Intelligence in Evolution

[ippy]

Typical...isn't it?!   Sounds very much like.... 'If the site suggests that Jesus did not exist...stop reading it!'

Strong memes!

All of the evidence points to Jeremy's advice to you being correct, thre is no reliable evidence that Jesus did in fact exist.

Regards ippy

[Walter]

Typical...isn't it?!   Sounds very much like.... 'If the site suggests that Jesus did not exist...stop reading it!'

Strong memes!

No, follow the evidence not your childish wishful thinking.

[Stranger]

It's obvious that no intelligence is involved in evolution. If Science Daily is seriously suggesting it is, I suggest you stop reading it.

The problem is that these guys (Watson and Szathmáry) wrote an opinion paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution suggesting some equivalence between certain machine learning algorithms and aspects of evolution (the evolution of genotype–phenotype maps, for example). It used the word 'intelligence' in a very general sense. They certainly were not talking about adding any new inputs to evolution. Everything they proposed was still based on inheritance, random variation, and natural selection.

It then got written up in Science Daily, including very little actual detail.

Then Sriram, whose knowledge of the theory of evolution is actually worse than nothing, latched onto the word 'intelligence' and saw a woo-peddling opportunity.

[Sriram]

Memes alright!  Fighting desperately for survival.    The fact that the usual bunch of people jump in immediately to rather vociferously defend their specific beliefs, shows how much these beliefs are struggling under new thinking. 

Can't be helped guys...the old gives way to the new! It is inevitable.   

[Sriram]

I thought you were claiming something external to the process of evolution is involved.  Clearly things external to individual organisms affect it.

If what the OP article is suggesting is that the process of biological evolution itself has evolved (in some general sense) over time, I wouldn't be overly surprised to find that is the case. We observe epigenetic effects at work for instance; were there any epigenetic effects at work in the world of archaebacteria ? I doubt it, but as life has become more complex, so too have the processes by which life persists.  It's only the claim that some 'external' intervention is required to make this happen that is problematic.

What do we mean by 'something external'? Is Consciousness internal or external? 

You might like to believe that it is an emergent property resulting from the development of the brain.      But in  fact it could be something external to the brain/body and could be guiding and influencing evolution is certain directions. Ref the 'Neuroscience and Spirituality' thread.

[jeremyp]

Typical...isn't it?!   Sounds very much like.... 'If the site suggests that Jesus did not exist...stop reading it!'

Strong memes!

No. The principles of evolution are well understood and do not involve intelligence, whereas the evidence for Jesus' existence is somewhat sketchy and the possibility that he didn't exist is plausible.

[Enki]

Memes alright!  Fighting desperately for survival.    The fact that the usual bunch of people jump in immediately to rather vociferously defend their specific beliefs, shows how much these beliefs are struggling under new thinking. 

Can't be helped guys...the old gives way to the new! It is inevitable.   

Memes alright!  The fact that the usual person jumps in immediately to rather vociferously defend his specific beliefs, shows how much these beliefs are struggling under current scientific thinking.

Can't be helped Sriram....the old has a habit of giving way to the new! It might not be inevitable but with the greater understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit, it becomes increasingly hard to evade.

[Sriram]

So for you a 'miracle' is anything with 'direction'? Note it's not clear from the above what you mean by direction.

In a broad sense....yes. Like the elaborate process of evolution leading to intelligent life (humans). It is a miracle that obviously has a superior intelligence driving it. 

[Nearly Sane]

In a broad sense....yes. Like the elaborate process of evolution leading to intelligent life (humans). It is a miracle that obviously has a superior intelligence driving it.

So 'direction ' for you is something that is 'guided by a superior intelligence', and when you think something is 'guided by a superior intelligence', then you call it a 'miracle'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

In a broad sense....yes. Like the elaborate process of evolution leading to intelligent life (humans). It is a miracle that obviously has a superior intelligence driving it.

Why on earth do you think that to be the case?

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Why on earth do you think that to be the case?

Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment. Millions of such adaptations, seemingly unrelated, lead to humans.   A miracle indeed....obviously directed by a common consciousness from within.

It is not some random variations and a vague metaphoric Natural Selection surely......

[jeremyp]

Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment.

The problem is that that statement is completely false. Evolution happens because of natural selection and descent with variation. There is no intelligence involved (excepting what humans have done with domesticated organisms).

[Maeght]

Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment. Millions of such adaptations, seemingly unrelated, lead to humans.   A miracle indeed....obviously directed by a common consciousness from within.

It is not some random variations and a vague metaphoric Natural Selection surely......

Claimed, not highlighted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment.

You've only claimed it, not "highlighted" it. Moreover you've done so without any sound reasoning or evidence to support your claim.

Millions of such adaptations, seemingly unrelated, lead to humans.

Among many other life forms and not "unrelated" as advantageous adaptations change the model for subsequent ones, but essentially yes.

A miracle indeed....

Not really. Why do you think that?

...obviously directed by a common consciousness from within.

Obviously not. I was at a quiz last might when in the interval there was a game of heads and tails. It starts with everyone standing up and each person putting their hands either on their heads or their backsides. The host then spins a coin and if it comes down heads the people with their hands on their heads remain standing, and the rest sit down and vice versa. The process is repeated until there's just one winner left standing, who then wins the prize.

