Is evolution intelligent?

[D H]

Why "goal" and not "effect", Mr. Skeptic?

 

Exactly. He is using the word "goal" and then claiming evolution is "intelligent". Well, duh. Goal implies intent.

 

Think of it this way, Mr. Skeptic. Water placed in a freezer has a goal of turning to ice. Lightning striking a dead tree has a goal of starting an inferno. CO₂ escaping from Lake Nyos had a goal of suffocating people and animals. There is no goal here. Just effect.

[bascule]

Why "goal" and not "effect", Mr. Skeptic?

 

I prefer "outcome", but yes, 100% agree.

 

Intelligent systems predict and choose from a number of possible futures. Evolution just kind of happens. It doesn't predict the future and then make a decision. Whatever happens happens, and that's what you get.

[padren]

The goal is always to increase fitness in the current environment; that does not change. The environment does, so fitness is a moving target. Regardless of the maladaptiveness of sexually selected traits, they are selected for because they increase fitness.

 

That's like saying in a mixture of oil and water has the "goal" of separating into layers based on density, which it does in an exceptionally efficient manner.

 

The only difference is that it is easy to see the layering of oil and water as a simple natural process and evolution is mindbogglingly complex. Just consider watching oil and water separate for the first time without knowing anything about fluid dynamics:

 

At first, you'd be watching the bubbly mess thinking "What the heck is this doing??" when it would dawn on you that "Holy crap, it's sorting itself into layers!" and after watching it long enough after many times you'd be blown away by just how perfectly and elegantly it manages to achieve that goal every single time.

 

But the fluid dynamics don't have goals, it's just how molecules respond to pressure. Evolution is no different - it's just how self replicating patterns respond to (albeit far more complex) pressure.

[forufes]

Why "goal" and not "effect", Mr. Skeptic?

because "effect" is direct.

"goal" happens through multiple steps...look here:

Think of it this way, Mr. Skeptic. Water placed in a freezer has a goal of turning to ice. Lightning striking a dead tree has a goal of starting an inferno. CO₂ escaping from Lake Nyos had a goal of suffocating people and animals. There is no goal here. Just effect.

what if i put the water ON the fridge, and it leaks and enters the fridge and freezes, i put it on the ground it evaporates and enters the fridge and freezes, you put it in a bottle and still it finds a way to get frozen, then can't you say water has a goal to get frozen?

 

also, water does a lot of things, one of which is get frozen, evolution does one thing only; keep the species alive..

 

and so you can say that freezing is an effect on water but survival is evolution's goal..

 

same with lightning if it struck nothing but dead trees and in all types of weather all around the world, CO_{2 running after people and countering deturgents or whatever and adapting to masks and killing no one but humans...can't you say those two have a goal?}

 

_{and so evolution (hate to break this to you guys:D) has a goal...}

 

_{the real question is, now what? so what if evolution had a goal, in my head it always did..so again; what's the fuss about?}

---

_{Merged post follows:}

_{Consecutive posts merged}

 

_{The only difference is that it is easy to see the layering of oil and water as a simple natural process and evolution is mindbogglingly complex.}

_{but isn't that the difference between an effect and a goal?}

 

_{But the fluid dynamics don't have goals, it's just how molecules respond to pressure. Evolution is no different - it's just how self replicating patterns respond to (albeit far more complex) pressure.}

_{i don't know about fluid dynamics, but back in school we learned through chemistry that the goal is for matter to reach a lower state of energy..}

[iNow]

what if i put the water ON the fridge, and it leaks and enters the fridge and freezes, i put it on the ground it evaporates and enters the fridge and freezes, you put it in a bottle and still it finds a way to get frozen, then can't you say water has a goal to get frozen?

Sure, you can say that. You'd still be wrong, though.

 

 

also, water does a lot of things, one of which is get frozen, evolution does one thing only; keep the species alive..

Oh, really? Tell that to all of the animals which have gone extinct.

 

 

and so you can say that freezing is an effect on water but survival is evolution's goal..

You're just not getting it. Let me try to help. Watch these:

 

SeTssvexa9s

7w57_P9DZJ4

 

 

and so evolution (hate to break this to you guys:D) has a goal...

Repeating an invalid assertion does not suddenly make it true.

