|
Author
|
Topic: Evolution a la Harry Lime
|
William A. Dembski
Member
Member # 7
|
posted 18. August 2002 17:05
Orson Welles playing Harry Lime in the film The Third Man remarks: "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock ..."
Must evolution, to be creative, proceed by struggle, conflict, resistance, competition, arms race (even if intelligence is involved)? Or is dog-eat-dog really not an essential part of the creative process? Could some sort of win-win symbiosis that is not in response to an arms race be the crucial element?
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 18. August 2002 19:29
An interesting question since symbiosis seems to be one of the sources of evolutionary innovation.
From "A study of the effects of group formation on evolutionary search" Richard Watson suggests that "it is generally assumed that species in an environment will be competing for one resource or another and that competition is the most significant relationship to model. However, the assumption of competition between species is sometimes ill-founded. Where there are independent resources, diversity may be favoured over convergence. "
He also quotes:
"the continuing popularity of the idea of "competition" in current ecological theory, about populations and communities, is a legacy from the nebiotic school that was prominent during the middle decades of the century and is still influential"
Andrewartha and Birch 1984
In a more recent paper Watson write
quote:
Symbiosis, in its general definition, is simply the living together of different organisms.
Often, in lay usage, the term is used to refer to the special case of mutualism where
symbionts (organisms in symbiotic relationship) are mutually beneficial. Despite being
undeniably common, the phenomenon of symbiosis, and especially mutualism, has for
the most part been treated as a curio; a transient aberration on the otherwise relentless
path of mutually-exclusive competition between species. In contrast, enlightened
evolutionary theory recognises symbiosis as an integral process, and a fundamental
source of innovation, in evolution. In its strongest form, symbiosis can lead to
symbiogenesis: the genesis of new species via the genetic integration of symbionts [12],
[9], [8], [10]. For example, eukaryote cells (from which all plants and animals are
descended) have a symbiogenic origin [10].
From: How Symbiosis can guide evolution,
Fifth European Conference on Artificial Life. Dario Floreano, Jean-Daniel Nicoud, Francesco Mondada, eds. Springer, 1999.
This paper looks at the costs and benefits of symbiosis. It discusses reciprocal altruism. A good paper on evolution of cooperation discusses the various concepts.
quote:
Throughout evolution, human have exhibited cooperative behaviors which do not directly contribute to their individual survival. Activities such as warfare, caring for the young and sick, altruistic acts to the community, etc. contribute to the public good. This raises the question for why people regularly engage in these cooperative activities – many of which are costly to the individual. This paper has summarized the major approaches that have been taken to answer this question. After over a century of research, answer to this question remains open. This field continues to provide a fruitful area for evolutionary research.
[Moderator edit to correct URL]
Thank you Moderator.
All in all it seems that symbiosis includes far more than just competition or arms race. It's fascinating to me to find out what evolutionary sciences has been looking into and what advances have been made to understand the observed interactions. I wonder to what extend symbiosis in all its forms is responsible for the observed complexity in biology. Another interesting pathway to increased complexity it seems.
It might be helpful for Dembski to understand how the term symbiosis is been used in biology. This article defines symbiosis to include phoresis, commensalism, mutualism and parasitism. Seems that symbiosis extends beyond the simple struggle, competition and arms race as suggested.
ask jeeves provides for some useful links as well.
[ 19 August 2002, 02:08: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 20. August 2002 08:32
Mr. Dembski raises the question "Must evolution, to be creative, proceed by struggle, conflict, resistance, competition, arms race (even if intelligence is involved)?" (or) "Could some sort of win-win symbiosis that is not in response to an arms race be the crucial element?" While I assume the question was intended primarily to raise the broad philosophical issue of the relationship of creativity and purpose, it is also possible to approach the question from a narrower technical, quantitative, ‘scientific’ perspective. Such quantitative, technical analysis, it appears, is possible using design science.
From a technical perspective, the Mr. Dembski’s question might be restated as "Are there quantifiable techniques for determining if evolutionary creativity is driven by, or in some significant manner influenced by some goal or purpose such as ‘win-win symbiosis’ rather than ‘the struggle for survival’ goal?" In order to address the question, we need formal, quantifiable techniques for addressing 1)the purpose or goals associated with biological systems, and 2)the processes and mechanisms underlying evolutionary creativity. Design science provides techniques for addressing both issues.
