John Wilkins  wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler  wrote:
> > John Wilkins  wrote or quoted:
> > > Tim Tyler  wrote:
> > > > Larry Moran 
wrote or quoted:

> > > > > Evolution has no purpose and no goal and it does
not produce designed
> > > > > species. That's the result we see around us.
> > > > 
> > > > What are you going to do when nature starts producing species
> > > > designed for particular purposes - using genetic engineering
> > > > and directed mutations?
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > I (prior to Larry agreeing with me - I came over all faint) never said
> > > there was never any design. Of course design occurs when
designers make
> > > it. And those makers of design are evolved organisms. This
gives us the
> > > following situation:
> > > 
> > > Teleomatic includes teleonomic includes teleological, or
> > > 
> > > Regularities include end-resulting include end-driven processes.
> > > 
> > > If we now start to regulate evolution in a few cases (and it will only
> > > *ever* be a few cases) this does not invert that subsetting. Design
> > > processes (and outcomes) are *still* a subset of end-resulting
> > > processes, and they are still only a subset of regularities.
> > 
> > I don't think design can be confined to "only a few cases".
> 
> Of course it can. Of all the processes in biological evolution we can
> never control or direct but a few, unless we beggar the ecosphere to
> almost nothing. [...]

Our symbiotes (food plants, food animals, digestion machinery, air 
recyclers, etc) will thrive, while our competitors will be eliminated.

The result will wipe out most species - but considerable diversity 
will probably remain for some time.

Of those that remain, we'll breed or otherwise control many of them -
and certainly, we will be in overall control of the environment where
they live.

> > What would happen if one of the descendants of dozens of new means of
> > transmitting heritable material with high fideltiy across generations
> > replaces DNA as the means with which organisms store their genes?
> 
> Then it too will result in evolution that runs contrary to and
> independent of the intentions of those that carry it. We already
> see this in cultural evolution.

The questions under discussion seems to have diverged into:

* Whether orgainsms will be controlled;
* Whether organisms will be designed;

Designed objects can run contrary to and independent of the intentions of 
those that designed it.  I don't see obedience of the designed object to
the designers will as a very good signeture of design.  Objects can behave
unexpectedly - regardless of whether they are designed or not.

> > Under such cirumstances organisms would be displaced by new organisms
> > based on the new techology.
> 
> Rubbish. New heredity will replace old heredity only when there is a
> selective advantage; you assume too much if you think that an engineered
> heredity is somehow superior merely in virtue of having been engineered.

I'm not assuming that - I'm asserting that it is a possibilty.

It *is* a possibilty that would place design at the heart of living 
creatures, and require that the explanation for their existence mentioned 
intelligent design rather then "old-fashioned Darwinian evolution".

> > Much the same thing happened long ago - when DNA replaced RNA.
> 
> But yet, we still do have RNA, and I doubt that RNA was *replaced* so
> much as it made possible DNA heredity. No organisms in the modern sense
> had RNA heredity; DNA made organisms in the modern sense possible.

So what.  The DNA takeover was not total - only nearly so.
DNA won't vanish initilly either.  It too will be relegated to
messenger molecule:

The herible information about how to make some organisms will be stored 
and manipulated in databases associated with the compaines that run the 
factories that produce the (sterile) worker organisms.  It will be 
transcribed into DNA, expressed using RNA.

> > IMO - the next time it happens, the medium will most likely be the 
> > product of intelligent design - and in the future all organisms will 
> > have a substantial designed element.
> 
> They could have a Microsoft trademark for all I care. The evolutionary
> process leading up to it, and the evolutionary process after it, will be
> the same sort of process. There is nothing magical about intelligence.

I'm not asserting intelligence is magical.  It is a technology of some
importance to biology, though.  I compare it to the evolution of sex
in terms of its significance to the biosphere.  It's effects will be
far reaching.  For one thing, it will allow macroscopic organisms to
get off the planet.  For another it will effectively break down many
of the genetic divisions between species - by allowing free trade in
genes.  These are not magic - but they are not fluff, either.

> > Maybe you are sceptical about this - but I don't think anyone can
> > realistically rule out such scenarios - and assert that only in a 
> > few cases will organisms be designed.
> > 
> > Maybe eventually all organisms will be have substantial designed elements.
> > That's quite possible - and IMO pretty overwhelmingly likely.
> 
> I think you read too much science fiction (as do I).

Alas, I have read none for years.  I manage about one fiction book a
year at the moment.

> > > As to directed mutations - ask how they come to be directed? Do we
> > > intuit or know via clairvoyance what mutations will do, and
how fit they
> > > will be in a given environment? No, we use trial, error
elimination, and
> > > retention of success [...]
> > 
> > ...and computer modelling, extrapolation, interpolation, gradient desent
> > methods, logic, reasoning, experience, rules of thumb, market research -
> > and many other approaches.
> 
> Let's look at each of these and ask, does it lack trial, error
> elimination, and retention of successful outcomes (TEEROSO), and also,
> does it involve some process that makes TEEROSO otiose:
> 
>                      TEEROSO?     Beyond TEEROSO?
> Computer modelling   Yes          No
> Extrapolation        Yes          No
> Interpolation        Yes          No
> Gradient thingy      ?            ?
> Logic                Yes          No
> Reasoning            Yes          No
> Experience           What do you think?
> Rules of thumb       ...
> Market Research      Oy...
> 
> C'mon, Tim - *every single one* of these is simply a special case of a
> technique formed from past experience, trial and error.

I never said that those techniques were not "formed from past experience, 
trial and error" - they are the product of plain-Darwinian evolution.

What I was saying is that the processes themselves were different from 
trial and error.

Logical reasoning is not well characterised as a trial and error process.

Most of the trials and errors that took place durign the development
of organisms capable of intelligent design took place long ago.

As a result, they have a rich legacy of past results to go on - which 
means they don't have to perform anything like as many tests as would 
otherwise be required - since they can use the basis of previous
tests to direct their trials.

Those experiences really matter.  Attributing knowledge to trial and
error without any mention of the role of past experience (as you 
seemed to do originally) skips out what is probably the most
important bit.

Intelligent organisms have a *substantial* legacy of previous results
to go on.

In particular, they know the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
They know that the laws don't change over time - and they have a fair
clue about what the laws are.  These simple bits of knowledge were
discovered long ago - and between them mean that it's possible to
avoid vast numbers of trials - since the results are either already
known - or can be predicted from what is already known.

> > Trial and error is not the only approach to finding fitter organisms -
> > though it is a component of many approaches.
> > 
> > In practice, "directed sex" is a pretty common approach
to generating
> > directed mutations.
> > 
> > When they wanted to make a fluorescent mouse their approach was to take
> > a gene for a fluorescent protein - and insert it into a mouse genome.
> 
> And I wonder how they knew that the gene would work the same in a mouse
> genome? Trial and error, perhaps?

Sure - but performed long ago when the mechanisms of gene expression
was being discovered - most genes make the same proteins in different
organsms which share the same genetic code if you make sure they
are expressed in the tissues you are targetting.

*They* didn't do the trial and error resulting in that knowledge -
they looked up the result in a book.

The process they used was not trial and error.  Rather is was a
process based on trials that had been performed decades before.

> > I.e. rather than using random forces to generate mutations, they
> > used logical deduction to go straight for the one they wanted.
> 
> Logic can fail if you use the wrong premises. How do you know what
> premises to use? Why it's TEEROSO...

Performed long ago by evolution in many cases - or often acquired
during childhood if not.  Then the premises are subsequently
available - allowing subsequent trials to be deliberately skipped
over.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/28/04 1:30:38 PM