DNA is intelligently coded?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed. And you accept that the choice of human/human brain as a better survival & reproduction strategy than, say, a bacteria or a slime mold, was occasioned by random mutations, the environment, and a few billion years. Of course you do since you have nothing else. Others are just not so certain.

What's "better" about a human brain than a bacteria? There is no "better."

Consider the lowly bacteria. There are about 10^15 bacteria in your body. At a generation time of 2 hours, say, we obtain about 4.4x10^9 generations in 1 million years. So in a population of bacteria that fits in your body, we can perform about 10^24 genetic experiments in 1 million years (assuming a stationary population). Multiply that by 1 billion bodies and you have 10^33 experiments in a measly million years.

The power of population and time is vast.

~~ Paul

 

[logical muse]

And therein lies the problem. What imagines the goal?

Hey sorry I haven't responded to this sooner. I sleep while you guys post...

Anyway, your question is reasonable, but easily dispensed with. If we are to make a distinction between evolution by artificial selection like the system I described, and evolution by natural selection, then the difference is that in one system a designer (me) imposes a fitness function and in the other 'nature' imposes a fitness function.

In the real world, it is not necessary for a designer to impose this fitness function. Survival is sufficient. In fact, if a designer were to do this, how could you distinguish it from the natural fitness function of survival? What designer-imposed fitness function applies to us (and all life on this planet), and how is it different to the Darwinian natural selection?

What my system does is demonstrate that something that is generally perceived as requiring designer-level intelligence (computer programming resulting in a computer program) can in fact be achieved by a process akin to evolution. By doing so, it renders invalid any argument that "something as complex as a computer program requires a designer, therefore something equally as complex or at least analogous such as DNA also requires a designer".

As others have posted, even that argument presupposes that DNA is somehow like computer code.

Let's look at the underlying syllogisms:

Premise A: Complex things need to be designed.
Premise B: Computer programs are complex.
Conclusion 1: Computer programs need to be designed.

Premise C: Computer programs need to be designed.
Premise D: DNA is like a computer program.
Conclusion 2: DNA needs to designed.

Since Conclusion 1 (Premise C) has been demonstrated to be false, Conclusion 2 doesn't follow. Also, either Premise A or Premise B, or both, is false. I'll let you take your pick.

Coming up in my next post: I discuss another computer program I developed that features mutation, natural selection, reproduction, survival, and has no designer-imposed goal.

This is fun. I haven't looked at these programs since about 1997.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Digital? He obviously hasn't looked at DNA data at more than a highschool introductory text level.

On the bright side, if that's the new argument for ID, it'll go down in a blaze of glory really fast. Go watch how wrong he is...

http://alphard.ethz.ch/gerber/approx/default.html

No programmer needed for those digital programs. Natural selection does it all.

Does this program work similarly to what logical muse described? What is it doing, exactly? It looks cool, I just don't get it.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Does this program work similarly to what logical muse described? What is it doing, exactly? It looks cool, I just don't get it.

Erm, never mind. I guess I should have looked at the "help" and "technical information" links first.

 

[chipmunk stew]

What my system does is demonstrate that something that is generally perceived as requiring designer-level intelligence (computer programming resulting in a computer program) can in fact be achieved by a process akin to evolution. By doing so, it renders invalid any argument that "something as complex as a computer program requires a designer, therefore something equally as complex or at least analogous such as DNA also requires a designer".

As others have posted, even that argument presupposes that DNA is somehow like computer code.

Let's look at the underlying syllogisms:

Premise A: Complex things need to be designed.
Premise B: Computer programs are complex.
Conclusion 1: Computer programs need to be designed.

Premise C: Computer programs need to be designed.
Premise D: DNA is like a computer program.
Conclusion 2: DNA needs to designed.

Since Conclusion 1 (Premise C) has been demonstrated to be false, Conclusion 2 doesn't follow. Also, either Premise A or Premise B, or both, is false. I'll let you take your pick.

Coming up in my next post: I discuss another computer program I developed that features mutation, natural selection, reproduction, survival, and has no designer-imposed goal.

This is fascinating new territory for me. I look forward to your next post.

Do you have any examples I could tinker around with of the system you described above, such as the one Delphi Ote posted? Even just source code would be helpful.

 

[delphi_ote]

This is fascinating new territory for me. I look forward to your next post.

Do you have any examples I could tinker around with of the system you described above, such as the one Delphi Ote posted? Even just source code would be helpful.

Evolutionary computation is a very interesting field. I'm working on a project right now that will (we hope) automate searches for software vulnerabilities using genetic algorithms. It's useful stuff. muse is giving a very cogent explaination, so I won't steal his thunder.

Just don't let Crabby McGrump tell you these programs don't serve practical purposes.

 

[hammegk]

Coming up in my next post: I discuss another computer program I developed that features mutation, natural selection, reproduction, survival, and has no designer-imposed goal.