By way of a thought experiment, imagine that the number of events necessary for humans (or daffodils or orcas) was calculated and that the same number of people played a game of heads and tails. Would the winner of the game then be entitled to think he'd won because the game "was obviously directed by a common consciousness from within", or instead that he won just as a matter of dumb luck?   

Can you see now where you've gone wrong?   

It is not some random variations and a vague metaphoric Natural Selection surely......

I don't know about "surely", but "based on even a rudimentary understanding of probability and logic it likely is" will do fine. 

[Sriram]

There is enough evidence for change in phenotypes to match the environment than there is for millions of random variations out of which some are 'selected' by chance 'natural selection'..

Deliberate change in phenotype to suit the environment obviously indicates an inner process that is responsive and intelligent.

[torridon]

There is enough evidence for change in phenotypes to match the environment than there is for millions of random variations out of which some are 'selected' by chance 'natural selection'..

Deliberate change in phenotype to suit the environment obviously indicates an inner process that is responsive and intelligent.

Oh deary me, surely this confusion of yours has been dealt with before ?  Perhaps you have forgotten, there is nothing 'deliberate' about phenotypic plasticity. This plasticity, the capacity for limited change within an organism is something that has evolved through natural selection as it confers an advantage as compared to rival organisms that have more limited capacity to react to environmental change.  It still comes down to random mutation and selection at the end of the day.

[jeremyp]

There is enough evidence for change in phenotypes to match the environment than there is for millions of random variations out of which some are 'selected' by chance 'natural selection'..

This doesn't make sense. The first part is an observation that organisms change over time to adapt to the environment. The seconds part is the mechanism by which it happens. The two statements are not in opposition.

Deliberate change in phenotype to suit the environment obviously indicates an inner process that is responsive and intelligent.

But the only examples that you can cite of an intelligence adapting an organism to suit the environment is domestication by humans.

There was no intelligence involved when plants adapted to land living. There's no sign of intelligence in plants and very little in (for example) the first tetrapods to emerge from the seas and certainly not enough for them to engage in selective breeding.

[ekim]

I think somebody needs to define 'intelligence' otherwise discussion will be at cross purposes e.g. from Wikipedia :

'It has been argued that plants should also be classified as intelligent based on their ability to sense and model external and internal environments and adjust their morphology, physiology and phenotype accordingly to ensure self-preservation and reproduction.

A counter argument is that intelligence is commonly understood to involve the creation and use of persistent memories as opposed to computation that does not involve learning. If this is accepted as definitive of intelligence, then it includes the artificial intelligence of robots capable of "machine learning", but excludes those purely autonomic sense-reaction responses that can be observed in many plants. Plants are not limited to automated sensory-motor responses, however, they are capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of "learning" (registering memories) from their past experiences. They are also capable of communication, accurately computing their circumstances, using sophisticated cost–benefit analysis and taking tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control the diverse environmental stressors.'

[Sriram]

Oh deary me, surely this confusion of yours has been dealt with before ?  Perhaps you have forgotten, there is nothing 'deliberate' about phenotypic plasticity. This plasticity, the capacity for limited change within an organism is something that has evolved through natural selection as it confers an advantage as compared to rival organisms that have more limited capacity to react to environmental change.  It still comes down to random mutation and selection at the end of the day.

You are trying to have it both ways.

Phenotypic plasticity can be seen in all species including plants and even microbes. It is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process of adaptation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity#:~:text=Plants%20are%20sessile%2C%20so%20this,a%20leaf%20must%20be%20understood.

*********
Environmental factors, such as light and humidity, have been shown to affect leaf morphology,[17] giving rise to the question of how this shape change is controlled at the molecular level. This means that different leaves could have the same gene but present a different form based on environmental factors. Plants are sessile, so this phenotypic plasticity allows the plant to take in information from its environment and respond without changing its location.

*********

[torridon]

You are trying to have it both ways.

Phenotypic plasticity can be seen in all species including plants and even microbes. It is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process of adaptation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity#:~:text=Plants%20are%20sessile%2C%20so%20this,a%20leaf%20must%20be%20understood.

Yes, we already know that this phenomenon is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process of adaptation. This has been explained on here before.  Therefore, you won't find any reference in the science to plants doing this 'deliberately', as if they have forethought and planning. Phenotypic plasticity is a product of natural selection, which is an insentient process driven by random mutations in genotype.

[Sriram]

Its not about forethought and planning. Its about intelligent response. A chameleon changing color to suit the environment is intelligence at work....because the process by which it happens is responsive. 

[Nearly Sane]

Its not about forethought and planning. Its about intelligent response. A chameleon changing color to suit the environment is intelligence at work....because the process by which it happens is responsive.

Is your definition of intelligence 'responsiveness' then? If so, is a rock rolling down a hill showing responsiveness when the path changes direction?

[Sriram]

If the rock changes its shape to avoid falling down the hill...that's an intelligent response.

[Nearly Sane]

If the rock changes its shape to avoid falling down the hill...that's an intelligent response.

So intent needs to be added to responsiveness? How do you show intent in the case of the chameleon?

[Sriram]

Survival is the obvious intent....