Evolution of beauty

[John B. Andelin]

I haven't read the entire book but have read a summary. To my knowledge, the author does not address the challenges I've posed. He apparently is challenging the dogma that sexual selection is about fitness vs aesthetics. If you can see any relevance to the points I'm making, I'd be happy to address them.

 

[John B. Andelin]

Mutations alone cannot. That's where hundreds of millions or billions of years of natural selection are involved.

The body plans of animals are directed by cells responding to chemical gradients diffusing through the developing embyro (see the Hox genes); the evolutionary history of these processes has been traced. It is no great leap to imagine a modified form of this mechanism determining the locations of active and inactive melanophores, melanocytes, iridophores, and xanthophores.

If you find my responses short and unhelpful, that is because while I'm happy to go out of my way to help someone who's genuinely interested in finding out about evolution, I'm less inclined to help chippy, arrogant people who's only interest is to try and prove evolution false - without showing any understanding of it - because they think it conflicts with their a-priori belief system.

If you're not one of those people, I apologise, but you're doing a very good impression of one (see POE), and I have a cold.

Hox genes have nothing to do with the questions I'm raising. If ornamented reef fish acquired these body plans, how did it happen? Simply stating " hundreds of millions of billions of years of natural selection" is not an answer... it's dogma. Natural selection has never been proven to be the omnipotent force that you think it is.
Predictably, when I pose scientific challenges I'm eventually accused of arrogance and a priori belief system, and incredulity. I'm not willing to accept evolution on faith.

 

[Gene2memE]

If there is a question that is not answered by evolutionary biology, does that falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection?

If there is a question of biology that is unanswerable by evolutionary biology at present, does that falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection?

If there is a question of biology cannot ever be answered by evolutionary biology, does that falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection?

If there are questions that are unanswerable by evolutionary biology, either at present or in the future, does that make creationism any more valid?

 

[John B. Andelin]

You can always dodge a challenge by attempts to appeal to the overall validity of evolution.
This tells me that you cannot answer the challenge. One of the founding principles of
science is that a single impossibility can falsify a theory, regardless of whatever supporting
evidence there is. To quote Albert Einstein, "no experiment can ever prove me right. A single
experiment can prove me wrong". Charles Darwin also wrote in Origin of Species that single
impossibilities could entirely overthrow his theory. He specifically acknowledged that if
beauty could be shown to exist for beauty's sake alone, that is, without a survival advantage,
that evolution would be falsified.
So I'm pointing out a challenge... beauty exists in coral reef fish...in multiple unrelated species. This is not subjective beauty... this is characterized by ordered patterns. Ordered patterns require ordered nucleotides in specific loci. My challenge is for someone who is convinced of evolution to explain two things:
1. How could mutations that would result in these ordered patterns "appear" in multiple unrelated species?
2. If these mutations did appear, what is the survival advantage of, for example, four color-coordinated stripes that delicately outline the fins of the lipstick surgeonfish? What is the survival advantage of tapered stripes emebellishing the tail of the powder blue tang.
Everyone I've ever spoken to acknowledges the beauty of these fish. Do you know why all humans accept them as beautiful? Because they appear intelligently designed. This is one of the accepted criteria for art. Most aestheticians feel that to qualify as art, the design must extend beyond what is necessary for utility and must demonstrate intention. The ornamentation of reef fish appears intentional. If you insist that natural selection has artistic ability, then I would welcome a scientific explanation as to how you could validate such a claim.

 

[Gene2memE]

Your personal incredulity that evolution cannot produce such patterns is not a challenge to the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I'm not dodging a challenge, as genetics is not my field (my undergraduates are in economics and history).

You're the one making a positive case. In this case that natural mutations are insufficient to explain the presence of 'beautiful' patterns on coral reef fish, and that instead the markings on these fish "shows unmistakable evidence of artistic intelligent design" [that last quote taken from your (?) website].

So its up to you to show that intelligent design is the answer that is most consistent with the evidence available. Not combining the fallacies of argument from ignorance ("How could mutations that would result in these ordered patterns "appear" in multiple unrelated species?") and argument from personal incredulity ("The proposal that the designs in coral reef fish would ward off predators is implausible", "I think "sexual selection" is a big stretch","How can two sets of genetic instructions incorporate mutations such that they stripes through the eyes will perfectly match the skin stripes?")