DEFINING AND ANALYZING GOALS AND PURPOSE
Design science defines and analyzes biological systems as systems with the adaptive design property (and with the more complex biological design property). As defined elsewhere, the adaptive design property includes the capacity to transform or change from a non-adaptive to an adaptive state. This transformation is, or can be described in terms of a set or series of ‘accept/reject selection’ operations. The goal or purpose of a set of accept/reject selection processes is defined as ‘a common criteria that fits all the selection operations in the set’.
Looking at different subsets of selection operations relating to biological systems, it is possible to identify different criteria for different subsets. The working assumption or convention in design science is that these different criteria or goals form a goal hierarchy. The general criteria which fits the entire set of selection processes is identified as ‘survival’, ‘increasing the probability of survival’ or in somewhat more poetic terms ‘the struggle for survival’.
Although the design science definition of goal or purpose might not satisfy our more romantic views of the ‘meaning of life’, it does have its practical applications. The definition used does have its practical applications. The design science definition can, for example, be used to demonstrate that 1)life is not purposeless, and 2)that the goal or purpose of life is clearly not ‘survival of the fittest’.
The assertion that ‘life has no goal or purpose’ would suggest that "in order to produce a meaningful scientific analysis of living systems, all selection operations should be viewed as random". This is clearly not a valid or useful description of selection criteria. [As a subject for philosophical discussion, purpose, like causation and a number of other ‘scientific concepts’, are phenomena or concepts imposed on the real world by scientists to aid analysis. ]
Design science can also provide objective quantifiable criteria for rejecting ‘survival of the fittest’ as the purpose of life, or more formally as the selection criteria associated with evolutionary processes. Survival of the fittest suggests that selection operates to find the best or optimal adaptive solution which will maximize the chances of survival. In practice, evolutionary selection operations must satisfy two often competing criteria-1)optimization-find the adaptive solution which produces the highest likelihood of survival, and 2)speed- find an adaptive solution before the non-adaptive state results in failure to survive. It is easily demonstrated that evolutionary selection processes which focus on optimization and ignore speed, will inevitably result in a failure to survive. [Note: Design science suggests that not only is evolutionary biology mistaken about the ‘selection criteria’ associated with evolutionary processes, but it is also mistaken in its identification of selection mechanisms, and its identification of the ‘objects’ on which selection operates.]
To return to Mr. Dembski’s question, "Is some type of ‘win-win symbiosis’ the goal of evolutionary creativity?". The evidence seems fairly clear. There are many instances where biological systems select short-term win-win options over short-term win-lose options. There are also many instances where biological systems select short-term win-lose options over short-term win-win options. IMO, it would be difficult to support the assertion that ‘the evidence suggests that the overall goal of life is ‘win-win symbiosis’’. The evidence does, IMO, support the assertion or hypothesis that that biological systems are capable adapting short term strategies which are compatible with long term survival goals.
Although this analysis does not appear to support the assertion that ‘win-win symbiosis’ is the overall goal of biological systems, the evidence does suggest ‘win-win symbiosis’ is a goal or purpose of some subsets of selection operations. It could therefore play a role in evolutionary creativity.
EVOLUTIONARY CREATIVITY
Design science defines creativity as the generation of new or novel adaptive solutions. Systems with the adaptive design property search a set of potential solutions to locate an adaptive solution. Basic systems with the adaptive design property have only a very limited ability to produce creative or novel solutions. A solution is only new once. Biological systems, or systems with the biological design property, by contrast, have a substantial capacity to generate creative solutions. There are three (or at least three) features of biological systems which contribute to the capacity to produce novel or creative solutions. These are:
1. The capacity to add to the set of potential solutions.
2. The capacity to change the search routine. And
3. The capacity to address new adaptive problems.
It should be fairly obvious that each of these capacities increases the ability of an adaptive system to produce creative solutions. It will be noted that each of these capacities involves selection operations- add/don’t add selection, change/don’t change selection, or new problem/no new problem selection. The ‘win-win symbiosis’ goal could, in theory, play a role in any one of the three selection operations. While I am aware of no evidence supporting the hypothesis that ‘win-win’ goals play an important role in any the selection operations, it is certainly a subject that could be investigated.