I see. They decide without your help that reproduction and survival are goals?
Or does your control code impose those goals?


And I stress I'm not quibbling that your program technique provides real world utility; I am suggesting that that is a long way from demonstrating macro-ev. Or do you have runs with end-points as dissimilar as cats & dogs?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I see. They decide without your help that reproduction and survival are goals?
Or does your control code impose those goals?

You're not willing to take reproduction as a given? If you are, then survival comes logically, with no need of evidence.

And I stress I'm not quibbling that your program technique provides real world utility; I am suggesting that that is a long way from demonstrating macro-ev. Or do you have runs with end-points as dissimilar as cats & dogs?

Really now, cats and dogs are not that dissimilar. Surely they aren't good examples of whatever it is you have in mind for macro-evolution?

http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/fossils/miacids.html

http://www.catsanddogspa.com/page3318.html

~~ Paul

 

[Iamme]

I still wrestle with the fact that it is pretty much proven that a seed's offspring can produce more intelligent seed. I think WE are proof of that. If we came from anything like they show on tv...those History or TLC channel shows where they show these grunting Neandrethal-types that hunt and grunt, then we have to assume we have evolved at least in intelligence, which then would show that a certain form of evolution is fact.

This morning, laying in bed, I was trying to think of goings-on in the earth, that shows that something does something as if it knows what it is doing. I started thinking about the clouds and the rain cycle as I watched them go by out my window, while I layed there. But I felt rather disappointed in the knowledge that the rain cycle does not behave like there was a pre-ordained code, because I do believe that it even rains out in the ocean. Different if the rain only knew how to rain, for some reason, on dry land, where it would do any good. If it only did that, then the rain cycle would seem more impressive.

Can anyone think of anything that even could APPEAR that by it's workings, that some intelligence is behind why it does what it does? To be frank with you, I haven't thought of anything yet. I am specifically trying to think of something that is not organic, as with organic, it would be said that it (whatever) evolved to be that way. But with the workings of something inorganic, that appeared to operate like 'it knew what it was doing', this would at least make a person pause and ask how it knew how to do that.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Really now, cats and dogs are not that dissimilar. Surely they aren't good examples of whatever it is you have in mind for macro-evolution?

I'd like to see, say, snakes vs. water lilies. I think even hammegk would have trouble spinning a result like that.

 

[hammegk]

You're not willing to take reproduction as a given? If you are, then survival comes logically, with no need of evidence.

Er, hmmm. Is reproduction a given? For life, seems so. For a computer program, code is required.

Really now, cats and dogs are not that dissimilar. Surely they aren't good examples of whatever it is you have in mind for macro-evolution?

http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/fossils/miacids.html

http://www.catsanddogspa.com/page3318.html

from your cite "Miacids gave rise to the living dogs, bears, skunks, mongooses, cats, and hyaenas, but the exact relationship of Tapocyon to the living families of carnivores is unclear.".

and "The dog traces its ancestry back to a five-toed, weasellike animal called Miacis, which lived in the Eocene epoch about 40 million years ago ..undoubtedly a tree climber, probably also lived in a den. Like all den dwellers, it no doubt left its quarters for toilet functions so that the den would remain clean. The ease of housebreaking a modern dog probably harks back to this instinct. Next in evolutionary line from Miacis was an Oligocene animal called Cynodictis, which somewhat resembled the modern dog. Cynodictis lived about 20 million years ago. Its fifth toe, which would eventually become the dewclaw, showed signs of shortening. Cynodictis had 42 teeth and probably the anal glands that a dog still has. Cynodictis was also developing feet and toes suited for running. The modern civet--a "living fossil"--resembles that ancient animal (see Civet). After a few more intermediate stages the evolution of the dog moved on to the extremely doglike animal called Tomarctus, which lived about 10 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch. Tomarctus probably developed the strong social instincts that still prevail in the dog and most of its close relatives, excluding the fox. The Canidae, the family that includes the true dog and its close relatives, stemmed directly from Tomarctus."."

If every assertion about evolution didn't include more disclaimers than facts ... And Ed only knows what underlying guesses were used as 'facts' to arrive at the guesses in the article.

So perhaps dogs & cats are a macro-ev example. Why not start your proof with baby-steps?

 

[delphi_ote]

I see. They decide without your help that reproduction and survival are goals?
Or does your control code impose those goals?


And I stress I'm not quibbling that your program technique provides real world utility; I am suggesting that that is a long way from demonstrating macro-ev. Or do you have runs with end-points as dissimilar as cats & dogs?

Don't let Crabby McGrump confuse things here. Evolution does not impose any goals. Species survive because they survive, not because they have something in particular in mind. The natural enviornment imposes constraints, just like the artificial enviornment in evolutionary computation algorithms. A bacteria no more knows its goal is to reproduce and be a successful survivor than a ball knows its goal is to roll down a hill. This anthropomorphising about "goals" is a fiction created by El Ignorante, not evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary computation is also known for generating multiple unique solutions to problems by finding disparate optima in the search space. It could very well design a cat and a dog for you. Noreadicus would know this if he read the literature on the algorithms (just like he would know basic facts about evolution if he read some biology texts,) but facts are not the reason he's posting here right now.

