It isn't covered in the analogy, but how an organism reproduces is one of the main traits that evolves.
Organisms are selected on their success in reproduction.
Has it crossed your mind that the reason it's not covered in the analogy is because it's
irrelevant to the analogy?! I'm not sure you've ever really understood the purpose the analogy sets out to serve, but allow me to summarise it as it now stands:
The purpose of the analogy is to show that seemingly irreducible complexity
would arise in technological development even if intelligence, i.e. intent and forethought, were removed from the process and replaced with random, incremental changes.
As such, the 'process' by which 'reproduction' occurs in technological development is immaterial, as is any comparison with biological evolution. I suggest you go right back to the AA or the Sam & Ollie story if you've forgotten that this is so.
Yes it does, with your analogy, you wil only get a single member of a more successfull variant. If an organism's descendents are successfull, there will be many, all slightly different and all subject to evolution. The "optimisation process" works far better in such a situation.
After the 'device' is released into the environment there are only two possible outcomes. Either the device will sell and it will then be reproduced with a random variation, or it will not sell and it becomes extinct. In the first case the new random variant will either be detrimental, indifferent or beneficial. Detrimental variants will fail to sell, and the AA will then go back a step to the version immediately prior and 'try again' with a different variation. This is no different from biological evolution. All of the replications that don't carry a particular mutation, i.e. the vast majority, can be considered to be a 'step back', some of which will carry a new variation. Indifferent variants can be ignored, by definition, and beneficial variants will probably sell. I think you're of the mistaken belief that only beneficial variants get fed back into the reproductive system whereas all variants send the requisite message back. This is pretty simple and logical to me, but I can see how you might, and probably will, have trouble getting your head around this comparison. In the second case the fact that the device failed to sell is a strong indication that it carried a detrimental variant, but not necessarily so. It could be that a competing device just happened to have acquired a more beneficial variation.
Yes it does, it helps differentiate between marginal success and vast success, see above.
The difference between 'marginal success' and 'vast success' as you put it, is simply time. If you prefer, visualize an army of AAs or Sam & Ollies instead of just one, just like in biological evolution.
That is an intelligent intervention.
Without it, your system wouldn't work, as they would use up showroom resource.
jimbob, do you not realize that the 'showroom' is simply a metaphor for the environment. If it helps, consider un-sold cars simply being despatched to the scrap yard, or left in a field to rust away. Again, this comment of yours seems to show a complete inability to grasp the thrust of the analogy, or analogies per se.
Rabbits and elephants had a common ancestor, but they breed at different rates. The breeding rate is an evolutionary trait. Elephants couldn't succeed in their niche breeding several times a year, whilst rabbits couldn't succeed if they waited to breed untill after they had been killed. Because they are subject to heavy predation and mortality, rabbits need to breed young. Because elephants aren't, they can "invest" more resources in eachoffspring.
I really don't see how you can believe that this concept of differential breeding rates has any relevance to whether the removal of intent and forethought from the technological development process precludes the possibility or likelihood of seemingly irreducible complexity. It seems to me that you simply have trouble constraining your thought process within applicable parameters or a particular context. You seem to allow your thought process to wander down blind alleys but still pay attention to what crops up enroute!
<derail>There is a similar argument about aging: There is no benefit in an organism evolving to have a longer lifespan than that allowed for by (random) predation etc. Indeed there is an evolutionary cost involved, as the organism's resources would be devoted to "keeping youthful" instead of "investing" these resources in the success of their offspring.</derail>
Blind alley!
In your analogy, suppose one variant was akin to a Ford Fiesta, and another akin to an Aston-Martin.
Both are viable "solutions", but they would have different "lifetimes". This is something that evolves in biology.
The fact that we've actually arrived at the position where we're producing either Ford Fiestas or Aston Martins is testament to the validity of the analogy, and I thank you for acknowleging that fact! Regardless, remember that, for the purpose of the analogy, 'lifetime' is arbitrary. The AA can wait as long as it likes; forever, if necessary, or it can reproduce after a pre-set timespan. Just remember that if it reproduces before the last model has sold then that's taken as a failure (even if that model would sell given more time), and the AA would go back to the preceding model as the basis for the next. As I wrote above, that's no different from the multitude of natural births that occur evey minute of every day in nature; each one can be considered to be a product of the preceding 'proven' version.
I was under the impression that you were arguing that your analogy was a good analogy for evolution and that self-replication was an unimportant factor in evolution. If not I apologise.
That's right; I am.
Evolution needs variation and selection.
And my analogy has both.
The variation comes from the "imperfect copying" process; selection acts on the "variant" within the environment. For the copying instructions to be copied, (i.e. selected), they need to be associated with the variant and in the environment.
That's right. You're describing my analogy to a T!
What do you think the main issue is?
It seems that the main issue is your apparent inability to constrain your thought process to the points you yourself have essentially summarised in your description immediately above. You summarise the key points nicely, but then when you enter into an analysis and debate you introduce many other irrelevancies.
