Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[Jose]

You mention the principles of evolution being used as a tool for hardware development and assume that it is these "unintelligent" principles that drive the development of the hardware rather than the intelligent programming of these principles. Without the programmer how exactly would the hardware evolve?

To paraphrase QED, this is, indeed, the crux of the matter. People tend to make two logical leaps that are unjustified:

Unjustified logical leap #1: if an intelligence is used at any point in something, then that intelligence rules out the contributions of all other steps in the process.

Unjustified logical leap #2: if randomness is used at any point in something, then that means the entire process is random.

Here, you say that the programmer was intelligent, so the entire process is "intelligent design." Elsewhere, people say (and I suspect that you might, too) that the notion of "random mutation" makes evolution entirely random, so it can't work.

Both arguments sound like great ways to refute evolution and evolutionary models, right? Well, look at the models and at evolution itself. In QED's genetic algorithms, the computer produces random variation that the programmer never thought of. That's randomness. Why doesn't logical leap #2 take over here? In something like crop breeding, breeders choose the individual plants to be the parents of the next generation--choosing from among the variations that arose by random mutation. Does logical leap #1 take over, or does logical leap #2? In every example of evolution, there is both randomness and non-random selection. Yet, sometimes people use #1 to argue against it, and other times they use #2--It's not valid because it's random, or it's not valid because it's not random. Look at it, and see that the first step is random, and the second is not.

The fact is, the mutational process is random--unplanned, undirected, and in nature, wholly beyond our control. The success of different variants is determined by the conditions the individual variants find themselves in. Some poop out. Some go on. That's not random.

What's the difference between erectus evolving into sapiens, or teosinte evolving into corn, or a airplane wing evolving into a better wing through genetic algorithms? All have random mutation. All have some kind of conditions that the individuals are tested in. The only difference is that the conditions for the first example are "the natural world," for the second example are "the natural world + human choices," and for the third example "a simulated natural world." In all three, those individuals that come through the tests are the ones that are propagated. Each one is a "proof of principle" for the others.

With living things, there is absolutely no escape from the fact that evolution happens. Mutations occur, and cannot be prevented. Some individuals do better, some do worse. The result is evolution. Period.

[Cathar1950]

Some important points are made concerning evolution.
If we breathed CO2 instead of O2 for our use we would see the universe created for us. It hardly makes sense to think of a world not made for us in some sense. It might be better to think of us as having been created for the world because we exist. Like one of the posters suggested the world does not favor us in all of its aspects. Dieing is easy.
Intelligence is something we do and pass information on through culture and language.
Intelligence is to see or imagine relationships already there.
Another good point is that there is randomness and non- random factors. Existence is always going to have to be with in the possible. Things exist because they can, not because there are suppose to.
That it survives with in its constraints is the ultimate test for success.
Qualities will be seen with in its success not in its failures.

[Curious]

I wonder; just what are Creationist principles accomplishing for us in the fields of science and technology?

just because something does work in certain situations does not mean that it does in practice.

But where do you think the programmers got the idea?

"We're taking our cue and inspiration from nature," said Jason Lohn, who leads the group that captures evolution inside a computer.

I am sure that you can give me a dozen mathematical algorithms that lead me from a to z but none of these may be used in the real world.

But this one *is* used in the real world. Look around you.

The computer systems at NASA do not prove evolution, but they do verify the driving force (natural selection). No matter how tightly you close your eyes, you cannot deny this force, nor the effects it has on earth's living systems. Genes vary between individuals of a species. Individuals with ill-equipted genes die or fail to reproduce. Those with suitable genes mate, and pass their characteristics on.

Now, consider the implications of this simple biological fact. Over the long haul, what phenomena must occur if particular genes and their corresponding qualities are constantly fluctuating, diminishing, and changing within a species' population? Obviously, the species itself will change.

Is this not a reasonable conclusion? Is it not based on clear natural observation and recorded phenomena? Why do so many people continue to deny this basic fact? Even the .14% of scientists who still espouse Creationism have brought themselves to accept these basic evolutionary tenants. What is keeping reasonable commonfolk from doing the same? Even if you can't bring yourself to adopt the idea that we originated from single celled amoeba, you can at least accept the indisputable facts of the matter.

You mention the principles of evolution being used as a tool for hardware development and assume that it is these "unintelligent" principles that drive the development of the hardware rather than the intelligent programming of these principles. Without the programmer how exactly would the hardware evolve?

Without our buddy Homo Erectus (and the principles of natural selection), the programmer would still be drawing pictures on cave walls.

Maybe there is a God, and maybe he did 'create' us in some form or another. But if so, he couldn't have done it without evolution.

Evolution was good enough for God. It's about time it was good enough for Christians too. Darwinist principles offer great scientific, educational, and technological opportunity for modern societies. It's about time we tap that opportunity. NASA has.

I think you are maybe missing the point that I was trying to make. My mistake for not explaining adequately. I have said that I am not a creationist so I hope you don't think I am being deliberately obstreperous. My point is that such a program does not appear as a matter of course. To counter the creationist argument it is necessary for such a program to come into existence independently. Once we have a template we can build on it. Evolution however is also dependent on this same template. Without it evolution has a real problem. The program creates a template through intelligent design. Are we trying to refute or support creationism here?

[QED]

I think you are maybe missing the point that I was trying to make. My mistake for not explaining adequately. I have said that I am not a creationist so I hope you don't think I am being deliberately obstreperous. My point is that such a program does not appear as a matter of course. To counter the creationist argument it is necessary for such a program to come into existence independently. Once we have a template we can build on it. Evolution however is also dependent on this same template. Without it evolution has a real problem. The program creates a template through intelligent design. Are we trying to refute or support creationism here?

