Evolution and complexity

[QED]

I often see people rejecting the theory of evolution saying that they cannot accept that it could account for all the complexity seen in the world around us. I wonder if these people have ever experienced the delights of graphical computer software known as texture explorers?

Available as plug-ins for Photoshop, or as stand-alone applications, these programs generate images according to 'genetic' rules that are randomly mutated. A selection of 'newborn' images are 'bred' on successive iterations and you simply select the image that most closely resembles the final scene that you are after.

So if you want a picture of woodgrain, you run the program and choose, from a handful of random images which one most resembles woodgrain. The image you choose may not actually look like woodgrain (yet) but by breeding new images from the one that most closely resembles woodgrain at each iteration, you are able to home-in on it eventually. (See for an online demo)

Now obviously the selection process is based on us being the judge of aesthetics in this case, but it serves as a model for analogous evolutionary systems having other selection mechanisms. So if evolutionary processes can be shown to produce complexity from random mutations at this scale then why not at other larger scales?

[micatala]

Good question.

I think John Conway's old cellular automoton program "Game of Life" is probably similar in spirit, although perhaps more simplistic. You can also find this on the web here . Based on an initial setup and a few very simple rules, you can get a lot of different patterns, including self-replicating patterns.

Some will say it is trite, but I think snowflakes are a good example of highly complicated and structured forms coming about through random processes.

I also think it is important to point out that 'random' does not necessarily mean 'chaotic' or that 'anything can happen.' Whether we are talking about coin flips, or the formation of molecules, the possibilities are restricted based on the 'structure' that exists. Certain molecules can only combine in certain ways, mutations can only happen in certain ways, the coin can only come up heads or tails. Random just means we never know which of the possibilities will occur at any one repetition of the experiment.

[Jose]

That's a great example, QED. The tricky bit is seeing the connection between it and biological evolution. People always want to say that this type of example involves a conscious intelligence doing the choosing, and there isn't such a thing in evolution (ergo intelligent design). Or, once we've convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt that environment can select, they fall back to the position that it's just microevolution and doesn't count. Nonetheless, the more examples and simulations and analogies that we can develop, the better. I wonder if there is a compilation of them anywhere? There should be. How about we look around, find as many as possible that are on the web, and I'll put links to 'em on my website.

[QED]

I do appreciate that the demo in that link falls a long way short of being a model for the evolution of anything but pretty pictures - but the fact is that having a general awareness of such things is part of my reason for accepting ToE. I wrote my own texture generator around ten years ago when it was becoming popular to harness evolution in computer simulation software so I feel quite comfortable with the principles.

What I can't seem to dig-up from the internet are details of flight control systems developed for fly-by-wire using evolution. By using stable flight corresponding to the pilots control positions as the selection criteria, the software was iterated with mutations in the coding to produce a solution. By 'crashing' a virtual plane millions of times, the control software would eventually reach a high degree of proficiency. I know robots have been 'taught' to walk using exactly the same techniques.

[youngborean]

I think that is an interesting example too. It is interesting that someone created the software to act according to these rules. Not only that but as you said, you choose the wood grains you want.

[Jose]

Yes, I've heard of the airplane design-by-evolution stuff, with the result of discovering new things that we wouldn't have thought of normally. A good account of it would be wonderful.

I'm reminded of the difficulty inherent in visualizing how randomness in mutation can result in directional selection, which we explored in the thread, Evolution is a non-random directed process. In particular, otseng had an interesting question, to which I replied with another analogy that might be worth thinking about, too. It's a real puzzle how to make the idea, "randomness-gives-direction when-there's-selection," some kind of reality to everyone. It seems counter-intuitive to many people.

[zedkatuf]

Hi QED et al...
This is my first post, so please be gentle

Short BIO: Physics/ICT teacher, astronomer (http://www.projectgalileo.org.uk) & Christian, became Christian at uni, now nearly aged 37. Have until recently taken a 'complementarist' position re my science & faith but currently believe this is an unsatisfactory position, so am keen to explore new ways of thinking about my faith & the science that I teach. Am keen to debate with Christians & athiests/agnostics who hold an evolutionary position.
</BIO>

I've come across this (fairly technical) article about the mathematics of complexity in its application to evolution:

http://www.designinference.com/document ... Spaces.pdf

..the URL tells you it's written by the ID folks, specifically William Dembski
(his BIO is at: http://www.iscid.org/william-dembski.php )