SUMMARY
The above is an admittedly sketchy outline of how "the role of win-win symbiosis in evolutionary creativity’ could be analyzed on a quantifiable scientific basis using design science. Although this cursory analysis didn’t find any evidence supporting Mr. Dembski’s proposal, it does suggest avenues for further analysis, and it does suggest that even some fairly esoteric issues can be subjected to quantitative analysis using design science.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 20. August 2002 10:07
Indeed 'design' science may be useful in understanding one of the mechanisms of how evolutionary mechanisms can lead to complexity. As I have shown in another thread Doyle et al have introduced the concept of robustness and have shown that:
quote:
Nevertheless, the process of purposeless mutation and selection in our model, like biology, creates the impression of a clear direction in evolution, with results very similar to what would arise from purposeful engineering design for high yield.
From Tong Zhou*, J. M. Carlson*†, and John Doyle‡
Mutation, specialization, and hypersensitivity in highly optimized tolerance.
So far it seems to me that their application of 'design science' has been far more fruitful than any other proposals I have seen. It surely seems that what we consider to be 'goals or purpose' or 'direction in evolution may be merely apparant. In fact according to Doyle RM&NS can give the impression of a 'direction'. Of course the term 'survival of the fittest' is a poor analogy of evolution.
Could Warren explain how using his 'design science' we could quantify this? And perhaps Warren could support his claim that
quote:
It is easily demonstrated that evolutionary selection processes which focus on optimization and ignore speed, will inevitably result in a failure to survive.
Since Warren suggests that 'design science', a term he has not very clearly defined here, suggests that not only is evolutionary biology mistaken about the ‘selection criteria’ associated with evolutionary processes, but it is also mistaken in its identification of selection mechanisms, and its identification of the ‘objects’ on which selection operates.
Could Warren explain how 'design science' has reached these conclusions and how it intends to support its claims?
How does 'design science' explain the apparant direction 'created' by RM&NS?
[ 20 August 2002, 10:22: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 20. August 2002 11:23
Could Frances start being a little less antagonistic?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[ 20 August 2002, 11:23: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 20. August 2002 11:28
I apologize for sounding antagonistic. I have found it somewhat frustrating in my discussions with Warren to see so many unsupported assertions and that when I ask for supporting evidence it seems to be largely ignored.
In order for Warren's comments to have any relevance, it seems to me that supporting evidence is required.
But I may be somewhat eccentric it that area...
[ 20 August 2002, 11:29: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 20. August 2002 13:59
Frances,
Quote: Nevertheless, the process of purposeless mutation and selection in our model, like biology, creates the impression of a clear direction in evolution, with results very similar to what would arise from purposeful engineering design for high yield.
The interaction of variance, heritability, and selection is the classic definition of teleological causation. It is my understanding that this definition/concept goes back to the time of the Greek’s. To rediscover that such processes produce the appearance of purposeful behavior is not exactly news. To support the claim that this result can be generated with a realistic RM&NS model is a far different and far more difficult achievement. As the discussion under wings of eagles showed, nobody knows how to make an RM&NS model realistically simulate even the most basic forms of gradual evolutionary change. No one, in fact, can show how random mutations can produce and maintain the type of variations within a species which are routinely observed and which, based on selective breeding experiments, play a central role in evolutionary change.
Although claims regarding the explanatory capabilities of RM&NS models are widely published, and apparently widely accepted by the academic/scientific community, there does not appear to be any actual models which can actually simulate actual occurrences of evolutionary change other than one mutation changes. Quoting peer review articles that claim RM&NS models can do certain things is by no means the same as demonstrating that realistic RM&NS models can in fact do what they claim.