Here are some pieces of information to get you started on the evolutionary biology side of things. This took me a single search in Google Scholar - bolding mine.

Dazzling or deceptive? The markings of coral reef fish
Have you ever wondered why coral reef fishes are so brilliantly coloured and bizarrely patterned?
...
To answer this question, we need to think about what animals, in general, use their colour patterns for. There is, in fact, a range of uses: for instance, many must have patterns that are both eye-catching to would-be mates but also appear cryptic to lurking predators.
....
When we looked at the evolution of striped patterns, we found species that were often found in shoals had fewer stripes.


Perhaps shoaling species tend to inhabit open water where their lack of patterning allows them to be camouflaged against the plain background. We also found that butterflyfish with broad diets tended to have more stripes.


If stripes work to break up the fish’s body outline, maybe these markings allow fish to expand their feeding activity to a greater number of habitats. There are many possible explanations for our findings, not all of which are related to predator defence.
....
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

One of the most important things to remember when studying the patterns and colours of animals is that animals have very different visual systems to humans. In fact, many fish may have a system of colour vision that is far more complex than our own.

An influential paper published in 2000 by Professor Justin Marshall at The University of Queensland illustrates this key point. Professor Marshall showed patterns that appear bright and bold to us might actually appear rather drab to fish, particularly if they are viewed from a distance.
Dazzling or deceptive? The markings of coral reef fish
​

And this one:

Mystery of colour patterns of reef fish solved!
06 Dec 2018
Scientists have solved the mystery of why some closely-related species of an iconic reef fish have vastly different colour patterns, while others look very similar.
....
“This research is the first of its kind to quantify colour and pattern differences simultaneously among butterflyfish species. It showed us that colour pattern differences can evolve very quickly among species (within 300,000 years) but then remain stable over millions of years,” said Professor Bellwood.

“Colour is far more complicated than just looking different from other species,” said Mr Hemingson.

“These colour patterns also depend specifically on what other species are also present. It is an interesting piece to the puzzle and may help explain why reef fishes are so colourful.”
....
The paper “Colour pattern divergence in reef fish species is rapid and driven by both range overlap and symmetry” is published in the journal Ecology Letters.

Citation: Christopher R. Hemingson, Peter F. Cowman, Jennifer R. Hodge, & David R. Bellwood (2018) Colour pattern divergence in reef fish species is rapid and driven by both range overlap and symmetry Ecology Letters DOI: 10.1111/ele.13180
​

And this one:

How the clownfish earned its stripes: Color pattern evolution in coral reef fishes
September 4, 2018, BioMed Central
...
Coral reef fishes, including clownfish, display a wide variety of colors but it remains unclear how these colors evolved or how they develop throughout a fish's life. Research published in BMC Biology sheds new light on the evolution of different stripe patterns in clownfish and on how these patterns change as individuals from different species grow from larvae into adults.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-clownfish-stripes-pattern-evolution-coral.html#jCp​

​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hox genes have nothing to do with the questions I'm raising. If ornamented reef fish acquired these body plans, how did it happen? Simply stating " hundreds of millions of billions of years of natural selection" is not an answer... it's dogma. Natural selection has never been proven to be the omnipotent force that you think it is.
Predictably, when I pose scientific challenges I'm eventually accused of arrogance and a priori belief system, and incredulity. I'm not willing to accept evolution on faith.

Examples that can falsify evolution are a small subset of the examples that are yet to be addressed or explained by evolutionary principles. The examples that can falsify evolution are those that contradict the predictions of evolution, such as the creationists perennial favourite, the 'crockoduck', or rabbits found in the Precambrian. This is why the ID claims of 'irreducible complexity' are such an ongoing failure - plausible stepwise evolutionary paths have been found for all examples to date, but evolution obviously wasn't falsified before those solutions were found, and won't be falsified if another example is found that we haven't yet explained.

Like I said, I'm not an expert in patterning, but there is plenty of information online if you're really interested. For example, here's a fairly recent article: How fish color their skin: A paradigm for development and evolution of adult patterns. Here are excerpts from two issues of the International Journal of Developmental Biology devoted to patterns, albeit ten years old; things will have moved on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Can there even be a scientific formula for beauty?