 

 

so what if evolution had a goal, in my head it always did..so again;

I hate to break it to you, but that's the ONLY place evolution has a goal... in your head... and in the head's of other people who don't understand it very well.

[D H]

because "effect" is direct.

"goal" happens through multiple steps...look here: [silly example elided]

 

Just because something happens in multiple steps does not mean that there is a "goal". It takes many steps for water that falls on a mountainside before it reaches the ocean. Does this mean water has a goal to run downhill? Of course not. Its just dumb physics. The problem here is that using the term "goal" connotes intelligence. Here are a few synonyms for "goal":

aim, ambition, aspiration, design, destination, intent, objective, plan, purpose, thought, will

 

This mistaken connotation with intelligence is what led to this thread. Sorry to be a broken record, but Evolution does not have a goal. Don't anthropomorphize.

 

evolution does one thing only; keep the species alive..and so you can say that ... survival is evolution's goal..

Oh, really? Tell that to all of the animals which have gone extinct.

Double doh. Piling on to iNow's facepalm, if "survival is evolution's goal", evolution has done one heck of a lousy job! It has a 0.1% success rate by this metric. 99.9% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct.

 

same with lightning if it struck nothing but dead trees and in all types of weather all around the world, CO₂ running after people and countering deturgents or whatever and adapting to masks and killing no one but humans...can't you say those two have a goal[/i']?

No. The CO₂ that came out of Lake Nyos had no intent. It did not "run after people". That, too, implies intent.

 

While anthropomorphizing can help in gaining an understanding of a process ("water seeks to run downhill", "a forest fire greedily consumes everything combustible", "the goal of evolution is survival of the fittest"), one should always be aware that they are anthropomorphizing. Flowing water, raging forest fires, and evolution do not have goals. They are mindless processes.

[Mr Skeptic]

Why "goal" and not "effect", Mr. Skeptic?

 

A shameless attempt to use an "intelligence" word rather than a "laws of nature" word. But, consider this: you too are a complex process bound by the very same laws of nature. You would say your goal was to answer me, but couldn't I equally say that it was simply an effect of photons entering your eye and your previous state?

[Sisyphus]

A shameless attempt to use an "intelligence" word rather than a "laws of nature" word. But, consider this: you too are a complex process bound by the very same laws of nature. You would say your goal was to answer me, but couldn't I equally say that it was simply an effect of photons entering your eye and your previous state?

 

You could say either, and both would be true. One a purely physical explanation, one a metaphysical one dependent on the condition of consciousness. It seems like applying that to evolution would require circular reasoning. "It has a goal because it is intelligent. It is intelligent because it has a goal." etc.

[JillSwift]

A shameless attempt to use an "intelligence" word rather than a "laws of nature" word. But, consider this: you too are a complex process bound by the very same laws of nature. You would say your goal was to answer me, but couldn't I equally say that it was simply an effect of photons entering your eye and your previous state?

Well, I do consider determinism to be at the heart of the emergent phenomenon called "mind".

 

However, intelligence does require forethought - and in turn experience/memory, and the ability to make connections between those memories internally or simply without other influence.

 

There is zilch evidence for the above, and no need for it in order to explain speciation. So, the best conclusion at this point: Evolution isn't intelligent.

[bascule]

A shameless attempt to use an "intelligence" word rather than a "laws of nature" word. But, consider this: you too are a complex process bound by the very same laws of nature. You would say your goal was to answer me, but couldn't I equally say that it was simply an effect of photons entering your eye and your previous state?

 

No, to continue reiterating myself conscious systems predict from possible futures and use those predictions to make decisions about their activities. This is goal-driven behavior.

 

Evolution does no such predicting, it merely plays out.

[forufes]

 

 

Oh, really? Tell that to all of the animals which have gone extinct.

heh, i was counting on someone to say that:D..

1-what does the fact that you're here to read what i say, or the fact that i'm here to say what i said, tell you?

 

2-i specifically said "survival of species"..not "survival of members of species"... evolution already "knows" (in a matter of speaking so don't anyone write an essay about it) that the survival of "single" animals is the end of the species, end of the species is the end of its members, as there isn't enough food and space for everyone..and so, trying to keep the single animal alive will actually kill it.. so keep the species alive by controlling how they die(which they do anyway), to give way to new species.

 

if evolution wasn't intelligent and cunning, it wouldn't have done such an OUTSTANDING job of maintaining it's goal..keeping species around, keeping life around..

