There
is one other factor in the evolution who plays an important role, i.e.
adaptation. Selection occurs in function of the adaptation in a certain
situation or environment. There is, I think a certain purpose to find in every
evolution, but this purpose is alwyas intrinsic on the species. Randomnes plays
a role in a certain restricted manner, i.e. the intrinsic possibilities for the
species in self-organisation.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Namens Francis Heylighen
Verzonden: woensdag 29 december 2004 13:24
Aan: Principia Cybernetica Discussion
CC: [email protected]
Onderwerp: [ECCO] Re: [pcp-discuss:] Rex inquiry regarding emergenceAt 23:16 -0800 12/28/04, Nancy wrote:I agree with the viewpoint that "random" selection cannot completely explain the evolutionary process, and although I do not accept their ideas, I can understand why there are so many who believe in intelligent design. I have spoken with those who accept the "design idea" and they put forth some very rational concepts. If a person were to take a dictionary, cut out all the words, and throw it up in the air, what are the chances that it would come back together in exactly the same order? Or that it would assemble in some order that would make rational sense or even SEEM to have some purpose or development? The notion that it would reconstitute itself in the proper order seems even more pseudoscientific than belief in a deity. And I have to agree.But what if the first cut-out words would fall down more or less randomly, but the next ones would have to adapt to the ones that were there first, so that only those that somehow fit in with the first ones would be allowed to stay, and the next ones would have to fit in not only with the first ones but with those fitted in earlier, etc.? If the rules for fitting together are such that they respect basic grammar and semantics, you are likely to see something resembling meaningful sentences emerge, although each time you repeat the experiment, the sentences will be different. That would be a much better analogy with the process of natural selection...This may seem rather simplistic, but it hints that something more is needed to understand the evolutionary process other than the idea that energy is expended and that there is a "random process" of natural selection.The core misunderstanding is that many people conflate the two DISTINCT components that together define Darwinian evolution: (possibly random) variation, and (possibly natural) selection.Selection, by definition, is the very oppossite of randomness. Randomness means that "anything goes", any possibility is as good or as probable as any other. Selection, on the other hand, means that some possibilities are chosen or PREFERRED over others, that the probabilities of the different possibilities surviving are not all the same, that some are "fitter" than others. It is the combination of the "random" (though I prefer the phrase "blind") process of variation, exploring new possibilities, and the very non-random process of selection eliminating all but a few of these possibilities that gives rise to creative evolution and the appearance of "intelligent design".Note that there are many types of variation including wholly non-random ones, and many types of selection including internal selection (i.e. independent of the environment) which leads to "self"-organization, and mutual selection, which can be seen in co-evolution where one evolving system changes the other's fitness function and vice-versa. These lead to a much richer and more complex picture of evolution than the one of traditional neo-Darwinism.However, the core lesson of Darwinism remains: you can generate more adapted designs by starting with nothing more than random variation and natural selection; there is no need to assume intelligent design. The newer lessons of complexity add that once you start looking at the (non-linear) interactions between different evolving systems or components, this simple mechanism generates extremely complicated and difficult to predict processes and structures, explaining the subtleties of organization we find in living, cognitive and social systems, and more generally the process of emergence.For more info, see our PCP page on evolution: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLUT.htmland two older papers of mine:Heylighen F. (1999): "The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution", in: F. Heylighen, J. Bollen & A. Riegler (eds.) The Evolution of Complexity (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht), p. 17-44.http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/ComplexityGrowth.htmlHeylighen F. (1991): "Modelling Emergence", World Futures: the Journal of General Evolution 31 (Special Issue on Emergence, edited by G. Kampis), p. 89-104.ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/Papers_Heylighen/Modelling_Emergence.txt
Francis Heylighen
"Evolution, Complexity and Cognition" research group
Free University of Brussels
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html
