Evolution and the Wisdom of Crowds

http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-and-wisdo...

I found this article quite interesting. The author studies what he calls "the wisdom of crowds", systems somewhat like polls that seek equilibrium.

His contention is that it is not just fundamentalist religion that is driving the resistance to evolution. It is also the counter intuitive nature of evolution thinking. Most people do not comprehend how very tiny changes, even given a lot of time, while undirected can accomplish any thing. On the face of it, it is absurd.

His believes that one way to promote evolution is to teach evolution-like systems that exhibit such behavior, starting with simple examples and leading eventually to evolution. Avoiding evolution and the cultural baggage associated with it, and keeping the concepts simple at first he thinks will lead to greater acceptance of evolution among the general population.

From the article:

Quote

While I am not suggesting that counter-intuitiveness is the only reason people reject evolution, I would instead suggest that the two factors -- fundamentalist religion on the one hand, and the conceptual difficulty of evolution on the other -- are propping each other up. If one were to fall, so might the other. But removing the influence of religion is nearly impossible. It is deep in the culture, so short of physically moving someone to a different environment, it can't simply be removed, and it can't easily be argued away.

End quote

*bump*

This is deserving of reading again.

Quality thread. Well done.

Echoes of the Mutual Exclusion principle, whereby two species cannot occupy the same niche in the same habitat at the same time.

Actually the three examples that the article gives are not examples of evolution-type activity. The main component of evolution is random changes.
In the example of Wikipedia the changes are not random, but rather they are the result of intelligent (though sometimes disagreeing) agents. People, with intellect are editing Wikipedia article. If you show me a computer that spits out letters in a complete random fashion, and the end result is a Wikipedia article, then I will be impressed
In the example of Prediction markets, PEOPLE with INTELLECT who are ANALYZING all kinds of data a betting that they are right. Although these people disagree often, the process fundamentally relies on intelligent agents. Again show me a computer that randomly spits out letters, and successfully predicts a president, then I will be impressed.
In the example of the Recommendation system, is not an example of evolution but it is a great example of Intelligent Design! Intelligent PEOPLE sat down and designed software and hardware, using complex algorithms to get an end result. If Netflix issued a press release that they actually created the software by just randomly entering 1's and 0's into a computer, I would be impressed.
No this is a better example of how things which seem random, either have an underlying order to them or involve intelligent agents acting.
The argument that "people think evolution is impossible, and people think wikipedia is impossible. Since wikipedia is infact possible, then evolution is possible" is faulty in its logic. From that same line of thinking I could conclude that I can jump to the moon, because people think I can't.
Evolution is a difficult idea! And lets be honest, it might be wrong. There have been MANY Scientific "TRUTHS" that have proven to be false. Heavy objects do not fall faster than light objects as was once beleived as a fact. The Sun doesn't revolve around the earth! The world is not made up of 4 elements! And the best way to cure an illness is not to cut yourself and bleed for an hour or two.
The great thing about science is that we learn new things and let go of old ideas. Progress is not acheived by clinging to old ideas.

UseLogic wrote:

Actually the three examples that the article gives are not examples of evolution-type activity. The main component of evolution is random changes.
In the example of Wikipedia the changes are not random, but rather they are the result of intelligent (though sometimes disagreeing) agents. People, with intellect are editing Wikipedia article. If you show me a computer that spits out letters in a complete random fashion, and the end result is a Wikipedia article, then I will be impressed
In the example of Prediction markets, PEOPLE with INTELLECT who are ANALYZING all kinds of data a betting that they are right. Although these people disagree often, the process fundamentally relies on intelligent agents. Again show me a computer that randomly spits out letters, and successfully predicts a president, then I will be impressed.
In the example of the Recommendation system, is not an example of evolution but it is a great example of Intelligent Design! Intelligent PEOPLE sat down and designed software and hardware, using complex algorithms to get an end result. If Netflix issued a press release that they actually created the software by just randomly entering 1's and 0's into a computer, I would be impressed.
No this is a better example of how things which seem random, either have an underlying order to them or involve intelligent agents acting.
The argument that "people think evolution is impossible, and people think wikipedia is impossible. Since wikipedia is infact possible, then evolution is possible" is faulty in its logic. From that same line of thinking I could conclude that I can jump to the moon, because people think I can't.
Evolution is a difficult idea! And lets be honest, it might be wrong. There have been MANY Scientific "TRUTHS" that have proven to be false. Heavy objects do not fall faster than light objects as was once beleived as a fact. The Sun doesn't revolve around the earth! The world is not made up of 4 elements! And the best way to cure an illness is not to cut yourself and bleed for an hour or two.
The great thing about science is that we learn new things and let go of old ideas. Progress is not acheived by clinging to old ideas.

