Intended mutations

Have you ever seen genetic algorithms and evolutionary processes being used in design?The design converged on is usually a very good one and is often better than human designers can devise. Evolutionary processes with cumulative selection can produce a frightening array of designs with no intention needed.This kind of program designed a radio, it has designed optimum ariel shapes and many other things. Somebody designed a self-replcating computer program that was 80 bytes long and had several copies of it compete over many generations for the resource of cycle-time. The replication was not perfect. Overnight, this system had developed several kinds of program. There were programs that were only 25 bytes long, and some programs were parasitic and were much smaller (they used other programs to replicate etc). I did it myself, you can too, read about it here. There is nobody directing this evolution.In short, evolution designs things better than we can. Its only when the design is simple that we can approach its skill. The impression of design is not an illusion. Life is designed, life is a massively complicated thing and it demands a damned impressive explanation. The stunning thing is that evolution, the effects of cumulative selection on a non-perfect replicator have been shown to be very powerful desiging things. And no pre-ordained direction needs to shown. Our simulations often have quite a small number of selective factors, but reality has many many more.As a result there are many solutions for a problem, but some of them don't happen. Antelopes have a problem - they get eaten by lions. One solution to this problem is running away, the solution the antelopes have converged towards. They are very good at it too, and lions are good at catching antelopes.Another solution is to fly away (and it would be a hell of a lot better than running away), but its unlikely that there is any pathway that a antelopes can go down at this time to grow wings. They would need to be able to do without sacrificing their short term survival.So your idea has a possible test: if we can find a population which has evolved through a significant less-fit-than-the-generations-before phase with the seeming 'intention' of evolving down another 'path' which will eventually (many generations down the line) be better at surviving than the original population), then we have some evidence of intended mutations (with forethought).I could go on further, but I think I've waffled long enough. We need to find a mutation that spreads into (or 'invades') a population, despite the fact that that mutation causes the population to be less fit than the generations before it.This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 05-May-2006 10:45 PM

There has to be a path, even without foresight. Its like the old flipping 100 coins one after the other. You could chart a trajectory through all the possibilities, but it doesn't indicate that there was anything directing it through the path. So we have a mutation that is required in the future that spreads arounda bit. The bat population has lots of these potentials in their genome. A mutation can spread around if it has no immediate effect, so natural selection would not be a factor. If the gene has no effect on reproductive success then NS doesn't happen to it.The way evolution works is not to build a foundation for the future. A gene pool exists and certain combinations of those genes are better at surviving than others. Occasionally a gene arrives that spreads around (drift), and in combination with some other genes means that the bats embryo develops in a way that increases reproductive success. In our case, it is an ability to fly a little.Once these genes come together, they are likely to spread since that bat is likely to make offspring which also posess this combination, and those offspring are also likely to posess that combination. The gene's frequency in the population increases. This is happening every generation in general, and most of the time it remains in a stable state. Occasionally this stable state shifts, perhaps by an introduction of new genes (a new population or the 'invasion' of a significant mutation) and the population has to find its new stable position after a period of relatively significant change.It is tempting to think of some kind of intent behind it, I agree, but we can do the same with our own evolutionary programs. Look back and say 'if it wasn't for this mutation at just the right time, it would not have produced this result'. However with large population size (including the time dimension ), we would expect to see some mutations causing change and it would be jumping the gun to assume intent just because they happen. As has been mentioned - if there was a trajectory where an unsuccessful reproductive machine was produced, it would be selected out and that trajectory would not be possible. If it could be shown that such a trajectory had to have happened for a certain result we see today, then that would be evidence for intentional mutations. This is the kind of test I proposed to you in my first post. I understand your objections. Yes, some programmers programmed the environment (actually in the 80 byte program one it was an already existing environment - the computer's RAM). However, the programmers did not design the final outcome. The radio, the aeriel, or the
17 byte program. Indeed - human programmers and designers could not design these things, the radio defied understanding.Evolution is a theory about populations existing in an evironment struggling for the resources of that environment. It is not a theory that explains the origins of environments, just how its populations change over generations.My point was nothing to do with random processes per se. These evolutionary processes did involve non-directed 'mutations'.And yes, there was a 'trajectory', if I chose I could trace a trajectory down the generations. If you follow my link, you can do the same thing, at your leisure. Yes, every single mutation that occurred in the ancestry of every currently existing living thing was succesful - by definition! However, there are many many many many many many many more that did not make it. Well for the program to come into existence by itself would be abiogenesis something we cannot do. However, we can explain what happens once a population of replicators does exist (where there is differential reproductive success), its called the theory of evolution, and its dead good

Careful... A more realistic appraisal would beevolutionary processes are powerful designers - so powerful that they can beat human designers hands down. Humans, in their hubris, assume that because this design is better than their design, it must be the result of a super-human (perhaps a god or an hyper-intelligent alien). We now understand evolutionary processes, so we don't need to think this way. It could be intentional design, so here are some tests that would differentiate non-intentional evolution, and directed evolutionAs an addition, it might be difficult to tell the two apart, and I agree. That is why I have no problem with theistic evolutionists and so on. However, intentional mutations are not necessary to explain things at this time. This is where parsimony kicks in of course. My test still exists for those who would like to demonstrate intentional mutations once and for all. Unfortunately you have assumed something which you have argued against. In your analogy we have evidence of the natural mechanism (the machine) and the designer (the human). In reality we don't know that a designer exists. A little more accurate analogy in your vain would involve a room full of baloons and in the middle of it a baloon making machine. There is nobody around, and no evidence anyone has been around. There is a diary and in it are some entries from a bunch of people claim to have seen someone around blowing balloons up, but that was about a thousand or two years ago now. It also says that the first human blower started this process 6,000 years ago. The human operates in a way which is means he is basically intangible.When we start testing things, all the evidence we can find tells us that the oldest (and now deflated) balloon is 4 billion years old.Of course the analogy breaks down at the 'where did the machine come from' stage, but there you go If you choose to remain as a non-participant I thank you for taking the time to read what I have said. Take care Mike, keep chasing those chickens - your Apollo will tire