In response to your response to the moderator, let me suggest that our disagreement is as much about the nature of evidence as the existence of evidence. You, I believe, view ‘published in peer review journals’ as evidence. As I have attempted to explain in some detail such ‘evidence’ quickly becomes dated by new discoveries, is subject to the risk of misinterpretation, and is, IMO, often of questionable soundness. As I have stated on many occasions, I fully recognize that many of my claims or assertions are unconventional. As I have also stated, I stand ready to explain and discuss the details of my claims and the logical/mathematical basis for those claims. I will not, however, for the reasons listed, provide evidence ‘based of references’ nor will I provide evidence on a ‘our experts will decide if it is acceptable’ basis.
Quote: It is easily demonstrated that evolutionary selection processes which focus on optimization and ignore speed, will inevitably result in a failure to survive.
A significant portion of evolutionary/adaptive change involves responses or reactions to changes in environmental conditions. If a evolutionary change involves two environmental conditions EC0 and EC1, and two adaptive states AS0 and AS1, and if (EC0 paired with AS0) and (EC1 paired with AS1) are compatible with survival, and if ( EC0 paired with AC1) and (EC1 paired with AC0) result in death or failure to survive, then the survival of the organism depends on the ability to change or evolve from AC0 to AC1 and from AC1 to AC0 at least as fast as environmental conditions change from EC0 to EC1 or EC1 to EC0. Any adaptive/evolutionary change process which fails to satisfy these speed requirements/criteria will end in extinction.
ADAPTIVE SPEED/SURVIAL HYPOTHESIS/PRINCIPLE- Survival of an organism or group of organisms depends on the existence of rates of adaptive/evolutionary change compatible with rates of environmental change.
There exists in nature a wide range of dynamic or changeable environmental conditions where the survival of an organism and/or species depends on the ability to generate appropriate evolutionary/adaptive changes in an appropriate time frame. One of the fundamental flaws or weaknesses of both Darwinian evolution and neo-Darwinian RM&NS is the lack of a capacity to directly address the real world dynamics of the world in which organisms exist.
QUOTE: Since Warren suggests that 'design science', a term he has not very clearly defined here, suggests that not only is evolutionary biology mistaken about the ‘selection criteria’ associated with evolutionary processes, but it is also mistaken in its identification of selection mechanisms, and its identification of the ‘objects’ on which selection operates.
A second fundamental flaw of Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution is the failure to clearly and precisely define what evolves. Darwin left the object undefined and neo-Darwinian selected an essentially artificial definition which, IMO, makes it impossible to construct a workable theory. The survival of life forms depends on the ability to generate and maintain adaptive states in a rapidly changing environment. The time frame for the evolutionary/adaptive changes on which survival depends is milli-seconds not millions of years. The ability to generate and maintain adaptive states does appear to depend on the mechanisms and processes to ‘generate diversity and perform selection’(the basic Greek concept), but these diversity/selection mechanisms are clearly not limited to mutation and natural selection. Given the time frames involved, it is logically and physically impossible for diversity/selection to be limited to random mutation and natural selection.
The ultimate ‘low level’ object of evolutionary processes is the adaptive state. This is the elusive phenotype that determines survival or failure to survive. High level evolutionary process do not and can not operate on these phenotypes. High level evolutionary processes operate instead on the adaptive change processes that generate and maintain adaptive states.
Many of the assertions which I make and which you are questioning are based not so much on facts as on how those facts are viewed or interpreted. Evolutionary biology and genetics are based on a perspective or viewpoint which has failed to produce a valid ‘hard science’ theory. The evolutionary biology perspective has failed to produce a sound logically consistent scientific explanation of ‘how biological systems change in order to survive’.
Design science is based on defining life forms in terms of the adaptive states or adaptive designs which exist at points in time. These point in time adaptive designs define/explain the ability of an organisms to survive at a point in time. Theories and models in design science explain and simulate the processes which create, modify and maintain these adaptive states, (as well as the process which modify the processes etc. ).
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 20. August 2002 18:04
Is it ever demanded of evolution (on traditional theory) that it be “creative?” How would we define that in scientifically meaningful, measurable terms? I have the impression that life is quite creative in its problem-solving. But how do I warrant the impression? And how do I reconcile it with a theory that just doesn’t seem to require it and even seems to resist the very idea?