Page 16 contains a useful summary (there's a lot of information-theory maths in this which you might want to avoid!):

<QUOTE>
This definition of intelligence as the causal factors responsible for
changes in probabilities or, equivalently, for net increases in
information is noncircular and, on reflection, should seem
unproblematic. If there is a problem, it concerns whether intelligence
is reducible to stochastic mechanisms. The neo-Darwinian theory of
evolution, for instance, purports to account for biological complexity
and diversity through an intelligence that is a stochastic mechanism,
namely, the joint action of natural selection and random genetic
mutations. To be sure, this mechanism operates in nature and is
responsible for significant changes in the biological world.
Nevertheless, is it the case that this mechanism accounts for biological
complexity and diversity without remainder? In other words, is the
intelligence responsible for biological complexity and diversity
entirely reducible to this mechanism? In general, to justify the
reduction of intelligence to stochastic mechanisms, these mechanisms
need to supply a complete, self-consistent account of how changes in
probability or net increases in information arise. As we shall see, the
mathematics of blind and assisted searches precludes such an account,
whether for neo-Darwinian assisted searches or for assisted searches in
general.
</QUOTE>

****ALSO: SEE CONCLUDING SECTION 9 PAGE 30 ONWARDS*****

Best regards,

Dez Futak.

[Jose]

Welcome, zedkatuf!!

You raise an important question that is well worth exploring. Regrettably, "intelligence" is something for which we have no good measure. Virtually any organism is intelligent enough to interact with its environment in productive and quite sophisticated ways, whether we're talking about you and me, a sea slug, or a sunflower. There turn out to be lots of different kinds of intelligence. Still, it's an interesting question--but I'd put it in the realm of philosophy until we have enough details to describe it in molecular/cellular terms.

Dembski uses an interesting approach of describing things in technical-sounding terminology, but appealing to wholly unscientific "common sense." He says (and I paraphrase): "Here we have the irreducibly complex endoplasmic infundibulum, composed as it is of a string of 1000 independent parts, without any one of which it cannot perform its function. It is wholly inconceivable that this remarkable structure could have occurred by chance, inasmuch as there are no fewer than 20(ex1000) possible combinations of those independent units! The naive evolutionist, looking at this remarkable machine, says 'this developed by random chance.' But, this is clearly impossible. Anyone of intelligence can recognize this as the work of a designer."

OK...what does he say when we translate it into normal English? It says "looky here--this thing is complicated, but I'm not going to look for an explanation of its origin; I'm just going to say it's too complicated for me to understand, so I'll say god created it. Along the way, I'll make up some stuff and play games with statistics, to make it look good."

He gets away with this because he conjures up an image of evolution that is nothing like the process of evolution, and then he tries to convince his audience that this silly vision of evolution is silly. If he would actually address the real mechanism of evolution, and not leave out important information, and not make up goofy things, then he might have a case. Sadly, he's all wet. Even more sadly, he's able to influence people who lack the scientific background to understand that he's all wet. ID is not science.

There's no real point to his arguments, except to do what the Discovery Institute's long-term plan is: get biblical creation back into the classroom. He paints it as a "generic" designer at this time, but the long-term plan is clear.

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built....Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science....The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating....Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies...we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

We are ... broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

...

Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Twenty Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

In other words, eliminate science, and go back to the scientific understanding of the early 1800's. The model community seems to be the strictly agrarian Amish, who attend school only until 8th grade.

In your search for a reconciliation of faith and evolution, I would offer you the stance of my friend, Rev. Locke. He preaches that the story of Genesis is just that, a story. It teaches us our relationship with God, but is not a scientific treatise. For the history of the earth and of life, we must study God's creation itself, the earth, and life. We should not be misled by those who have a political agenda that is based upon a narrow and extremely rigid interpretation of the bible.

...but that's your search. The best I can offer is guidance through the science. Where things seem unlikely, or where you think the ID folks may have a point, ask away!

[The Happy Humanist]

Short BIO: Physics/ICT teacher, astronomer (http://www.projectgalileo.org.uk) & Christian, became Christian at uni, now nearly aged 37. Have until recently taken a 'complementarist' position re my science & faith but currently believe this is an unsatisfactory position, so am keen to explore new ways of thinking about my faith & the science that I teach. Am keen to debate with Christians & athiests/agnostics who hold an evolutionary position.

Wow. This place just got a whole lot more interesting. Welcome, Dez!

[zedkatuf]

Welcome, zedkatuf!!

