Imitating biology

[shunyadragon]

But the point is that human designs fall far behind what we see in nature.

Blessings,
Lee

Not far behind, but different, and in some ways human technology is far more advanced that natural evolution. For example nature has ~40 different eyes, and our technology has thousands with much greater ability and variations for different purposes.

[lee_merrill]

A nearly flat landscape, where there's no cost to moving out of an optimum, makes the density of optima irrelevant, since most things navigating this landscape will spread out across the surface, rather than remaining in an optimum.

I would say they would tend to stay at the local optimum, because a random walk on a basically flat landscape will have an average of zero motion.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Not far behind, but different, and in some ways human technology is far more advanced that natural evolution. For example nature has ~40 different eyes, and our technology has thousands with much greater ability and variations for different purposes.

For a different purpose than found in nature, yes, but there are no artificial eyes yet...

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

I would say they would tend to stay at the local optimum, because a random walk on a basically flat landscape will have an average of zero motion.

So, you're denying genetic drift takes place now? Congratulations - you've once again come out against well established science backed by vast amounts of empirical evidence.

Why do you post in the science portion of this place at all?

[shunyadragon]

For a different purpose than found in nature, yes, but there are no artificial eyes yet...

Blessings,
Lee

There are numerous superior eyes designed and engineered by humans with greater capibilities to see, and no, natural eyes do not appear, nor is there any evidence that they are designed. Artificial?, why bother when science can design and engineer superior eyes.

[lee_merrill]

So, you're denying genetic drift takes place now? Congratulations - you've once again come out against well established science backed by vast amounts of empirical evidence.

I'm not saying variation does not occur, I am saying that random motion on an essentially flat fitness landscape will result in on average, zero motion. That may be why we see such stasis in the fossil record (per The Beak of the Finch). And random motion near a selectable peak will tend to stay at that peak, if the landscape is sparse.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Artificial?, why bother when science can design and engineer superior eyes.

Not superior for the purposes of human vision, for example, was my point...

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

I'm not saying variation does not occur, I am saying that random motion on an essentially flat fitness landscape will result in on average, zero motion.

Random motion in the absence of selective pressure (ie, a flat fitness landscape) is genetic drift. And we know genetic drift occurs, and does not leave populations in the same place, genetically.

You're essentially trying to reason yourself into a position where you have to deny reality. That's usually a hint that your reasoning is wrong.

That may be why we see such stasis in the fossil record (per The Beak of the Finch).

How do you know we don't see stasis because of purifying selection?

Answer: you don't. You're just making stuff up because you think it's convenient for your argument.

And random motion near a selectable peak will tend to stay at that peak, if the landscape is sparse.

No, again - it depends on the properties of the landscape and the system's motion within it, as i said earlier. Remember, all the stuff you haven't been able to argue against except by making further false statements? Repeating an argument that's wrong doesn't magically start making it right.

[shunyadragon]

Not superior for the purposes of human vision, for example, was my point...

Blessings,
Lee

For example my point . . .

Superior technology for seeing. Your burying a mute point into the ground. There is absolutely no falsifiable evidence for design concerning life.

Also . . .

Source: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-artificial-eye-mimics-may-outperform-human-eyes

A new artificial eye mimics and may outperform human eyes

The high-tech device boasts a field of view and reaction time similar to that of real eyes

By Maria Temming

MAY 20, 2020 AT 11:02 AM

© Copyright Original Source

Careful 'arguing from ignorance' what you claim science cannot do, because tomorrrow they will likely do it.

[lee_merrill]

Random motion in the absence of selective pressure (ie, a flat fitness landscape) is genetic drift. And we know genetic drift occurs, and does not leave populations in the same place, genetically.

Certainly there is variation, but my point is that the variation does not have, on average, direction.

How do you know we don't see stasis because of purifying selection?

Well, that would be part of it, keeping local optimums. But drift doesn't go far, or the fossil record should show it.

No, again - it depends on the properties of the landscape and the system's motion within it, as i said earlier.

Certainly a landscape with troughs around a peak will inhibit motion. Can you prove mathematically that a random walk will have non-zero average motion?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

For example my point . . .

Superior technology for seeing. ...

Careful 'arguing from ignorance' what you claim science cannot do, because tomorrrow they will likely do it.

I'm not saying that science cannot imitate nature, the point is that actually they do! The point is that human designs come behind nature as a rule, and we look to nature to see how to do better.

Blessings,
Lee

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm not saying that science cannot imitate nature, the point is that actually they do! The point is that human designs come behind nature as a rule, and we look to nature to see how to do better.

Blessings,
Lee

Humans have been designing for a few thousand years at best, only a few hundred with the benefits of technology. Nature has had over 4 billion years and a whole planet to tinker with. So why are you surprised?

[TheLurch]

Certainly there is variation, but my point is that the variation does not have, on average, direction.

And yet we know it does, because we've observed genetic drift. Why do you keep reiterating a point that's false?

Well, that would be part of it, keeping local optimums. But drift doesn't go far, or the fossil record should show it.

And that's wrong. The fossil record shows plenty of examples of gradual change that can easily be drift (in most cases, we can't distinguish drift from selection). And we know from DNA sequencing that genetic drift occurs when there's no morphological indicator of it, so you can't rule out genetic drift based on the fossil record.

Can you prove mathematically that a random walk will have non-zero average motion?

Why do i have to demonstrate that something we know occurs is possible mathematically?

Again, i have to ask you - why do you think you know more about this than someone who's actually studied biology?

[Stoic]

Can you prove mathematically that a random walk will have non-zero average motion?

I'm afraid that's the wrong question.

The right question is, how far can you get with a random walk? And the answer is, "It depends on the step size, and how many steps you take."

IOW, there's no theoretical limit to how far you can get with a random walk.

source

The root-mean-square distance after N unit steps is therefore

|z|_rms=sqrt(N),

so with a step size of l, this becomes

d_rms= l * sqrt(N).

In order to travel a distance d,

N ≈ (d/l)^2

steps are therefore required.

[shunyadragon]

Certainly there is variation, but my point is that the variation does not have, on average, direction.

There is no such thing as an average direction in evolution. You have an active imagination fueled by your agenda.

Well, that would be part of it, keeping local optimums. But drift doesn't go far, or the fossil record should show it.

Local optimums are not remotely relavant to the processes of evolution.

Certainly a landscape with troughs around a peak will inhibit motion.

Nonsense

Can you prove mathematically that a random walk will have non-zero average motion?

Blessings,
Lee

Randomness plays no role in the processes of evolution except the random events of mutations that contribute to genetic diversity.