As to the whole “competitive ethos” that Darwinism imposes on the popular consciousness, even my mother (with a degree in Library Science!) is capable seeing both the fallacy and its popular appeal. She laments the fact that my stepfather is addicted to nature programs on TV; which she epitomizes with a shudder as “Simba-Eats-Bambi-Shark-Eats-Surfer” programs.
But Darwin generally, if not exclusively, emphasized infraspecific competition, or competition between closely related species. (And predator-prey doesn’t seem to be a significant factor in his thinking.)
But this idea appears to be so utterly uninteresting in the popular conception that the nearest it enters the popular consciousness is sports or the business news. (Which raises the question about how much of Darwin’s Whiggish paternalism-colonialism enters into his theory. Is his theory simply the imposition of Victorian Era political ideology upon nature? Ironically, the Whigs are extinct. LOL)
Far less interesting than “nature red in tooth and claw” is the fact that I can’t survive w/o a colon full of bacteria. (Not a TV ratings grabber. E. coli has low Q-rating across all demos.)
Does Dr. Dembski see a role for “creativity” in symbiosis, mutualism, commensalism, etc. Are these significant factors in evolution that are underemphasized?
I’m aware of it, but never actually studied it, but what does evolutionary game theory have to say on the subject? (Or is it all ultimately meaningless mathematical abstractions?)
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 21. August 2002 09:51
Janitor,
Quote: Is it ever demanded of evolution (on traditional theory) that it be "creative?" How would we define that in scientifically meaningful, measurable terms?
Creativity is the creation of brand new adaptive solutions. Solutions that never existed before. It is a fundamental, and well recognized feature of evolution that it must be creative.
There are two parts to the question of defining ‘creativity’ in ‘scientifically, meaningful, measurable terms’. I addressed part of this yesterday. The ‘easy part’ of a scientifically meaningful, measurable definition of creativity is defining the end result of a creative process. The definition I proposed is ‘an adaptive design or adaptive state that never existed before’. In effect, a new, never before used solution to the problem of survival.
The more difficult problem is defining the process that produces creative solutions, but even here we are not without a fair amount of knowledge. First, we know of a variety of search processes that produce ‘non-creative’ adaptive solutions. These processes involve a search of an existing set of possible solutions to find the solution to a defined problem (with defined criteria for solving the problem). There are lots and lots of well known computer simulations of the types of processes which produce ‘non-creative solutions’.
The next question to ask, if we start with a system that produces a non-creative solution, how do we get it to generate a novel or creative solution. As outlined yesterday, at least three fairly obvious solutions come to mind- 1)add to the possible solution set, 2)change the search routine, and 3)address new adaptive problems. [I will add a fourth, although this is generally an external rather than an internal change. The criteria needed to generate a solution, or the adaptive value of a solution can change.] The list may not be complete, but it covers most of the changes needed for a systems to generate creative solutions.
It appears that using the above four features it is possible to go from 1)any known starting set of possible adaptive solutions, to 2)any known creative solution. This isn’t to say there aren’t other methods which will produce creative solutions, but there clearly exists a ‘scientifically, meaningful, measurable’ definition of creativity.
Science, it is true, can not currently offer a testable, predictive ‘theory’ of how creativity or the creative process works in the human mind or in biological evolution. This does not mean there is no ‘scientifically meaningful, measurable’ definition of creativity and the creative process.
Frances,
In rethinking our discussion of yesterday, I would like to point out what I believe are two of the basic reasons that evolutionary biology/genetics and design science produce such dramatically different interpretations and conclusions.
The first reason, which was discussed briefly yesterday, is perspective or view point. Darwin starting out studying long term changes. Consistent with this long term view, he defined a species as a ‘solution to the problem of survival’. Genetics, using a similar perspective defines the ‘allele’ as the basic elementary ‘solution’ to the problem of survival. Both the Darwinian and genetics approach are approximations suggesting you can lump all sorts of different features under the heading of a single ‘solution’ to the problem of survival. In both genetics and Darwinian thinking, the brain cell and the heart cell of an individual represent or exhibit the same solution to the problem of survival.