 

[John B. Andelin]

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Can there even be a scientific formula for beauty?

The existence of ordered color patterns is a fact... it is not in the eye of the beholder

 

[John B. Andelin]

Your personal incredulity that evolution cannot produce such patterns is not a challenge to the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I'm not dodging a challenge, as genetics is not my field (my undergraduates are in economics and history).

You're the one making a positive case. In this case that natural mutations are insufficient to explain the presence of 'beautiful' patterns on coral reef fish, and that instead the markings on these fish "shows unmistakable evidence of artistic intelligent design" [that last quote taken from your (?) website].

So its up to you to show that intelligent design is the answer that is most consistent with the evidence available. Not combining the fallacies of argument from ignorance ("How could mutations that would result in these ordered patterns "appear" in multiple unrelated species?") and argument from personal incredulity ("The proposal that the designs in coral reef fish would ward off predators is implausible", "I think "sexual selection" is a big stretch","How can two sets of genetic instructions incorporate mutations such that they stripes through the eyes will perfectly match the skin stripes?")

Here are some pieces of information to get you started on the evolutionary biology side of things. This took me a single search in Google Scholar - bolding mine.

Dazzling or deceptive? The markings of coral reef fish
Have you ever wondered why coral reef fishes are so brilliantly coloured and bizarrely patterned?
...
To answer this question, we need to think about what animals, in general, use their colour patterns for. There is, in fact, a range of uses: for instance, many must have patterns that are both eye-catching to would-be mates but also appear cryptic to lurking predators.
....
When we looked at the evolution of striped patterns, we found species that were often found in shoals had fewer stripes.


Perhaps shoaling species tend to inhabit open water where their lack of patterning allows them to be camouflaged against the plain background. We also found that butterflyfish with broad diets tended to have more stripes.


If stripes work to break up the fish’s body outline, maybe these markings allow fish to expand their feeding activity to a greater number of habitats. There are many possible explanations for our findings, not all of which are related to predator defence.
....
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

One of the most important things to remember when studying the patterns and colours of animals is that animals have very different visual systems to humans. In fact, many fish may have a system of colour vision that is far more complex than our own.

An influential paper published in 2000 by Professor Justin Marshall at The University of Queensland illustrates this key point. Professor Marshall showed patterns that appear bright and bold to us might actually appear rather drab to fish, particularly if they are viewed from a distance.
Dazzling or deceptive? The markings of coral reef fish
​

And this one:

Mystery of colour patterns of reef fish solved!
06 Dec 2018
Scientists have solved the mystery of why some closely-related species of an iconic reef fish have vastly different colour patterns, while others look very similar.
....
“This research is the first of its kind to quantify colour and pattern differences simultaneously among butterflyfish species. It showed us that colour pattern differences can evolve very quickly among species (within 300,000 years) but then remain stable over millions of years,” said Professor Bellwood.

“Colour is far more complicated than just looking different from other species,” said Mr Hemingson.

“These colour patterns also depend specifically on what other species are also present. It is an interesting piece to the puzzle and may help explain why reef fishes are so colourful.”
....
The paper “Colour pattern divergence in reef fish species is rapid and driven by both range overlap and symmetry” is published in the journal Ecology Letters.

Citation: Christopher R. Hemingson, Peter F. Cowman, Jennifer R. Hodge, & David R. Bellwood (2018) Colour pattern divergence in reef fish species is rapid and driven by both range overlap and symmetry Ecology Letters DOI: 10.1111/ele.13180
​

And this one:

How the clownfish earned its stripes: Color pattern evolution in coral reef fishes
September 4, 2018, BioMed Central
...
Coral reef fishes, including clownfish, display a wide variety of colors but it remains unclear how these colors evolved or how they develop throughout a fish's life. Research published in BMC Biology sheds new light on the evolution of different stripe patterns in clownfish and on how these patterns change as individuals from different species grow from larvae into adults.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-clownfish-stripes-pattern-evolution-coral.html#jCp​

​

The "argument from incredulity" retort is pointless. If you're telling me I should accept evolution on faith, then there's no purpose of this discussion. You argue the validity of a scientific hypothesis by telling your opponent to blindly believe when scientific explanations fail. I pose a logical question...how can two sets of genetic instructions appear through mutations to resulting in correct coloring in the skin and eye?... this a probability challenge. Rather than address that challenge, you imply that I'm illogical and that I should accept mathematical impossibilities on faith.

