Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Technological vs. Biological Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Adaptive evolution in biology and technology:
Why are parallels expected?

Peter Kaplan
University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
[snip]@aya.yale.edu

INTRODUCTION: Since the beginnings of technology, inventors have sought to draw parallels between biological and technological designs. Among the flurry of such studies appearing in the 1960’s was Altshuller’s The Innovation Algorithm (1), in which he assembled myriad observations on biological role, function, design, and evolutionary history. Perhaps ironically, Altshuller’s subsequent derivation of laws of technological evolution (2) was without explicit reference to biological systems. However, some workers (e.g., 3,4,5,6), inspired by accumulating admiration of biological design and its applicability to technical problems, sought to understand biological evolution in terms of these technological-evolutionary laws. More recently, an inversion of this paradigm has prompted Mann (7,8) and others (e.g., 6,9,10,11) to ask what technological evolution might gain by emulating biological evolution. Indeed, the notion that biological evolution is somehow “optimal” or “ideal” has stimulated attempts to impose on technological evolution certain characteristic properties of biological evolution. This optimalistic motivation is underlain by a rich (but embarrassingly extravagant) tradition in evolutionary biology of adaptive storytelling and marvelling at the functional optimality of organisms to their lifestyles (12). For both evolutionary biologists and TRIZ evolutionists, this perception of an evolutionary ideal to be found in nature may go too far — and lead astray an otherwise productive pursuit. If biological evolution is subideal, then the quest for its emulation in technological evolution may turn out to be a relatively unproductive one. It is worth considering three questions in this connection:

(1) What makes biological evolution potentially subideal — perhaps even less ideal than present-day technological evolution?

(2) Why should we expect biological and technological evolution to behave and proceed similarly or differently?

(3) Is there anything to be gained by emulation of biological evolution (beyond biological form and function themselves)?

[For the full article, go here.]

Comments
"Biological evolution can not draw upon experience from any other given species." According to Lynn Margulis this is exactly what happens. "Techno-evolution can benefit from the random undirectedness of bio-evolution, because it can transcend the tendency to overuse a previous design without considering better alternatives." Engineers have been using so-called "genetic algorithms" since the dawn of engineered systems. It was called "trial and error" before it was given a new name. It was given a new name so academic dipsticks with no better ideas on how to spend their time could get research grants.DaveScot
October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
(1) What makes biological evolution potentially subideal — perhaps even less ideal than present-day technological evolution? Biological evolution can not draw upon experience from any other given species. In other words, if the octopus eye is a "better" design than the mammalian eye, evolution can not draw upon that past design in order to make another, it must start from scratch. Of course, there are pathways such as genetic drift and viruses passing genetic info which are only just being understood and there is the potential to use copies of existing genes for new purposes, but that seems to be the limit of evolution's ability to draw on experience. In these cases, though, the experience being drawn on is limited by the pathway. (2) Why should we expect biological and technological evolution to behave and proceed similarly or differently? I answered the question of why they would behave differently in the previous paragraph. Techo-evolution can draw upon previous experience in ways bio-evolution can not. Any design which reflects intelligence could be expected to demonstrate this quality. But, why should we expect them to behave similarly? The answer to this is that evolution is just another type of design. There are common aspects of design that are missing from it, but when you really get down to it bio-evolution IS a design method. Design occurs when potential solutions to a particular problem are narrowed by selective criteria. The potential solutions, the problem and the criteria are not necessarily dependent on an intelligence in order to be present. Evolution has at least one particular "problem" it tries to solve - survival until procreation; and while it doesn't have an easy time coming up with solution possibilities ;), it's selection criteria are constantly at work in the environment the organism is expected to survive in. (3) Is there anything to be gained by emulation of biological evolution (beyond biological form and function themselves)? Techno-evolution can benefit from the random undirectedness of bio-evolution, because it can transcend the tendency to overuse a previous design without considering better alternatives.curtrozeboom
October 19, 2005
October
10
Oct
19
19
2005
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply