Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Technological Evolution Prize Competition — ANNOUNCEMENT

William Dembski
December 2, 2005
Evolution
3
Categories
Evolution
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Comment #2 is the winning entry. It’s the closest to what I was looking for, though it’s still a long way from the indirect Darwinian pathways that supposedly led to the highly integrated molecular machines of the sort described by Michael Behe. Most of the entries focused on evolving a structure to improve a given function. The point of this exercise, however, was to document evolutionary pathways in which functions and structures change over time. I awarded the winning entry $150.

Biological evolution is supposed to describe a gradual process that can produce marvelous adapations from simple precursors (e.g., the mammalian eye from a light-sensitive spot). But what about technological evolution? In the history of human technology, what is the longest chain of gradual changes that transforms one system into another.

I’m not talking about hypothetical histories in which it is imagined how some final piece of technology might gradually have evolved from simpler precursors (for such a bogus hypothetical history, consider John H. McDonald’s evolving mousetrap: go here — McDonald is responding to Behe’s use of the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity).

I’m talking about an actual history of invention in which an initial technology does A, and then a small change allows it to do B, after which a further small change allows it to do C, after which co-opting an existing system (without extensive modification) allows it to do D, etc. The evolution of a motorcycle from a motor and a bicycle is not a good example in this regard because the motor and bicycle require extensive design-work to adapt them to each other.

Thus, I’m looking for

  1. An actual case study from the history of human invention.
  2. At least five steps in the specific case of technological evolution being proposed.
  3. Each of the steps must be gradual in the sense that no extensive change of the immediately succeeding system(s) was required (in the case of co-option, no extensive retooling or adaptation of parts was required).
  4. At least five contestants.
  5. Example of technological evolution must be submitted as comment to this blog entry by December 1, 2005. (Note that a simple link to another webpage is sufficient.)

If these conditions are satisfied, I’ll award a prize of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 (the amount will depend on how interesting I find the winning sequence). Note that I am the sole judge.

Comments
Evolution of our calendar technology through incremental changes, consisting of simple arithmetic, rudimentary counting, table keeping, that sort of thing. Lunar calendars are the earliest on record. Lunar days were described in sets of symbols (around 25 to 30) that were in wide use in ancient times and perhaps informed the first alphabets. However, as time-keeping devices, they were notoriously eccentric even within societies; moreso between societies. An early innovation was the subdivision of lunar periods into weeks, which stabilized lunar calendars somewhat. Numbered dates retained their previous status as lucky or unlucky, initiating or terminating, hot or cold, etc., but religious and market activities could now be organized around the week system. This allowed greater coordination in business and in social rituals, a huge change from a minor arithmetic convention. These calendars remained very localized, usually city-specific. The calendar attributed to Romulus (700's B.C) was a lunar calendar, derived, no doubt, from a Greek lunar calendar. It consisted of 304 days in 10 months (December signifying 10th). The 61 remaining solar days fell at winter's end. Apparently, they were ignored or indifferently marked. The Romans ran an 8-day week until the Imperial period and this allowed regular scheduling of “market days” in the city. Since they counted from “1,” (0 hadn't arrived yet) the week was called the nundinae (“nine days.”) Each month was tabulated from its 3 fixed points, the Kalends, Nones and Ides. Their numerical positions varied with different months (which were of different lengths). Dates were reckoned by counting backward from these points, and in Roman numerals no less. It is a wonder they were able to find their way out of one month and locate the next. The Greeks were more advanced mathematically and astronomically but, oddly, they continued to use ad hoc lunar calendars, loosely bound to the solar cycle. The Athenians called their annual scheme the “festival calendar” but muddled onward in months that varied in length, adjusted by whim or as occasions demanded. Concurrently, there was the “conciliar year,” divided as per number of phylai (classes) of Athenian citizens. Until 307 B.C. there were 10 phylai. Thereafter there were 11 to 13 (usually 12). Then there were eponymous “eras” of archons and kings. All this confusion persisted even though Meton had figured out (or learned of) an accurate, intercalated 19-year solilunar scheme by at least 432 B.C. The last 2 paragraphs are meant to illustrate the primordial confusion in simple, ancestral, 12-celled lunar calendars prior to powerful, if incremental, modifications reviewed below. But first, the Greeks should be given credit for a minor innovation, the institution of the Olympiad every 4 years (or “5” as they would say in pre-zero times). The games were scheduled for every 48 to 50 lunations, adjustment being necessary to keep the festivities in summer. (Opening ceremonies came to be set for the 1st day of Hekatombion—Athenian). The Olympiad had two important calendrical effects. It forced different city-states to be more mindful of the solar cycle. More importantly, it joined different governments into a single time scheme. This sort of coordination becomes more important later. Calendar technology advanced when the solar cycle was absorbed into the old lunar month system. This synchronization, (however rough), yielded calendars with a (supposedly) set number of months and days. Activities could be annualized in a more dependable way, including religious gatherings, memorials, taxation periods, the taking of inventories, shipping, the mustering of the guard, the commencement of irrigation and so forth. Furthermore, this model, with its modest mathematical constancy, was transferable to other cities. It could provide the basis for regulating relations within a league of cities, for example. Such a modification occurred in Rome, either under Numa Pompilius, or possibly in 452 B.C., the year Roman citizens agreed on a 10-man commission (the decemviri) to write up new civil and administrative codes. This was a definite attempt to reconcile solar and lunar cycles. January and February were added to the calendar and Rome's year was rendered in 355 days. An intercalary leap-month was scheduled for every other year. In years when it was inserted, Intercalaris added 22 or 23 days to the year. However, the leap-month appears to have been observed somewhat “casually.” The modified calendar drifted out of sun-moon agreement. Nevertheless, the increasingly complex affairs of the Republic were recorded and scheduled in a unified scheme. There was such a thing as Roman time and it was an expanding in an organized way. A modification of this modification was implemented when Julias Caesar reformed the calendar after conquering Egypt in 48 B.C. A synchronization of dials was needed to rationalize administration of the burgeoning Empire. The new calendar reached beyond Latin tribes in the peninsula. The “calendar gene” had now to regulate an immensely complex collection of peoples with all their peculiar festivals and month-schemes and reigns and Olympiads. Caesar took counsel of the Alexandrian astronomer Sosigenes, who presented a model that, though quite modern-looking, was, in fact, the old Aristarchus calendar dating to 239 B.C. The intercalary month was abandoned for a standard 365-day year, plus a leap day every 4 years. The intitializing correction to solar was accomplished by a one-time 445-day year, such that dawn of March 1, 45 B.C. was declared to be Jan 1 around the Empire. Due dates could then be issued on a grander scale, shipments coordinated, armies deployed, delegations received. It was not the first time (nor the last) that a Greek astronomer in Alexandria would tune civilization's metronome. The moon was now on a much tighter solar schedule although careful regards were given to the old festivals as adjustments were made. For instance, Julius had wanted New Year's to be on the winter solstice or spring equinox but the Senate, which had long opened sessions on Jan. 1, insisted on that date. Caesar's power was, of course, under siege. He would be knifed to death the following Ides of March at a Senate meeting—not in the Curia (then under repairs for fire damage), but in their temporary quarters at Pompey's Theatre. Record keepers promptly botched the 4-year leap convention, implementing a 3-year model instead. The resulting lunar drift was taken up by the next Emperor. In another minor adjustment, Augustus Caesar suspended leap years from 10 B.C. to 4 A.D. to correct for the error. He also renamed July and August eponymously and awarded 31 days to each, in honor of respective Emperors, that the number of their days should not be inferior to any month. The Calendar was restored to reasonable solunar stability. Revenues flowed. A great census was taken. Roman time was approaching its greatest breadth and magnitude. The next modification was of a different sort and under much different circumstances. The Russian monk, Dionysius Exiguus, (some call him Denis the Small), was asked by Pope John I to establish Easter dates for the years 527 to 626. The setting of Easter was a serious—even defining—issue for the Church. Exiguus took this opportunity to compile a unified system of year-numbering. At that time, the Empire was nearly gone. Years were counted in many different ways: by reign of local soverigns, by Roman imperial reigns, by Roman consular terms, by tax eras, from the foundation of the city of Rome, from the foundation dates of other cities, from the foundation of the world, (anno mundi), and so on. Christians counted years in these many ways as well. There was no standard time. Exiguus had no desire to number years by the reigns of Emperors who had killed many Christians. His idea was to establish a definitive year-count from what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. Exiguus understood the Incarnation to have occurred on March 25 in the year 753 a.u.c., (after founding of Rome). He designated Jesus' 1st birthday (late in 754 a.u.c. as 1 A.D. in the new system. The year of Jesus' birth was a year with no number. (Zero still hadn't arrived in the West yet.) Anno domini took awhile to get established. Venerable Bede used the dating system in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, finished in 731. Alcuin popularized the convention in Charlemagne's court just a few years later. Over the next hundred years or so, the custom took hold. This modification was a mere naming convention. It didn't speak to the math and astronomy issues at all, and yet it had profound effects. There were not yet any “world religions” and certainly no world time. Even Roman time was disintegrating. But Christendom was moving in to the abandoned Roman infrastructure and assembling its own “Holy Roman Empires.” Christian time replaced Roman time but on an even grander scale, for Exiguus' calendar co-opted an entirely different existing system. Without any modification of the Julian solilunar scheme whatsoever, Julian time became World time. This also had an effect on Christianity per se. From antiquity, Easter had been the reigning Christian ritual. This changed with the institution of Anno Domini. Since March 25th + 9 months = December 25th, Exiguus and John I shifted much of Christendoms's ritual attention from Easter to Christmas, by adoption of the epochal birth date and the literal “beginning of time,” or at least the counting of same. It is true that some Christians had already celebrated the birth on December 25th. Christians in Rome had been doing so for about 200 years. (The date commemorated the birth of Mithras for about 100 years before that.) But Christians elsewhere observed other dates. Antioch celebrated Christmas on Jan 6. Some Christians did not observe the birth at all or had begun only recently to do so. Easter was everything. Doctrinal arguments revolved around the setting of Easter dates. Bede wrote repeatedly about a dispute between Irish and Roman authorities over this matter. From 527 on, however, Christmas rose to a position of equal importance as it was standardized in time for celebrants around the world. Ritual attention was shifted from death and resurrection to birth and incarnation, with important consequences for Christian theology. The next tiny modification of a modified modification came a thousand years later. Since the Julian calendar loses a day every 131 years, by the 1500s Easter was drifting toward summer and the Church felt it necessary to set that holiday aright. A reform, declared by Gregory XIII, was drafted by Christopher Clavius, S.J, building on previous work by the astronomer-physician Luigi Lilio. Initial lag correction was accomplished by following Thursday, 10-4-82 (Julian) with Friday, 10-15-82 (Gregorian). Subsequent leap years were ignored on century years not divisible by 400. This brought the leap-year-induced lag under control. The Gregorian reform was taken up much faster than previous adjustments. Several kingdoms switched over immediately. However, areas of Protestant Europe resisted the change out of religious principle, (never mind the science). We may note that Martin Luther had been dead for 36 years. In other words, the Protestant Reformation was well underway. Incensed anti-papists shouted that they wanted their stolen “10 days back.” In England, Elizabeth considered the change but the Church of England successfully fought it off. The Gregorian Calendar was adopted in Britain (and the colonies) only in 1752, with Wednesday, September 2, 1752, being followed immediately by Thursday, September 14, 1752. (By that time, an 11-day correction was required.) Until that year, New Year's in the American colonies was celebrated on March 25th, the 24th being assigned to the old year and the 25th to the new. After implementation of the reform, the year of George Washington's birth changed from 1731 to 1732. In the Julian Calendar his birthdate was Feb 11th, 1731, but in the Gregorian Calendar it is Feb 22nd, 1732. Ben Franklin's nativity was knocked about in the same way. *** Here then are the incremental improvements: weeks, a sports festival, crude attempt to reconcile lunar and solar cycles in tabular form, minor solilunar adjustment, adjustment to this adjustment, cooptation of Christmas-based time, very small solilunar adjustment. Here then is an example of the evolved calendar: look at the calendar nearest you and meditate on current challenges to Christmaspmob1