Your strategy of responding to a challenge is typical. You inundate me to multiple links to articles which do not address the challenges I've raised, attempting to create an illusion of evidence. I will be happy to respond to each article you posted, after you have responded by my challenges. Regardless of how much research that has been published, the fundamental questions remain unanswered. The designs in coral reef fish are far too delicate and precise to be attributed to such things as mate selection and breaking up color patterns in a coral reef environment.


Why are the fins a so many species delicately outlined, sometimes with three or four coordinated colors? Why are the tails outlined? What about the midline composite stripe of the copperbanded butterflyfish? How and why would evolution create such a design that would required very complex digital code? "Dazzling, bright coloration" is a gross oversimplification. If all you can do is accuse me of "incredulity", and point me to irrelevant articles that minimize the order that exists, ... and then bring up irrelevant issues such as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", then it's obvious that you want to believe in a process that cannot be supported by science. Even if you don't find these creatures aesthetically pleasing (I'm sure you do), then you still can't explain the extreme order that exists, which is not in the eye of the beholder.

One final point... I cannot respect any article that uses nothing but speculation and storytelling as evidence, while presuming the validity of evolution. This is not science... it is wishful thinking. Professor Belwood presumes that he's demonstrated that design evolution has occurred in multiple unrelated species and that it can occur rapidly in less than 300,000 years, and then remain stable for millions of years, BECAUSE he is committed to the dogmas of evolution. He claims that "research" shows this. This is nothing less than storytelling confined to a pre-termined framework of atheism.

 

[John B. Andelin]

Examples that can falsify evolution are a small subset of the examples that are yet to be addressed or explained by evolutionary principles. The examples that can falsify evolution are those that contradict the predictions of evolution, such as the creationists perennial favourite, the 'crockoduck', or rabbits found in the Precambrian. This is why the ID claims of 'irreducible complexity' are such an ongoing failure - plausible stepwise evolutionary paths have been found for all examples to date, but evolution obviously wasn't falsified before those solutions were found, and won't be falsified if another example is found that we haven't yet explained.

Like I said, I'm not an expert in patterning, but there is plenty of information online if you're really interested. For example, here's a fairly recent article: How fish color their skin: A paradigm for development and evolution of adult patterns. Here are excerpts from two issues of the International Journal of Developmental Biology devoted to patterns, albeit ten years old; things will have moved on.

Bringing up cockoduck, precambrian rabbits and irreducible complexity is a distraction.
I've already gone online and researched the speculations of evolutionists on patterns. In all of the articles I've read, my points are not addressed, and the order that exists is minimized. If you have a specific point to make in the article you reference, then please tell me what it is.
If you're not an expert on patterning, then I can respect that. I'm not either. But I know enough about DNA and the probability of mutation to know that is is extremely unlikely that any number of mutations could produce the order that exists in the color patterns of reef fish. If you say that genes exist that code for these patterns in other species, then you haven't explained how mutations created these genes in the first place.
Why do you think a koi breeder can only create random coloration? Do you think if you offered ten million dollars to a koi breeder to create any ordered pattern in a fish he could do it? Why not? Because mutations are random. How do you get randomness from order? What mathematical justification is there that millions of years can create anything? If evolution can actually create patterns in reef fish, then why is it that no one can scientifically demonstrate this as even a possibility?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The existence of ordered color patterns is a fact... it is not in the eye of the beholder

No, but the concept of the pattern being 'beautiful' certainly is.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, but the concept of the pattern being 'beautiful' certainly is.

I'd add that 'ordered' is also in the eye of the beholder.

 

[dgiharris]

I'd like to take a step back and present a simple mathematical concept that the OP might not have knowledge of.

There is a thing in Math called "convergence".
When you undergo a process of iteration, you often trend towards two possible states

A) Convergence, each iteration brings you to a specific point (or data set)
B) Divergence, each iteration pushes you away from a point (or data set)​

In the case of sexual selection and mating, etc this is a process that could easily explain how many species came to be. Lets say I'm born in a litter with 9 siblings and I have 4 spots on my forehead and i notice that 7 of my siblings have 4 spots on their forehead. WHen I go to mate, I will be biased towards those that have 4 spots on their forehead. Over time, this will lead to a convergence of my species in which we all have 4 spots on our foreheads...