Design science defines the solution to the problem of survival as the adaptive state of a cell at a point in time. This is a much more precise, detailed concept/definition of a solution to the challenge of survival. There is no a priori reason that the point in time definition should be better than the genetic or Darwinian definitions. There is a priori reason one approach is more likely or less likely than another to produce useful results or more likely to produce testable theories. Finally, there is no a priori reason why evolutionary analysis should or must be performed from one perspective or another. The choice of perspective depends on the usefulness of the results ultimately produced.
The second, and far more substantive difference between evolutionary biology and design science involves fit tests. A model or theory fits, simulates, explains and/or predicts a set of data if it satisfies the appropriate fit tests. Evolutionary biology and design science are using very different fit tests or fit standards.
Scientific models and theories, it will be noted, do not attempt to provide an exact fit to observed data and do not attempt to provide exact predictions. Scientific theories provide simulations and predictions ‘under ideal conditions’. Scientific models and theories provide simulations, explanations, and predictions of critical features ignoring minor irrelevancies or noise. In order to determine if a scientific model or theory explains, simulates, predicts or fits a set of data it is first necessary to establish fit standards.
We can identify two categories of appropriate or scientifically sound fit standards. These are abstract standards and concrete standards. Abstract standards are fit standards based on the essential logical features of the phenomena being analyzed. Generally, the same abstract fit standards are applied to all models and theories. Concrete standards are fit tests used in specific applications to recognize the relevant factual features of the application being modeled.
Design science recognizes three (at least three) abstract fit standards- 1)evolability/adaptability, 2)survivability, and 3)repeatabity. Quite obviously, any model or theory purporting to explain, simulate and predict evolutionary or adaptive change must be able to model, simulate, and/or predict observed occurrences of evolutionary/adaptive change.
The second fit standard, survivability, is equally obvious, but not always applied. Not only must a model be capable of simulating/predicting change, but it must be possible to demonstrate that the organism or species could survive the adaptive/evolutionary process. As a practical manifestation of this standard, a model that simulates an evolutionary change over a 1 million year period, would not pass the fit test if it can be shown the species would have been extinct in 10,000 years under the conditions which generated the necessity of adaptive/evolutionary change.
The third fit standard, repeatability, might be considered controversial as it precludes ‘miracle of chance’ models as acceptable scientific models or explanations.
In testing the fit of a specific model to a specific occurrence of evolutionary/adaptive change it is appropriate to introduce additional concrete or factual fit standards. A scientific theory describes what happens under ideal conditions, but real world applications involve noise, inefficiency and constraints which do not exist in a hypothetical ideal world. If, for example, it is known that a specific evolutionary/adaptive change process involves gradual step by step change, then it may be appropriate to reflect that feature. If a particular application involves mutation processes, then it may be appropriate for the model to reflect realistic mutation rates.
The application of fit tests or fit standards is a routine part of scientific modeling. It wouldn’t be worth discussing here except for the fact that there appear to be instances where- 1)appropriate fit standards are not applied, 2)different fit standards are applied to different models and theories, 3)fit is determined based on opinion rather than objective verifiable standards, and 4)irrelevant and inappropriate standards are applied. I will be glad to discuss in detail specific examples of uses and misuses of fit standards. This is probably not the appropriate forum. I bring the subject up, because I think it is to a large measure the source of our disagreement on the issue of ‘evidence’.
IP: Logged
|
|
Lizard
Member
Member # 118
|
posted 25. August 2002 22:35
William Dembski wrote:
Must evolution, to be creative, proceed by struggle, conflict, resistance, competition, arms race (even if intelligence is involved)? Or is dog-eat-dog really not an essential part of the creative process? Could some sort of win-win symbiosis that is not in response to an arms race be the crucial element?
Me:
If one considers the entire ecosystem as a system, as opposed to isolated parts, then natural selection will result in interactions among various organisms which result in optimal conditions for survival of the ecosystem. Each organism fills its niche in the grand scheme. However, that is not to say that there is design or purpose in the grand scheme. There may be, but not necessarily.