 

it has actually went from maintaining stuff to creating new stuff..it hasn't just kept the primates it started with alive, but advanced them to live better, longer..

 

You're just not getting it. Let me try to help. Watch these:

i've seen the first one before when you posted it, great video, didn't get to thank you for it since the thread got closed..

 

as for the second one, a very poor magic trick which i hope doesn't represent evolution truely..

while repeating the word "random" a million times, the guy who made the video made the animals with bad mutations die every time, which is really stupid and narrow..

 

his example of light colors being "better" and dark colors for those with "worse" mutation is extremely linear..

an animal with one extremely bad mutation might survive because he might have another good mutation that helps him to live, eleminating him automatically is plain stupid, no wonder his "experiment" worked out perfectly, eliminate the negative (which doesn't exist in real life), and you're bound to either get zero or a positive, wow, evolution works.

 

the same with the previous video..

 

1-i don't think mutations occur in a way which seriously affect the survivability of that animal, a 1 or 2 cm longer neck means nothing if it was between brothers, let alone over billions of years.

 

and as i said before, even by saying a bit longer neck makes eating easier and so it's animal healthier, it must have a lot of other sides to it which are harmful, in the same way other harmful mutations would have beneficial sides, so when they all cancel each other, we are left with true randomness..

 

with true randomness, species should naturally end, and that's where evolutions' intelligence come in, in keeping them alive.. i think of it as an in-built mechanism, the moving force of life's continuity, not life's natural effects, as nature is too harsh and inconsiderate to leave a creature as it is, let alone improve him.

 

evolution, is a stream going uphill.

 

Repeating an invalid assertion does not suddenly make it true.

it's a bit tolerable from one person, but you have no idea how annoying it is when everyone repeats it:embarass:

[iNow]

heh, i was counting on someone to say that:D..

1-what does the fact that you're here to read what i say, or the fact that i'm here to say what i said, tell you?

It tells me that since I don't own this forum and I'm not charged with staffing it that I don't get to ban clueless paste-eating asshats like you who have little clue and a complete lack of understanding regarding the actual science of evolution.

[forufes]

It tells me that since I don't own this forum and I'm not charged with staffing it that I don't get to ban clueless paste-eating asshats like you who have little clue and a complete lack of understanding regarding the actual science of evolution.

 

looool...

 

you kinda remind me of myelf about a week earlier...though i can't show my appreciation with a red valentine's card with a "KEEP THE PERSONAL THINGS OUT!!" note..

 

i also don't know why i'm not reintroduced to the same red card myself, it should be as easy as a click for you..

 

but on a serious note..:

is my post so true and hard to refute for you to go on such helpless outburst? or am i making so little sense and jabbering alot for you not to know where to start?

 

if it's the second one, then i honestly ask you to bear with me.. just try to understand what i'm saying, measure if it's true or not (it could be), and if it's not, tell me why..how hard can that be?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

and what i though that should tell you is that by you and me existing evolution succeeded..

 

while some can see it a faliure that evolution didn't keep the other 99.9% alive (where they think it should somehow send them to space and have them somehow find food there)..i think that for evolution to actually keep that.. sorry to START that 0.1% out of oblivion is a great succes..

Edited October 10, 2009 by forufes
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

or am i making so little sense and jabbering alot for you not to know where to start?

 

That one. You are trying to give evolution capabilities it clearly doesn't have.

 

i specifically said "survival of species"..not "survival of members of species"

 

And yet species go extinct.

 

... evolution already "knows" (in a matter of speaking so don't anyone write an essay about it) that the survival of "single" animals is the end of the species, end of the species is the end of its members, as there isn't enough food and space for everyone..and so, trying to keep the single animal alive will actually kill it.. so keep the species alive by controlling how they die(which they do anyway), to give way to new species.

 

That's crazy, evolution doesn't "know" any of that. What mechanism might evolution have to "know" that?

 

if evolution wasn't intelligent and cunning, it wouldn't have done such an OUTSTANDING job of maintaining it's goal..keeping species around, keeping life around..

 

There is no mechanism for any of that, and everything known about evolution shows that it functions at the individual level. So what you are saying goes against everything known, ie you are wrong.