Now factor in another variable like Predator / Prey relationship and the environment.

Now, lets say that there is a species of snake in my region that is very poisonous and this snake has 4 spots starting on its head then going down its back. These 4 spots "coincidentally" look very similar to the 4 spots that I have on my forehead. This complete accident has the added benefit of predators avoiding me just because I have those 4 spots. This means that predators are quick to eat others of my kind that have 3 spots or 2 spots or are missing spots all together. This factor helps those of us with 4 spots on our foreheads and leads to us surviving better than those with a lessor number of spots...

There are other factors and possible examples but I'll stop with those two.

The point being simply that "convergence" is a very real phenomena that can happen for a variety of reasons. . Similarly, oftentimes it doesn't take much to get convergence to a particular trend or trait especially when you are talking about phenomena that has thousands or hundreds of thousands of iterations. In the case of evolution and millions of years, that equates to hundreds of thousands of generations with each generation being considered an iteration.

Doesn't matter if the cause is accidental, environmental, etc...
Convergence happens all the time and for a variety of reasons.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Bringing up cockoduck, precambrian rabbits and irreducible complexity is a distraction.

Not if you're looking to falsify the ToE; they're examples of the kind of discovery that would falsify the ToE. If you're not looking to falsify it, they're not relevant; I thought you were.

I've already gone online and researched the speculations of evolutionists on patterns. In all of the articles I've read, my points are not addressed, and the order that exists is minimized.

OK, I guess they haven't got there yet. Check back every five years.

If you have a specific point to make in the article you reference, then please tell me what it is.

Just thought it might be of interest as it's on the same topic.

But I know enough about DNA and the probability of mutation to know that is is extremely unlikely that any number of mutations could produce the order that exists in the color patterns of reef fish. If you say that genes exist that code for these patterns in other species, then you haven't explained how mutations created these genes in the first place.

I don't think you do know enough. Skin patterning is at least an order of magnitude less complex and information-rich than the 3D layout and organisation of the body plan and organs, and we have a good idea of how that is achieved. It's the same kind of problem and it probably uses the same core gene toolbox and algorithms - evolution tends to reuse & repurpose genetic material.

Why do you think a koi breeder can only create random coloration? Do you think if you offered ten million dollars to a koi breeder to create any ordered pattern in a fish he could do it? Why not?

I have no idea; I'm not a koi breeder.

Because mutations are random. How do you get randomness from order? What mathematical justification is there that millions of years can create anything?

I was right - you don't know enough about evolution. The basics are that mutation provides the variation for natural selection to act on.

Randomness from order? That's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Mathematical justification? The web is crawling with mathematical models of evolution, not to mention the widespread use of genetic & evolutionary algorithms in industrial design that use the same principles (iterative random variation & selection in populations).

If evolution can actually create patterns in reef fish, then why is it that no one can scientifically demonstrate this as even a possibility?

Like I said, I don't know why you can't find this information. Perhaps you should contact the researchers working in this field. It may be lagging because the main focus of developmental biology has been on the more complex and interesting question of body plan patterning, which has advanced considerably in recent years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd add that 'ordered' is also in the eye of the beholder.

Up to a point - low entropy can be (roughly) said to be more ordered than high entropy; but it's true that our commonsense view of what is ordered and what isn't doesn't always correspond to low and high entropy states, respectively. We seem to add extra requirements, such as symmetry.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Up to a point - low entropy can be (roughly) said to be more ordered than high entropy; but it's true that our commonsense view of what is ordered and what isn't doesn't always correspond to low and high entropy states, respectively. We seem to add extra requirements, such as symmetry.

I'm really getting at the idea that "order" is a human concept. I would suggest that your usage is scientific while the idea of "ordered" color pattern is pareidolic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm really getting at the idea that "order" is a human concept. I would suggest that your usage is scientific while the idea of "ordered" color pattern is pareidolic.

Yes, our 'common sense' notion of order is different from the scientific sense.