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Edison cylindrical phonograph 78 rpm shellac record 45 rpm shellac record 33 rpm vinyl record compact disc add string yields ornament ;-) animal skins papyrus paper printed paper newspaper add to bird cage yields toilet projectile thrown by hand projectile thrown with sling projectile launched with catapult projectile launched with cannon cannon miniaturized to become rifle bayonnet added to end of rifle yields lancejay
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Personally, I think the ice cream cone is the best example of a technology that mimics evolution by co-option. Like evolution it's clear that the ice cream cone evolved over time and like evolution it is unclear if there was a real beginning. The most popular beginning of the ice cream cone is the 1904 Worlds Fair in St. Louis, although people eating things out of cones (metal and paper) was established the century before. As the story goes, an ice cream vendor was running out bowls and so the vendor next to him, who sold zalabia, a crisp, thin waffle, helped him out by rolling the still warm waffles into cone shapes so that they would hold ice cream, like a bowl. The ice cream cone caught on. Cones were first rolled by hand and then hardened. After that they were rolled mechanically. A second, faster type of cone was then made wherein batter was poured into a mold, rather than pressed between two irons and rolled. But it wasn't until the late 1950s when oil, sugar and chocolate were added to the inside of the cone in order to solve the rampant problem of the cone going soggy. More recently the cone has been reworked into an edible bowl, more like the original bowl the zalabia was co-opting, only tastier. I'm not sure if that is long enough or gradual enough to satisfy the contest, but the history of food in general is a great illustration. I haven't done it, but I'm sure that if you trace the evolution of the first bread like food (mixing grains and dairy) to the Twinkie you'd pretty much match the transformation of a light sensitive spot into the human eye.aldo30127
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
I agree late model. I may just be missing it, but what people are describing has nothing to do with darwinian evolution. A) these are hardly slight modifications being proposed, or B) the modification are obviously chosen with an end in mind, not based on usability (the intermediate steps have no independent function, but to eventually get to the end product). The exercise is a good one for darwinist, since it shows how they take for granted how difficult it is to get things to work in real life, not in theory.Romanized
November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Second submission 1. Take a scrap of animal hide used to jot symbols down on. 2. Replace animal hide with papyrus, giving the medium a longer life and making it easier to jot things down on it. 3. Take the papyrus and sew many pieces of it together. 4. Replace the papyrus with paper. 5. Add a cover, making the booklet much more durable and allowing it to last much longer. 6. Replace sewing with glue attaching the paper to the spine of the cover, stablizing the entire setup. Hence, the evolution of a scrap of animal hide to a modern book.Aquinas
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
It appears there are semantics in play here! In each of these descriptions it appears progress is the more appropriate term than evolution (as defined by neo-darwinism). Why? Neo-darwinians keep reminding the public that there is no teology in the proces but an end goal is inherent in engineering.late_model
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Did anyone look at McDonald's hypothetical evolution of the mousetrap at http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html ? It was referenced in the announcement for the technology competition. It is supposed to refute Professor Behe's illustration of "irreducible complexity" that uses a mousetrap. But it is completely laughable. Eleven animations are shown. The 11th is the final form of the mousetrap. But, if anything, it illustrates how irreducibly complex a real moustrap is. None of the first 10 "stages of evolution" would trap and hold a real mouse. Not only that, but for such stages to occur, there would have to be created a fossil record of them. Not only that, but even the very first stage had to be designed. The whole attempt is ludicrous.Red Reader
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
I posted a submission (not the spear one) that doesn't appear to be showing up... so, test.Aquinas
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
1. Scraps of animal hide used to jot symbols down on. 2. Replace animal hide with papyrus, giving the medium a longer life and making it easier to jot things down on it. 3. Take the papyrus and sew many pieces of it together, creating a primitive Emily Dickinson-esque fascicle. 4. Replace the papyrus with paper. 4. Add a cover, making the booklet much more durable and allowing it to last much longer. 5. Replace sewing with glue attaching the paper to the spine of the cover, stablizing the entire setup. Hence, the evolution of the animal hide slip of "paper" to the book.Aquinas
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
1. A pole that is sharpened at the end, used to throw at potential prey. 2. A pole with an arrowhead at the end, also used to hurl at potential prey. 3. A pole working in conjunction with another pole(ish) giving the primary pole greater distance and speed (i.e. atlatl). 4. A pole and a slightly modified pole(ish), attached at both end by a string, allowing the pole to be propelled by the string on the pole(ish), giving it yet more speed and accuracy (i.e. bow and arrow). Hence, the evolution of a primitive spear to a bow and arrow.Aquinas
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
DK: Your shoe evolution seems more akin to dog breeding (microevolution) than macroevolution. The same things said about evolved shoes (i.e. shoes are art objects) could be said about various dog breeds. For example, some breeds like poodles, are ornamental, while others are more functional---bloodhounds, retrievers, sheepdogs. But they are still dogs. They still "evolved" differently in order to perform some function for humans.russ
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
What that should have said was ..... myself Jeff Blogworthy James Taylor bastiaan Norman Doering Heffe Sorry, was that another example? Looks a bit biological to me.Exile from GROGGS
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
From a blanket to a poncho, to a shirt, to a sock to a glove.mentok
November 27, 2005
November
11
Nov
27
27
2005
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
I'm assuming that the point of the exercise is show (apparent) subtle changes are possible (even expected) with the involvement of a Intelligent Designer? Okay, to jump in then, how about Intel Microprocessors: They progress from the 4-bit 4004 in 1971 to the 64-Bit Pentiums in the present. Actual Progression: 4004: 4-Bit 8008: 8-Bit 8080: 8-Bit 8085: 8-Bit 8086: 16-Bit ... 80386: 32-Bit et cetera For the full progression, see: http://www.i-probe.com/i-probe/ip_intel.html In this analogy, the silicon-designer's database is analogous to the DNA in an organism, which is successively modified for new microprocessors. While the silicon is the organism itself. An item that was co-opted in later designs (Pentiums onward) was the instruction-cache (memory), that previously existed externally. I'm not sure that this qualifies for: "Each of the steps must be gradual in the sense that no extensive change of the immediately succeeding system(s) was required (in the case of co-option, no extensive retooling or adaptation of parts was required)." As each chip is redesigned into a new floor-plan on the silicon, but no analogy is perfect. At least you can show the architecture is progressive.jeffwilson
