolved over time.

you are bringing up some very interesting points, and I much appreciate the civil debate- [almost as rare on internet forums as a beneficial mutation? - so I will respond but I must call it for now & the weekend probably- beautiful fall colors here to enjoy for first time in a while- designed or not!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

loyal and committed in attitude. I guess!

Hmm... loyal and committed to not believing in gods...

Seems a bit odd. Were you loyal and committed to not doing the other things you didn't do?

 

[Speedwell]

where does the variation come from?

Primarily from genetic mutation, genetic drift and a few other causes, acted upon by recombination.

 

[Speedwell]

I would argue that it does not represent Darwinian biological evolution though for various reasons. For one: each improved antenna is not required to fall in love with, and marry a similarly improved antenna in order to preserve it's advantages into the next generation without them being immediately diluted..

Evolution doesn't require it either. Remember, a creature gets only 50% of its genome from either parent, so the odds are 50/50 that the advantage will be inherited even if only one parent has it.

But I must say--and I hope you don't take this ill, because it is not meant to be--your understanding of how evolution works strikes me as bizarre and improbable. And although this may be a coincidence, it resembles in many ways the straw-man version of "Darwinism" promulgated by the various creationist ministries.

point being; it's an extremely difficult bias to remove from our thought experiments, and the Darwinian algorithm I believe requires, ironically, a good dose of that anthropomorphism to work as a thought experiment.

No iterative algorithm which can be successfully modeled mathematically requires anthropomorphism

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hmm... loyal and committed to not believing in gods...

Seems a bit odd. Were you loyal and committed to not doing the other things you didn't do?

I'm a loyal non-stamp-collector. We meet Wednesdays.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm a loyal non-stamp-collector. We meet Wednesdays.

Shouldn't that be "We don't meet Wednesdays" ?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Shouldn't that be "We don't meet Wednesdays" ?

That would be neither loyal nor committed.

 

[Speedwell]

well to analyse this a bit more

we have individual 'designs'- built according to digital plans, superior ones tend to outperform inferior ones, and hence they are selected to be reproduced in greater numbers in successive generations- true?

But am I talking about biology or automobiles? I don't know either, so the algorithm is identical thus far would you not agree?

So why would a manufacturer not follow the success of Darwinian evolution, save a fortune in R+D , and simply introduce random mutations to the design of each new generation, and let the public select the best ones? what would happen, and why is life different?

Because it would require building and scrapping large numbers of cars every year, which would be much more expensive than R & D.

goal suggests anticipation, I know you don't mean to, but it changes everything
what may be an advantage with anticipation, is worthless without it.

say you are emptying your pockets- you retain the loose change and discard the candy wrappers- not because there is any immediate advantage, but for an anticipated, accumulated advantage.

remove that anticipation, and you do the exact opposite, discard the heavy uncomfortable change and ignore the wrappers which are no burden

And this is what Darwinism is dealing with, if the advantage is not immediate and significant, it is not acted upon- it cannot anticipate any future benefits- that makes things much tougher

Yes, it does. That is why most of the species which have ever lived on Earth are now extinct.

which is different from how it works in life right? we can't observe or model macro evolution, we can only try to imagine it- our minds allow it to work

It can be modeled mathematically. It works.

 

[Kylie]

natural selection is not random no, but that's not in question. Natural selection can originate nothing- it can only filter and reduce from what has already been originated for it to select from

i.e. the title itself is paradoxical, the entire creative/origination power of the theory rests on random variation- or mutation/ copying mistakes in the modern synthesis.

Now, that's just not true. It is certainly possible for new information to come about in evolution.

How Evolution Works

The 'stock picker' represented the mutation (of the portfolio) process- not the selection process (which is the client) - yes it's a bit confusing- that's why I keep telling people to quit using analogies but nobody listens

So why did you use randomness at all in your example? You've already established that you understand that the selection process in evolution is NOT random. Seems to me like you were trying to set up a straw man.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well it was going to be more accurately titled 'Origin of the Species by Random Mistakes.. ' but his publisher advised him against it..

They'd only be 'mistakes' if the process was teleological, but it isn't. Without imperfect copying, the variation that provides long-term survival advantage is significantly reduced.

But yes, that's what the theory comes down to, the entire creative process being left to pure blind fluke- remembering that natural selection can create exactly nothing, it can only select from what has already been created...

That's why variation and selection in reproducing populations are the requirements for evolutionary success.