 

1-i don't think mutations occur in a way which seriously affect the survivability of that animal, a 1 or 2 cm longer neck means nothing if it was between brothers, let alone over billions of years.

 

The universe doesn't care what you think. A single mutation in the wrong place is enough to be fatal, which incidentally affects survivability. A single mutation can provide immunity to a disease or to an antibiotic. These have all been observed, it doesn't matter whether you don't think they can happen.

[bascule]

i don't think mutations occur in a way which seriously affect the survivability of that animal, a 1 or 2 cm longer neck means nothing if it was between brothers, let alone over billions of years.

 

and as i said before, even by saying a bit longer neck makes eating easier and so it's animal healthier, it must have a lot of other sides to it which are harmful, in the same way other harmful mutations would have beneficial sides, so when they all cancel each other, we are left with true randomness.

 

This is an argument from personal incredulity.

[forufes]

That one. You are trying to give evolution capabilities it clearly doesn't have.

well maybe i have gone overboard..just a little bit..

 

 

 

And yet species go extinct.

that doesn't contradict what i said..the "survival [of other] species"..

actually, ironically enough..some species going instinct is a necessity for some species to survive..

 

aim at making all species survive (as many have argued here)..and you end up with none..

evolution didn't do that, because we're here discussing it.

 

if evolution went for single members' survival, we wouldn't be here doing so.

That's crazy, evolution doesn't "know" any of that. What mechanism might evolution have to "know" that?

i don't know, so i guess you can call it crazy..but it makes the choice regardless, that is a fact.

 

there has never been recorded an event where evolution worked for the benefit of a creature's survival against it's species' survival, and i ask, why?

 

take morals for a simple clear example, what good are they for the individual? they limit him, no? what for? what would happen if all people dropped morality all of a sudden? they would die very normally, from diseases or gun shots or traffic accidents or old age or whatever, sure; more would die faster because of all the chaos, but nothing too unusual..

 

the unusual thing is that the human race without morals would get extinct in less than a decade(my own approximation, but you can take it for a fact because if i personally dropped my morality i will wipe humans off the face of the earth in less than half that time:D)..

 

so why do we hold morals? where did we "get" them?..why? what good are they, Mr.Skeptic?

 

 

There is no mechanism for any of that, and everything known about evolution shows that it functions at the individual level. So what you are saying goes against everything known, ie you are wrong.

functions at the individual level for the whole's* good, even more suspicious:eyebrow:.

 

*which is the individual's good in the long run..wait a sec, long run? how did evolution figure that out?

 

The universe doesn't care what you think. A single mutation in the wrong place* is enough to be fatal, which incidentally affects survivability. A single mutation can provide immunity to a disease or to an antibiotic. These have all been observed, it doesn't matter whether you don't think they can happen.

*wrong place wrong time wrong conditions wrong everything...;to be truly fatal. taking the larger picture, said bad mutations are insignificant enough to get embedded with total randomness.

 

and hence, it affects survivability as much as anything else does, and so, it shouldn't be ruled out automatically.

 

faster legs can mean heading the herd when running from three wolves, also means the first to be eaten by the ambush of thirty waiting ahead.

and vice versa..

 

so weak legs wins natural selections' sweepstakes.. and so it starts spreading through the population, but wait, the ones with weaker legs die of exhaustion quicker than the ones with stronger legs when crossing desserts or climbing mountains............and so on and so forth with the rest what, billion or two possible traits and mutations, plus their combinations with the rest of environmental factors and each other?

tell me what exactly IS a bad or good mutation?

 

it's total randomness man, total randomness..

 

or someone is remote controlling evolution and natural selection..**

 

**slaps my hand "bad forufes, how dare you think of introducing something we don't find in our biology books? how do you dare question the teachings of our great lord science? you'll be getting no dinner tonight and bad reputation.."

Edited October 10, 2009 by forufes

[A Tripolation]

.o why do we hold morals? where did we "get" them?..why? what good are they

 

wow...you really don't want to have iNow answer that question.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My question is that what adjective would best describe evolution since, by its very definition, evolution only results in an improved/new species that is well-suited for its environment?

 

Natural Selection is easily completely random, but since we define evolution as we do, shouldn't its "effect" be completely non-random? As it is inherently predictive and that is a qualification for intelligence as bascule noted?

 

Maybe I'm way off, but that's how I see it.

