RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:54 am
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 2:13 am by Heywood.)
(February 5, 2015 at 4:46 pm)rasetsu Wrote: My mistake. Venter group did not artificially replicate a bacterium, only the genome. They "transplanted the synthesized genome into the existing cell of a Mycoplasma capricolum bacterium that had had its DNA removed."
After the DNA is removed you no longer had a living individual Mycoplasma carpricolum but instead a non living shell. Then DNA, which was synthesized from a computer record, was inserted into it. The result was an individual that reproduced into billions. Its it certainly not life from scratch and no one claims that it is. I tend to think of it as the microscopic version of Mary Shelley's monster.
Still the species created is unique. In its DNA is encoded quotes from literature, an email address, and a web address.
(February 4, 2015 at 8:16 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Biological evolution is just genetic change over generations, small or large. I know the definition of Biological Evolution so there is no need to use a definition that you came up with. All they have done is created a selection pressure, its the same as dog breeding, you can breed dogs to cause changes to the population, that does not mean you created a new form of evolution.
Taking the attitude that only biological things can evolve is simply being narrow minded.
(February 3, 2015 at 1:52 pm)rasetsu Wrote: You'll have to refresh my memory on what the spider sim is. However, if it's like most simulations based on genetic algorithms, I'd argue that it does require the involvement of intellect in its operation. I don't know whether you're old enough to remember text based adventure games, but they were very popular at one time. "Text adventures are one of the oldest types of computer games and form a subset of the adventure genre. The player uses text input to control the game, and the game state is relayed to the player via text output. Input is usually provided by the player in the form of simple sentences such as "get key" or "go east", which are interpreted by a text parser."(Wikipedia) In the game you would visit different locations described in text, such as, "You are in a clearing. Paths lead east and west." The point to all this is that the person playing the game had to "imagine" what the locations would be like if they were real. The same thing occurs in computer games. A two-dimensional display splashes a bunch of colors on the screen such that our brain and visual systems interpret them as 3D objects and motion. In a simple chess game, you have to interpret the display as a virtual chessboard. In the spider sim, if it's the one I'm thinking of, you have to interpret the image as a moving robot; else it's just numbers and colors. So all computer simulations require involvement of intellect to imagine them as if they were real.
I understand the argument that intellect is required to interpret the generated art work as being a simulation of biological evolution. But I don't want you to consider any of that. What I want you to consider is the part the end user does not see. Inside that computer is a set of variables. That set of variables undergoes replication, change, and selection. Once the system is set up and the "go" button is pushed. That set of variables will undergo evolution without any further involvement of an intellect just like biological evolution. Unplug the computer screen and the evolution still happens even though nobody can see it.
It is conceivable that some day humans will create machines which reproduce, change, and are selected. These machines will begin to evolve. They may evolve into grey goo.