November 27, 2005
November
11
Nov
27
27
2005
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Here is my submission into the Contest: From Barter to Banking, the Evolution of "Honey into Money". By Chris Lind This paper is at http://www.ChristopherLind.com/FromBarterToBanking.htmChrisLind
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Other than bastiaan, I don't see any of the submissions having the C to D jump in the requirements.Irving
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
I do believe we have at least five entrants (many more entries): myself Jeff Blogworthy James Taylor bastiaan Norman Doering Heffe (From a cursory lookover)earthenvesselmz
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
What's up with the disappearing comments? I can see them from computer A immediately after I post but if I go to computer B they are gone. I posted the example of the Shoe twice. But each time the post dissappears.DK
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
The Shoe One of the longest standing evolving technical innovations in human history is the shoe. “All people living in very cold climates had to wear some kind of thermal protection on their feet, including Neanderthals and their predecessors,” said Trinkaus. “(Supportive footwear) was part of a major explosion in human technology and cultural complexity, especially after 30,000 years ago.” 1 On the surface this seems too simple of an example for a question about the development of a technology. The shoe is truly long standing and most closely matches a slow evolutionary change brought about by environmental need and small design innovations. It is a strange example in that it also demonstrates seemingly unexplained strange species and embodies abstractions such as status and wealth. I do not claim that the shoe contains much irreducible complexity; in fact it is the opposite and can remain functional via simple variation. Emergence. Evidence of early shoes is found in every culture on earth coincident with the emergence of civilized groups. “There is much evidence that a foot covering was one of the first things made by our primitive ancestors. Necessity compelled them to invent some method of protecting their feet from the jagged rocks, burning sands, and rugged terrain over which they ranged in pursuit of food and shelter.” 4 Some of the earliest solid evidence of shoes can be found in Spanish cave paintings, (dated to about 15000 years ago 2). Here humans are painted with what appear to be feet wrapped in animal skins. We can guess that these underwent some very simple transformations, which we can surmise by our knowledge of our own feet. Simply wrapping a single skin around the foot it would be difficult to keep it on the foot for any length of time by wrapping on itself or tucking it in too itself. We can conclude that therefore that anything wrapped about the foot will not stay on the foot unless there is a second component. A second piece of material either animal skin or plant fibers would need to be employed to tie the skin to the foot if there is any hope of keeping it on the foot. This component is the strap or lace. In it simplest form therefore; the shoe needs at least two components; a skin and a strap. The strap is interesting in that in order to be effective it must be formed into a particular shape. If the strap is not wrapped around the ankle and then knotted in some way then it would simply fall off and be ineffective. We would then be back to square one and the entire shoe falls off. Here we have the first real evidence of design emerging at the same time as the base object. The strap requires an external force to be employed and effective, the force must be exerted in the correct fashion and in the correct place to wrap around the upper shoe and around the ankle and form a knot. Interestingly it accidentally forms a complex mathematical shape but employs knowledge of friction or knowledge of a similar use elsewhere and requires some intelligence to be useful. The relationship of the strap to the skin of the upper shoe is in this early version of a shoe is a simple example of irreducible complexity neither part works properly without the other. Improvement Nothing is known about very early shoe development but the problem is not difficult to imagine. Somebody would have to try different methods to improve a simple shoe. So here is a theory of how a designer might go about finding a solution. (The next paragraph surmises that the upper wrapping skin is first, and the sole follows but it is equally likely that the sole might have come before the upper skin!) The disadvantage of a simple animal skin wrapped around the foot is the weakness of the sole. Very quickly a material designed to comfortably wrap around the foot will wear out when in use for any length of time on rough terrain or with vigorous activity. Nor is a single layer very effective at protecting the foot. This problem required innovation, the result of which was the Sole. The Sole can be made from the same material as the Upper Shoe. The Sole has an evolution of its own and undoubtedly went through a few revisions beginning as simply another layer but evolving to be either thicker material or multiple layers of the same material. It is just as likely to have been an extra layer on the inside as it was on the outside. It is interesting to note that many materials were employed to make early soles in different cultures, including wood, bark, thick leaves etc., but the superior material was leather because of its durability and flexibility. An exterior Sole is attached to the Upper Shoe using a variant of the Strap, thinner pieces of strap are used looping thru holes punctured in the Upper Shoe . The result is a much more wear resistant shoe that has better survival characteristic than its predecessor and also provides more protection for the foot. Furthermore we have the opportunity to recognize the first species variant. The Sole can be attached directly to the Strap, the Upper Shoe can be discarded and we now have a Sandal. That is not to say that a species that keeps the Upper Shoe cannot survive with the competition of the new Sandal species, it instead continues its development and in fact it will return and become the dominant species. Species Variation The Sandal under went various design innovations. Including variations in the strap. It was now possible to discard the knot by looping the strap back to the sole. In various cultures a toe loop was employed and the heel strap was discarded creating a slip on sandal. Various cultures put the toe strap between different toes. “The Greeks for example made use of the great toe; the Romans, the second digit; and the Mesopotamians, the third toe” 2 It is important to recognize that at the time of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans that we can see that shoes have become more than a simple foot covering. Not only do we see different variations of shoes for men and women but we also have shoes designed specifically for the different classes, shoes in fact become a symbol of status and wealth in a society. In Rome a soldiers status could be judged by his shoes, “The higher his shoe top the higher his rank.” 4 Furthermore shoe designs have superfluous elements incorporated into them