 

[John B. Andelin]

I'd like to take a step back and present a simple mathematical concept that the OP might not have knowledge of.

There is a thing in Math called "convergence".
When you undergo a process of iteration, you often trend towards two possible states

A) Convergence, each iteration brings you to a specific point (or data set)
B) Divergence, each iteration pushes you away from a point (or data set)​

In the case of sexual selection and mating, etc this is a process that could easily explain how many species came to be. Lets say I'm born in a litter with 9 siblings and I have 4 spots on my forehead and i notice that 7 of my siblings have 4 spots on their forehead. WHen I go to mate, I will be biased towards those that have 4 spots on their forehead. Over time, this will lead to a convergence of my species in which we all have 4 spots on our foreheads...

Now factor in another variable like Predator / Prey relationship and the environment.

Now, lets say that there is a species of snake in my region that is very poisonous and this snake has 4 spots starting on its head then going down its back. These 4 spots "coincidentally" look very similar to the 4 spots that I have on my forehead. This complete accident has the added benefit of predators avoiding me just because I have those 4 spots. This means that predators are quick to eat others of my kind that have 3 spots or 2 spots or are missing spots all together. This factor helps those of us with 4 spots on our foreheads and leads to us surviving better than those with a lessor number of spots...

There are other factors and possible examples but I'll stop with those two.

The point being simply that "convergence" is a very real phenomena that can happen for a variety of reasons. . Similarly, oftentimes it doesn't take much to get convergence to a particular trend or trait especially when you are talking about phenomena that has thousands or hundreds of thousands of iterations. In the case of evolution and millions of years, that equates to hundreds of thousands of generations with each generation being considered an iteration.

Doesn't matter if the cause is accidental, environmental, etc...
Convergence happens all the time and for a variety of reasons.

If you're going to give an example of how evolution works, it should be analogous to biologic reality. Macroevolution requires mutations. It is not selection of pre-existing alleles. The probability of you having seven siblings, all with the same mutation not existent in a parent, is less than 10^-50. If a mutation does occur, the mutated individual mates with a non-mutated individual. Most mutations are recessive and are thus not expressed in the second generation. The analogy of four recognizable spots on your forehead is also deeply flawed, because evolution supposedly selects mutations that are virtually imperceptable from one generation to the next. All you can hope for is that milliions of years will solve the problem... but you have no mathematical justificatioin for that hope.

 

[John B. Andelin]

Yes, our 'common sense' notion of order is different from the scientific sense.

I believe you are falsely applying principles of stastitical mechanics to biologic systems. The order of thermodynamic systems is not the only way of describing order. It is impossible for you to flip a coin 100 times and achieve 100 heads. This is because 100 heads is an ordered outcome. In a thermodynamic sense, textbook of physics is no more ordered than a textbook of random alphanumeric characters. This does not suggest that a monkey could randomly create a textbook of physics.
A monkey with a paintbrush could create a koi fish. A monkey could not create an ornamented reef fish.

 

[John B. Andelin]

Not if you're looking to falsify the ToE; they're examples of the kind of discovery that would falsify the ToE. If you're not looking to falsify it, they're not relevant; I thought you were.

OK, I guess they haven't got there yet. Check back every five years.

Just thought it might be of interest as it's on the same topic.

I don't think you do know enough. Skin patterning is at least an order of magnitude less complex and information-rich than the 3D layout and organisation of the body plan and organs, and we have a good idea of how that is achieved. It's the same kind of problem and it probably uses the same core gene toolbox and algorithms - evolution tends to reuse & repurpose genetic material.

I have no idea; I'm not a koi breeder.

I was right - you don't know enough about evolution. The basics are that mutation provides the variation for natural selection to act on.

Randomness from order? That's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Mathematical justification? The web is crawling with mathematical models of evolution, not to mention the widespread use of genetic & evolutionary algorithms in industrial design that use the same principles (iterative random variation & selection in populations).

Like I said, I don't know why you can't find this information. Perhaps you should contact the researchers working in this field. It may be lagging because the main focus of developmental biology has been on the more complex and interesting question of body plan patterning, which has advanced considerably in recent years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If the web is "crawling with mathematical models of evolution", I would welcome you to post the most compelling one you've found. Every one I've seen so far relies on false concepts of biology.