82,891
edits
Evolution by natural selection: Difference between revisions
Evolution by natural selection (view source)
Revision as of 11:04, 1 September 2020
, 1 September 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
[[File:Path dependence 1.png|thumb|Each step constrains the possible directions for the next step.]] | [[File:Path dependence 1.png|thumb|Each step constrains the possible directions for the next step.]] | ||
[[File:Path dependence 2.png|thumb|A different choice a long time | [[File:Path dependence 2.png|thumb|A different choice a long time ago can lead in very different directions]] | ||
===Observations on the evolutionary process=== | ===Observations on the evolutionary process=== | ||
*It is '''profoundly stupid''': It requires no insight, intelligence or imagination. While the inputs are complex and unpredictable, the steps followed are simple, and [[algorithm]]ic. It is | *It is blind, and therefore '''profoundly stupid''': It requires no insight, intelligence or imagination. While the inputs are complex and unpredictable, the steps followed are simple, and [[algorithm]]ic. It is suitable for a [[Turing machine]]. It requires no educated guesses, no knowledge of the environment or the laws of physics. But by the same token, it cannot retrospectively correct variations which were successful but which, on subsequent adaptations, have turned out to be constraints or design flaws. You need intelligence for that. Thus the argument that [[evolution proves that algorithms can solve any problem]] is a canard. | ||
*It is '''profoundly wasteful''': It | *It is '''profoundly wasteful''': It operates on the basis of trial and error, but because it is stupid, it is entirely unsupported by intelligent insight. It cannot hypothesise that variation x will be more successful than variation y, and so opt for variation x. | ||
*It is '''profoundly inefficient''': the iterative nature of the evolutionary process is highly unlikely to produce design economy: Each new adaptation depends on, and is layered on top of, all earlier adaptations. The more more recent an adaptation is, the more susceptible it is to successful mutation. Mutations in basic characteristics on which a lot of subsequent bio-engineering depends are likely to be catastrophic. A design flaw that is critical will lead to extinction. A non-critical design-flaw may be that layering work-arounds over earlier design flaws, but there is no mechanism in evolution (other than fiat) to “improve” an underlying design. | *It is '''profoundly inefficient''': the iterative nature of the evolutionary process is highly unlikely to produce design economy: Each new adaptation depends on, and is layered on top of, all earlier adaptations. The more more recent an adaptation is, the more susceptible it is to successful mutation. Mutations in basic characteristics on which a lot of subsequent bio-engineering depends are likely to be catastrophic. A design flaw that is critical will lead to extinction. A non-critical design-flaw may be that layering work-arounds over earlier design flaws, but there is no mechanism in evolution (other than fiat) to “improve” an underlying design. | ||
*It is '''[[path-dependent]]''': Where any step can go depends on where you start and what are the prevailing environmental conditions. The further back down the chain you go,the more divergent subsequent paths can be. This means it is [[survivor bias]] writ large, and also that: | *It is '''[[path-dependent]]''': Where any step can go depends on where you start and what are the prevailing environmental conditions. The further back down the chain you go,the more divergent subsequent paths can be. This means it is [[survivor bias]] writ large, and also that: | ||