 

[hammegk]

Don't let Crabby McGrump confuse things here.

Noreadicus would know this if he read the literature on the algorithms (just like he would know basic facts about evolution if he read some biology texts,) but facts are not why the reason he's posting here right now.

Ya know, @ssh@t, why don't you rein in on the insults?

Evolution does not impose any goals.

Some of us are currently discussing computer programs. As to evolution, if you can view the results you look at around you and take it on faith that no goal was involved, your choice.

Evolutionary computation is also known for generating multiple unique solutions to problems by finding disparate optima in the search space.

Let me fix that for you: "computation is also known for generating multiple unique solutions to problems by finding disparate optima in the search space". See?

It could very well design a cat and a dog for you.

Perhaps, once the code writer defined those as goals.

 

[delphi_ote]

Ya know, @ssh@t, why don't you rein in on the insults?

Sure thing, Herr Nosenseofirony.

Let me fix that for you: "computation is also known for generating multiple unique solutions to problems by finding disparate optima in the search space". See?

So... one input, multiple different unique solutions? You're either talking about a nondeterministic computer or a Microsoft product.

 

[Iamme]

Don't let Crabby McGrump confuse things here. Evolution does not impose any goals. Species survive because they survive, not because they have something in particular in mind. The natural enviornment imposes constraints, just like the artificial enviornment in evolutionary computation algorithms. A bacteria no more knows its goal is to reproduce and be a successful survivor than a ball knows its goal is to roll down a hill. This anthropomorphising about "goals" is a fiction created by El Ignorante, not evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary computation is also known for generating multiple unique solutions to problems by finding disparate optima in the search space. It could very well design a cat and a dog for you. Noreadicus would know this if he read the literature on the algorithms (just like he would know basic facts about evolution if he read some biology texts,) but facts are not the reason he's posting here right now.

Oysters have got along just fine by simply living a life of survival. Survival simply requires food, shelter and the means to procreate. But to try to find what caused a human...to have some lesser creature to evolve for some unknown reason (to turn into a human over time)...to aquire atrtributes that woud allow it to go on vacations where beautiful naked girls and casinos and cruise ships abound...I wonder, WHY.

So why haven't oysters "decided" to sprout legs, crawl out of the murky water, and develop a more complex brain so that they too can go on vacations?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Er, hmmm. Is reproduction a given? For life, seems so. For a computer program, code is required.

If it's a given in life, then you should not be bothered by its being included in a simulation of life.

So perhaps dogs & cats are a macro-ev example. Why not start your proof with baby-steps?

Perhaps isn't good enough. We're looking for evidence that macro-evolution is impossible, right?

~~ Paul

Edited to add: Some more information on the evolution of the dog:

http://canidae.ca/EVOLUTIO.HTM

 

[cyborg]

So why haven't oysters "decided" to sprout legs, crawl out of the murky water, and develop a more complex brain so that they too can go on vacations?

Because they can't decide that. No more than you can decide to sprout wings and lay eggs.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Ya know, @ssh@t, why don't you rein in on the insults?

Asshat. That's a new one. I like it. I'm going to use that in the future.

As to evolution, if you can view the results you look at around you and take it on faith that no goal was involved, your choice.

By the same token, if you look around you and take it on faith that a goal was involved, it's also your choice. "No goal", however, is a better default assumption when you're investigating the mechanics of nature, because "goal" requires a "goal-setter" whose existence lacks material evidence.

 

[Dymanic]

Er, hmmm. Is reproduction a given? For life, seems so. For a computer program, code is required.

If we're going to use genetic programs as an analogue to biology, we need to be clear on what is being posited as analogous to what. Biological organisms have different traits due (in part) to differences in their 'code', just as different computer programs behave differently due to theirs. Just as differential rates of reproductive success between organisms are not explicit features of their code but a statistical consequence of the way their traits play out in the environment, differential rates of retention of programs are (or should be, if the experiment is well designed) be allowed to be just as implicit. Reproduction should not be an explicit goal for an individual program, but a consequence of successfully solving other problems -- just as biological organisms (say, humans) often seek goals which, though they do not explicitly include reproduction, tend to lead to that outcome.

 

[logical muse]

This is fascinating new territory for me. I look forward to your next post.

Thanks Chipmunk.

I'm too busy over the next couple of days to go into detail so let me leave you with a couple of links.

These guys have developed systems way more sophisticated than mine, considering that I haven't touched mine since 1997 and they're still going.

Avida

Thomas Ray

On Tom Ray's page, if you scroll down to the Research section, there are links to his projects in Artificial Life. Tierra was the project that initially inspired me to develop my own.