It has been erroneously stated that natural selection is a random process. Hardly. Mutations are random; natural selection is not. Those organisms most fit to survive to reproduce in a specific environment will be the ones who contribute their genes to the gene pool, and their number will increase. Conversely, those who are less fit to survive will get less of the available resources, or find it harder to reproduct and thus pass on their genes. Therefore, over time, the gene pool will include more of the fitter species' and less of the less fitter species'. This doesn't seem to be a difficult concept to grasp.
One misunderstanding which I have heard some people express is that species compete against other species for available resources. Thus, natural selection represents "nature red in tooth and claw," with tigers eating antelopes, etc. That certainly occurs, but it is not an example of natural selection. An example of natural selection would be the ability of certain individual antelopes being able to outrun tigers and living to reproduce, and the inability of others to do so, due to genetic susceptibility to disease or possession of a mutation for faster running speed (for instance; this is not accurate, only a hypothetical example).
Primarily, natural selection operates *within species*. If a random mutation for heavier fur enables a certain animal to survive in a colder climate and reproduce and bring to reproductive age their progeny, then that mutation will be preserved in the gene pool via natural selection, i.e., those animals with thinner coats might freeze to death before they can reproduce, or not have as much available energy to nurture a clutch of babies to sexual maturity.
So, in answer to Dr. Dembski's question, I don't see how, in the small picture, there could be a win-win situation in the natural selection, except in the case of symbiosis, as mentioned, where two species have evolved to provide survival benefits for each other. In essence, it's all about survival to reproduce and contribute your genes to the gene pool. Yes, there is competition. Yes, there are losers. The change in the allele frequencies of "favorable" mutations in a population is what causes evolutionary change.
I believe Dr. Dembski also stated that the evolutionary changes we see could also be attributed to a guiding intelligence. However, it would have to be a flawed intelligence. No expert designer would have created all the evolutionary dead-ends we know about: there have been, I believe, more than 20 species of elephants, yet today, only three survive. What might be the intelligent purpose for creating species doomed for extinction? Or why would an intelligent designer create humans with spines poorly adapted for bipedal locomotion? Chiropractors rejoice in evolution. These are only a couple of examples of poor design. Michael Behe has stated that "intelligent design" need not be "optimal design," but I fail to see how intelligence is needed to create sub-optimal design, or how it is unlikely for evolution to have created it.
[ 25 August 2002, 22:42: Message edited by: Lizard ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 30. August 2002 15:52
Lizard posts:
"Michael Behe has stated that "intelligent design" need not be "optimal design,"
How are humans capable of determining an optimal design for life when we are currently unable to create even one living cell? That seems, to me, like an ancient Roman soldier commenting on the design of a neutron bomb. He would take one look at it and dismiss it as a completely useless weapon. That would be due to his ignorance, not the quality of the design.
.02
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 30. August 2002 23:05
If we cannot even distinguish good from bad design, how can we even hope to be able to identify design in a useful manner? Should we just assume that all design is good? Or is there also bad design?
Certainly there seem to be some questionable design decisions in life which are quite well understood from a perspective that (God allowed) nature to design (his creation) but much harder to understand from the perspective of an intelligent designer.
Perhaps we need to understand motive and capabilities before we can venture to claim that we can detect intelligent design?
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 02. September 2002 15:22
"Perhaps we need to understand motive and capabilities before we can venture to claim that we can detect intelligent design?"
Why?
If you are walking through the forest and see a metal object in the shape of an "X" laying on the trail you do not need to understand motive and capabilities to detect intelligent design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 02. September 2002 15:48
Nobody,
You seem to be using the same problematic analogy as Paley. 1. We do have perfectly good mechanisms indicating natural design 2. We do not have evidence of intelligent design in biology. When faced with an instance for which we do not (yet) have a natural explanation we can assume ignorance or intelligent design. But what does the assumption of ID offer us without an independent understanding of how the IDer designed the object in question? Nothing in ID seems to offer us a scientific explanation.
How do we recognize the 'watch' as being designed? 1. we do not have any natural explanations 2. we have seen how watches have been designed intelligently.
Furthermore, my statement was made within a larger context about good and bad design. Is nobody suggesting that good/bad design can be detected without knowing about intent, purpose, pathway etc?
[ 02 September 2002, 16:02: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic