The "intelligence" of evolution

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: inspire
Question: Random, in the mathematical sense, also implies that the expected value of a random variable is equal to zero. We're talking so much about evolution being 'random' - do we devolution as much as evolution (I'm assuming equal weights in this question for the sake of arguement; I'm not trying to pull a fast one.)?

Not entirely sure what you mean by the question, but I'll throw two things out there...

Mutations aren't entirely random, if that's what you're asking. An A is more likely to be mutated into a G than either a T or a C for instance. Given enough generations and a large population size however, one should expect to see most all possible point mutations sampled at one point or another. Larger (and perhaps more important in the evolutionary process) events such as duplications, translocations etc. are much more difficult to predict.

On another level, there are some fairly simple evolutionary scenarios whereby adoption of a more complex system (including the irreducibly complex) is easily acquired, causes a selectable advantage and is probably irreversible (as it's irreducible).

Yeah, I realize now that I did a poor job of phrasing the question (which usually happens). I meant to ask if the 'randomness' in evolution behaved like random error (which is generally modeled under the assumption that the expected value of said error is zero, and is normally distributed - seems logical enough, but I admit, in hindsight, I took this for granted...)

Thanks Gibsons, sleeping through Biology makes me dumb when it comes to stuff like this. So, mutations aren't truly random in the sense of random error, or noise, but in the sense of a random variable. That's interesting.

 

[darkhorror]

mutations are random, but only the ones that don't hurt or are a help get passed on. That way you arn't going to devolve, the ones that help say the ones that hurt don't.

Evolution isn't intelligent, it is a simple cause and effect. It doesn't reason why something will happen, it doesn't care what things end up as. It is simply a process of through random mutations that help or hurt can change a species.

"That really doesn't make much sense considering the whole process of weeding out the inferior species is part of what makes the process of evolution able to adapt so effectively to a constantly changing environment. It exhibits intelligence in this sense because it is constantly able to produce a pool of well adapted species that are able to survive within their own climates. When the climate changes dramatically so do the species. "

Evolution doesn't produce anything, the environment can verywell change and kill everything. It's only through chance that some of them may survive through some random mutation. It didn't choose how it would work. When the climate changes dramaticly the species only survives if there is part of them that are able to survive. They don't survive and change only because the climate changes. Climate changes only show mutations that were there to begin, it doesn't create them. Like this lets say we have a bunch of fish they are all basicly the same but some are able to survive in colder water than others. Now lets say that they are all living in some water where that doesn't help at all. Then the climate changes and the water temp drops some those fish who were able to survive in the colder water do just fine where the others die out. The climate change didn't make these fish able to survive in the colder water. They were already able to but now you can see them.

 

[Qriz]

Uh oh...definition squabbles!

Microevolution and macroevolution both refer to the same thing: a change in allele frequencies over time. It's just that macroevolution is commonly associated with speciation, because it takes place over periods of microevolution.

The only argument/dispute surrounding these two terms is based around the processes that actually CAUSE changes in allele frequencies. Fundamentally, these two terms describe the same thing, but on different scales.

So like I said, there is ENOURMOUS dispute surrounding exactly what causes evolution of any kind. I think I see that coming out right here. I like to stick to the basics. Most evolution is caused by a gene being expressed by an allele that is thus far quite uncommon in the given species. This can be due to a mutation, or maybe not. Either way, as time goes on, Darwin tells us that if this gene expression tends to be dominent over the currently dominent allele, the chances of it being passed on to future generations are greater than the passing-on of less-desirable traits.

I'm sure that's been mentioned here. Anyway, as far as evolution having "intelligence..." I don't like to give abstract ideas human-like qualities. I view things a bit as an existentialist in that I see us (me, you guys) trying to make sense of, and give structure and definition to a universe that is simply a series of events; one thing leading to the next in what we'd call "chaos" but not necessarily leading to "chaos" as in seeming randomness. Trying to say evolution has intelligence kind of grinds my gears. Natural Selection, in my opinion is the best way to represent this idea of evolution.

For example, water will always "find" the quickest, easiest way through a sandpile, and light will always travel in a way that it will minimize the distance it travels. This doesn't mean that water and light have intelligence.

 

[pcy]

Hi,



it seems we need some terminology after all...


1. "Mutation Events" are Random.

I agree an Elephant is more likely to mutate into a Wolly Mamoth than into a Flea. However both of these are mutations involving multiple "Mutation Events", where by "Mutation Event" I mean a single change to the DNA of the original life-form.

I think we are having problems because the word mutation in Genetics normally means a single "Mutation Event", whereas in Evolution it means a related colection (probably sucessful) of such events.

Do we all agree that Mutation Events are random?

Do we all also agree that all Mutation Events are equally probable, or is there some inbuilt bias in the DNA itself?

And if we define the Scale of a Mutation as the number of Mutation Events needed to effect it, do we think that Mutations of equal Scale are equally likely?


2. What we are interested in is "Evolution Events"

Qriz points out that it might be possible for changes not caused by mutation to arise. If some gene already in the gene-pool of a species becomes favored... What matters is that in some way the DNA of the species (a statistical phenomenon) becomes modified. When the modification becomes large enough to be signicant, and selection has favored it so that it persists, I would say that an "Evolution Event" has occurred.


3. Evolution Events are not totally random.

Evolution Events are the result of the Selection process acting on changes to a species, where those changes are (at least largely) random. Some Evolution Events (i.e the favorable ones) are more likely to occurr.


4. Evolution is an Abstract Process involving huge numbers of Evolution Events

Evolution Events are not random, but the probability curve is still broad. Evolution itself is an abstract chaotic process whose individual events are Evolution Events. Over a suffiiently large timescale or number of Evolution Events this chaotic system will produce emergent macro phenomenon which we call the "Laws of Evolution".

The "Laws of Evolution" have the same relationships to individual Evolution Events as our climate does to individual collisions between molecules in the Earth's atmosphere.


5. Intelligence is an emergant phonomenon of (sufficiently) complex (possibly chaotic)processes.

My Brain has no intelligence - it's just a piece of hardware, with nurons firing, possibly at random, and certainly in a non-deterministic way. Never the less, patterns of behaviour in the way the nurons fire emmerge to form processes. Intelligence rests in the Mind, which is a result of all the structure and interactions between the processes going on in the Brain.


6. Intelligence is not constrained to a single physical entitiy:

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
The definition of intelligence is:
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations :

So any process, however distributed over space or time can, in principle, demonstrate its intelligence by passing this test.




And as I said before, I think that Evolutionary Process, as a whole, by providing for the continuence of life on this planet and by producing species that are more adaptable than their pre-decessors, has demonstrated "intelligence".




Peter

 

[Qriz]

An excellent example of evolution and speciation is the infamous Darwin's Galapagos Finches. On the Galapogas islands, there are 13 different species of finch. They are extremely similar in size, shape, color, etc etc. However, each species has a very unique beak. Each of the finches can be traced back to a single species, but their eventual geographic isolation on the different islands caused a specific beak type in each area to be favorable. For example, one finch ended up having a beak better suited for breaking open nuts, because there are more nuts on that island.

On the different islands, different beak types were "favorable" in that they made it more likely for an individual finch to have more offspring with the same traits (so Natural Selection came into play.) This shows how contraints like geographic location coupled with the processes of Natural Selection can spawn 13 completely different species, where mutation had nothing to do with it.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Qriz
An excellent example of evolution and speciation is the infamous Darwin's Galapagos Finches. On the Galapogas islands, there are 13 different species of finch. They are extremely similar in size, shape, color, etc etc. However, each species has a very unique beak. Each of the finches can be traced back to a single species, but their eventual geographic isolation on the different islands caused a specific beak type in each area to be favorable. For example, one finch ended up having a beak better suited for breaking open nuts, because there are more nuts on that island.

On the different islands, different beak types were "favorable" in that they made it more likely for an individual finch to have more offspring with the same traits (so Natural Selection came into play.) This shows how contraints like geographic location coupled with the processes of Natural Selection can spawn 13 completely different species, where mutation had nothing to do with it.

er... mutation had nothing to do with it?

How large was/were the founding finch population(s)? Did that population have all the alleles that are found today that control beak morphology?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Qriz
An excellent example of evolution and speciation is the infamous Darwin's Galapagos Finches. On the Galapogas islands, there are 13 different species of finch. They are extremely similar in size, shape, color, etc etc. However, each species has a very unique beak. Each of the finches can be traced back to a single species, but their eventual geographic isolation on the different islands caused a specific beak type in each area to be favorable. For example, one finch ended up having a beak better suited for breaking open nuts, because there are more nuts on that island.

On the different islands, different beak types were "favorable" in that they made it more likely for an individual finch to have more offspring with the same traits (so Natural Selection came into play.) This shows how contraints like geographic location coupled with the processes of Natural Selection can spawn 13 completely different species, where mutation had nothing to do with it.

er... mutation had nothing to do with it?

How large was/were the founding finch population(s)? Did that population have all the alleles that are found today that control beak morphology?

I believe in the case of Darwin's finches the alleles already existed and that different beaks are better at getting different foods. In cases where there is a surplus of some types of food, the finches with the appropriate beak type will thrive and thus creating rapid swings in the makeup of the allele pool.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Qriz
An excellent example of evolution and speciation is the infamous Darwin's Galapagos Finches. On the Galapogas islands, there are 13 different species of finch. They are extremely similar in size, shape, color, etc etc. However, each species has a very unique beak. Each of the finches can be traced back to a single species, but their eventual geographic isolation on the different islands caused a specific beak type in each area to be favorable. For example, one finch ended up having a beak better suited for breaking open nuts, because there are more nuts on that island.

On the different islands, different beak types were "favorable" in that they made it more likely for an individual finch to have more offspring with the same traits (so Natural Selection came into play.) This shows how contraints like geographic location coupled with the processes of Natural Selection can spawn 13 completely different species, where mutation had nothing to do with it.

er... mutation had nothing to do with it?

How large was/were the founding finch population(s)? Did that population have all the alleles that are found today that control beak morphology?

I believe in the case of Darwin's finches the alleles already existed and that different beaks are better at getting different foods. In cases where there is a surplus of some types of food, the finches with the appropriate beak type will thrive and thus creating rapid swings in the makeup of the allele pool.

I just can't swallow that. So I did the paper-chasing:

There are at least 13 different species, they've been on the island for about 3 million years, and the founding populations is estimated to around 30. cite. That gives a theoretical maximum of 60 alleles at each locus, but the actual number would be expected to be much less. Furthermore, if you look at finches today, you find multiple alleles of Bmp4 (a gene which regulates beak morphology) but other loci do not show such diversity. cite

 

[Qriz]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

I just can't swallow that. So I did the paper-chasing:

There are at least 13 different species, they've been on the island for about 3 million years, and the founding populations is estimated to around 30. cite. That gives a theoretical maximum of 60 alleles at each locus, but the actual number would be expected to be much less. Furthermore, if you look at finches today, you find multiple alleles of Bmp4 (a gene which regulates beak morphology) but other loci do not show such diversity. cite

I don't think it's quite this simple. Well, that and I'm not sure what you're trying to say (possibly because I'm wicked tired...) There are probably multiple genes that came into play here, besides beak type. You'll notice that now, the finches from different parts of the islands can have quite varying phenotypes. I was simply giving an excellent example of micro and macro evolution, speciation, and evolution that wasn't necessarily caused by mutation. Of course, some of it could have been. Maybe at some point/place an especially helpful mutation occured and Natural Selection took hold quickly. But it seems like mutations being that useful would be an extremely rare occurence.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Qriz

Originally posted by: Gibsons

I just can't swallow that. So I did the paper-chasing:

There are at least 13 different species, they've been on the island for about 3 million years, and the founding populations is estimated to around 30. cite. That gives a theoretical maximum of 60 alleles at each locus, but the actual number would be expected to be much less. Furthermore, if you look at finches today, you find multiple alleles of Bmp4 (a gene which regulates beak morphology) but other loci do not show such diversity. cite

I don't think it's quite this simple. Well, that and I'm not sure what you're trying to say (possibly because I'm wicked tired...) There are probably multiple genes that came into play here, besides beak type. You'll notice that now, the finches from different parts of the islands can have quite varying phenotypes. I was simply giving an excellent example of micro and macro evolution, speciation, and evolution that wasn't necessarily caused by mutation. Of course, some of it could have been. Maybe at some point/place an especially helpful mutation occured and Natural Selection took hold quickly. But it seems like mutations being that useful would be an extremely rare occurence.

Well there clearly had to be mutations to originally form the different alleles, but your example is correct. The rapid changes in the allele pools that occur on a year to year basis is definately natural selection, not mutation.