to support this need for differentiating the classes. An example might be sandal worn by pharaohs and priests in Egypt around 1200BC, which incorporated a curling, peaked toe, a completely nonfunctional element in the design of the shoe. We also see shoes designed for a specific requirement such as a rugged sandal for warfare, a flexible sandal for running, formal dress shoes or slippers for casual indoor wear. Co-Option What is important to note is that at various times parts of the original design are suppressed and seem to disappear only to reemerge at a later date with the same but improved function. For example the Sandal loses parts of the upper shoe but makes use of the strap as its main functional component. But in later designs the Upper shoe reemerges in various designs and the strap seems to disappear, but is in fact always present. A shoe, which appears to not have a strap, needs to have something else to keep the shoe on. In the case of a strapless shoe, the upper Shoe must be stiffened such that it forms around the heel of the foot and over the top of the foot. Stiffening the Upper Shoe is not an extensive modification because it employs design already evident in the Sole of the shoe (stiffer material). This in affect merges the two concepts; the strap is now embedded in the Upper Shoe and to the casual observer is gone. This dual purpose both of being a strap and an upper shoe is a simple but very effective design innovation and is an example of internal co-option, it also shows how the complexity although appearing to be simple is actually more complex. Where two parts that used to be separate now co-exist. However this design is flawed. A shoe held on strictly by a co-opted heel will fall off in vigorous use. It is also difficult to put on and pull off the foot. There are two solutions to this, either make it a tall boot. Or split the front add a tongue and laces. A tall boot might hold the shoe on but it will rarely fit as snuggly as a shoe with laces up over the top. Notice that the laces are actually a reemergence of the strap. Of all products shoes are among the first to incorporate new materials as they emerge. Eyes make use of metal, Soles make use of rubber, petroleum, plastics, foams, and the uppers make use of nylons, plants fibers, corks etc. Almost every new material that is developed has been tried in the shoe to help improve its function. It even has a special material named “balance, man made material” which no one can identify. Strange Mutation and Specified Variation Shoes exhibit artistic expression way beyond their original function. These can only be explained as a designed mutation or experiment. We end up with completely impractical shoes, which do the opposite of the original intention of protecting the feet. Many shoe designs do the opposite and can only be worn for a short time without a great deal of pain and damage to the foot. High platforms, high heels, pointed toes all fall in this category. But they are still worn for entertainment, status or pleasure! “The high heel came into fashion with Elizabeth's reign in the late 16th cent. and was worn by both men and women; the shoe was colorfully decorated with rosettes, lace, and embroidery.” 5 The high heel is particularly popular and though completely impractical they have a hidden function… that of attracting the opposite sex! It is a incredible to think about what that means. The design of a shoe can actually contain the concept of beauty. In particular the enhancement of beauty; the most impractical design is designed to aid in pro creation. Because of this these type of shoes win out in the economic survival battle, they are by far the most coveted and most expensive shoes of all. Running shoes, Tennis shoes, Walking shoes, Dress Shoes, Hiking Boots, Bowling shoes Golf shoes, Ski boots. If you name an activity we have a shoe for it. Each one carefully designed to maximize comfort during the activity and using special materials and shapes to improve the design for a specific use. The complexity is not as evident in the shoe itself as is in the research behind the shoe. Human motion is carefully studied during each activity, feet are carefully measured, bones are x-rayed and analyzed, athletes are questioned, test shoes are made and discarded and reworked. All this knowledge is applied to the choice of material to shape and pad a shoe for use for the mass market. The designs continue to be incrementally improved year by year as new methods of feedback and measurement is devised. Conclusion “The Modern shoe can be broken down into four parts: “The Outsole, the Midsole, the Insert and the Upper” 3 , In this definition the Upper also has the laces, and the Outsole, Midsole and Insert are basically a layered Sole. Shoes still are made from the same basic components but have undergone rigorous yet subtle design changes. In fact for most shoes the same materials are employed as the shoes made 30,000 years ago, Leather and Laces. There are literally thousands of shoe designs all with various functions and yet the sandal survives to this day, improved but still basically the same. Who would of guessed however that shoes could contain hidden meanings such as, status, wealth, attractiveness and boldness. All abstract concepts but basic reflections of their designers. The shoe of all technologies thru the ages expresses all the traits of its designer. The strangest of all being designs we can't explain. Just like the world around us we can find designs that can only be explained as expressions of humor or experiments gone awry but we also find beauty, usefulness and comfort. Bibliography 1 http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050815/shoes.html Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University, Journal of Archaeological Science 2 http://experts.about.com/q/2041/3486667.htm (note this source is questionable) 3 http://www.scire.com/sds/Pages/design.html 4 http://www.shoeinfonet.com/about%20shoes/history/history%20your%20shoes/history%20your%20shoes.htm (this is a great website with good pictures of early shoes) 5 http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/shoeDK
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
The Shoe One of the longest standing evolving technical innovations in human history is the shoe. “All people living in very cold climates had to wear some kind of thermal protection on their feet, including Neanderthals and their predecessors,” said Trinkaus. “(Supportive footwear) was part of a major explosion in human technology and cultural complexity, especially after 30,000 years ago.” 1 On the surface this seems too simple of an example for a question about the development of a technology. The temptation is to look for something complicated like an engine or computer, but their historys are too short to see where they will end up and they do not contain any abstract concepts, they are simply machines. The shoe is truly long standing and most closely matches a slow evolutionary change brought about by environment and small design innovations. It is a strange example in that it also demonstrates seemingly unexplained strange species and embodies abstractions such as status and wealth. I do not claim that the shoe contains much irreducible complexity; in fact it is the opposite and can remain functional via simple variation. Emergence. Evidence of early shoes is found in every culture on earth coincident with the emergence of civilized groups. “There is much evidence that a foot covering was one of the first things made by our primitive ancestors. Necessity compelled them to invent some method of protecting their feet from the jagged rocks, burning sands, and rugged terrain over which they ranged in pursuit of food and shelter.” 