Your premise is wrong right from the start. The "main component of evolution" is NOT random changes. If there were just random changes, there would be no evolution. The changes are simply the material from which evolution works. Just as important is the driving force of evolution, which is natural selection. Without a selective force, there would be no evolution. Overall, evolution is certainly NOT a random process as some seem to think it is.

Therefore your example about random letters never forming an article is not analogous at all.

Dennis you noticed the location Keller TX......isn't that the location of that ID nitwit and his other screen name escapes me now.

hexene wrote:

Dennis you noticed the location Keller TX......isn't that the location of that ID nitwit and his other screen name escapes me now.

I do seem to remember a Keller, TX ID proponent with another screen name, but I can't remember which one either. There is such a parade of ID/creationist bozos through here, many often using multiple names to pretend they have supporters, that I can't keep track!

UseLogic wrote:

Actually the three examples that the article gives are not examples of evolution-type activity. The main component of evolution is random changes.
In the example of Wikipedia the changes are not random, but rather they are the result of intelligent (though sometimes disagreeing) agents. People, with intellect are editing Wikipedia article. If you show me a computer that spits out letters in a complete random fashion, and the end result is a Wikipedia article, then I will be impressed
In the example of Prediction markets, PEOPLE with INTELLECT who are ANALYZING all kinds of data a betting that they are right. Although these people disagree often, the process fundamentally relies on intelligent agents. Again show me a computer that randomly spits out letters, and successfully predicts a president, then I will be impressed.
In the example of the Recommendation system, is not an example of evolution but it is a great example of Intelligent Design! Intelligent PEOPLE sat down and designed software and hardware, using complex algorithms to get an end result. If Netflix issued a press release that they actually created the software by just randomly entering 1's and 0's into a computer, I would be impressed.
No this is a better example of how things which seem random, either have an underlying order to them or involve intelligent agents acting.
The argument that "people think evolution is impossible, and people think wikipedia is impossible. Since wikipedia is infact possible, then evolution is possible" is faulty in its logic. From that same line of thinking I could conclude that I can jump to the moon, because people think I can't.
Evolution is a difficult idea! And lets be honest, it might be wrong. There have been MANY Scientific "TRUTHS" that have proven to be false. Heavy objects do not fall faster than light objects as was once beleived as a fact. The Sun doesn't revolve around the earth! The world is not made up of 4 elements! And the best way to cure an illness is not to cut yourself and bleed for an hour or two.
The great thing about science is that we learn new things and let go of old ideas. Progress is not acheived by clinging to old ideas.

Idiot.

Evolution is not random (as pointed out to countless times before-- yet you persist in this lie--why?)

Evolution is a very directed process.

Get over your silly superstitious nonsense already, and grow a brain.

At the _very_ least, quit LYING.

Dennis2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I do seem to remember a Keller, TX ID proponent with another screen name, but I can't remember which one either. There is such a parade of ID/creationist bozos through here, many often using multiple names to pretend they have supporters, that I can't keep track!

I believe Keller, TX was SS's ISP location.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe Keller, TX was SS's ISP location.

DS you are correct, I supposed this poster UseLogic is SS himself.