EDIT: The changes in the allele pool I am talking about are the changes in beak size on Darwin's Finches.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Qriz

Originally posted by: Gibsons

I just can't swallow that. So I did the paper-chasing:

There are at least 13 different species, they've been on the island for about 3 million years, and the founding populations is estimated to around 30. cite. That gives a theoretical maximum of 60 alleles at each locus, but the actual number would be expected to be much less. Furthermore, if you look at finches today, you find multiple alleles of Bmp4 (a gene which regulates beak morphology) but other loci do not show such diversity. cite

I don't think it's quite this simple. Well, that and I'm not sure what you're trying to say (possibly because I'm wicked tired...) There are probably multiple genes that came into play here, besides beak type. You'll notice that now, the finches from different parts of the islands can have quite varying phenotypes. I was simply giving an excellent example of micro and macro evolution, speciation, and evolution that wasn't necessarily caused by mutation. Of course, some of it could have been. Maybe at some point/place an especially helpful mutation occured and Natural Selection took hold quickly. But it seems like mutations being that useful would be an extremely rare occurence.

There are multiple genes that control beak shape, they looked at 10 of them. Bmp4 was the only one they saw differences in between the 13 species. No, they didn't look at every gene that controls beak shape. But they did show experimental evidence that Bmp4 alone could account for the differences in beak shape. The conclusion is that Bmp4 has undergone positive selection, the other genes have not. This is the product of time and mutations. 3 million years is at least 1.5 million generations, maybe 3 million. The changes between the different alleles isn't large and could be explained by single point mutations. However, the actual DNA sequence differences accounting for the differential expression of Bmp4 in the finches isn't known, so we can only speculate about how many and what kind of mutations actually determine the phenotypic difference.

from the commentary

The work "is an experimental test that the molecule could be manipulated in a way to [recapitulate] beak shape," says Jeff Podos, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Adds Jill Helms, a developmental biologist at Stanford University, "This work underscores that [morphological] changes do not take much [genetic change]."

 

[Qriz]

Alright, that makes sense to me.

 

[Agent11]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: inspire
Question: Random, in the mathematical sense, also implies that the expected value of a random variable is equal to zero. We're talking so much about evolution being 'random' - do we devolution as much as evolution (I'm assuming equal weights in this question for the sake of arguement; I'm not trying to pull a fast one.)?

This was the basis of my original point. A random process wil not make progess. If evolution is in fact "random" then the chance that anything beyond a single celled creature could have evolved is extraordinarily low. The fact that evolution can produce creatures that have survival advantages over others shows that the process itself is not random.

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Mutations aren't entirely random, if that's what you're asking. An A is more likely to be mutated into a G than either a T or a C for instance. Given enough generations and a large population size however, one should expect to see most all possible point mutations sampled at one point or another. Larger (and perhaps more important in the evolutionary process) events such as duplications, translocations etc. are much more difficult to predict.

While individual mutations are not random, the set of mutations produced in a given offspring are random enough for our purposes.

Originally posted by: Thraxen
No, it's doesn't "reason" at all. You're not taking into account the countless random mutations that either have no effect or are detrimental to survival. It's just purely random coincidence that once in a great while a mutation results in a greater ability to reproduce. There is no "reasoning" involved.

Don't think of "reasoning" in the sense we use associated with humans. Nobody here is arguing that there is some "brain" behind evolution that "thinks" about how things are going to evolve. Instead words such as "intelligence" and "reasoning" are being used on a much more abstract level. For example, evolution has repeatedly shown us the ability to adapt to drastic climate changes. Poorly-adapted species go extinct, while those that are better adapted evolve and adjust to the new climate. This basically happens without fail and to dismiss the fact that evolution is so "reliable" (in the sense of alway producing well
adapted species) as "purely random coincidence" is just plain silly.

You are talking in circles and not making any sense. Read carefully I'm going to try and spell this out for you.

There is no 'intelligence' abstract or otherwise in evolution.

If you subject a species to a hardship or environmental condition, the individuals in that species that are not able to adapt or survive will die out and those that can adapt and survive- perhaps because of small mutations developed because of their geographic location and inbreeding or other circumstances that effect these individuals- possibly lucky random mutations as well- will survive and procreate, passing on the genes that allowed them to prosper during hard times.



There is no intelligence in this process, just survival of the fittest.


your biology teacher weeps.

 

[blackllotus]

Agent11 please read the rest of the thread before posting. Nobody here is debating how evolution occurs.

Furthermore, if you actually want to debate whether evolution exhibits "intelligence" you have to go beyond a short dismissal. Just saying "There is no 'intelligence' abstract or otherwise in evolution." does not make you right.

 

[Agent11]

the way that evolution occurs precludes intelligence And yes, I am right.

And I have read the entire thread, you make no sense whatsoever.

I 'think that the point you are aiming at is that species can somehow guide their evolution?

And if so that doesn't happen. (except for us of course, but thats.. some thing else all together)

And if not, exactly what are you talking about? without using words in an 'abstract' way or making vague illustrations with finches.

"I believe that one of the major misconceptions that leads to claims like this is the idea that evolution is "random", which is completely wrong. While individual mutations may be "random" (as far as we are concerned), the overall process of evolution has decision making capabilities. Individuals with unfavorable mutations are less likely to survive, while those with favorable mutations are more likely to survive. The fact that evolution can favor individuals among the random mutations shows that it is not completely random, and, therefore, has an intelligence greater than 0 (possibly still very close to 0)."

Reread what you posted^.
Think about how survival of the fittest and evolution works. .

Let the gears turn and if you dont get it, I'll try from a different angle.. if all else fails buy sagan's Cosmos series, you need to brush up.( I hope you have a high tolerance for nasal droll)

 

[pcy]

Hi Agent11,


You are quite right in one sense - at the level you atre looking at evolution no intelligence can exist.

If you look at my brain it the nurone level, - one nurone or just a small clump - no intelligence can exist either.

But even if you don't like some of my opinions I think I can demonstrate that my mind as a whole meets the citeria for intelligence. Having this conversation, doing maths...


Intelligence is an emmergent phenomemon arising, only at the highest level, of very complex systems.


The short term (i.e less than a few million years worth) of development of just a single species could not possibly (IMO) have the necessary complexisty or facility for feedback loops (learning) needed for intelligence to develop within the Evolutionary Process itself.


But if you look at the Evolutionary Process applied to the entire biomass of the planet over the timescale where life has existed here, and then introduce ideas like co-evolution, then it's not so obvious.



Peter

 

[Agent11]

I am not saying that intelligence is not a result of evolution, it is.
An organism develops Intelligence through the standard evolutionary progress.

What I am saying is that Evolution is not some sort of force that exhibits intelligence as is suggested by lotus.
Evolution is the word we use to describe living organisms adapting to their environment and situation on a biological level. Intelligence, problem solving skills, ect. are simply something that is developed because they assist in the survival of the species..

I'm pretty sure I do not disagree with anything you've posted.. hmm did some rereading, yes I do disagree
By definition evolution is life prevailing over environment and situation, natural selection may make it apear as though there where some sort of intelligence at work.. but that doesnt make it so.
I have moles in a diagonal line across my back from hip to shoulder, does this mean that some mole artist crafted their design?

I do not firmly believe in 'evolution events', I think it is most likely a much slower process.. although if there is genetic proof I would be very interested

5. Intelligence is an emergant phonomenon of (sufficiently) complex (possibly chaotic)processes.

My Brain has no intelligence - it's just a piece of hardware, with nurons firing, possibly at random, and certainly in a non-deterministic way. Never the less, patterns of behaviour in the way the nurons fire emmerge to form processes. Intelligence rests in the Mind, which is a result of all the structure and interactions between the processes going on in the Brain.

Your brain is the end result of millions of years of brains, the brains that have clusters of nuerons ect. that act in such a way so as to give the monkeys/early hominids an edge in finding food and evading predators breed more often/live longer... yadda yadda yadda you have a human brain give or take a few million years.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Agent11
I 'think that the point you are aiming at is that species can somehow guide their evolution?

I don't think I said anything even remotely like that.

Originally posted by: Agent11
And if not, exactly what are you talking about? without using words in an 'abstract' way or making vague illustrations with finches.

I'll quote pcy since he produces much more elegant explanations than myself.

Originally posted by: pcy
Any process that reacts to information, or to its environment, potentially has "intelligence"

and I'd like to stick with this idea. It's not a definition of intelligence, but a slight broadining of the term to allow evolution to exhibit intelligence. I find the extension intuitive, and consistant with what blackllotus was clearly trying to ask in his original post.

Note that I said: potentially has "intelligence". The point I'm making here is that we should define "intelligence" so as to allow a process to exhibit "intelligence", in principle; and then look at what actually happens in order to decide whether a particular process is in fact intelligent.