4 Some of the earliest solid evidence of shoes can be found in Spanish cave paintings, (dated to about 15000 years ago 2). Here humans are painted with what appear to be feet wrapped in animal skins. We can guess that these underwent some very simple transformations, which we can surmise by our knowledge of our own feet. Simply wrapping a single skin around the foot it would be difficult to keep it on the foot for any length of time by wrapping on itself or tucking it in too itself. We can conclude that therefore that anything wrapped about the foot will not stay on the foot unless there is a second component. A second piece of material either animal skin or plant fibers would need to be employed to tie the skin to the foot if there is any hope of keeping it on the foot. This component is the strap or lace. In it simplest form therefore; the shoe needs at least two components; a skin and a strap. The strap is interesting in that in order to be effective it must be formed into a particular shape. If the strap is not wrapped around the ankle and then knotted in some way then it would simply fall off and be ineffective. We would then be back to square one and the entire shoe falls off. Here we have the first real evidence of design emerging at the same time as the base object. The strap requires an external force to be employed and effective, the force must be exerted in the correct fashion and in the correct place to wrap around the upper shoe and around the ankle and form a knot. Interestingly it accidentally forms a complex mathematical shape but employs knowledge of friction or knowledge of a similar use elsewhere and requires some intelligence to be useful. The relationship of the strap to the skin of the upper shoe is in this early version of a shoe is a simple example of irreducible complexity neither part works properly without the other. Improvement Nothing is known about very early shoe development but the problem is not difficult to imagine. Somebody would have to try different methods to improve a simple shoe. So here is a theory of how a designer might go about finding a solution. (The next paragraph surmises that the upper wrapping skin is first, and the sole follows but it is equally likely that the sole might have come before the upper skin!) The disadvantage of a simple animal skin wrapped around the foot is the weakness of the sole. Very quickly a material designed to comfortably wrap around the foot will wear out when in use for any length of time on rough terrain or with vigorous activity. Nor is a single layer very effective at protecting the foot. This problem required innovation, the result of which was the Sole. The Sole can be made from the same material as the Upper Shoe. The Sole has an evolution of its own and undoubtedly went through a few revisions beginning as simply another layer but evolving to be either thicker material or multiple layers of the same material. It is just as likely to have been an extra layer on the inside as it was on the outside. It is interesting to note that many materials were employed to make early soles in different cultures, including wood, bark, thick leaves etc., but the superior material was leather because of its durability and flexibility. An exterior Sole is attached to the Upper Shoe using a variant of the Strap, thinner pieces of strap are used looping thru holes punctured in the Upper Shoe . The result is a much more wear resistant shoe that has better survival characteristic than its predecessor and also provides more protection for the foot. Furthermore we have the opportunity to recognize the first species variant. The Sole can be attached directly to the Strap, the Upper Shoe can be discarded and we now have a Sandal. That is not to say that a species that keeps the Upper Shoe cannot survive with the competition of the new Sandal species, it instead continues its development and in fact it will return and become the dominant species. Species Variation The Sandal under went various design innovations. Including variations in the strap. It was now possible to discard the knot by looping the strap back to the sole. In various cultures a toe loop was employed and the heel strap was discarded creating a slip on sandal. Various cultures put the toe strap between different toes. “The Greeks for example made use of the great toe; the Romans, the second digit; and the Mesopotamians, the third toe” 2 It is important to recognize that at the time of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans that we can see that shoes have become more than a simple foot covering. Not only do we see different variations of shoes for men and women but we also have shoes designed specifically for the different classes, shoes in fact become a symbol of status and wealth in a society. In Rome a soldiers status could be judged by his shoes, “The higher his shoe top the higher his rank.” 4 Furthermore shoe designs have superfluous elements incorporated into them to support this need for differentiating the classes. An example might be sandal worn by pharaohs and priests in Egypt around 1200BC, which incorporated a curling, peaked toe, a completely nonfunctional element in the design of the shoe. We also see shoes designed for a specific requirement such as a rugged sandal for warfare, a flexible sandal for running, formal dress shoes or slippers for casual indoor wear. Co-Option What is important to note is that at various times parts of the original design are suppressed and seem to disappear only to reemerge at a later date with the same but improved function. For example the Sandal loses parts of the upper shoe but makes use of the strap as its main functional component. But in later designs the Upper shoe reemerges in various designs and the strap seems to disappear, but is in fact always present. A shoe, which appears to not have a strap, needs to have something else to keep the shoe on. In the case of a strapless shoe, the upper Shoe must be stiffened such that it forms around the heel of the foot and over the top of the foot. Stiffening the Upper Shoe is not an extensive modification because it employs design already evident in the Sole of the shoe (stiffer material). This in affect merges the two concepts; the strap is now embedded in the Upper Shoe and to the casual observer is gone. This dual purpose both of being a strap and an upper shoe is a simple but very effective design innovation and is an example of internal co-option, it also shows how the complexity although appearing to be simple is actually more complex. Where two parts that used to be separate now co-exist. However this design is flawed. A shoe held on strictly by a co-opted heel will fall off in vigorous use. It is also difficult to put on and pull off the foot. There are two solutions to this, either make it a tall boot. Or split the front add a tongue and laces. A tall boot might hold the shoe on but it will rarely fit as snuggly as a shoe with laces up over the top. Notice that the laces are actually a reemergence of the strap. Of all products shoes are among the first to incorporate new materials as they emerge. Eyes make use of metal, Soles make use of rubber, petroleum, plastics, foams, and the uppers make use of nylons, plants fibers, corks etc. Almost every new material that is developed has been tried in the shoe to help improve its function. It even has a special material named “balance, man made material” which no one can identify. Strange Mutation and Specified Variation Shoes exhibit artistic expression way beyond their original function. These can only be explained as a designed mutation or experiment. We end up with completely impractical shoes, which do the opposite of the original intention of protecting the feet. Many shoe designs do the opposite and can only be worn for a short time without a great deal of pain and damage to the foot. High platforms, high heels, pointed toes all fall in this category. But they are still worn for entertainment, status or pleasure! “The high heel came into fashion with Elizabeth's reign in the late 16th cent. and was worn by both men and women; the shoe was colorfully decorated with rosettes, lace, and embroidery.” 