You raise an important question that is well worth exploring. Regrettably, "intelligence" is something for which we have no good measure. Virtually any organism is intelligent enough to interact with its environment in productive and quite sophisticated ways, whether we're talking about you and me, a sea slug, or a sunflower. There turn out to be lots of different kinds of intelligence. Still, it's an interesting question--but I'd put it in the realm of philosophy until we have enough details to describe it in molecular/cellular terms.

Yes, I agree that intelligence is something that is difficult to quantify accurately in all the situations in which it might apply.

Dembski uses an interesting approach of describing things in technical-sounding terminology, but appealing to wholly unscientific "common sense." He says (and I paraphrase): "Here we have the irreducibly complex endoplasmic infundibulum, composed as it is of a string of 1000 independent parts, without any one of which it cannot perform its function. It is wholly inconceivable that this remarkable structure could have occurred by chance, inasmuch as there are no fewer than 20(ex1000) possible combinations of those independent units! The naive evolutionist, looking at this remarkable machine, says 'this developed by random chance.' But, this is clearly impossible. Anyone of intelligence can recognize this as the work of a designer."

OK...what does he say when we translate it into normal English? It says "looky here--this thing is complicated, but I'm not going to look for an explanation of its origin; I'm just going to say it's too complicated for me to understand, so I'll say god created it. Along the way, I'll make up some stuff and play games with statistics, to make it look good."

Hehe - nicely derided I think there are several parts of Dembski's analysis that are worth following up, however, as it seems that he is rightfully attempting quantify the probabilities, and develop a mathematical model of how evolution might or might not occur. There are obvious caveats in this, I agree, but nevertheless I think it's important not to dismiss his work.

He gets away with this because he conjures up an image of evolution that is nothing like the process of evolution, and then he tries to convince his audience that this silly vision of evolution is silly. If he would actually address the real mechanism of evolution, and not leave out important information, and not make up goofy things, then he might have a case. Sadly, he's all wet. Even more sadly, he's able to influence people who lack the scientific background to understand that he's all wet. ID is not science.

If I understand Dembski correctly, it seems that he is trying to mathematically model how molecules in general might come together to form much more complex patterns through self-organization, which is possibly a key part of the process of evolution. In that sense, perhaps it's not fair to describe what he's doing as goofy, as I think it has a valid part to play in trying to see whether or not some of the nitty-gritty of evolutionary ideas might actually be valid...in a sense, perhaps he is trying to address Dawkins' ideas in Climbing Mount Improbable. It's a bit like how actuaries attempt to mathematically model peoples' lifestyles in order to help their companies assess whether or not they will make enough profit from their insurance premiums. Any mathematical modelling might be flawed, I agree (ie "leave out important information"), but if it has useful predictive power then it's worth investigating.

Perhaps what we need to see is the nano-technologists combining forces with the molecular biologists to see if we can actually 'do' some evolution....taking the 'pre-biotic' soup experiment to the next stage, as a way of investigating how poor/good such mathematical models like Dembski's really are in practice.

There's no real point to his arguments, except to do what the Discovery Institute's long-term plan is: get biblical creation back into the classroom. He paints it as a "generic" designer at this time, but the long-term plan is clear.

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built....Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science....The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating....Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies...we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

We are ... broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
<snipped for sake of brevity>

In other words, eliminate science, and go back to the scientific understanding of the early 1800's. The model community seems to be the strictly agrarian Amish, who attend school only until 8th grade.

I agree that the ID agenda is aggressive & perhaps regressive in terms of its approach to science. What I'd really like to see is an open-ended discussion between evolutionary scientists and those who hold to other ideas., instead, as that would be much more interesting - but perhaps that's a bit naive, as the history of science seems to indicate a more 'Kuhnian' development.

In your search for a reconciliation of faith and evolution, I would offer you the stance of my friend, Rev. Locke. He preaches that the story of Genesis is just that, a story. It teaches us our relationship with God, but is not a scientific treatise. For the history of the earth and of life, we must study God's creation itself, the earth, and life. We should not be misled by those who have a political agenda that is based upon a narrow and extremely rigid interpretation of the bible.

That's where I've come from (the 'complementarist' approach)..I'm interested to see if there are viable alternatives instead, atm.

The best I can offer is guidance through the science. Where things seem unlikely, or where you think the ID folks may have a point, ask away!

My first post is where I think the ID folks do have a point, so I'm hoping we can chew the cud on his particular article for a while, if that's agreeable to everyone.

Cheers,

Dez.