Originally posted by: pcy
The process of evolution is not random, but it has random elements. It comprises a decision making propcess (selection) applied to the biodiversity within a species cased by random mutation and genetic effects. The result is order, and development that looks as if it might have been planned in advance by a conscious mind - though that's not what I believe.

Maybe you're just focusing on individual cases of evolution instead of examining the broader history of evolution. If we examine any individual case of natural selection or species evolution then we see mutations and climate changes that favor the well adapted species. Its not a complicated concept, and, yes, that is all evolution is if thats all you look at. However, if you take a step back and examine how evolution has progressed over life's three billion year history, you see a process that has constantly been improving the global "species pool" and that has been able to consistently allow life to continue despite extreme disasters and dramatic climate changes. This is what I claim exhibits "intelligence". Tying into pcy's example, individual cases of natural selection can be considered the "neurons" of the larger, global process they combine to create. The process that ensures that life continues to exist despite seemingly deadly obstacles.

 

[Agent11]

Romanticism nothing more.

Life exists because it is varied and tenacious. All DNA based life is related if you go back far enough, it is varied in it's form because it adapts to fit niches in the ecology.

Chances are if a disaster obliterates some life on the planet it will not be widespread enough to destroy it all.

 

[blackllotus]

Let me also clarify what I mean when I say "exhibits intelligence", because maybe that is confusing people. "Intelligence" in this sense does not mean thinking and does not even refer to something living. It refers to a process that, literally, appears to make intelligent decisions. It can be applied to computer AI as well. For example, take any RTS game out there. Computer opponents, while not possessing an ounce of intelligence in the human sense, appear to make intelligent decisions as they attack others and defend themselves. This is the type of intelligence I am referring to when I say that "evolution exhibits intelligence". Hopefully this makes things clearer.

Btw, dare I say this and start a flame war, my original intent was to tie this concept of evolution with "intelligence" as an explanation for why an Intelligent Designer is unnecessary for species such as humans to evolve. I hadn't mentioned anything about it so far because I don't want this thread to become another endless Evolution vs ID thread, however it seems some people suspect me of being an ID proponent myself so I figure I might as well post this.

 

[Agent11]

So pretty much your stand is that natural selection ' is a smart way to do things' in that it favors the expansion and evolution of life?

For a second I thought you meant a kind of 'all life is connected, I am just a nueron in the larger organism earth' type thing

To clear things up, I just suspected you of not making sense
Evolution doesn't need an intelligence factor to make sense.. People who believe in ID will continue to do so, people who believe in evolution will aswell.. although as we learn more evolutional theories will mature, and the ID people will keep comming up with 'facts' that they try to use to support their theology.

 

[pcy]

Hi Agent11,


Just in case there is some mis-understanding here:i


I do not hold with the ID theory in any shape or form.


But I do think that the Evolutionary Process may be intelligent in itself. You have to view the process as a gaint set of rules whose individual components (analagous to a nurone firing in my brain) are what I have termed "Evolution Events".

I described earlier what I meant by an "Evolution Event":

What matters is that in some way the DNA of the species (a statistical phenomenon) becomes modified. When the modification becomes large enough to be signifcant, and selection has favored it so that it persists, I would say that an "Evolution Event" has occurred.

The purpose of this term is simply to exclude from the discussion small events that are too low level to be significant to this discussion.


You are free to disagree, of course - that's the whole point of the discussion. But to date you objections are simply at the wrong level. You make points with which I agree entirely, but in a way that suggests you think they are counter-arguements to my beleif that the Evolutionary Process is itself intelligent.

I can only conclude you do not understand what I am suggesting - that I failed to explain properly the idea I have in mind.

I am not suggesting any external intelligence is somehow guiding Evolution

I am not suggesting that such intelligence as I posess, or that any know life form posesses, is part of the "intelligence" I think the Evolutionary Process exhibits.

I am suggesting rather that The Evolutionary process is just that - a process - which works in particular ways; and that the process itself could develop Intelligence.

If we start with the initial autocatalitic sets, we can see that their evolutionary process was itself pretty crude. As life developed the individual species interacted in more complex, and arguable more constructive ways - and I mean here in evolutionary terms, not individual or species terms. You can see this as the Evolutionary Process somehow getting better at putting together species that can help eachother evolve. The precise mecahanism by which this might happen is what we are discussing here...