5 The high heel is particularly popular and though completely impractical they have a hidden function… that of attracting the opposite sex! It is a incredible to think about what that means. The design of a shoe can actually contain the concept of beauty. In particular the enhancement of beauty; the most impractical design is designed to aid in pro creation. Because of this these type of shoes win out in the economic survival battle, they are by far the most coveted and most expensive shoes of all. Running shoes, Tennis shoes, Walking shoes, Dress Shoes, Hiking Boots, Bowling shoes Golf shoes, Ski boots. If you name an activity we have a shoe for it. Each one carefully designed to maximize comfort during the activity and using special materials and shapes to improve the design for a specific use. The complexity is not as evident in the shoe itself as is in the research behind the shoe. Human motion is carefully studied during each activity, feet are carefully measured, bones are x-rayed and analyzed, athletes are questioned, test shoes are made and discarded and reworked. All this knowledge is applied to the choice of material to shape and pad a shoe for use for the mass market. The designs continue to be incrementally improved year by year as new methods of feedback and measurement is devised. Conclusion “The Modern shoe can be broken down into four parts: “The Outsole, the Midsole, the Insert and the Upper” 3 , In this definition the Upper also has the laces, and the Outsole, Midsole and Insert are basically a layered Sole. Shoes still are made from the same basic components but have undergone rigorous yet subtle design changes. In fact for most shoes the same materials are employed as the shoes made 30,000 years ago, Leather and Laces. There are literally thousands of shoe designs all with various functions and ye thte sandal survives to this day, improved but still basically the same. Who would of guessed however that shoes could contain hidden meanings such as, status, wealth, attractiveness and boldness. All abstract concepts but basic reflections of their designers. The shoe of all technologies thru the ages expresses all the traits of its designer. The strangest of all being designs we can't explain. Just like the world around us we can find designs that can only be explained as expressions of humor or experiments gone awry but we also find beauty, usefulness and comfort. Bibliography 1 http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050815/shoes.html Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University, Journal of Archaeological Science 2 http://experts.about.com/q/2041/3486667.htm (note this source is questionable) 3 http://www.scire.com/sds/Pages/design.html 4 http://www.shoeinfonet.com/about%20shoes/history/history%20your%20shoes/history%20your%20shoes.htm (this is a great website with good pictures of early shoes) 5 http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/shoeDK
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
Can I enter twice? Will multiple entries from a single person count towards the 5 contestant minimum rule? [Entering more than one entry is fine. --WmAD]bastiaan
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
dougmoran, good comments. You talk about, "evolutionary improvements in underlying mental capacity", but tech-evolution progresses more rapidly than any human mental evolution, making our mental capacity seem static by comparison, so that's not what I'm getting at. When I think of intelligence as a factor in evolution, I see it as providing the selective force for a set of ideas, regardless of where the intellect initially came from (God-given, etc..). An intellect that is able to describe a problem with greater detail, drives the evolution of an object to be able to function in more complex environments. The better a problem is defined, the easier it is to narrow down the field of possible ideas and innovate. This happens in nature, e.g. an "evolutionary arms race" takes place between competing species. So, as you pointed out in your example of a chemist, intellect takes the randomness out of brainstorming, the same way that natural selection (et al) takes the randomness out of genetic mutation. Of course, what we're really getting at here is "meme" evolution. P.S. bastiaan - missed your example earlier. Language change has definitely been a good analogy for evolution. Most may not be engineered, unless you consider Esperanto, but lingual-evolution is an example of less focused intellectual forces at work. Your post may be a little "just-so", but linguists have already filled in many of the details, so I see where you're going with it. P.P.S. Norman, go for it. My area of expertise is software, but there are bound to be many examples to draw on. I intend to illuminate how engineering in general is evolutionary, as you can see from the gist of my posts.curtrozeboom
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Another question: Is it possible that activity on another thread, like, oh say, the one immediately preceding this one, has any effect on the filters?Charlie
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Hi bastiaan, Your comments on disappearing comments didn't seem rude or offensive to me at all - I never saw them. My query about the issue only coincidentally followed what I now see you wrote, but didn't know about then. In fact, on my display I know they were not there as of midnight last night, but are this morning. Go figure. I thought your example pretty good too.Charlie
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
"I'd encourage you to take 2 of the steps of your examples and break down what happens in between them. In order to do this you will have to actually get into the mind of the engineers and explain what causes them to utilize a particular approach." Why should I have to do that in my example? Letters and words changed their meaning and their shape because of their use, (mis)copying and (mis)interpretation. I personally think no real engineering went on during the proces.bastiaan
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