If I understand you correctly, you're asking for a "bottom up" explanation based on the demonstration of "a program appearing as a matter of course". This, to you, would be preferable to someone pointing to the "design generators" that humans can implement as demonstrations of the principles of evolution at work.

This latter, "top down" explanation is the only practical demonstration that can be implemented as far as I am aware. Creationists are already unconvinced by what they dismiss as "microevolution" when they see evolution underway in selective breeding or unusually fast adaptation in the wild. Here they fail to connect the driving force for these changes with the driving force behind all aspects of apparent design seen in living things. The reason I like to draw attention to the evolution of hardware using technology is that it demonstrates the enormous scope of the principle. There is no evident boundary on the complexity that can emerge in principle.

It would be a fallacy to say that because human engineers have designed the design generator everything the generator churns out is therefore a human design. Generators based on the principle of evolution by natural selection gather knowledge unto themselves, knowledge that is not communicated back or forth between the generator and its developer. Simplifying things a great deal, this knowledge ultimately comes through the many random trials and discoveries of error or fitness made inside the generator and is encoded in the genetic blueprint of the developing design. This knowledge informs the design decisions without any external guidance and is not at all dependent on any human knowledge. One tiny example of this sort of knowledge might be the optimum angle for some purpose -- a critical parameter utterly unknown to the human engineer who implemented the design generator. It is this form of independent artificial intelligence which deserves all the credit for the design solution.

This then becomes an extraordinarily powerful demonstration of how systems other than conscious designers can gather knowledge, and deliver apparent design into the world. In the absence of a "bottom up" demonstration (one that for all we know might require a laboratory the size of the universe and take up to around 10 billion years to complete) it should suffice to dislodge any claims that conscious intelligence is necessary for the creation of complex design.

[Manny]

folks who have problem we evolved from Monkey have no problem we came from dirt?



Since "we came from dirt" theory came first... shouldn't that be proven first?

[QED]

folks who have problem we evolved from Monkey have no problem we came from dirt?



Since "we came from dirt" theory came first... shouldn't that be proven first?

Hello Manny. I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here. The sort of phrases you use are quite typical of those used by people attempting to make evolution sound stupid. Nobody is seriously claiming that homosapiens evolved from monkeys, rather the claim is that both species share a common ancestory.

The mere mention of "dirt" is another indication that someone is attempting to put a spin of ridicule on the very valid question about the first forms of life that appeared on this planet. The idea that it has to be proven that life was self-starting before we can consider any other aspects of evolution is clearly wrong if all we are attempting to prove is that evolution has the capacity to generate complex design through principles of self-organization . Again this is a demand for a "bottom up" explanation which seems like a shrewd ruse considering the sheer complexity of the problem faced by anyone attempting to recreate the natural experiment that took place on this planet over a period of several hundreds of million years. Compounding this problem is the biblical literalists almost inevitable disagreement on the age of the planet.

So it is to the evidence of technological applications for the principles of evolution that I have drawn people's attention to here, in order to demonstrate that self organizing principles really do exist, and that complex apparent design is readily generated if natures own algorithms are adopted. How much imagination does it actually require to see this principle operating on the early chemistry of the planet? Knowing how life is so intimately related to chemistry and how it makes use of the various properties of the elements available to it, I rather feel that people should be proving that it didn't arise through the same principles of natural selection.

[louis]

This is a common misconception that because something exists it had to be created for that purpose.
The glaciers gouged holes in the Canadian shield. Lakes formed in the holes from melting glaciers.
Did the glaciers make the holes so there would be lakes?

Life evolved under the conditions that it COULD evolve. Is this hard to grasp?
I'm sure life wouldn't have evolved under conditions that it couldn't evolve!

If you want to start to think about some answers, I suggest you read Richard Dawkin's 'The Ancestor's Tale'.
This will at least give you some idea about what scientists are actually thinking about evolution, and allow you to debate on a more informed level.

[Curious]

With living things, there is absolutely no escape from the fact that evolution happens. Mutations occur, and cannot be prevented. Some individuals do better, some do worse. The result is evolution. Period.

It is so tempting to believe this is the case. The fact is though that I have never once been given any proof that a single "mutation" is infact an emergence of a new characteristic rather than a reemergence or an old characteristic. It would be great to believe that evolution was so wonderful. In truth it is difficult to find any evidence to support it. People believe it because they are told they are nutters if they don't believe it. OK, so someone throws a die and something happens and this number is better than the rest so it doesn't die and has kids and the numbers that are good keep surviving because they are good and they have more numbers that are mainly good and keep on living. Oh man this is a work of pure genius!

Right, give me some evidence please. By evidence I mean evidence of NEW characteristics evolving. Funny how mutation often throws back OLD characteristics isn't it?

[Grumpy]

The Nylon Bug

My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche. They don't work at all on the bacterium's original food - carbohydrates. And this type of mutation has even happened more than once!

Key points to ponder:

1.Nylon did not exist before 1935. It is man-made. There are no "nylon deposits" that the bacteria could have lived in prior to 1935. (See http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa980325.htm for the details.)
2.Therefore, this organism could not have existed before 1935. Where did it come from?

editted for brevity, Grumpy

see for more info
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

[Manny]

2.Therefore, this organism could not have existed before 1935. Where did it come from?

The "Christian God" continuously keeps creating?