Edited October 10, 2009 by A Tripolation
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

wow...you really don't want to have iNow answer that question.

 

It comes from the fact that we are pack animals who exist in troops. Those humans who went against the group rules and procedures were ostracized, and hence lost access to resources such as food and potential mates. Over time, those humans who went against the expectations of the group and got thrown out of the group reproduced less than those humans who behaved in accordance with the group rules and expectations. Those who followed the rules benefited from the protection, access to food, and access to potential mates within the group, and had more offspring than those who did not.

 

In short, morals come from our evolution as pack animals. Those who were immoral faced more difficulty in surviving and reproducing than those who acted within the morality of the group. Through time, those who were more inclined to be moral were more successful reproductively.

 

Btw... the same thing can be seen in wolf packs. The wolf who does not act in accordance with the expectations of the group alpha is shunned from the group, and a lone wolf cannot be as successful hunting and breeding as can wolves who remain a part of the larger pack/collective.

 

 

Come on... that wasn't so bad, was it.

[bascule]

Natural Selection is easily completely random, but since we define evolution as we do, shouldn't its "effect" be completely non-random? As it is inherently predictive and that is a qualification for intelligence as bascule noted?

 

Evolution is not predictive. That's my entire point. If anything, it's experimental, and the experiments are determined at random, not through an analysis of input data to determine a prediction.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think bascule may be right about evolution not being predictive. To have evolution be predictive I'd have to propose some sort of way to transfer the information evolution generates out of this universe (so that it can be a model rather than just reality). And that's more into the realm of crazy than I'd like to go.

[bascule]

Look at the rate at which humans have evolved societally and technologically versus the comparatively glacial pace of evolution by natural selection. That's intelligence at work.

 

Heredity and selection events are both outside factors. There's no intelligence behind it, they're just things which happen. Intelligence happens from an internalized process, whereas evolution is all outside factors.

 

There is one exception: artificial selection. Here you have an intelligent entity controlling the selection process according to their will. With this process you can see significant changes in far shorter timespans than what it takes for natural selection to bring about such changes. Just look at what we've done to the poor gray wolf (as Mokele noted earlier).

Edited October 11, 2009 by bascule

[Mr Skeptic]

Other species are fairly intelligent but despite this none of them have technology. Intelligence does not necessitate rapid technological nor societal advance. On the other hand, a very small difference in intelligence can make a huge difference. Regardless, without some way to transmit information no amount of intelligence will result in very much accumulation of useful information. On the other hand, evolution has a means to generate information and transmit massive amounts of mostly the useful information (surviving species). Even if we do not consider this intelligence, it has nevertheless resulted in an accumulation of useful information (various species) that surpasses our own abilities at chemistry or biotechnology. (For now)

 

Also, breaking something down to it's components and using that to claim the process as a whole is not intelligent does not work. Individual neurons are not intelligent, but that does not mean that a group of them working together by simple rules can't be intelligent.

[forufes]

i ask why has evolution preferred the group's benefits to the individual's, by means such as morals.and i get an answer that starts off like this:

It comes from the fact that we are pack animals who exist in troops.

...... i mean, really? ever heard of facepalms? "doh"? circulr arguments? or just cicular, cuz i'm not sure that can be counted as an argument..

Come on... that wasn't so bad, was it.

heheheheh:mad: you have no idea..

please go check a dictionary for the difference between "why" and "how"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

why did evolution come up with reproduction instead of immortality?

and i beg of anyone who answers to try not to be a new source of dissappointment to me..

[iNow]

...... i mean, really? ever heard of facepalms? "doh"? circulr arguments? or just cicular, cuz i'm not sure that can be counted as an argument..

Just because you don't like the answer does not mean an accurate response to your question has not been provided. You're really something else, kid... You know that?

 

 

and i beg of anyone who answers to try not to be a new source of dissappointment to me..

Well, at least you'll know how the rest of us feel after reading the contributions you've been making. Facepalm, indeed.

 

 

 

Speaking of morality outside of humans, this dog risked its life to save another after it had been hit by a car (warning: sad to see the animal hit).

 

 

DgjyhKN_35g

[JillSwift]

why did evolution come up with reproduction instead of immortality?

and i beg of anyone who answers to try not to be a new source of dissappointment to me..

Nonsense question. Without death there would be no evolution.