curtrozeboom wrote: "Most of the posts I'm seeing are treating technological evolution like a sparse fossil record. Lots of examples of improvements, but no details on how those improvements came about, other taking a wild 'just-so' stab at some of the motivation." Yes, most of them are simple "just so stories." However, I'm still working on my entry -- which is here: http://www.geocities.com/normdoer/EvoInvent1.htm I had originally been working with the steam engine, but as I studied more I found I had to limit myself to the stean piston. It looks like a just so story when I sum it up this way: 1) Heron introduces the principles of using steam within enclosed areas to do work moving water and ropes. The precursor to the steam piston is, at this stage, nothing more than a semi-enclosed metal container that lets escaping steam do some work. 2) Thomas Savery uses a metal chamber and creates a vacuum pressure to draw up water out of mines. The precursor is now a semi-enclosed metal container with piping that begins to resemble a steam piston. 3) Thomas Newcomen creates a primitive piston from Savery's metal chamber to drive a pump. The semi-enclosed metal container becomes a primitive piston but it's very slow and uses vast quantities of steam because the pistons were cooled during every stroke, then reheated. 4) James Watt improves Newcomen's primitive piston with valves and clockwork controls. The primitive steam piston of Newcomen nearly reaches its final form in Watt's mind. Watt adds a separate condenser, the condensation process would take place constantly and the steam cylinder could be pulled to a vacuum while remaining hot. The vapor would rush into the condenser. 5) James Watt with Matthew Boulton convert the linear motion of the piston to a rotary motion to drive the wheels. The primitive steam piston is given a method to convert pumping motion into rotary motion. 6) Richard Trevithick and Oliver Evans use higher pressure, higher speed, lighter parts and wider expansion strokes. Through evolutionary trial and error, other inventors blow up a lot of boilers trying to push the steam engine to its optimum. However, on my site I'm starting to record some of the twists and turns and why people had the ideas they had. It's still unfinished. There is a symbiotic evolutionary mechanism in the evolution of the steam piston when you get to Watts and Boulton. Matthew Boulton, owner of the Soho Engineering Works at Birmingham, became a partner with James Watt in the manufacture steam engines and of ornamental metal-ware including clocks both astronomical and valuable ornamental clocks. Things, like crank-shafts and gears appear on the steam engines and they start to resemble large clockworks -- because the regulatory mechanisms Watts invents are giant clock-work mechanisms. And, curtrozeboom, thanks for the idea about doing something on the evolution of evolutionary programming. That will be my next project for this contest.Norman Doering
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
James Taylor wrote: "The television is an excellent case of evolving technology" My random though about this: It is not the television or it's underlying technology that has evolved at all. Iterative change in technology is driven by deliberate, focused, planned effort by human beings. We do this to increase our collective knowledge about how to improve underlying technology and apply it to better meet existing demands. Some would argue that such change in collective knowledge comes about as a result of evolutionary improvements in underlying mental capacity. But there seems to be no evidence of such evolution, so we are forced to accept that without our innate, God-given drive to learn, improve, work, be safer and enjoy life more (or be more destructive), technology would not exist and indeed would not change. As opposed to being a great example of evolutionary change in technology, I contend that television is only an example of the power of intelligent, intentional, purposeful change enabled by an existing, unevolving but learning organism. It is sometimes argued that technological innovation has happend by random change - such as when a scientist is experimenting with a compound and finds by accident that it is useful for something entirely different. But even this is not random - first, it took the creative intelligence needed to make the compound to begin with, and second, it took an intelligent observer to recognize the alternate use and "select" it for such. Perhaps I'm not delving deep enough. If not, I'm sure someone here will help me see the light. But it seems to me that nothing we create evolves over time without either (a) intelligently designed improvements, (b) intelligently recognized unintended consequences, or (c) intelligently designed systems that are actually designed to learn and improve over time (such as fuzzy logic systems and AI, but even these are limited by underlying hardware and algorithmic capacity and are ultimatly reduced to (a)).dougmoran
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
I think most of you missed Dembski's counter-example of a motorcycle. Most of the posts I'm seeing are treating technological evolution like a sparse fossil record. Lots of examples of improvements, but no details on how those improvements came about, other taking a wild "just-so" stab at some of the motivation. Maybe Dembski will correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I get the impression he wants a more detailed explanation of a single technological innovation to a particular object. I'd encourage you to take 2 of the steps of your examples and break down what happens in between them. In order to do this you will have to actually get into the mind of the engineers and explain what causes them to utilize a particular approach. We design by brainstorming many possibilities and "selecting" them by their usefulness. The usefullness of a change is judged by the environment it is meant to "survive" in. We need to understand the environmental "forces" that drove the acceptance of the innovation and the rejection of the other ideas. It may not be possible to do this for something you were not personally involved with, so perhaps drawing on personal experience would be better, the way ajl did. Norman Doering's example of Hillis does this better than anyone's, so far, and not because the innovation in question was about an evolving algorithm, but about the evolution of an evolving algorithm. I think if you do this exercise, you will see that evolution does not create an illusion of design, but rather that design itself is an illusion created by the environmental constraints placed on the evolving process, regardless of whether you are human, computer, or biology. What separates the three is the techniques and tools available to them. Computers can only use bits and mathematics and the test-cases given them. And their products reflect this. Biology can only use amino acids and sugars and the selective forces of nature. And its designs reflect this. Humans can use both of these (although we are still learning how to use biology's tools) and our designs reflect our limitations. Hence, a watch is not distinguishable from a blade of grass because the watch is designed and the blade of grass is not, but by the tools, techniques and the unique environments available to their designers.curtrozeboom
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
More education for me. Thanks, jbozeCharlie
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
that could very well be the case, charlie. i use wordpress (which is what bill uses to post to this site) to run my website, and it often times blocks various comments for unknown reasons. some comments go thru fine, yet other people comment and they have to be moderated and "approved" or deleted. i know that wordpress moderation works off of various items- including IP addresses, keywords you want to block, banned e mail addresses (which you can set up yourself) etc. some of the moderation tools are automatic from wordpress without you doing anything. sometimes, someone will comment to my site and not use any banned words (the 4 letter variety) and not be on my personal banned IP list, but they get blocked nonetheless. no idea why it works the way it does, but it does- its much better than movable type which means a daily attack of hundreds of spam for most sites!jboze3131
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3