But the phrase "the Evolutionary Process somehow getting better at putting together species that can help eachother evolve" is indicative of the sense in which I think the Evolutionary Process may somehow have managed to organize itself - developed its own intelligence.


We have chosen a definition of intelligence which admits to this sort of thing as possible, in principle. By the same token it admits to AI as possible, in principle. The issue is whether the Evolutionary Process, which is an interaction involving the laws of of genetics and mutation and of slection, and the way genetic material (i.e species and theur attributes) are distributed around the planet, has actually managed to organize itself in some way so as to become more effective. If it has, then what we are doing here is asking whether the scale of that self-organization, and its effects, is sufficient to qualify as intelligent.



Peter

 

[Agent11]

The problem is, a process has no substance.. how can a series of events be intelligent?

Something that may have some merit is the idea that organisms have genes that have somthing to do with evolution, and that they can be altered through evolution just like the rest.. this would allow for the 'smarter evolution' you talk about.. but I know of no proof of this.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
My purpose with this topic is to address a common question raised by critics of evolution. The point raised is that while we may have observed microevolution (small changes within a species)

Microevolution is typically defined as a change in intrapopulational gene frequencies from one generation to the next. Meaning, the genetic composition of the daughter generation is not identical to the mother generation - this, in fact, always occurs - microevolution is always happening. As such, it's easily observable.

Originally posted by: blackllotuswe still have yet to observe macroevolution (development of a new species).

As others have pointed out, this is not true. We have witnessed the evolution of new species.

Originally posted by: blackllotusThe argument is that there is no indication that microevolution can lead to macroevolution and, therefore, we cannot assume that evolution can actually create new species.

In fact, there is a lot of blustery hot air from the anti-evolution camp that amounts to nothing more than, 'microevolution can't lead to macroevolution' - there has never been any unassailable argument or evidence indicating this claim is true.

But differentiating between micro- & macroevolution is missing the point entirely. They are artificial terms used for human convenience with no real basis in the natural world. Just like the concept of the species - species are artificial constructs which are convenient, not real.

Originally posted by: blackllotusI believe that one of the major misconceptions that leads to claims like this is the idea that evolution is "random", which is completely wrong.

Exactly. Evolution is not a random process.

Originally posted by: blackllotusWhile individual mutations may be "random" (as far as we are concerned)

Mutations aren't random. As has been pointed out, certain nucleotides are more likely to change into others. Different parts of various organisms' genomes are more likely to mutate, mutation rates are not equal across different organisms, especially at greater taxonomic levels (ie. Hominoids' genomes mutate at a far, far slower rate than even the genomes of Rodents & certainly of the various bacteria).

Originally posted by: blackllotusthe overall process of evolution has decision making capabilities. Individuals with unfavorable mutations are less likely to survive, while those with favorable mutations are more likely to survive. The fact that evolution can favor individuals among the random mutations shows that it is not completely random, and, therefore, has an intelligence greater than 0 (possibly still very close to 0).

I get what you're driving at but I think you're misunderstanding the underlying concepts - does the process of rolling a standard six-sided dice entail intelligence because it only ever 'selects' the numbers one through six, and never seven or eight? Evolution is random within a given set of parameters (ie. phylogenetic constraint).

Originally posted by: blackllotusIf the process of evolution does indeed have "intelligence" then doesn't this imply that macroevolution can occur?

Macroevolution doesn't require any intelligence. Rather, I'd suggest looking to systems theory to explain how evolution has non-random results. This is key, as evolution is non-random it can be predicted & therefore, tested. No other competing theory can do this.

Originally posted by: blackllotusThe fact that evolution is not random means that in the overall scheme of things, it will make "progress". Shouldn't continuous "progress" eventually lead to macroevolution? Thoughts?

I appreciate your putting quotes around progress - I know what you're driving at and trying to avoid. Check out Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety & The Red Queen Hypothesis - these go a long way to explaining how evolution rapidly 'progresses'.

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Btw, dare I say this and start a flame war, my original intent was to tie this concept of evolution with "intelligence" as an explanation for why an Intelligent Designer is unnecessary for species such as humans to evolve.

Then you definitely need to check out Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable & The Blind Watchmaker.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Agent11
The problem is, a process has no substance.. how can a series of events be intelligent?

Isn't your thinking just a process, a series of events. You are confusing self-awarness for intelligences.